Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Sunday, August 06, 2006

My news page

Saturday, August 05, 2006

My Critique

My Critique

I have two questions for you. Why is it that the Democrats are so maliciously attacking the President and not discussing the issues? Second, why aren’t the Republicans fighting back?

First question: Since the 1992 Presidential Election, new and unprecedented political tactics came into practice. The tactics employed were of personal attacks on their opponents and exaggerating what they say. As to the latter, you might as well say the they lie about their opponents and what they say. For example, on Meet The Press, when James Carvelle, “the Democratic Strategist”, made reference to Paula Jones by saying that, when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, this is the kind of trash you get! That’s a mean thing to say. To refer to a certain group of our citizens as trash, and yet the news media ignored this. However, it is true that the news media, for the most part, has always been on the side of the socialists, from the second half of the nineteenth century till present day. (1)

What about Paul Begala, who pointed out the hate crimes of the republican states, or the red states. For example Texas was responsible for dragging a black man to death, and Wyoming for beating a gay to death. To refer to the majority of the states of the Country, as being filled with hate mongers is diabolical and irresponsible. This is the party that claims to be for the common person? What about Senator Kennedy, who accused our President of concocting the Iraq War in Texas prior to 9-11, that he intentionally lied to the people. Or when terry McAuliff, the head of the Democratic Party, accused the President of being AWOL during his military service for his country, and later imitated by reverberations from John Kerry. Howard Dean suggested the President knew month in advance of 9-11, and did nothing to prevent it. A lot of people, including the news media simply brush this off as mud slinging. But this isn’t mud slinging.

We’ve had mud slinging through out American history, from Jefferson on. When Abraham Lincoln ran for office, the Democrats called him a slave lover. But it referred to his beliefs in the abolition of slavery, and he had many discussions about ending slavery with his law partner, even before considering running for office. Besides, the coalition led by William Lloyd Garrison, to stop the spread of slavery, formed the Republican Party in 1854 for this purpose only.

When the Republicans today talk about the flip-flopping of John Kerry, they are referring to his voting record. These Democrats are fabricating untruths, or distorted truths in little catch phrases and repeating them over and over, when in fact they know they’re not true. The differences is that with what was said about Lincoln could be construed as true, simply for the reason that he wanted to stop slavery. As to the latter, what these Democrats have said can’t be construed as anything other than lies, simply because they can’t be traced back to anything connected with George W. Bush. These political tactics are unprecedented in American history. This isn’t politics as usual nor is it just simply mud slinging, but rather hate speech borrowed from the past.(2)

This is exactly what the democrats are doing. They’re distorting, or fabricating the truth in short catchy phrases such as; (The President went AWOL). The Marxists knew that the masses always accepts the negative over the positive. The idea is to get the message repeated over and over on the air, and a great number of people will start believing it. Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda used this method and so did Stalin. You can call what I have written a conspiracy or a coincidence, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are using these tactics.

Second question: Why don’t the Republicans fight back? This will be easy for me to answer, as I just have to refer to the past once again. You must understand that the nineteenth century classical liberal was the opposite of today’s liberal. The nineteenth century liberal believed in liberty and the free market economy. Now this is self-explaining so let cut to the chase here. Once again from the book Socialism.(3)

I would be remiss, if I missed this opportunity to demonstrate the bias of the news media. A good example lies in the fist paragraph in the above link.

Why didn’t it? Because the news media was simply regurgitating what the socialist were spewing out of their mouths, and ignoring the truths of the opposition. That they were of the same mind set as the socialists. Biased!

In the mid-nineteenth century, the socialist party was so small, it was laughable to think that it would some day become so powerful. Professors bought into the works of the socialist philosophers and started teaching it to the young students, and thus that generation became teachers and news reporters, and in general, a young left leaning minority of society that was growing in power and in numbers.

First: I have this to say to the Republican Party. I have laid out who your opponents are and the political tactics they’re using. We can’t just get along with these people. No policies of appeasement will work. They won’t stop using these tactics, because they’ve been proven to work in the past. We cannot have a replay of the nineteenth century liberals and their demise, as in the Senate on the appointments of judges. If the Republicans don’t stand up and fight and expose these people for what they are, as I have in this paper, they will lose their power and cease to be a viable party. Their voting base will fade away in the rejection of a weak party, and many republicans will look to imitate the left to try to maintain their office. This won’t be easy, the nineteenth century liberal had to fight the socialist and the news media, and they buckled. You must learn from the past, and not let these political attacks and the news media stop you. There are no victories in the policies of appeasement.
Second: I have this to say to the Democratic Party. Though the tactics that you are using may bring victory at some point, it will in the end, leave you with no principals at all. No direction to go. It is the time for all good and decent democrats to stop fearing their leaders, and for God sake, take your party back from these thugs! But when you do rise up, your leaders will turn on you, using the same political tactics they’re using on the Republican Party, as they did within the socialist parties of the past.

Written prior to the 2004 Presidential Election,

by Dennis Lamb


From the book: Socialism
The Nazi plan was more comprehensive and therefore more pernicious than that of the Marxians. It aimed at abolishing laisser-faire not only in the production of material goods, but no less in the production of men. The Führer was not only the general manager of all industries; he was also the general manager of the breeding-farm intent upon rearing superior men and eliminating inferior stock. A grandiose scheme of eugenics was to be put into effect according to "scientific" principles.
It is vain for the champions of eugenics to protest that they did not mean what the Nazis executed. Eugenics aims at placing some men, backed by the police power, in complete control of human reproduction. It suggests that the methods applied to domestic animals be applied to men. This is precisely what the Nazis tried to do, The only objection which a consistent eugenist can raise is that his own plan differs from that of the Nazi scholars and that he wants to rear another type of men than the Nazis. As every supporter of economic planning aims at the execution of his own plan only, so every advocate of eugenic planning aims at the execution of his own plan and wants himself to act as the breeder of human stock.
The eugenists pretend that they want to eliminate criminal individuals. But the qualification of a man as a criminal depends upon the prevailing laws of the country and varies with the change in social and political ideologies. John Huss, Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei were criminals from the point of view of the laws which their judges applied. When Stalin robbed the Russian State Bank of several million rubles, he committed a crime. Today it is an offence in Russia to disagree with Stalin. In Nazi Germany sexual intercourse between "Aryans" and the members of an "inferior" race was a crime. Whom do the eugenists want to eliminate, Brutus or Caesar? Both violated the laws of their country. If eighteenth-century eugenists had prevented alcohol addicts from generating children, their planning would have eliminated Beethoven.
It must be emphasized again: there is no such thing as a scientific ought. Which men are superior and which are inferior can only be decided by personal value judgments not liable to Verification or falsification. The eugenists delude themselves in assuming that they themselves will be called to decide what qualities are to be conserved in the human stock. They are too dull to take into account the possibility that other people might make the choice according to their own value judgments.*79 In the eyes of the Nazis the brutal killer, the "fair-haired beast," is the most perfect specimen of mankind.
The mass slaughters perpetrated in the Nazi horror camps are too horrible to be adequately described by words. But they were the logical and consistent application of doctrines and policies parading as applied science and proved by some men who in a sector of the natural sciences have displayed acumen and technical skill in laboratory research.