Being a Liberal
Means having a "moral code" which everyone but a "liberal" is subject to
Means being 3% of the Population
but 97% of the PROBLEM!
Liberals like honesty90 are
less than 3% of most forums but 99% of the VILE COMMENTS.
Feminazis like nick3111997
are so ILLITERATE they can't even read their OWN writing.
Why True Blue Feminazi
prettyhatemachine is actually uglyviledisgustingpig.
Liberals are the Three Percenters who HATE
Jonathon Gentry For Speaking the TRUTH
about the Word of God and anti-Christs Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Liberals Defend the "Right" of Females to Become "Pilots"
TO THE DEATH.
ONLY Liberals can Become Our "Educators".
Only a liberal like flyer5769
would proclaim that women pilots have a right to destroy themselves.
Democrats are fifty percent more likely than Republicans to admit [brag?]
that their mental health is not excellent (62%
Even arch-liberal Huffington Post concedes that less than one in five
Americans are feminists, compared to less the
less than 3% who gave Pastor
Gentry the thumbs down who proclaim to be liberals and feminists.
When the Gallup pollsters asked Americans what they thought about their own mental health, they were intrigued by the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
58 percent of Republicans reported having excellent mental health, only 38 percent of Democrats described themselves that way.
The study was no surprise to Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, a veteran psychiatrist and author of a controversial book that makes the clinical case liberalism is a mental illness.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Rossiter, author of
"The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."
"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of
adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to
"the vast right-wing conspiracy."
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity, as liberals do," he says.
"A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population" as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's
citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state, as
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
||creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
||satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
||augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
||rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.|
?The roots of liberalism ? and its associated madness ? can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,? he says. ?When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.?
By the way, the Gallup poll conducted late last year also found only 43 percent of independents describe themselves as in excellent mental health. While Rossiter thinks he understands the discrepancy in the state of mental health between Democrats and Republicans, the Gallup pollsters could only scratch their heads.
"The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive
mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a
Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy or whether something
about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican" the study concluded.
"You make statements as if they are true. Show me some proof, via citations, for statements #1 amd #2. Any fool can come on here and spout things that they say are true. Without proof, they are not true. "
Well, to this fool, certain things are self evident to anyone who makes a casual observation of this very forum. It's not conservatives who are clamoring for ever more government spending as we go deeper off the financial cliff, it's liberals. It's not liberals who demonstrate even the slightest understanding of Economics 101, it's conservatives (though many of them rely too heavily on the liberal media for their understanding of what Economics 101 really is, rather than on education).
If this is not self evident to you, and if you're too lazy or too incapable of searching the internet yourself, take a peek at the following:
Just in case you need an explanation, what it shows is that 20% of Americans classify themselves as liberals, but "nearly 4 in 10 Democrats call themselves liberal", compared to 3% of Republicans and 19% of independents. And this means that the VAST majority of liberals are Democrats (whose OFFICIAL policy is the economic destruction of this once great republic), whereas 72% of Republicans are conservatives.
To be precise, this would mean that very close to 97% of liberals are Democrats.
In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals
Last year's increase in conservatism among independents is holding
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.
The 2010 results are based on eight Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June, encompassing interviews with more than 8,000 U.S. adults. The 42% identifying as conservative represents a continuation of the slight but statistically significant edge conservatives achieved over moderates in 2009. Should that figure hold for all of 2010, it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup's history of measuring ideology with this wording, dating to 1992.
The recent rise in conservatism's fortunes follows a decline seen after 2003; liberalism has experienced the opposite pattern. From 1993 to 2002, the ideological trend had been fairly stable, with roughly 40% identifying as moderate, 38% as conservative, and 19% as liberal. Before that, the presidential bid of independent candidate Ross Perot may have contributed to a heightened proportion of Americans (43%) calling themselves moderate in 1992.
Partisans Maintain Their 2009 Ideological Leanings
There are no significant changes so far in 2010 compared with 2009 in how Republicans, Democrats, and independents characterize their respective political views. Consistent with the patterns seen last year, nearly 4 in 10 Democrats call themselves liberal and a similar proportion of Democrats say they are moderate.
Longer term, Democrats have grown increasingly liberal in their political orientation.
Seven in 10 Republicans continue to call themselves conservative, similar to 2009, while most of the remaining Republicans identify as moderate. Since 2002, however, the percentage conservative has increased by 10 points.
Independents today are slightly more likely to say they are moderate than conservative, with fewer than 20% identifying as liberal. While this is similar to 2009, it represents an increase in conservatism among this group since 2008.
The ideological orientation of Americans seen thus far in 2010 would represent a record-high level of conservatism (since at least 1992) if it is maintained for the full year. This follows an increase in the percentage of conservatives in 2009 that was fueled by heightened conservatism among independents, a pattern that continues today.
Results are based on the combined findings of eight separate Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June 2010. For results based on the total sample of 8,207 national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is �1 percentage point.
Party breakdowns for 2010 are based on 2,395 Republicans, 3,134 independents, and 2,565 Democrats. For results based on samples of these sizes, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is �2 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone-only). Each sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone-only respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, education, region, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2009 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in continental U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit http://www.gallup.com/.
Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country�liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.
Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.
Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.
Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.
Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.
"Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" TV show
Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.
In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.
The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.
Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.
To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities.
Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).
The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.
Adam Smith described political economy as "a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator." Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.
Mr. Klein is a professor of economics at George Mason University. This op-ed is based on an article published in the May 2010 issue of the journal he edits, Econ Journal Watch, a project sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research. The article is at: http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-in-relation-to-college-going-ideology-and-other-variables-a-zogby-survey-of-americans
By David Catron on 12.8.11 @ 6:09AM
Obamaworld's breathtaking ignorance about "the dismal science" is dangerous.
The Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, visited Capitol Hill last week and claimed that the unemployment rate will increase if Congress fails to extend the eligibility period for federal unemployment benefits. My first reaction to this Orwellian assertion was a quiet chuckle. Then it dawned on me that most Democrats will believe this nonsense. These are, after all, people who believed that health care would be made cheaper by a law that increases demand for medical services while reducing the supply of health care providers. Most would agree with the claim, made by journalist-cum-cheerleader Jonathan Alter, that Obama's economic stimulus package "prevented another Great Depression." I realized, in other words, that ignorance about economics is so pervasive among Democrats that it is less funny than dangerous.
That Democrats are generally illiterate about basic economics is not a matter of mere conjecture. In 2010, Daniel B. Klein and Zeljka Buturovic analyzed answers provided by a random sample of 4,835 Americans to a list of eight questions about economics. The results, which noted the party affiliation of the respondents, were not flattering to our friends on the left. "Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect." And these were not arcane questions. They involved elementary concepts, like the effect of price controls, covered in any Econ 101 course taught at the lowliest community college and even some of the better high schools. Yet the average Democrat respondent got nearly 60 percent of the answers wrong.
It is precisely this kind of ignorance that led so many Democrats to believe Obamacare would somehow render health care less expensive. One of the first items covered in any introductory economics course is that the price of any good or service will rise if the quantity demanded increases without an accompanying increase in the available supply of that commodity. Nonetheless, it held no message for the average Democrat that the supply side of the equation was ignored by "reform," though it increased the number of patients in the health system as well as the range of services to which they are entitled. The issue of supply and demand was utterly lost on Obamacare's Democrat supporters. Thus, at the time of its passage, fully 78 percent of them favored the law. Even now, 52 percent still support it.
Democrat cluelessness notwithstanding, the laws of supply and demand continue to operate. In fact, even the Obama administration has produced a report showing that "reform" will increase health care costs faster than would have been the case in its absence. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently forecast that "Total spending is projected to grow annually by 5.8 percent under Mr. Obama's Affordable Care Act�. Without the ACA, spending would grow at a slightly slower rate of 5.7 percent annually." Survey after survey has shown that one of the primary benefits Americans wanted from health reform was lower costs. Due to Democrat illiteracy in economics, however, Congress has produced a "reform" law that actually makes medical care moreexpensive.
Even if Obamacare didn't ignore the laws of supply and demand, a rudimentary understanding of economics should have alerted any educated observer that it was going to be disastrous for the country because it creates perverse incentives that discourage job growth. The law arbitrarily increases the cost of hiring and keeping employees. George Will recently provided an example of how this works, citing a California-based business called CKE Restaurants. Obamacare will add about $18 million to its costs: "Obamacare must mean fewer restaurants. And therefore fewer jobs. Each restaurant creates, on average, 25 jobs -- and as much as 3.5 times that number of jobs in the community (CKE spends about $1 billion a year on food and paper products, $175 million on advertising, $33 million on maintenance, etc.)."
In other words, the job losses at CKE are accompanied by collateral losses in the communities they serve. This phenomenon is being replicated all across the country. And yet most Democrats seem to be as blissfully unaware of this tragedy as they are of the impotence of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA). Like Obamacare, this legislation is actually producing the opposite of its intended effect. The "stimulus" package is rendering the economy more flaccid than it would be if the law had never been passed. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has nowadmitted that the additional debt added by ARRA "will reduce output slightly in the long run." Yet, last week, we witnessed the grotesque spectacle of the President dancing in the end zone because unemployment has at long last dropped below 9 percent.
According to Secretary Solis, this long-overdue decrease in the unemployment number means that "The policies this administration has pursued are adding jobs back into the economy." Not everyone concurs. NPR reports: "[E]conomists say one reason [the rate] fell isn't good news -- the size of the labor force shrank by 315,000 as more people stopped looking for work because they're discouraged about the chances of finding a job." And if you doubt the veracity of those notorious wingnuts at NPR, Gallup also suggests that the "improvement" was illusory : "Job market conditions in the United States were flat in November, as Gallup's Job Creation Index remained at +14, similar to the range seen since May. This is another indication that Friday's sharp drop to 8.6% in the government's U.S. unemployment rate may be overstated."
Nonetheless, the President, congressional Democrats and most of the "news" media celebrated the modest drop in the official jobless percentage with a level of glee reminiscent of V-E Day.The New York Times, for example, breathlessly announced, "Somehow the American economy appears to be getting better, even as the rest of the world is looking worse." Predictably, the Times went on to promote the White House party line on the extension of unemployment payments: "Unemployment benefits are believed to have one of the most stimulative effects on the economy, because recipients are likely to spend all of the money they receive quickly and pump more spending through the economy." The only people who "believe" this are, of course, Democrat supporters of the President and his accomplices in Congress.
In reality, consumer spending doesn't stimulate the economy. This is a Keynesian canard that was long ago debunked in theory and by actual experience. It is production that stimulates the U.S. or any other economy. This is the inconvenient fact that doomed ARRA and it is what makes the Labor Secretary's assertion so laughable. Extending the eligibility period for federal unemployment benefits will do nothing for what Democrats and the Media hilariously refer to as the economy. But it will have an effect. Like Obamacare and the "stimulus" package, it will produce the opposite of its intended effect. Another lesson one learns in Econ 101 is that, when you subsidize something, you get more of it. So, if unemployment benefits are extended, it will produce more rather than less unemployment.
And yet our Labor Secretary is by no means the first of Obama's minions to tell us that unemployment payments somehow create jobs. Last summer White House Press Secretary Jay Carneyclaimed it would create a million jobs. Solis, Carney, and the Democrats on Capitol Hill who are now singing the same refrain are -- one prays -- not dumb enough to believe this stuff. But their supporters do, and that's what makes them dangerous. If their ignorance about economics causes them to give President Obama another four years in the White House, the irresponsible policies of his administration may well convert a severe recession into a worldwide depression that will dwarf the disaster of the 1930s and perhaps even reproduce the horrific consequences that followed thereon.
Letter to the Editor
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Only Liberals Could Think BANNING School Prayer is How Christian Children Achieve Free Exercise of Religion.
Only Liberals Could Think that There Is no Difference Between Catholics and Protestants.
Only Liberals Could Think that jews are "g-d's Chosen RACE".
You Know You're *STUPID* If:
- You think murdering one of God's innocents in the womb is no different than executing a psychopathic serial killer.
- You think uneducables [read: liberals] can somehow suddenly be educated even though they never were in the prior 9,000 years of their existence.
- You think being on welfare is just like going to work.
- You think heroin is better for you than tobacco.
- You adore employment ("Workfare")... but you can't tell the difference between free enterprise and communism.
- You feel, everyone was "created equal", even Mau Maus, mass murderers, Pol Pot, serial killers, even the most inferior races, and EVEN gays.
- You think there's a difference between saying "Algore" and "Klinton", or "Bushit" and "RWingnut".
- You don't know that all jews are communists and all communists are jews.
- You don't even know Hillary Rhodam-Clinton is a flaming, anti-Christ, admitted card-carrying-communist whore.
- You think you understand economics better than economists even though you never took or understood Economics 101.
- You think individual income tax receipts fund corporate welfare.
- You think workers should be paid whatever a bureaucrat in Washington, DC, says, rather than what the employee he works for AGREED to pay him.
- You don't know the media is run by jews.
- You think everyone in America should be speaking Spanish, like it or not.
- You hate the Second amendment to death, and LOVE recent exceptions to the first and fourth amendment.
- You endorse free speech/religion but believe it applies only to the 4.5% who are NOT Christians and NOT to the other 95.5% who ARE.
- You equate children watching pornography on television to abortion protestors.
- You always blame all minority problems on White men.
- You don't understand that Dan Quayle understands Economics 101 just like most thinking Americans understand it.
- You think it's a violation of your civil rights to uphold existing laws.
- You think women only support abortions out of compassion, preventing the world from being overcrowded.
- You learned Economics 101 from a Tarzan Comic Book.
- You think the unabomber did less damage to society than Al Gore and that Climategate is just a Republican ploy.
- You think there's a difference between the way Republicans and Democrats handle campaign money.
- You think there's a difference between the way Republicans and Democrats demonize their opponents.
- You think liberals aren't precisely those who start all the wars.
- You prefer to argue with labels instead of facts and ideas.
- You go ballistic whenever somebody uses the word "nigger" but think it's natural to label a Christian as a "racist".
- You actually believe God did not make the sexes and races different.
- You hate hate hate hate HATE tax cuts even though it's not your money! Unless that tax cut is for military spending, or the drug war, or Deficit hawking, or corporate welfare, or huge prisons, or huge border patrols...
- You think God can't tell the difference between a tax payer and a welfare recipient.
- You think you could have been born without spending 9 months in the womb.
- You don't even know Rush Limbaugh is a jew who HATES Whites and Christians with an unbridled passion.
- You think G. Gordon Liddy is less sane and wise than Rush.
- You think Ollie North is a traitor and Jonathon Pollard is the only true patriot.
- You think Pat Robertson is a Saint
- You think 700 Club is the best program to watch on television
- And finally, you know you're *STUPID* if you don't get the point of this.
You Know You're Conservative If:
- You're "Pro life" and support the Death Penalty.
- You think cutting Education is better for America's children.
- You think everybody on welfare are lazy people who don't work.
- You rant and rave about the evils of drugs... unless that drug happens to be tobacco.
- You adore employment ("Workfare")... but if a company owner downsizes thousands of jobs for money they don't need, that's okay because he should be able to make a profit no matter what.
- You feel, everyone was "created equal" unless that person is gay.
- You find humor in saying "Algore" and "Klinton"
- You think anything left of Richard Nixon is communism.
- You think Hillary Rhodam-Clinton is a flaming, anti-christ-like, communist wench.
- You try to convince people God is a capitalist.
- You believe welfare money should not go to the poor but to rich people.
- You think workers should be paid whatever their employers want. No matter what the situation.
- You think the media is led by those "liberal" corporate owners.
- You think everyone in America should be speaking English, like it or not.
- You love the Second amendment to death, but don't mind exceptions to the first and fourth amendment.
- You endorse free speech/religion to further Christianity but ignore freedom from government enforced religion.
- You scream about all that awful filth on television, then go wave a picture of an aborted fetus in front of a school or refer to the Starr Report constantly.
- You always blame all minority problems on the minority with the problem.
- You are convinced Dan Quayle is a very intelligent person.
- You actually care whether or not Clinton "inhaled"
- You think women only support abortions for selfish reasons.
- You Insist people pay horribly for tax increases, but turn a deaf ear to the people that get hurt from tax cuts.
- You compare Al Gore to the unabomber .
- You think democrats are the only ones who are slippery when it comes to campaign money.
- You think democrats are the only ones demonizing the opponent come election campaigns.
- You think that because liberals don't like war they hate the people fighting them.
- You prefer to argue with labels instead of facts and ideas.
- You go ballistic whenever somebody uses the word "racist" in any context other than to describe affirmative action.
- You actually believe that there is no sexism in this country.
- You hate hate hate hate HATE taxes, because it's really your money! Unless that tax money goes to military spending, or the drug war, or Deficit hawking, or corporate welfare, or huge prisons, or huge border patrols...
- You pass judgment on people based on how many zeros they can put after a number one on a check.
- You count your age from conception.
- You think Rush Limbaugh is family entertainment.
- You think G. Gordon Liddy is both sane and wise.
- You think Ollie North is a true patriot.
- You think Pat Robertson is a Saint
- You think 700 Club is the best program to watch on television
- And finally, you know you're a conservative if you don't get the point of this.
A Republican, in a wheelchair, entered a restaurant one afternoon and asked the waitress for a cup of coffee. The Republican looked across the restaurant and asked, "Is that Jesus sitting over there?"
The waitress nodded "yes," so the Republican requested that she give Jesus a cup of coffee, on him.
The next patron to come in was a Libertarian, with a hunched back. He shuffled over to a booth, painfully sat down, and asked the waitress for a cup of hot tea. He also glanced across the restaurant and asked, "Is that Jesus, over there?"
The waitress nodded, so the Libertarian asked her to give Jesus a cup of hot tea, "My treat."
The third patron to come into the restaurant was a Democrat on crutches. He hobbled over to a booth, sat down and hollered, "Hey there honey! How's about gettin' me a cold mug of Miller Light?" He too looked across the restaurant and asked, "Isn't that God's boy over there?
The waitress nodded, so the Democrat directed her to give Jesus a cold beer. "On my bill," he said loudly.
As Jesus got up to leave, he passed by the Republican, touched him and said, "For your kindness, you are healed." The Republican felt the strength come back into his legs, got up, and danced a jig out the door.
Jesus passed by the Libertarian, touched him and said, "For your kindness, you are healed." The Libertarian felt his back straightening up and he raised his hands, praised the Lord, and did a series of back flips out the door.
Then, Jesus walked towards the Democrat, just smiling.
The Democrat jumped up and yelled, "Don't touch me ... I'm collecting disability."
You may be a Liberal if you believe.....
Date: 9/17/00 11:18
That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.
That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really want
to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him your
wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.
That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
attributable to the lack of gun control.
That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if
shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to
world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear
That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be
ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc.
is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms
That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering
butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, and
Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the
people to be secure in their homes," refer to individuals, but "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.
That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a
National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.
That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property
leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal
government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.
That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia
purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and
private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military
That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for
possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to
have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.
That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a
That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights
and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable
solution to the "gun problem."
That Illinois' law that allows any government official from Governor to
dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any
private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million
dollar jewelry business, is reasonable.
That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers,
and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.
That with the above, a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and his 300
lb. buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses
only her bare hands.
That Sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex, but gun
safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence.
That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government
forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is
responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school
shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward
availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
shooting spree at any time, BUT anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.
That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that
cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers
involved with guns.
That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids
handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a
"don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is responsible social
That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and
the increase in crime requires more gun control.
That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and
statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control
are "just statistics."
That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but
in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of
That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use
them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun
That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only
has 3 million of them.
That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need
That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can
confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, yet a woman with a
gun is "an accident waiting to happen."
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gun makers'
advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that goes 70 mps and
only has 20.
That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population used to support owning slaves.
That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy
has machinegun-toting guards.
That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns,
which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.
That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a
woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of
the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it uncompromisingly defends
certain parts of the Constitution.
That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just
like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.
That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger
capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals
alone, and therefore need less ammunition.
That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue
cops beer instead of guns.
> Why Liberals Prefer Unarmed Victims
> Thank you for continuing to run Mr. Scamihorn's hate speech.
> As offensive as it is to civilized people, it does provide a
> valuable insight into the mental makeup of the modern
> liberal. It really is well to know what one is dealing
> Mr. Scamihorn begins with 'Perhaps you should censure all
> free speech, along with mine, that you and your 2nd
> Amendment gun-toting vigilantes FEAR, and return this
> society back into the days of "Might is Right", and "White
> is Right"'
> This is rich, coming from a liberal, whose "politically
> correct" speech enforcement gets people censored on a
> regular basis for not conforming to the liberal party line.
> They consider any disagreement with them to be censorship
> while censorship is their stock in trade. But one can make
> any accusation when one feels no sense of hypocrisy.
> As far as his "free speech" us "2nd Amendment gun-toting
> vigilantes FEAR," there really isn't much to fear from
> hateful vulgarisms that make no sense. No, it isn't fear,
> its something else. Such "free speech" is about as useful
> to a forum for civilized discourse as the ravings of any of
> the socialists, whether National or International.
> Then he accuses others of having "hate-filled eyes and
> ears." I'm sorry, but the only evidence of hate-filled eyes
> and ears so far has come from Mr. Scamihorn. I'll grant
> that others have taken him at his word and discussed in a
> serious way what he says, but that comes with the territory.
> What can you expect when someone is as deliberately
> offensive as Mr. Scamihorn. Hey, if you can't take the
> heat, stay out of the kitchen. But if you want to stay I
> the kitchen, be mature and understand that others may
> respond to what you say.
> I mean, how should one respond to something like this?:
> "With both, you and charlatan Heston will rule the world.
> (charlatan, n., from It. charliatano, a quack: one who makes
> untruthful pretensions; an imposter)"
> He has deliberately misspelled Charlton as charlatan so he
> can give a suede-scientific air to name calling.
> Intolerance of this nature is typical of liberals, for what
> else can they do? And he signs his letters "Respectfully."
> Obviously not.
> On the gun issue Mr. Scamihorn is so upset about, all the
> facts support the rule of law, not his urge to violate it.
> The fact that the Second Amendment is part of the Supreme
> Law makes him no difference. There is no loyalty to the
> Constitution liberals so often appeal to at other times. In
> articles surrounding his diatribes the facts come out that
> his "gun control" raises the crime rate, resulting in
> thousands more robberies, rapes and murders of innocent
> How would you like to argue in favor of that, based on the
> available facts? You wouldn't, right. So why would a
> liberal? Attempting to discuss the subject with facts would
> mean instant defeat. So they do the only thing they can do.
> Since they know and don't care that their agenda will result
> in thousands more robberies, rapes an murders, they argue
> instead from emotional screech. They pretend they are more
> ignorant than any person can really be, and hold a straight
> face while making the most preposterous emotional spasms
> Here is one: "As for me, I prefer peace, understanding and
> a sensible solution to violence that has grown to epedemic
> proportions due to the readily accessibility to lethal
> weapons. Fight fire with fire??? I don't (expletive
> deleted) think so. This is 2001. "
> That first sentence contains two things totally unrelated,
> but joined anyway. Who would use "peace, understanding and
> a sensible solution" while a liberal is murdering their
> children in the living room. When your child cries out
> "Daddy, help me," you use "peace, understanding and a
> sensible solution" to make the burglar quit stabbing? I
> don't think so, and no one has to delete expletives from
> what I say. But what does the liberal do? They scream,
> they plead, the cover their ears, they shamelessly escape
> "to call the police," and later falsely claim that there was
> nothing they could do. And because liberalism is so
> entrenched in this country they are never arrested for child
> But the second half that "appears" to justify the first
> half; "... to violence that has grown to epedemic (sic)
> proportions due to the readily accessibility to lethal
> weapons." falsely implies that violence is up due to greater
> availability of firearms instead of liberalism. If violence
> is at epidemic proportions today, what was it in 1968?
> In 1968 a ten year old boy could put a $10 bill in an
> envelope and receive a fine rifle or revolver by mail. Now
> is that availability or not? What was the level of violence
> at that time, with that kind of availability, compared to
> It's a fair question relative to the statement. But you
> won't find liberals lining up to answer it, for it makes
> clear that availability of firearms has nothing to do with
> violence. If availability produces the violence, then why
> do the cities which pass the strongest "gun control" laws
> achieve such high crime rates afterward? Any liberals want
> to tackle that one? No? Well, why did the gun crime rates
> in England and Australia jump after the victims were
> disarmed? Come on, any liberals want to discuss the issues?
> No? Didn't think so!
> And THAT is why we have people like Mr. Scamihorn resorting
> to verbal jibes and barbs fighting words instead of
> discussing the subject in a civilized way. That is all they
> have to go on. It is good to see their true nature exposed
> by careless people like Mr. Scamihorn. So I'm glad to see
> his letters published
> If you want to know why the average liberal supports "gun
> control" (victim control), consider where Al Gore got his
> votes. Statistic out after the election show the counties
> going to Gore have a crime rate approximately nine times
> those filled with "gun toting vigilantes" going to Bush.
> The reason they want "gun control" is so they won't get shot
> while doing what they do. Have you noticed in previous
> letters that Mr. Scamihorn has a violent streak and a very
> short fuse? Violent people prefer disarmed victims. They
> also judge everyone by themselves, and know THEY can't be
> trusted with a gun, so assume that no one can.
> By the way, since he implied that gun owners were racists, I
> think it germane to remember that the first "gun control"
> laws in this country were enacted by Klan controlled state
> legislatures to prevent ex-slaves from being armed and
> equal. And of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 was
> modeled after Adolph Hitler's own. So now who is the
> Fred Eckert
> Racine, WI
From - Sat Apr 12 18:25:04 1997 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [126.96.36.199]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA15529; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <email@example.com>; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:59:51 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV release 1.8c) with NJE id 6627 for WITCHHNT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 11:00:47 -0400 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with BSMTP id 2555; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:59:13 -0400 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Sat, 12 Apr 97 10:59:12 EDT Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id KAA16037 for WITCHHNT@mitvma.mit.edu; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:58:03 -0400 Reply-To: Kcwrd@AOL.COM Sender: Is there a child sex abuse witchhunt? From: Kcwrd@AOL.COM Subject: Liberal approach has failed kids To: WITCHHNT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU X-UIDL: 96e6117a86b2b4d82962037ff8867202 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 4059 The following was published in The Denver Post. Copyright Creators Syndicate. For too long, Democrats and their liberal allies in the policy world have held high morale ground on the subject of children. It's time for Republicans to stop being intimidated. The liberal child-welfare regime in America has been a terrible disaster, and only those unblinkered by ideological commitment to the status quo can achieve the reforms that are so urgently needed. According to a new study by Dr. Carol Statuto Bevan of the National Council for Adoption, five children die every day at the hands of their parents or caregivers. Fully half of the 2,000 children killed this way every year are already known to the child-welfare systems of their states. For every child who is killed, many more are beaten, starved and raped. How is it possible that so many children are being left in clearly dangerous homes by a social services system that is meant to protect them? Bevan explains it. The current child-welfare regime, enshrined into federal law in the (ironically titled) Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, is based on the liberal illusion that there are no bad parents, only bad circumstances. If people are torturing or starving their tiny babies, it is because the "system" has failed to give them adequate support. The short-term infusion of services (so-called "family preservation") will help to get the family back on their feet, and the abuse will stop. Foster care and adoption, by contrast, represent "failures" of the system and are to be avoided at all costs. As Elizabeth Barholet, a family law specialist at Harvard Law School, has written, "Policy-makers in this country are overwhelmingly committed to family preservation. . . . The Children's Defense Fund, the Child Welfare League of America and the Clinton administration have tended to equate child welfare with biological family preservation and have done nothing to promote adoption as a means of guaranteeing children's rights to a nurturing home. Abundant research now bolsters what common sense suggests: Family preservation is a failure. Having a bunch of social workers show an abusive mothers how to shop for groceries and punish with "time outs" does next to nothing to prevent further abuse. Some families are simply not salvageable. But the children must be rescued. Bevan's proposed reforms give a flavor of how bad the current regime is. She suggests a child-welfare system based upon the safety and well-being of the child rather than the family. "A child-centered model," she writes, "would establish a 'one strike and your out' policy for some egregious forms of maltreatment. For example, a baby that has been sexually abused should never be returned. . . . There should be a presumption to terminate parental rights when a child has been tortured, abandoned, or a sibling has been killed. Parents should not be given repeated chances at rehabilitation before termination of parental rights is considered in cases of starvation or incest." Has it really come to this? It has. Because the system is so biased -- financially and ideologically -- against terminating parental rights and placing needy children in permanent adoptive homes, children are spending more time than ever in foster care, while the percentage of children who leave the system through adoption is declining. How can liberals, who pride themselves on their concern for the poor and the weak, have created a system that sends victims back to their abusers? Is it perhaps an unwillingness to pass judgment on the poor (since they make up the largest percentage of abusers)? Whatever the cause, Republicans can find an excellent guide to reform in Bevan's monograph, which you can order through the National Council for Adoption (202-328-1200). If Republicans can stand up for abused and neglected children, lives will be saved. And it just might give the Republicans can themselves some much-needed moral confidence.
PROOF that "Liberals" are Anti-Christs
TOP-11 "ONLY IN AMERICA " OBSERVATIONS -- BY A CANADIAN*
1) Only in America could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black
3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.
6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes [in CHINA] (Nike).
9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
11) Only in America can a man with no background, no qualifications and no experience ... and a complete failure at his job ... be reelected.
"Liberals" are people
with no moral foundation, whose ideology changes with every push of a button on the TV
remote control, who believe that moral minors like "Dr. Laura" and the Three
Stooges on NBC, ABC, and See-BS [read: the jewish controlled media] represent moral values
or Christian principles, who didn't understand at all when Newt Gingrich said to Ted
Koppel on national TV "most people understand the difference between your view of
reality and normalcy"--who believe that the US should have kidnapped Elian Gonzalez
from his father because Cuba is a "communist country".
Fortunately, according to the
"liberal" Gallup Poll, "liberals" constitute less than 3% of the
population. Feminazis aren't normal
people. Neither are "liberals", nor fudge packers. Nor jews.
Nor race traitors who hate their own race so much that they would "think" that
it's "racist" simply to be proud of one's own race.
The other 97% are normal people.
Of the normal people in this country, 12% are niggers, 8% are Mexicans [read:
"Hispanics], 2% are Asians, 2% are Muslims, and 73% are White Christian Israelites.
The 73% who are White Christian Israelites, half the niggers or 6% of the population, and
the 8% who are Mexicans, make up the 86-95% of Americans who claim to be Christians.
Excluded of course are the 2% who're Muslims, the 1.9% who're jews, the 1% who're
fudge packers, the 1% who're feminazis or "liberals", and the half percent
who're race traitors. Since most jews are "liberals", fudge packers,
feminazis, and pretend to be race traitors, there's quite a bit of overlap in this noisy
Is this optimistic? No. In spite the misleading jewsmedia, multiple polls show that the vast majority of Americans
still oppose abortion, gun control, public education, jews, legalized sodomy,
"legalized" adultery, and overwhelmingly support spoken CHRISTIAN prayer in
Regardless of the amount of force used, when do you think was the
appropriate time, if any, to physically remove Elian from the home. In terms
of physically removing Elian Gonzalez from the Miami home, do you think the
Justice Department should have removed him earlier, should have removed him
when they did , should have waited longer before removing him, or should
never have removed him?
|April 24, 2000
|Should have removed him earlier
|Should have removed him when they did
|Should have waited longer
|Should never have removed him
It drives a "liberal" nuts when you
tell them that they don't control the country. People like Rush Limbaugh, a closet
"liberal", begin to exhibit mental problems when they discover that 72% (almost
three quarters) of Americans disagree with them, and instead agree that the government
should have removed Elian from his kidnappers when they did, or even earlier. When
they realize that 79% (almost four out of five) Americans disagree with their assertion
that the government should never have removed him, you would think that they would
reconsider their moral values--but they never do and instead continue on in their
destructive behavior and beliefs. When those with "no opinion" are
considered and "liberals" finally realize that they represent only 16% of the
population you would think they would stop and take stock of why they continually parrot
the jewish controlled media while twenty one out of twenty five Americans disagree with
both them & the "mainstream media". But they never do. They will
forever remain "liberals", until the day they die. The most dangerous
"liberal" is one who doesn't know he is and instead "thinks" he's a
Imus In The Morning
"You wouldn't know from the 'mainstream
media' that 86% of the American population, 236 million people, are members of Christian
churches, and that 93% or 255 million people consider themselves to be Christians"
And neither do "liberals".
92% of Americans want school prayer restored, TODAY, per the Gallup Organization (a
very leftist organization), because they don't want government telling them how to handle
their religious beliefs. The specific reason the Bill of Rights was immediately
added to the Constitution was to give Christians the 'right' to "free exercise *of*
religion", and hundreds of millions of Americans understood exactly what this meant,
and prayed in public schools, and posted the Ten Commandments, for almost 2 centuries. Our
Forefathers warned us that our Constitution would work only in a Christian nation christianation.htm
but a few years ago "liberals" suddenly couldn't grasp the significance of that
One of the biggest fears of some of the founding fathers was that a democracy would
engender a tyranny of the majority. The REASON for the Bill of Rights was largely to
protect the minority from the majority. Read the Federalist papers for some excellent
discussions on this topic.
Could it be that this is all that separates a liberal from an honest
American? Is a rewrite of the purpose of the Bill of Rights, a claim that a minority
shall rule, and a vague reference to the Federalist Papers, the only dividing line?
Our Bill of Rights exists to protect the "people" from
their government. Nobody misunderstood "free exercise of religion" to mean
"government can restrict school prayer" at the time it was written and for
almost two centuries afterwards. It wasn't until the appointment of some truly ignorant
jews and women to the Supreme Court that a Constitution which restricted the powers of
government suddenly became the same Constitution which gave that same government powers
which our Forefathers fought so intelligently and diligently to prevent. A power which
only totalitarian governments throughout history have presumed. A power which
destroyed the society it was established to serve. A power which established the
"state religion" called Talmudism under the guise of "feminism" and
Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that the minority gets to
rule the majority, but this is exactly what happened the instant liberals claimed that the
purpose of the Constitution is to "to protect the minority from the
majority". Nowhere does it say that we are to be a
"democracy". It said we were a "republic", and it set the stage
for majority, not minority, rule.
You are telling me that the Constitution gives you, an extreme and
destructive minority, the right to restrict the children of the 85% of the nation which is
Christian, to pray to God in their institutions of learning. And I am telling you
that you are deadly wrong, that you do not have that right no matter how you twist the
language around, that our Forefathers and everyone else for the next two centuries
understood exactly what God means to our children, and that you are an abomination before
God for even trying to take that right away from me.
Thanks for explaining what went wrong with this country: "liberals".
How the "liberal"
|From DPerrone99@aol.com Sat Dec 21 13:49:23 2002
||email@example.com via 188.8.131.52; 21 Dec 2002
13:49:27 -0800 (PST)
||from 184.108.40.206 (EHLO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (220.127.116.11) by
mta401.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 2002 13:49:27 -0800 (PST)
||from DPerrone99@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.)
id r.cd.20c49307 (25508) for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:49:24
||DPerrone99@aol.com | This
is Spam | Add
to Address Book
||Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:49:23 EST
||may you and your children burn in hell
||AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 231
may you and your children burn in hell
||"ARON KAY" email@example.com
||Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:02:54 -0500
||[NotMyPresident] poem about trent lott
please forward:the poem is written by stew albert, a founding member of the yippies
Of all the
boobs, brigands and bigots
He longs for the good old
confederacy of dunces
White Citizen's Councils
could show his great love
Visit my web page: http://members.aol.com/stewa/stew.html
Stew Albert's Yippie Reading Room
||"ARON KAY" firstname.lastname@example.org
||Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:35:34 -0500
||[NotMyPresident] Trent Lott's KKK Christmas Gift
Hi fellow activists,
As you can see Grand Wizard Trent Lott just said something that goes
beyond offensive. But what can you expect from a Senator that was a hood and
burning cross carrying Klan member at one time ? I guess old habits die
hard. So what I am proposing, given the Christmas spirit, that we all send
Imperial Dragon Lott a little Klan hood in the mail since a burning cross
would probably be against the fire code at the Senate building, with an nice
appropriate Christmas card. After all if he is going to make such statements
he should wear the appropriate attire, don't you think ? That way no one
would have any doubts about what this message means. Can you imagine his
office, Republican Senate Majority Leader, inundated with Klan hoods ? All I
can say is be creative and outragious, it will play better with the media.
Please send this to everyone you know. Below is Mr. Lotts snail mail and
e-Mail addresses. Remember, we have to do our part for Homeland Security and
fight terrorism no matter where we find it.