posted March 19, 2008 10:20 PM            

A 12-step program for recovering liberals
Posted: March 19, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
Bert Prelutsky

Most 12-step programs start out by requiring that people have to understand that they're powerless over their addiction and that only by turning their lives over to a Power greater than themselves can they be restored to sanity. Far be it from me to suggest that I am that Power, but clearly someone has to step in and try to rescue these poor liberal souls. Even the most harebrained among them deserves that much.

First, though, they have to acknowledge that Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Dick Durbin, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid and Charles Schumer are not moderates, but, rather, leftists with a socialist agenda. Furthermore, they must recognize that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, the three major networks, the news magazines and the New Yorker are not objective in their reporting of political events, and neither are Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher, in their commentary. If these entities and individuals are not on the payroll of the DNC, they certainly should be. They certainly put in longer hours than Howard Dean.

Step No. 1: It is high time that every American be guaranteed the right to speak freely. It is not reserved solely for left-wing college students who wish to take advantage of the First Amendment to shout down conservatives. At the same time, they must not construe the conservative's right to dismiss them as arrogant idiots as censorship.

Step No. 2: Affirmative action argues that African-Americans and Latinos are intellectually inferior and are unable to compete academically unless other students are handicapped because of their race. Interestingly enough, when blacks and Hispanic students are given these unfair advantages, it's rarely at any cost to white students, whose rate of college admissions remains constant; instead, it's nearly always another minority group, Asians, who pay the price. This is what left-wingers refer to as leveling the playing field.

Step No. 3: Liberals always claim to be in favor of higher taxes, agreeing with Bill Clinton that the government invariably spends money more wisely than those who actually earn it. However, such prominent proponents of higher taxes as George Soros, Ted Kennedy and Mr. and Mrs. John Kerry protect their own otherwise taxable income through trusts and offshore accounts. Obviously, any American who believes higher taxes are a good thing can do the honorable thing by spurning all deductions and paying Uncle Sam everything up to 100 percent of his income.

Step No. 4: Even the most secular of liberals seems to believe that Jimmy Carter is a saint. The evidence for this seems to be that he has on occasion posed with a hammer in his hand at Habitant for Humanity building sites and is constantly walking around with an expression on his face that suggests he has just forgiven Pontius Pilate for betraying him. This is the same fellow, let us never forget, who called Yasser Arafat his good friend and who has accepted untold millions of dollars from Arab cut-throats, who ask nothing in return except that he go on insisting that there would be peace in the Middle East if only those darn Israelis would disappear from the face of the earth.

Step No. 5: Stop insisting that all wars are bad. It only makes you sound daft. Carrying signs that equate a U.S. president, any U.S. president, with Adolf Hitler is not only rude, but suggests you're certifiably nuts. Every president has left office right on schedule. Aside from FDR, who just happened to get elected four times, not one of them has remained in office beyond eight years. On the other hand, Hitler ran Germany for 12 years and only death and the Allied forces brought that to an end; Stalin ran the Soviet show for 31 years; while that hero of the left, Fidel Castro, held the reins, not to mention the whip, for about 50 years.

Step No. 6: Repeat after me, "Separation of church and state" exists nowhere in the Constitution. The First Amendment does not require the removal of Christmas trees from the village green, the 10 Commandments from court house walls or "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. All it does is forbid Congress from establishing a state religion, such as the Church of England, and anybody who tells you otherwise is a liar and, most likely, a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

Step No. 7: Stop using the word "big" as a pejorative. There is nothing intrinsically bad about big oil, big agriculture or big pharmaceuticals. Overall, they do a very good job of keeping our cars on the road, food on our tables and most of us over 50 alive and functioning. On the other hand, big government, which so many liberals simply adore, represents a usurpation of the allegedly inalienable rights of individuals. A quick perusal of the Constitution should convince you that beyond declaring war, forging treaties, overseeing patents, printing money, running the post office, collecting taxes and protecting our borders – and a few other things that Washington doesn't do at all well these days – the federal government has very limited responsibilities.

Step No. 8: Acknowledge that the United Nations is, in the main, an aggregation of venal diplomats who live high off the hog in New York City while representing the most corrupt and vicious regimes in the history of the world. Only a fool or a diplomat would continue to suggest that this gang of well-dressed thugs possesses anything resembling moral authority.

Step No. 9: Do not keep insisting that at a time when nearly all the large-scale evil in the world is being perpetrated by Muslims that racial profiling is anything but a sensible approach to airport security. During World War II, Swedish Americans were not suspected of performing espionage for the Axis powers and for a very good reason, namely, because they weren't performing espionage for the Axis powers. These days, their Swedish American children and grandchildren are not suspected of trying to blow up airlines, but the smarmy bureaucrats insist on pretending that they're every bit as likely to be up to mischief as a bunch of 25-year-old Osama bin Laden look-alikes from Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

Step No. 10: Stop trying to pretend that illegal aliens are the same as legal immigrants just so you can claim the moral high ground and accuse those of us who are opposed to open borders of being racists.

Step No. 11: Once and for all, stop forgiving murderers. Whether or not you're in favor of capital punishment, only the victim of a crime has the right to grant forgiveness. And inasmuch as the killer has deprived his victim of that ability, don't take it upon yourself. It doesn't prove how compassionate you are, only that you're as sanctimonious and as self-aggrandizing as, say, Jimmy Carter.

Step No. 12: Stop bashing the U.S. military and the Boy Scouts. The only reason you have the ability to shoot your mouth off is because men and women braver and better than you sacrificed life and limb for your right to do so. As for the Boy Scouts, they are absolutely right to keep homosexuals from taking youngsters on camping trips. While it's true that many gays are perfectly fine people and that very few homosexuals are pedophiles, there's no reason on earth to take unnecessary risks just so we can all prove how broadminded we are. For what it's worth, as decent as most Catholic priests are, I wouldn't let them take youngsters into the woods, either. It's fine to be compassionate and understanding, but let the gays among us be understanding for a change and acknowledge that, every so often, common sense should trump political correctness.

posted March 20, 2008 10:37 AM            

Yes, the framers of the Constitution were liberals...but not 20th century liberals. They were "classical liberals".

There is a disconnect between "classical liberalism" and modern day liberalism...which is nothing more than socialism.

The federal government has spun out of control of the states thanks to socialists who favor a strong all powerful central government which regulates every aspect of life...and business.

As galling as it is to those who now call themselves liberals...but are really leftist socialists, I'm a hell of a lot closer to being a classical liberal than they ever were or will be.

Time for leftist socialists to stop hiding behind the banner of liberalism.

As for gangsters in government or in control of pieces of government policy, I'll remind you of what a famous bank robber said when he was asked why he robbed banks. Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because "that's where the money is".

Let me remind you that Bush put many hundreds and perhaps thousands of those who were posing as businessmen/women but were in reality crooks in federal prison. The socialist administration of Commander Corruption and Lady Corruption never so much as laid a glove on any of them.

With a federal budget approaching 3 trillion dollars a year, that's where the money is and it draws the crooks like a magnet. It wasn't supposed to get anywhere near that out of control. The federal government was to have a very well defined and limited role in the lives of Americans.

Liberalism:

lib·er·al·ism /ˈlɪbərəˌlɪzəm, ˈlɪbrə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4. a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

[Origin: 1810–20; liberal + -ism]

—Related forms
lib·er·al·ist, noun, adjective
lib·er·al·is·tic, adjective

The state or quality of being liberal.

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.
An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
Liberalism
A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

lib'er·al·ist n., lib'er·al·is'tic (-lĭs'tĭk) adj.

noun
1. a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution
2. an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market

Now, check out the 20th century idea of liberalism...which no doubt was written by leftists/socialists...no doubt to give themselves cover. Still, part of the truth shines through...in bold.

liberalism

In the twentieth century, a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state.

Notice how "classical liberalism" has morphed into the idea of regulating free markets...to death in some cases...and establishing the welfare state.

In those few words you will find out why American business has fled and is fleeing the socialist state. They're doing exactly what you would expect any free person to do. They're voting with their feet.

When you hear anyone talking about them "paying their fair share", you know you're hearing "lying socialist speak".

The highest earning 1% (one) of Americans pay 40% of all income taxes.

The highest earning 10% (ten) of Americans pay 60% of all income taxes.

The highest earning 47% (forty seven) of Americans pay 97% of all income taxes.

The highest earning 50% (fifty) of Americans pay 100% of all income taxes.

The lowest earning 50% (fifty) of Americans pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL.

When you hear anyone proposing to raise taxes on businesses and corporations, you know you're hearing lying socialist speak.

What you're really hearing is a lying socialist proposal to raise taxes on individuals. Businesses and corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES. They collect the taxes levied on them in the form of higher prices for their goods and/or services...or they are forced to go out of business as their profit margins shrink and they go into the red.

posted March 20, 2008 12:09 PM              

Why o why are you incapable of perceiving Bush with the same clarity you see Clinton? Why o why will you not admit to the evils of an approaching fascist, totalitarian state with the same passion you do a communist state?

posted March 20, 2008 12:58 PM            

TINK, I do not see a Bush police state in America and never have. I have many differences with Bush...and with McCain as well, however all attepts to deprive Americans of their civil, economic and political liberties have and still are coming from the political left...socialists..with few exceptions.

First order of business in forming a police state is disarming citizens. Bush sent his Solicitor General and Attorney General to the US Supreme Court to "support" the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

There can be no police state, tyranny, while ordinary citizens are in possession of more than 250,000,000 privately owned firearms with which to defend themselves.

Efforts to take property, to limit religious speech and religious expression, to limit speech period, to ban firearms, to take private property at the whim of the state..for use by another more favored citizen, to grow the scope, power and jurisdiction of the federal government, these are all leftist socialist initiatives.

Now TINK, it's your turn. Tell me what "evidence" you see that Bush or Republicans or conservatives are attempting to establish "Police State America".

BTW, I attack Bush frequently...other Republicans and so called Republicans as well. But I attack them upon evidence, upon their votes or when they fail to live up to what they say they believe. Low taxes, smaller limited government, the rule of law with the US Constitution being the gold standard. They get letters, oh boy, do they get letters and I don't pull any punches. The RNC gets letters too, letters which must make them cringe when they're read.

Here's the thing TINK. One must be absolutely certain they're right when contemplating armed revolution...and if you're right, then a war of words isn't going to get the job done. You can't take it back if you're wrong and you can't restore people to life.

posted March 20, 2008 02:20 PM              

quote:

---

.. all attepts to deprive Americans of their civil, economic and political liberties have and still are coming from the political left...socialists..with few exceptions.

---

Here's the thing Jwhop. The goal is to deprive us of those God-given rights so painstaking protected by the Constitution. That has always been the goal. It is what 99.99% of powerful men and woman live for. How it is achieved is secondary. Both socialist/democrats and fascist/republicans will be used to this end. Good cop/bad cop, red herrings, diversions etc etc. This statement is not the product of a nutso conspiracy theorist. This is the natural outcome of too much time spent in the Hallowed Halls of History and a predilection for observing basic human nature. Two hands, same body. Repeat after me, Big Daddy. Two hands, same body.

(Ra! Can you hear me? Ra!)

quote:

---

They get letters, oh boy, do they get letters and I don't pull any punches. The RNC gets letters too, letters which must make them cringe when they're read.

---

God bless you for that. I would love to see them. Juni has my email if you'd care to share.

quote:

---

Here's the thing TINK. One must be absolutely certain they're right when contemplating armed revolution...and if you're right, then a war of words isn't going to get the job done. You can't take it back if you're wrong and you can't restore people to life.

You have to get it right the first time out.

---

I understand that Jwhop. I understand that more than you know.

See you in the Relocation .. ahem .. "Community Center"

posted March 20, 2008 03:44 PM            

The question I have for all Republican candidates is:

Why are you joined at the hip with the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Income Tax which punishes productivity, rewards sloth and reckless spending and costs taxpayers billions of dollars just to file their tax returns each year.

When I find a candidate interested in supporting the Fair Tax, with more than lip service, then all other things being equal, that candidate will have my support.

No one who continues to support the Federal Income Tax or Income tax lite...the Flat Tax is going to get my support or my vote.

jwhop

Don't expect to see me in a relocation...community center TINK. I've already told you I'm a barbarian. I've told you about my 10 bullets to make the world a better place. There's no reason for you to think I'm not capable of scaling up to 100 bullets or even 1000....as circumstances demand.

Still, I have to see some real concrete evidence. Overt actions taken not through stupidity but with intent to overthrow the Constitution and reduce us to an absolute tyranny. And I don't mean a tyranny of the majority.

Where did I get the idea you were an advocate for nonviolent resistance to oppression and tyranny? Oh yeah, you just ripped the Tibetans for their violent overt resistance to Chinese oppression. and tyranny.

posted March 20, 2008 04:23 PM            

quote:

---

Oh yeah, you just ripped the Tibetans for their violent overt resistance to Chinese oppression. and tyranny.

---

Would that translate the same way with the Taliban ? See, the thing is, backing some of these "causes" has a nasty habit of nipping you in the butt in the long run. So wouldn't it be better to follow upon internationally agreed protocals so they won't just have one country to blame for future misgivings? Lol! (Cynical prospect but a plausible reality.)

posted March 20, 2008 05:13 PM            

The UN has prevented no wars. The UN has stopped no wars. The UN has prevented no genocides and the UN has stopped no genocides. There's an active genocide ongoing...for years...in Sudan and the UN is still talking but not acting.

posted March 20, 2008 06:59 PM            

Such is the fairyland thinking of UN supporters.

Kosovo has already seceded from Serbia and Bosnian Serbs are threatening to do so too...among others.

All is not peace and light as you have suggested. If anything, Bosnia is another failed UN project.

The fact they are not killing each other again is a function of time. Call it "yet".

The UN had nothing to do with stopping the fighting in the Balkans. European nations called on NATO, not the UN and NATO is mostly US forces and military equipment.

Putting blue helmets on US and European military forces doesn't make it a UN operation.

BTW, Commander Corruption, aka, Bill Clinton said US forces would be home by Christmas...when he committed them to stop the genocide and fighting between ethnic groups. They're still there all these years later.

You're going to have to do a lot better than Bosnia to convince me the UN has any legit reason to exist.

posted March 21, 2008 10:54 AM            

How about the slaughter overseen by the UN in Rwanda?

How about the fact the overseer in chief of UN peacekeeping forces who oversaw that slaughter...Kofi Annan was promoted to Sec General of the UN, no doubt for his "good work"?

How about the ongoing...for years...genocide in Sudan?

How about the gigantic corruption of UN officials who Saddam bribed in the Oil For Food swindle?

How about the fact these blockheads can't even agree on definitions for terrorist and terrorism?

How about UN personnel swapping food for sex with starving young girls?

How about UN personnel...highly placed UN personnel running porno rings...pictures and video from UN camps set up to protect and feed people in Africa snd Sudan?

How about the fact no one takes a thing the UN says seriously...including UN Security Council Resolutions..think Saddam, think 16 Security Council Resolutions, think 12 years of non compliance by Saddam.

How about the fact Iran is and has been thumbing their noses at the UN regarding their enrichment of uranium on the way to developing a nuclear device?

How about the fact virtually everything the UN touches turns to instant shiiit in their hands?

How about the fact these corrupt, bungling, brain dead morons think they are qualified to run the world?

That's enough, the case for disbanding the UN and sending the bungling boobs back where they came from has been made. They are not now and never have lived up to or even come close to living up to reasonable expectations and they never will.

68 years is plenty of time for the UN to have gotten their shiit together. If they didn't get it done in 68 years, they couldn't and won't do it in 168 years.

posted March 21, 2008 11:06 AM            

How many times was the UN called upon as a peace buffering force in so many conflcits? Numerious as I see it; Including the deployment of forces in the Congo, The buffer force after the Kippur Conflict, The buffer force during the 2004 Haiti rebellion...

They aren't taken seriously because of the lingering problems with the Veto system in the Security Council and how the UN force seriously lacks equipment and personalle to do their job effectively.

posted March 21, 2008 12:47 PM            

I, on the other hand believe they never had a reason to exist and that they've proved their incompetence over and over.

posted March 21, 2008 01:00 PM              

quote:

---

TINK, it seems only yesterday you declared me a "real piece of work". Somehow, I didn't get the impression you meant a "real fantastic piece of work"

---

Six of one, half dozen of another.

quote:

---

OK, I understand you believe there is a hidden group of conspirators busily working behind the scenes and in control of both political parties, the press, business and banking. I understand you believe when you vote it's a heads you lose and tails you lose situation because they're all working in concert to overthrow the Constitution and therefore subject us to a tyranny.

---

Not all. Not even close. Most worker bees are honorably, or at least innocently, towing the line, oblivious of the goal. "Conspirators" is an ugly word. Too many absurd connotations surround it now. In fact, now might be a good time to get a little something straight so that you might rest easy tonight. I do not believe George is a closet reptile. I am not afraid to yell "Illuminati!" into my cell phone. I do not buy into all the UFO abduction hullaballoo. Okey dokey?

quote:

---

I have a question about that. To what ends are they working? They, if you are right, are already in control of every important lever of power in America...and in a broader sense, the world. What's to be gained by instituting an absolute overt tyranny...from their viewpoint?

---

Although "They" is a term I've used out of necessity, honestly it's just too encompassing. It implies more agreement and organization then I personally believe we're up against. "Overt tyranny"? Nah. I can't imagine even the most idealistic tyrant is ready to hop on that bandwagon quite yet. The people are children. They don't take kindly to being forced. You gently manipulate them. You make them want it. That's why they call them "Community Centers", silly.

quote:

---

Surely, these are not people so stupid as to not realize they are courting an armed revolution where large numbers of politicians, business leaders, bankers and other conspirators would be hunted down and killed...if they actually tried to gain overt control.

---

No, not stupid. Arrogant though. "Armed revolution"?! Are you serious? Look around you Big Daddy, the majority of the populace is far too ignorant, apatheic and afraid for that. The barriers of acceptable behavior were long since purposely crossed with barely a peep of objection. But even assuming the worst (or best depending on how you look at it) revolutions are to be welcomed, sometimes even encouraged. They're an excellent way to weed out the uncooperative. What's more, it's shamefully easy these days to paint that stubborn segment of society in a negative light, thereby quieting any suspicions those sitting on the fence might still harbor.

quote:

---

Here's one I sent to Mitt Romney last year.

---

Mitt Romney? Does he count? And is that a love letter?

The Tibetan comment was not political.

posted March 21, 2008 03:18 PM              

quote:

---

I do not believe George is a closet reptile. I am not afraid to yell "Illuminati!" into my cell phone.

---

posted March 21, 2008 07:52 PM              

quote:

---

So, you don't buy into Bush being a shape shifting space alien reptile? I encountered a 50s something guy yesterday who would be prepared to believe it. Not only that but also a conspiracy by the oil companies, big corporations and government. I didn't know the guy, he just started talking to me. When he got around to mentioning armed revolution, I changed the subject. You never know when "they" might be listening in.

---

I've attracted a few of that sort myself. Weird, huh?

Now where have I recanted? Refresh my memory.

posted March 21, 2008 08:27 PM            

This...99% of powerful men and women want to
deprive us of our rights

quote:

---

Here's the thing Jwhop. The goal
is to deprive us of those God-given rights so painstaking protected by the Constitution. That has always been the goal. It is what 99.99% of powerful men and woman live for. How it is achieved is secondary. Both socialist/democrats and fascist/republicans will be used to this end. Good cop/bad cop, red herrings, diversions etc etc. This statement is
not the product of a nutso conspiracy theorist. This is the natural outcome of too much time spent in the Hallowed Halls of History and a predilection for observing basic human nature. Two hands, same body. Repeat after me,Big Daddy. Two hands, same body.

(Ra! Can you hear me? Ra!)....TINK

---

quote:

---

Although "They" is a term I've used out of necessity, honestly it's just too encompassing. It implies more agreement and organization then I personally believe we're up against....TINK

---

quote:

---

*sigh* you would be so good for the revolution. so very very good. what a damn waste....TINK

---

posted March 22, 2008 12:07 AM            

quote:

---

Step No. 1: It is high time that every American be guaranteed the right to speak freely. It is not reserved solely for left-wing college students who wish to take advantage of the First Amendment to shout down conservatives. At the same time, they must not construe the conservative's right to dismiss them as arrogant idiots as censorship.

---

Amen...it SUCKS to be a college student in NYC and not be left wing...I know...

quote:

---

Step No. 4: Even the most secular of liberals seems to believe that Jimmy Carter is a saint.

---

One of the worst rated presidents we had. Seriously his poor Libra Scorpio Libra ratings were sooo low.

quote:

---

Step No. 7: Stop using the word "big" as a pejorative. There is nothing intrinsically bad about big oil, big agriculture or big pharmaceuticals.

---

Seriously...I have such beef with this...

quote:

---

Step No. 8: Acknowledge that the United Nations is, in the main, an aggregation of venal diplomats who live high off the hog in New York City while representing the most corrupt and vicious regimes in the history of the world. Only a fool or a diplomat would continue to suggest that this gang of well-dressed thugs possesses anything resembling moral authority.[/quot]

As a VP of Model UN i have so say most definitely.

[quote]During World War II, Swedish Americans were not suspected of performing espionage for the Axis powers and for a very good reason, namely, because they weren't performing espionage for the Axis powers. These days, their Swedish American children and grandchildren are not suspected of trying to blow up airlines, but the smarmy bureaucrats insist on pretending that they're every bit as likely to be up to mischief as a bunch of 25-year-old Osama bin Laden look-alikes from Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

---

LOLOLOL, sad but true.

quote:

---

Step No. 10: Stop trying to pretend that illegal aliens are the same as legal immigrants just so you can claim the moral high ground and accuse those of us who are opposed to open borders of being racists

---

UGH THIS INFURIATES ME! Like come the heck on...there is a BIG (there is that evil word again difference between legal and illegal immigration and everyone who thinks otherwise needs a serious reality check...

[quote]Step No. 13: Let us all agree that while being a woman, a black, a Jew, a Catholic, a Mormon or even a gay, for that matter, should in no way preclude anyone from being elected president of the United States, none of those things constitutes a very good reason to vote for someone.[quote]

OMG seriously......people totally and utterly miss this point...everyone wants to vote for someone to seem "open minded"...

posted March 22, 2008 12:40 AM            

You know the old saying...whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.