Bad Commie!

helping commies get to know knives

My favorite stabbings:
God, Mother Earth, W, Prayer, Poetry, Uptight Nervous Canadian Frostbacks, Debating,
Self Stabbing, Ann Coulter, The Ketchup Prince, Gay Marriage, Fantasy

Friday, October 31, 2003
Dear Readers,

And what is it that we do with commies? You guessed it - we stab them.

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
---Thomas Jefferson

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the President or anyone else.
---Theodore Roosevelt

Man is not free unless government is limited. As government expands, liberty contracts.
---Ronald Reagan

For the resolved men and women who are angered by the theft of their fundamental rights, my message will deliver more than a little advantage. Those people of a well-meaning nature yet somewhat fearful and clearly misinformed, significant attention is also directed towards their inner struggles. For the others who are content with the social engineering of their lives by an oppressive nanny-state, they will not benefit from reading further. Because of an inability to accept responsibility for their lives, these paragons of docility have by now, bleated their way into the flock, shepherded towards the precipice. Unless their grazing meadows of sweet-grass wither, they will not stray.
Sovereign citizens are under attack by terrorists, the United Nations, Socialists, gun-ban-zealots, federal police invasion forces, and a multitude of faithless public servants. Have we a rational plan of defense for our families? No! Instead, we witlessly scurry about in a mob, frantically waving Old Glory with one hand and tossing confetti from the other, while cheering the lynching of our children's unalienable rights. All of which, genuine American patriots by the hundreds of thousands sacrificed their lives in order to preserve. Yes! I am bloody outraged over the cowardly betrayals by our public servants but equally disgusted with the escapist Mardi-Gras revelry of my fellow Americans. Through fear, widespread denial, and escapism, if we permit this mighty land of the free to wither into a dysfunctional home of the oppressed, our brave and noble fathers will have fought and died in vain.
The constitutionally decreed separation of powers -- equally divided between three branches of government -- for the purposes of enforcing our founding intent and uniform justice, is nonexistent. The separation of these distinct and well-defined powers remains as mere symbolism of the past, serving only to deceptively reassure the unwitting masses. Today, we seldom hear of a Judicial branch ruling that is in opposition to the Executive or Legislative branches, in accordance with the Constitution, and in favor of the people. As a result of all governmental branches refusing obedience to constitutional law, our system of checks and balances -- originating from the genius of the Founding Fathers -- has been abolished. Through the finalizing machinations of George Bush -- accelerated by the events of September 11th -- the Executive branch is now the dominant force within government. Consequently, the people are left without adequate protections from abusive federal officials. Additionally: the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches stand guard for one another against the people's outcries for justice. For the most part, this conspiratorial usurpation of our authority over government has been a silent and gradual process yet ruthless and nearly complete.
If, our President decides to become a steadfast defender of constitutional law, I will enthusiastically support him all the way. Tragically for us all, such a transformation of character and willing reevaluation of his ill-conceived policies appear less likely by the day. Despite the cheers of euphoria from the national audience, his amplified words of protecting our freedoms, defending the Bill of Rights, equal justice, rule of law, personal responsibility, limited government, and necessary security measures, typify political trumpery at best. At worst, they are the reassurances of a Judas. In opposition to the emotionally animated and nationally fashionable praise for this President, I shall moreover submit that he has done nothing to downsize and cleanse our polluted government. Under his watch, government continues to balloon, and justice aimed towards rogue federal agents and the perfidious Clinton administration is further denied the people. Of supreme importance, violations of human rights have intensified. Regardless of a few seemingly beneficial offerings -- for the titillation of the masses -- there is no evidence of a relationship between this President's spoken defense of the Constitution and his actions. Contrary to his well-publicized reassurances of government credibility, his manifestations are the completing steps of cronyism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and degenerative Socialism. It requires intellectual honesty and strength of character in order to be faithful to the people and Constitution. Our Constitution needs to be defended and revitalized, not diluted by a fountain of unconstitutional legislation, an outpouring of enfeebling socialistic programs, a violent flow of meddling federal police agencies, a flood of self-destructive foreign policies, and a torrent of sovereignty subversive United Nations treaties. Politically thrilling it all may be for our President, but his frequent minuets with Socialist senators, endless warmongering orations, and farcically scripted cowboy-machismo are unreliable strategies for the defense of our Constitution. I cannot speak for everyone, but eight years of the Clinton duet quenched my thirst for diversions and showmanship.

Some of you may question the wisdom of saying that commies should be stabbed out loud, seeing how there is a propensity for government thugs to come to your door and knock it in if you start making threats about the president.


I'm not about to change my profound hate of vicious commies, just so some mindless commie president can feel secure being a commie. I say down with the jack booted thugs - if commie - stab them good.

I don't know if president Bush is trying to get into the history books like Clinton. But lets make sure we keep him out of this one. Stop Bush from issuing orders like this.


P.S. I'm still voting for Bush, after I stab him, if he proves that he can piss off the most foreigners.

Wednesday, October 29, 2003
I usually don't stoop to making fun of Russians. It's as easy as eating pickled herring and drinking vodka. However, this is just too good to pass up:

"I cannot rule out that the bureaucrats in the so-called power agencies have gotten a taste of power and they clearly want more," Boris Nemtsov, co-leader of the Union of Right Forces, was quoted in Tuesday's Nezavisimaya Gazeta as saying. "The recent course of events could well indicate that they are flexing their muscles and flaunting their impunity, aiming at full control of the political, personal and economic activities in the country."

Gee, Mr Commie - does that by any chance sound like some political system you were under for the last 70 years? You know, the one that your neighbors supported? Ring any bells? You can take Russian from the communists, but you can't remove the communism from the Russian....

Oh, and check this out:

Back in the late 1980s, when the future oligarchs were just getting started in a frenzy of dirt and blood, each faced an impossible task: dealing with the thugs who walked into their offices, stuck guns to their heads and demanded money, without turning into thugs themselves. They solved this problem by amassing security forces and privatizing the state along with the cops and the prosecutors.

They took care of the thugs and the "red directors." They got their man elected president in 1996 by raping the country and denying it the necessary vaccination in the form of a weakened, moribund culture of communism. Then, instead of disarming and disbanding their privatized police forces, the oligarchs began to battle one another. They taught the prosecutors how to use criminal investigations to pry factories away from their owners.

They created Frankenstein, but Frankenstein did not obey his master for long. "Why work for them when I can work for myself?" Frankenstein thought to himself. And when the oligarchs decided to be squeaky clean, it was too late. The crud had hardened and it wouldn't wash off.

The victims of a coup are always those most responsible for bringing it about. But the reverse is also true. Those who stage a coup always become its hostages, like NKVD chiefs Yagoda and Yezhov, executed by the man sent to replace them.

Two things happened on Saturday, one obvious, the other less so. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was obviously deprived of his freedom, perhaps temporarily. Less obviously, Putin lost power.

Boy, the judicial branch locks up someone important and the Russians go all paranoid. "What the hell is this court and rule of law crap? We thought Putin was in charge." Don't worry commies, just keep believing that you're commies, and you will be.

God, I feel dirty even taking about them. Stab Stab Stab Stab Stab Stab

Good thing I can always count on Rumsfeld going on a killing spree to cheer me up!

I've noticed a lot of idiocy in the media ether lately. Someone blew up a whole bunch of police stations in Iraq, and the media is in hysterics that something bad happened. Bad? Baaaaaad? Can these people get any stupider? Basically Iraq is like Nazi(and present day) Germany - at some point the people that want to gas and kill and make lampshades and feed to the lions anyone who doesn't obey them have to have a vicious all out war with people that won't stand that kind of crap. Look at it this way - a pedophile baby killer isn't going to be able to live quietly next to a kindergarten for long. BTW, notice how its the other iraqis that were attacked, not the US soldiers. The death rate for US soldiers is still way less than for a black man living in the slums in Washington DC or Detroit. Sadaam Hussein didn't oppress the Iraqis - they oppressed themselves. The normal 40% of the population just have to get some guns and kill the stupid 60%. If I were them, I would enlist the help of the jooooooooooooos.

Anyway, making fun of people who follow Commieslam is too easy - their religion doesn't leave them any room to defend themselves - after all, if you've got Mohammed for a prophet and a great man like Ayatollah Khomeini leading you, how much do you really have to say about morality?

A non commie would never have this problem, because a non commie has free will and doesn't have to follow anyone.

Monday, October 27, 2003
Someone sent me this tidbit from Slashdot:

Furthermore, if democracy is so grand, why aren't companies democratic? As well, if this is a republic, why don't we own our workplaces.

More than 50% of working Americans own stock in publicly traded companies. That stock usually comes with voting rights for the owners. This makes companies both owned by the workers, and democratic.

This is an awesome observation. For anyone else who doubted that this so called voting is a communist mind control plot, this should be like a bolt from the blue. Working in chains, and in a grey prison, for your CEO masters, is democracy. Think about it folks. I always play it safe in these tests of communist loyalty and vote directly for the best communist for the job - usually Stalin, or Mao, or other more modern dictators like Bush and Sadaam. Please vote for one of these communists or this will happen to you .
Why is it that every time I vote, my money gets stolen? (For the non chief positions, I never vote for the looters) And then I am told that I had my chance and I voted to have my money stolen. Everyone knows voting is pure fraud. As a crystal clear example - think - do they count write in votes? No they do not - they are never recorded. So even if you write in someone already on the ballot, it is never ever counted. The machines are trained to not recognize or transmit your vote. This is just the tip of the iceberg. And the further beauty of this mind control system? The votes are anonymous and electronic. This means that you can never ever verify your vote. You will never see your name under a column for your candidate. Because you are a sheep and participate in this voting thing which is deliberately designed so that you can not verify that your vote was counted correctly.



You have to realize that real candidates are not even allowed to get on the ballot. For example, why can't a candidate who went on a rampage and shot every communist in Massachusetts get on the ballot? Why because he is a "felon", or some such. The fact that these people needed killin is irrelevant. Think about it - a real man would have shot and maimed his enemies because of the injustices done to him - yet felons can not get on the ballot, much less vote. Stalin? - OK, Felon? - No. Yessssss. I see.

Some people will give you false statistics saying that your vote (but only for the elite approved candidates on the ballot) was actually counted. Do not be deceived.
Any statistic you hear has the same validity as this:

When the communist rule of China approached the end of its first decade, the gap between its plans and reality had widened so much that it was necessary to implement some drastic measures. If the statistics did not show the great success of the communist system, the statistics had to be changed.
When Mao Zedong launched the fierce economic campaign for rapid industrialization in the Great Leap Forward, the crippled statistical system reported what the leaders wanted to hear. The famine during this Great Leap Forward was partly the result of grossly inflated agricultural production statistics, which lulled the national leaders into self confidence and prevented the timely implementation of crisis relief efforts.

Yes, that's right. Communist statistics kill millions. And so does communist reporting like that of the New York Times which reported that there was no famine in the Ukraine perpetrated by Stalin. The reporter who did that got a pulitzer for accurate insightful reporting. Just like that "Ambassador" who went to Niger to investigate uranium purchases by sipping tea at the embassy with high Niger officials.

So go ahead and listen to the communists. Everything is OK. Rent is not $1000 per 500 sq feet. Houses are not $300,000. Milk is not $3 dollars a gallon and Gas is not $2 per gallon.

Men, women and children -- skin and bones -- were begging for pitiful handfuls of grains while Stalin's henchmen stood guard over full granaries and turned them away.

Yes, my readers. Death by government. Death by communist democracy.


4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

Oh, and is the government winning the war on terror? The war on Communism? The war on itself?

At first blush, New Jersey's District Attorney's office seems like a model of federal law enforcement in the war against terrorism. In the year after 9/11, after all, they nabbed 62 individuals for acts of "international terrorism"--individuals who, arguably, would no longer be threatening American lives. But on closer inspection, there's less to this success story than meets the eye. Sixty of the 62 international terrorists, according to a March story in The Philadelphia Inquirer, turned out to be Middle Eastern students who had cheated on a test; specifically, they had paid others to take an English proficiency exam required for college or graduate school

stab stab stab

Sunday, October 26, 2003
I was just reading the web site of those poor deluded fools I talked about in my last post - you know the ones that think the judicial branch will tell them that the money that pays the salaries of the judicial branch should not keep on coming. Heh. Losers. They had an example on their website of what happened to a guy that didn't withhold (i.e steal and give to the commies) the commie slice of the pie from his employees paychecks:

Simkanin then became a target of a Texas federal grand jury in 2001. Simkanin asked to meet with the Grand Jury. He did. He explained to the members of the grand jury the basis of his decision to stop withholding. Each member of the grand jury received certain materials that Simkanin wanted them to read. The 2001 grand jury did not indict Simkanin.
Simkanin was also a target of the subsequent 2002 grand jury. Simkanin again asked to meet with the Grand Jury. He did. He again explained to the members of the grand jury the basis of his decision to stop withholding. Each member of the 2002 grand jury graciously received certain materials that Simkanin wanted them to read. The 2002 grand jury did not indict Simkanin.
Seven months went by following Simkanin's last meeting with the 2002 grand jury. Simkanin heard nothing. He assumed he was no longer a target.

Suddenly, in May of 2003, Simkanin was notified by the DOJ that he was a target of the 2003 federal grand jury and that the DOJ was asking the grand jury for an indictment. Simkanin told DOJ he wanted to meet with the grand jury. He received no response.

Eventually, Simkanin received a Subpoena directing him to appear before the grand jury on June 18, 2003 with his books and records. On June 18th Simkanin showed up with 25 copies of the same information he had delivered to the 2002 grand jury. The grand jury foreman told Simkanin to return the next day to make his presentation and to hand his printed information to the members of the grand jury.

The next day, on June 19, 2003, Simkanin arrived outside the door of the grand jury room with the material for the grand jury. Instead of being allowed in to talk to the grand jury, he was met by the Assistant U.S. Attorney (David Jarvis) who told Dick he was free to leave because the grand jury would not be hearing from Simkanin. Simkanin demanded to be allowed in to present his exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

Jarvis went in and returned with the jury foreman. Jarvis got the foreman to tell Simkanin the grand jury was not interested in hearing from Simkanin. Simkanin was, therefore, denied the opportunity to meet and inform the 2003 grand jury of the results of his research and his beliefs, as he had been able to do with the 2001 and 2002 grand juries.
Then there is a long interesting story about he was railroaded by a whole bunch of commies who shuttled him from one death camp to another. Anyway, so eventually the criminal commie judges put him in the death and rape camps (prison).
On or about September 26, 2003, McColl informed Simkanin that instead of responding to his motions, DOJ was offering Simkanin a deal: if Simkanin would plead guilty to one count of violating 26 USC 7202 (a penalty statute!), DOJ would drop the other counts under 7202 and all the counts under 18 USC 287. This would mean Simkanin's sentence would be 36 months including time already spent. McColl also informed Simkanin that in the next day or so he was going to be allowed a visit by his wife.

McColl also informed Simkanin that McBryde had set the sentencing hearing for January 2, 2004 and that there was a possibility that if Simkanin accepted the plea bargain before McBryde on September 30, 2003, there was a good chance Simkanin could go home until January 2, 2004, the date of the sentencing hearing.

On September 27, 2003, Simkanin's wife visited him at the prison and pleaded with him to accept the plea bargain and come home.

On September 30, 2003, Simkanin formally agreed to the terms of the plea agreement.
Simkanin is still incarcerated. It appears he will not be released prior to sentencing.

Sad, very sad. Well, anyone with half a brain in his head would have detected several big lies that the poor deluded fools believed:

1) That the laws are non contradictory.

This is obviously not true. I don't know, but I expect at least 95% of the laws are obviously contradictory. I don't have enough free time in my life to read all the laws, and yet I am supposed to follow them to the letter (only idiots would let themselves be governed by such a system - there should have been a hard limit on congress of 5 laws, no more than 500 words each). The main thing everything contradicts is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anyone with half a brain in their head would have detected that the laws on murder are clearly contradictory. There is supposedly a law saying that murder is punished. Yet this law is not enforced to such a degree, that its obvious to everyone. Presidents, generals and heads of major corporations can murder at will - all they have to do is invoke some code word like "security" or "profitability" and the vast machine made up of commies will align behind their actions. Cops can murder cop killers at will. Most law enforcement authorities can murder anyone with a small dark object in their hands at will (they just say its a gun) - if the story is convincing, no punishment is meted out. Presidents can make us go to war, and then the army murders foreigners at will (all for the sake of "security", or "profitability", or "natural resources", or stopping the "commie menace" for the sake of getting elected). Of-course, only agents of the machine are allowed to murder foreigners in america at will. After all we don't want Texans shooting foreigners like the UN's Kofi Annan for telling us we can't have guns, do we? That was an ironical question. Of-course we do.

And the best examples of murderers? Judges. In a typical death penalty trial, the only known rapist and murderer in the courtroom is the judge - because he most likely caused previous murderers (whom he knew were murderers with a 50% chance - In other words he had no clue) and rapists in previous trials to be murdered and raped as part of their penalty.

Another big lie is that:

2) The judges care about you.

No they don't. They are just random bureaucrats - some good, some bad. Most will act to perpetuate the system. The only one who might care is the jury. Judges are generally concerned that the commie ordered stealing is done in an orderly manner, and that the folks don't get to uppity. Their interest in you is very limited. Think of their profession - they see and endless parade of people every day, 200% of which are probably lying. Why would they care?

Anyway, I just like to focus on stabbing commies. Thinking about why some system, like voting or the UN, (that the commies put in place) is bad is a loosing proposition.

This is the truth about the UN:
All communism is predicated on the individual having no rights, and the UN is a vicious tool of commies to take away all your rights. The UN was founded by agents and spies of communism to make this 10 year plan happen.

Stab Communism and the UN where it stands.

In other news, I found this interesting article puportedly exposing voting fraud perpetrated to keep republicans in power. Its obviously a bunch of crap. The people let themselves vote in an ANONYMOUS, ELECTRONIC voting system. Anything that happens is a pure consequence of those 2 facts. Its our duty as commie stabbers, to make the outcome of that system by which the commies rule themselves, as painful as possible for the commies.

Saturday, October 25, 2003
Taxes! Is there anything that makes commies more excited? What else could make a commie twitch uncontrollably and jerk around, like the promise of a tight smooth wad of hard earned cash from a capitalist?

The commies want our money and they aim to stick their hands in our pocket and feel around until they get what they want. They plan to slowly and methodically put their hands in and out of our pockets until their hands are overflowing with a big load of cash. The Commies are like mad British schoolboys with erections, waving their warped little commie wands in the breeze to lure the innocent capitalist naive cash into their grasp.

Some people talk about excise taxes, some about flat taxes, others want to tax stupidity.
All of this is wrong. Taxes is just stealing. It don't matter what kind it is.
If the government is going to steal, I want to know what its going to do with my money, and when it buys itself hookers and gold platted ashtrays, and statues of Stalin, I want to hire the Russian mafia to force it to stand on the street corner and work for its money.

Recently, some poor deluded fools have decided that if they send some questions to random leader commies in the government, and if those commies don't answer those questions, then they can not pay their taxes until the commies answer. That's like saying we should keep asking a serial killer how he could possibly be so evil, until the serial killer changes his ways. Well, they are about to feel the awesome power of the mighty commie shaft.

What is to be done against this vicious commie groping and stroking? Is there anything the commies won't interpret as a tease? When I say "Don't tax me", a commie hears "Take my money please". Comrades, the vicious capitalist orgy is at an end, and the commie salad tossing is just beginning.

Me, I just want to stab commies, but I bet that pretty soon they'll tax that too.

Sorry, I apologize for that post. That's what I get for watching the South Park "Metrosexual" episode.

Wednesday, October 22, 2003
This Mahathir guy was confusing one of my friends, because he seemed to be telling the truth about the Muslims and also saying stuff like this:

"They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power."

Mahathir cheered the OIC by predicting that "1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews".

This is disturbing, isn't it? What if Jews really were the original commies? Would that make me a Jew hater? Then the fucking commies would stab me.
Hmmm... After all Hitler did originally start killing the Jews because a lot of the eastern European ones were society destroying communists.
Oh wait - National Socialist German Workers Party.
Fucking commie Mahathir. Almost made me lose track of what I was doing. Stupid Muslims and their Jew menace - always causing them to oppress themselves, or whatnot.

Note to self: Stab Commies!!! Don't Listen to them.

But this brings up a good point. Some of you aint got the highly developed commie stabbing will that I have, and are vulnerable to commie screams for mercy like the ones below:

1) Don't stab me, I say mean things about other commies and the words I advocate, if implemented, would make some commies less commie.

2) Don't stab me, I kill other commies.

A good example of #1 is Mahathir. Frankly, the only thing he wants is all the other Muslims to give him, or some other Hitler, a Nazi salute so that he can be the one in charge. And then, together, under his wise leadership, the moderate muslims can solve the Jew problem once and for all. Only problem is, there is only one moderate or mainstream Muslim, and that's Bush. Bush is the only Muslim Cleric that thinks Islam is about peace. Anyway, like I already said before in previous blog entries, It don't matter what future behavior the commie is promising. If his lips are moving, he's a live commie. An UNSTABBED live commie. If God didn't want us to stab commies, he wouldn't have invented knives.

A good example of #2 is that poofy haired guy Kim, whom Bush accuses of making his people shorter by not feeding them.
Now I ain't a fine general like Bush, who's gotta worry about how we can stab more commies per inch of commie. Obviously, if they are shorter, we can stab more of them. So shouldn't we let this Kim guy shrink the commies even more? Hell no. Commies is for stabbin, not listening to. Just because you are killing other commies, or making it easier for other people to kill commies, that don't matter one bit.
How many times do I gotta educate you people. If I see a commie, I stab him. If I see a short commie, I stab him. If I see a fat commie, I stab him. If I see a talking commie, I stab him. If I see a smart commie - well there ain't no such thing, although some can get pretty crafty. The main thing to remember about commies is they aint for listening, they are for stabbin.
Another example of #2 is Stalin. Some people say Stalin was the best man in the world, because he killed the most commies. Well, that's a mighty powerful argument. Not to me though. Stalin was a commie. But I'll thank him for his good work after I stab him.

Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Tonight's subject is Jews, Arabs, and robots. Oh and stabbing commies, of-course.

Evidently, the commies are having some kind of pow wow over there somewhere. Well, it turns out that one of the head commies stands up and says this about the Jews:

BANGKOK (Reuters) - An unrepentant Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad repeated Tuesday his belief that Jews rule the world, denied President Bush (news - web sites) had rebuked him for it and hit out at Australian leader John Howard.
Mahathir, who has always had a prickly relationship with his counterparts from Canberra whom he accuses of trying to be the U.S. 'deputy sheriff' in Asia, said Howard was merely performing to type.
"There's a fondness among leaders in Australia, prime ministers of Australia, to make nasty comments like calling me recalcitrant, et cetera," he said."
"John Howard did the same thing, repeatedly, even casting aspersions on our judicial system, as if we do not understand law, we don't understand fair deal and justice."
"In fact, we do. We had a very good history of treating our aborigines, for example. We didn't shoot them dead. We didn't commit genocide. So when making criticism of other people, please look at your own background and temper it with some humility."
News accounts had ignored his condemnation of all violence, including suicide bombings, and his call on Muslims to heed the teachings of the Koran and talk peace with Israel, he said.

Asked why he thought this was the case, Mahathir replied: "Well, many newspapers are owned by Jews. They only see that angle and they have a powerful influence over the thinking of many people. Only their side of the picture is given now."

When I read that I said to myself: "Now just wait a commie stabbing second here, Bad Commie. Why hasn't anyone stabbed this commie yet?"

After I was done speculating, educating and gesticulating about why the cruel injustice in this world was letting this unrepentant commie go unstabbed, I thought I'd think about what this commie was going on about (while stabbing commies over here, of-course, don't go soft on me now).

First of all, why would I care why the mass murdering, mass stealing, leader obeying commies like the Arabs say about anyone, much less them Jews or whatever they was? Well I don't. Stabbing commies is what I do best, not listening to them. You want someone to listen to commies ? - go to the democrat party.

But since the knives I was going to buy yesterday were incapable of reaching this commie to stab him where ever he was, I thought I'd first.... Wait, what??? The knives can't stab the commies??? Fucking defective knives, I gotta return them...

Anyway, back to these Jews that are a problem for the commies.
Why didn't the chief commie pinhead (as if there were commies that weren't pinheads) say something accurate like this:

"The influence of Jews, is greater than the influence of Muslims, when normalized against population."
"Looking deeply into my soul, there is only one obvious explanation for this - because Muslims are retarded commies."
"I have decided to hire some Jews to run the country so we can be rich like America. I, for one, welcome our new Zionist overlords."

Anyway, the reason he didn't say that is because he is a commie. I hope someone stabs him. And that's all I gotta say about that.

On another very disturbing note, I was reading the commie slashdot, and I noticed that people were pointing out that the only reason all communism ends in Stalin, Hitler, Sadaam, RMS, Mao, etc is that human beings, being imperfect, can not consistently follow whatever ridiculous ideology the commies think makes up communism.
Well, this is clearly wrong, because it isn't the ideology that matters, its letting the fucking chief commie, or commie group tell you what to do. That's all it takes - authority, and you got commie central in no time flat.
And then someone was pointing out that we got all these robots now, and that robots can follow the rules, and so can successfully carry out whatever ideology they want. Like Communism.

Fuck. What do I do now? How the hell am I supposed to stab commie robots, anyone know?

Monday, October 20, 2003
I was watching a great movie on TV today - The Tuskegee Airmen. It was about a corps of black airmen, expert at commie killing and stabbin and mutliating and draggin and hangin and, excuse me, I get so carried away. Anyway, here is what they done:

In April 1944, the 332nd Fighter Group transferred to the Adriatic Sea side at Ramitelli Air Strip, near Foggia, Italy and began conducting long-range heavy bomber escort missions for the 15th Strategic Air Force. In July 1944, the 99th Fighter Squadron was transferred to Ramitelli and the Group became the only four-squadron fighter group performing bomber escort missions in the 15th Air Force. This was a significant factor in the effectiveness and success of the Group as it established the incredible and unprecedented record of flying all of its bomber escort missions (200 over most of central and southern Europe) without the loss of a single bomber to enemy aircraft.

The 99th Fighter Squadron received two Presidential Unit Citations (June-July 1943 and May 1944) for outstanding tactical air support and aerial combat in the 12th Air Force before joining the 332nd Fighter Group. The 332nd Fighter Group received the Presidential Unit Citation for its longest bomber escort mission to Berlin, Germany, March 24, 1945. They destroyed three German ME-262 jet fighters and damaged five additional jet fighters without losing any of the bombers or any of its own fighter aircraft to enemy aircraft.

The 332nd Fighter Group also distinguished themselves in June 1944 when two of its pilots flying P-47 Thunderbolt aircraft discovered a German destroyer in the harbor at Trieste, Italy. One of the pilots, Lieutenant Gynne Pierson of the 302nd Fighter Squadron, using only the aircraft's 50-caliber machine guns, strafed the destroyer, causing it to explode and sink. This was another unprecedented aerial gunnery feat of World War II.

Hoooweee. How could someone so good at killin commies be disrespected by anyone? I admire commie killin, perhaps a little more than the next man, and let me tell you, this is something to be admired. Die commies, Die! Stab Stab!

Sometimes I get so worked up. I've been watching Fox News a lot lately, tryin to get a little more gentle perspective, but evidently there is some people out there that go about disrespecting our president and his genius secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and their commie killin ambitions. This makes me mad, and I have to stab some commies to calm down.

Some of you may ask, is there such a thing as a good commie? Perhaps one that should go unstabbed for a little while? Well, I'm not one for moral judgements. It's hard to know what's in a man's heart and where the winds of change will blow. But I got one thing to say. IF YOU ARE A COMMIE, YOU GET STABBED! DON'T WANT TO GET STABBED? STOP SUPPORTING MASS MURDER, MASS STEALING, AND START SUPPORTING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS DO DO WHAT THEY WANT. DIE COMMIE SCUM!

Sunday, October 19, 2003
I'm still trying to find some good commie stabbin knives, in case some liberals/democrats/socialists/fascists write something else on the internet. I didn't know they were allowed to post that kind of stuff. Its shocking.

It's come down to a choice between this capitalist tool, this vicious commie stabber, or this ideology correction device. Some of you may wonder why I don't need bigger tools to do the job - like this one. Well I don't want anyone to talk like that, so I'm just going to get all 4.

Someone sent me this great review of this game called Rush'n Attack. (Rush'n - Russian - heh). Here is what the review says:

See, Commie soldiers in this game have rifles for which to blow you away with. However, they tend not to fire at you. Instead, running right into you is the best method of eliminating the U.S. budinski! Commie soldiers run at a blazing 3mm per hour, which has enough centrifical force to blow away a piece of paper, a speck of dirt, and a U.S. soldier made out of blue pixels. You, on the other hand, have a knife for this mission. Instead of stabbing Commies with the knife, you just stick the knife out in front of you and hope a Commie runs into it. Commies, having the I.Q. of a donut, only run one direction: left. Get it? Left? Communists? Liberals? Ha ha ha! Okay, it wasn't that funny. What do you expect? I ain't "politically correct" or anything.

When you reach the end of a level, you fight a boss. At least, that's what's supposed to happen. In this game, you fight a billion Commies that run right into you in the first level. Then you probably do other things, but who cares? You know the U.S. is going to win! After all, the Berlin Wall fell! And think about it! Ronald Reagan + United States of America = Fall of Communism! It's a simple equation that most conservatives know and are proud of! All that's left is to enter the super-secret level, where you fight past a dozen Californians that love Commies for their ideals, despite the fact that Stalin killed 20 million of his own people. Why'd he do it? Because he's a nut! On any account, fight them off, and you'll go head to head against the evil "Jane Fonda Robot" which tries to throw you towards a POW camp in Vietnam, where you will be tortured! To win, use your Second Amendment Attack you received from Charleton Heston! Victory in the USA!

So remember readers, never stand up for worker's rights! Only the lefts! Oh wait. That came out wrong. Hmmmm. I may have to stab some commies to resolve this contradiction.

I'm all worked up on account of reading Bill O'Reillys new book "Its Commie Stabbin Time", no wait, I just looked at the cover, it's called "Who's Looking Out for You?".Trust me, its not the commies or their alien overlords. Seriously, its very good. I have a much clearer and more focused outlook after reading it. I think my commie stabbin accuracy will go up to 5 nines, from 4 nines.

Saturday, October 18, 2003
When an article has a paragraph like this:

The data flies in the face of received notions about wealth, partisan affiliation, and dependence on the federal government. The five largest recipients of federal largesse in 2002 were all non-Northeast states: New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska, Mississippi, and West Virginia (four of which went Republican in 2000). The states shortchanged the most were New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Massachusetts - four of five of which are in the Northeast, and four of which voted Democratic in 2000. In fact, when you look at the voting behavior of states based on 2000 per capita income - 11 of the 13 wealthiest states voted for Gore while 15 of the poorest 17 states voted for Bush.

You know someone needs to get stabbed with a toy Tonka truck. Slowly, repeatedly, methodically and painfully.

I myself prefer this very cool knife for critical commie stabbing tasks requiring "5 9's" reliability (i.e. .99999 reliable), but my younger readers need to use whatever tool is handy to stop the commie menace.

The monkey poop above has managed to stick itself to a study done by The Tax Foundation
The Tax Foundation seems fairly neutral to me. Well, I guess they are not advocating violent death of money stealing communists, so that makes them raving lunatic monkeys, but aside from that, it seems like they are fairly neutral poopflingers.
The center piece of the study is a map showing "Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes by State" which, in english, means how much money the "federal senators' and representatives' cronies and pet programs get" divided by how much money the "federal government stole from the state". In other words local corruption divided by federal stealing.

But lets put that aside for a moment. The monkey poop says that the wealthiest states have the lowest ratios and vote for democrats (except for texas?), and that this is surprising because only republicans are rich and democrats are poor hardworking folk. Well, I got news for you people - the poor hardworking folk are in rural areas and they vote Red for Republican (hopefully not Red for commies, but you never know) . Yessssss. The poop is melting quite nicely in the hot sun, my precioussssssssss.

The poop also says that poor states vote for Bush, and that this is surprising because republicans are all rich elitists. Sigh.

Lets all remember the truth. We are taking about local corruption divided by federal stealing. Both corruption and stealing SHOULD GO TO ZERO. At that point the ratio swings wildly and becomes meaningless.
Also, The money back to the state is always representative of corruption because the money NEVER gets back to the original taxpayer as cold hard cash.

The conclusion that democrats are somehow more moral and less dependent on the government is just more monkey poop in a forest full of screaming monkeys with diarrhea.

What this really means is that democrats put in place stealing programs - because all they know how to do is steal. When the distribution of stolen goods comes along, those places that DID NOT LET THEMSELVES BE ROBBED get more stolen goods because those places that set up policies for stolen goods distribution must distribute those goods to all states, not just to democratic states.

States like MA and California are unable to resist being robbed by the federal government because they are controlled by democrats who, being democrats, are unable to articulate any reasons against stealing by anyone (otherwise they would look foolish). While some people stand up and refuse to be robbed, almost no one refuses stolen goods. States have different mixes - some have no political power, and are forced to pay high taxes (New Jersey). Others have high political power, and pay low taxes because they are hard places to live (Alaska). Other states resist robbery, but have even lower local corruption (Texas).

Until next time, dear reader,
as always, remember that guns don't kill people, democrats do.

--Proud supporter of trigger locks for all democrats.

Friday, October 17, 2003
Everyone check out this flash soundboard where you can make Arnold say about 100 of his famous one liners on command. I highly recommend anything with curse words and exclamation marks. My favorite is the one marked "RAM STOMACH"
If you're weak and puny and can't handle Arnold's manliness, I recommend Samuel L Jackson's flash soundboard. My favorite is "English motherfucker. Do you speak it?"

Speaking of cursing, I'm very glad the Red Sox lost yesterday. I was watching the Yankess batter in the last inning, and he hit a homer exactly when I wanted. The CIA should buy my mind control device. Why do I hate the Red Sox, you ask? Its because their fans are liberals and say things like this (I'm not kidding):

1) The Red Sox have a good "afterbirth" this year. You get a good afterbirth in Fenway (the stadium).

2) We just want a good clean game (said about the game that the Red Sox needed to win to advance)

What part of baseball don't these people understand?

*I* understand baseball. You hit things with sticks. What's the problem here? Could it be that the Red Sox are located in the middle of a BUNCH OF COMMIES????

Its not the curse of Babe Ruth, its the curse of socialism. A SELF INFLICTED curse. Red Sox fans are like self blowing up Palestinians. And the Red Sox are the Jews.

In unrelated news, I bought the computer game Max Payne 2 yesterday. You play a trigger happy cop who is in a film noir type story having a love affair. The story is really well done, and you really feel like Max is a real person due to the graphic novel style storyboard style transition panels that happen every 10 minutes or so.

Wednesday, October 15, 2003
The Supreme Court said today it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
The phrase "under God" was not part of the original pledge adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.

Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

The thing that disturbs me the most about this is that every single piece of media is reporting about the wrong issue. The issue is not about God! Its about the legacy of the great Joe McCarthy and his fight against the commies. Joe had those words put into the pledge so we could know how we were different from the commie scum, because in 1954, there were tons of commie scum, probably from the north east (same as today) who just couldn't see how America was different from a frozen hellhole full of commies led by a mass murdering psychopath who killed 100 million people.

Think about it rationally. If you don't believe in God, then it's meaningless for you to be "under him". Its just more liberal trash, of the same kind that your teacher spoonfeeds you every day. If you have a religion which believes in God (Btw the American word for God - any god, is God, get it? God....), then you're fine with believing the same thing the founders of America did. What's left? Jews? Muslims? The have a God. He's called God. If they want to call him something else, we need to beat them with a dictionary until they learn English.

So who is it that is really responsible for this farcical debate? The Rastafarians? The Satanists? The Wiccans? Hell no.


As always, the truth is clear. The commies want this Joe McCarthy slap in the face eliminated.

I, unlike commies, am NOT A COMMIE.
I propose we change the pledge to:
"We pledge allegiance to this great land, and our president, and his secretary of killing godless commie scum, Donald Rumsfeld, may his memory live forever."

See, no Problem with God there. Calling commies the godless scum that they are is allowed by any standards of separation of church and state.

Tuesday, October 14, 2003
As many of you know, Bush and Sadaam had a debate before the war, which Sadaam won hands down, according to the democratic experts.

Recently, through my elite grasp of anti-americanism, I have managed to find Sadaam and get him to participate in round 2 of the debate, via videoconference.

Here is the transcript of this momentous event:

Bad Commie [Moderator]: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the 2nd Iraqi-American debate.

BC: This is for both parties. Where is Sadaam?

Bush [US Dictator]: The US Military will find him, wherever and whenever he will be in the future. We will not fail, even if I have to land on another carrier and declare major sadaam search operations over, and the IRAQI people to be full of liberty.

Sadaam [IRAQI Dictator]: I'm right here. I'm not sure where, because the lights just went out. Iraq has always had crappy electrical service for non-presidential-palace areas.

Bush: That narrows it ! Rummy, target anywhere the lights are out !

Rummy [Secretary of Killing Commies]: That's all the Mid-East except for Israel, and also large portions of France. France . . . hmm . . . [Rummy leaves]

BC: [15 minute delay] OK, Sorry about that viewers, but Paris has just been nuked. Moving On, Where are the WMD?

Sadaam: I think one just hit Paris.

Bush: What, why are you so biased? Sadaam just said they are in Paris. Why don't the UN inspectors look there?

Sadaam: I agree with the Great Satan, but I must caution him that the French scientists will probably lie about having nukes, just like they lied to me about selling me working ones.

BC: Umm...I think its the US that has the nukes, we seem to have gotten a little bit off subject. Let me rephrase the question, Where are the weapons of mass destruction, not those that destroy masses of people like conventional bombs, but the ones that, unless they are found, will help the democrats win the election?

Sadaam: I never had a problem winning the election. Have you considered making statues of yourself?

Bush: He is dodging the question, Where are the WMD?

Sadaam: I had some melted down and used to make more statues when we ran out of statue materials last year. Personally, the last week of my reign I was desperately searching for some WMD's myself, so I can sympathize with the Great Satan. All my scientists were not answering my phone calls, and the most I could find were a bunch of 5 year old suicide bomber volunteers ! I'm quite happy to have the infidels take over the search. If you find any, let me know, and I will tell Abdul, my minister of scientist torture, to stop torturing the scientists.

Bush: You mean we destroyed the WMDs when we toppled the statues? How will I ever win the election then?

Sadaam: Maybe Osama will manage another attack just in time. Besides, you are not going to win, I will run on the democratic ticket - the democrats love a man in uniform.

BC: OK, OK, moving on, we need to win the debate right now, not the election. I'm pretty sure Saddam can't be US president.

Bush: We'll see about that.

BC: First things first. OK, next question is for Sadaam. How much did the French help you?

Sadaam: The French took all the oil I could give them, praise Allah. They kept asking for more. Unfortunately, none of the WMD's and nuclear parts they gave me would work. The instructions were all in some foreign gibberish that my scientists couldn't understand. Why can't they use English ? Thinking about it, I would say the French hurt more than they helped. With friends like the French, what do I need a war with the US for ?

Bush: I need to win the election by keeping democratic SUVs supplied with oil.

BC: Next Question, Dictator Bush, if Sadaam apologized for trying to assassinate your father, would you still have legally invaded IRAQ?

Bush: Why do you keep calling me a dictator? I'm the president!

BC: To be fair to Sadaam.

Bush: Oh OK. I'm for fairness.

Sadaam: He's dodging the question!

Bush: OK, OK. Actually, I've been mad at Dad several times myself. Between the way he treats me for buying a ranch and trying to be a cowboy, instead of a Yalie, and how he's always mentioning that I didn't fly the cool fighter planes like he did, it does get on my nerves.
The real issue here is not my dad, or any apology, but the safety of the American people. The US legally invaded to insure that safety.
Sadaam, just tell us once and for all, Did you give your WMDs to Osama before we invaded ?

Sadaam: Don't worry Great Satan, I just sent them to Syria. Look, I know my free days are numbered. All I want is for you to stop Rumsfeld from putting his face on my statues and arranging them in kissing poses. For thirty years I have worked hard to create a positive pro-statue environment in IRAQ. Anyway, I have to go. [Sadaam Leaves]

Bush: OK, See you later!

BC: And that ends the debate! Thank you both for participating.

I just finished reading L.E. Modesitt JR'S BOOK "The Ethos Effect".
It is a very thoughtful philosophical look at one man's decision to use evil to resist evil. The Space Opera has the elements of:
weak minded fools not resisting evil men
using mass killing to destroy the cancer of evil.

The author also points out that stealing and the redistribution of resources is morally equivalent to killing. All of these things make this thoughtful and careful book highly relevant to geopolitical issues today.

The author is not a sick twisted pansy like the democrats and the French. By the end of the book the main character works his way up to nuking the home world of the cancerous invading society (btw that society uses religion to justify conquest and repression).

Frankly I think we need to nuke more cities. The last time we used nukes, it had a very positive effect on the world, although it made the Russians paranoid for 50 years, but hey, lets face it - the Russians would have been paranoid anyway.

Here are the places the main character would nuke if he lived in today's world and was given the solemn responsibility (and the weapons) of nuking things by an all wise alien species with implicit faith in his judgment:

1) Paris - just for general vermin extermination, and to stop the lazy people there from stealing
2) Saudi Arabia - Makes it easier to steal the oil, and we don't have to pay them money which corrupts them (* This is an excellent point made by the Arabs and I commend them for it).
3) Washington DC - There is no one who actually thinks these people have a net positive effect, is there? They steal so much, that its obvious there would be a net benefit (even in lives, not just in dollars - just ask the democrats) if the stealing was forcibly stopped.
4) Canada - just for practice - does anyone really live there? I didn't think so
5) The UN - yes, New York will have to go, but its a small price to pay for the loss of productivity caused when republicans listen to what people in the UN say and foam at the mouth.

I recognize that some of you may be uncomfortable with translating lives to dollars (except for those people in the government) and with so much nuking, so, to be fair, we will let all the prisoners on death row vote each nuking up or down.
Also, we would give an Arab American FBI agent (that was denied promotions after 9/11 and forcibly injected with a tracking device in the butt) 10 seconds to run inside the missile complex and try to disarm the missile. It would probably be about a 2 mile run.

Sunday, October 12, 2003
Was Joe McCarthy really a patriot? Was he actually hated by the people?
Why is there such a big fuss made about Joe?

Some people say that Joe was scaring the Hollywood types and making them feel bad. Hmm... I wonder, Can Hollywood types fake feeling bad?
Some people say that Joe was secretly working for Stalin.
Some people say that communism was completely harmless and that Joe was wrong to make people state their views publicly.
Some people get confused about how much of the democratic party was actually infiltrated by communists (A LOT - just look at the modern day socialism found on the east coast - those people haven't changed a bit).
Some people blame Joe for everything the HUAC (House of Unamerican Activities Comittee) did. Joe was mainly against commies in the government. HUAC was against commies in Hollywood (like that worked).

Well, its no wonder that people say these things. Media literacy and critical thinking are not part of the subjects taught by the educational system (* which must be given more money if it doesn't work in any way whatsoever). Well, no matter. No smart person ever got his smarts from a school anyway.

Some people say that Joe was just distracting us from fighting commies, because, since we weren't going to be able to shoot the liberals, there wasn't much point in making them go on record as being commies. I suppose that's fair enough. He certainly should have shot more people. I must point out that there was no rope shortage in Texas at that time, making his lack of killing commies completely inexcusable. Was Joe a bad anti-communist? At the very least, Joe directed a lot of media attention to something other than shooting commies - It is clearly a felony to not shoot commies. We should all have had pictures of Stalin and been practicing shooting them with rifles.

However its very sad that few people know the actual truth:

With the opening of the KGB archives and the release of the VENONA intercepts - decoded Soviet KGB and GRU traffic - it has been proved that McCarthy was absolutely right about the extensive Soviet penetration of the U.S. government in all the most sensitive sections and its danger to America. According to the KGB archives the NKVD had 221 agents in the Roosevelt administration in April 1941 and the Soviet military GRU probably had a like number. He was proved right that the Communist Party, U.S.A., was an arm of the Soviet intelligence apparatus and the Soviet Union considered the US as their "main enemy." His liberal critics in academe and the mainstream media, who denied there was Communist subversion and made excuses for it, were proved absolutely wrong! This should have discredited the liberal ideology and those who mouthed it. Because the left had no answer or effective reply to the challenge McCarthy posed, they engaged in personal destruction - they smeared and demonized McCarthy because he was truth.

And take this, you commie scum, your own Kennedys betray you:

In February 1952, John Kennedy called McCarthy a "great American patriot." In 1953 Bobby Kennedy joined McCarthy's staff and McCarthy was godfather to Bobby's first child. Bobby was always loyal to Joe.

So, to recap:

1) With the release by the NSA of Venona and the opening of the KGB archives, we know that McCarthy was absolutely right in being drunk and scared and asking people where they stood. There were communist party members at the highest levels of the US government that were reporting directly back to Russia. That's murderous Stalin Russia, not friendly siberian pelmeni, fur hat, vodka and herring Russia. This should have made all normal people drunk and scared and inquisitive.

2) Joe's famous "I have a list in my hands of Commies" speech was precisely correct.
J Edgar Hoover's organization gave the president (a commie - FDR) a list of 200 suspected commie agents in the government. This was later proved to be accurate by the 1995 soviet release. FDR hated Hoover and completely ignored him. The senate wanted to know what happened to these people who Hoover had caught regularly communicating with the SU. That is the real story. McCarty did not make up any list. He was refering to a list made by law enforcement officials which the president ignored, but eventually the criminal president was forced to stop the cover up of the commie infiltrators:

Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the State Department. Though the subcommittee cleared them all, within one year a State Department Loyalty Board instigated proceedings against 49 of the 62, and by the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy’s list had either resigned from their government posts or been dismissed.

These were not small fish: Head of the Office of Political Affairs of the State Department; Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; and even the personal assistant of Bill Donovan, who directed OSS (the predecessor of the CIA). If FDR, a dying man in 1944, had died a few months earlier, then Vice President Henry Wallace would have become President and the Secretary of State for the United States would have been an agent of the Soviet Union. The Rosenbergs were not only guilty of espionage at Los Alamos, but the Soviets actually had several different rings of spies sending masses of documents from Los Alamos to the Kremlin.

The next president almost prosecuted the previous one for treason. Can you imagine 50-100 members of Radical Islam in the State department in the present day?

3) Joe's real crime was that he brought down a dozen powerful democratic senators (including majority leader and whip). All demonization of him in the next half century stems from that fact. Do you really think anyone would care if Joe pointed out that Hollywood types are socialist? Give me a break. That's always been obvious to everyone.

Here's the truth:

By 1953 - McCarthy was credited with defeating a dozen Democrat senators including Senate majority leader Ernst McFarland, majority whip Francis Myers of PA, powerful 4-term Senator Millard Tydings of MD, Scott Lucas of IL, and Elbert Thomas of UT. McCarthy almost single-handedly destroyed the Democrat party and they vowed revenge. A group of left-wing assassins created a group called the Clearing House to smear McCarthy. They got much of their information from columnist Jack Anderson.

So, now we see that Joe McCarthy is famous, not for the evil he was speaking out against, but for who he destroyed - democratic senators.

Saturday, October 11, 2003
Besides the California recall election, one of the other things I am enjoying in national news recently is the Texas redistricting. For those of you that are unfamiliar, redistricting is when you group people and make them vote in blocs. For example, a favorite tactic of those doing the redistricting is to group their enemies very densely in a couple of groups, and to give themselves [50%+margin] majorities in the other groups. This insures control of the maximum number of blocs (but exposes yourself to major failure, should your policies experience a mild setback). You can also eliminate powerful opposition leaders by getting rid of their blocs. Redistricting increases reward, but also the risk of being able to hold on to power should a minor political shift occur.

The interesting thing about this redistricting is

1) How stupid the Democratic constituents and leaders are. They completely fail to offer any rational argument against the redistricting. All their arguments studiously avoid any issue of a fair representation of what the people actually believe. All their blathering studiously avoids any rational measure of past or present unfairness. Their main arguments seem to be viciously circular and self-referential in nature.

2) How unfair and whiny the democrats are. Here are the simple facts:

The three-judge panel working on the new map concluded, in Bensen's words, that Texas plan used in the 1990's constituted "a Democrat gerrymander." Michael Barone, author of "The Almanac of America Politics" and one of the most astute analysts of election data in the country reached a similar conclusion.

Writing in one edition of the almanac, Barone called the Clinton-era Texas map "the shrewdest gerrymander of the 1990s."

The Democrats won 70 percent of the Texas congressional seats in 1992, the first year in which it was operative, while taking half of the total number of votes cast for Congress statewide. This measure, while imprecise owing to factors like uncontested races, is nevertheless a very good gauge of party support among the voters at the congressional level.

The map put in place for 2002 is somewhat more equitable, but is, as a number of analysts suggest, still a gerrymander. Republican candidates running for the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2002 won 57 percent of the total statewide congressional vote while winning 15 -- fewer than half -- of the seats in the 32-member delegation.

In that same election the Republicans won every statewide office on the ballot and, for the first time in 130 years, became the majority party in both chambers of the state Legislature -- and by sizeable margins.

To make it ultra clear, the map in place the last 10 years perverted the people's wishes by (70%-50%) = 20% in favor of the democrats. The new map is perverting people's wishes in favor of the democrats by (57-15/32) = 8% or (100-57)= 43%, depending on which of the two paragraphs you pick.

I would like to support democrats. I would like to support fiscally conservative democrats. But until the party leaders stop being elitist, and untill the sheep that vote for the party leaders show some small sign of independance, I can not. So I am reduced to heckling the republicans and trying to get them to have sex with male monkeys so they become gay. Gay republicans are funny. They make other republicans froth at the mouth.

Redistricting is why California, a known ultra democrat state (but not more extremist than the conformist lemming-like Massachussetts), can all of the sudden vote 65% for republicans in statewide elections (the Recall). When the districts fail to contain the power of the enemy, they fail big and spectacularly.

About primaries, For those of you that are curious, elections with primaries are frauds because elites get to vote twice for their favorite candidate. Once in the primary and once in the real election.

One possible bad outcome of a double vote (besides the inherent unfairness - other people didn't vote twice!) is:
With the first vote, people close in positions to the winner's preferred choices are eliminated, thereby disenfranchizing moderates in the non primary election, and radicalizing the final vote.

Friday, October 10, 2003
I haven't been keeping keeping up with the empty blathering escaping the bowels of Washington DC lately. Have they done anything interesting? Maybe a particularly smelly fart? Did the freedom fries get renamed to pestilence fries?

Instead, I am quite enjoying these pictures of some happy IRAQI children getting gifts from a gift drive that an american soldier organized. Oh yeah, they really hate us allright.

What do you think? Should I go to washington DC and start protesting some particularly dense and vicious democratic hack for "excessive republicanism"? Or should I be protesting them for being "too good looking and caring"?
I think I can round up some chimps, put mini skirts on them, and hold up signs saying "It's not adultery if she's not human. -- Clinton approved". Of-course, these will be male chimps. This will come as a great shock to the public when I out the republican senators that have purchased their services. Heh. I made republicans gay. Heh.

Don't get me wrong, republicans are much much better than democrats. I expect the ratio of chimp customers will be 3:1, democrat to republican.

Thursday, October 09, 2003
I am very happy to have discovered some more bad communists on the internet. I think they are located somewhere in the IRAQ root level domain.
A few short months ago, this group of people were loyal patriotic paragons of perfect Russian style socialism, with a leader who patterned himself after Stalin, right down to the statues, moustache and cult of personality. Then, overnight, some Texan comes along and goes on a vicious unprovoked statue molesting spree. Somehow, this outrageous statue groping totally changes the IRAQi people so they forget all about their elite skills at practicing communism and start saying horrific things like this (that only a utterly incompetent communist would say):

Iraqis like others insist on their rights for Dignity, Freedom, Justice and Peace. Asserting these rights is the foundation for tomorrow's Iraq. The dignity of a human being in Iraq will be protected without exception, without consideration for social status, political position and economic situation. We will not give away the dignity of an accused even if convicted guilty. We begin with dignity because the previous regime worked to convince the Iraqi that his dignity is an endowment from the ruler. We confirm today that the dignity of the nation stems from the dignity of each citizen in it.

As with dignity, so too freedom. Freedom is not a gift from the ruler and the state. It is a principle, a basis and the essence of a human being. Responsible freedom that does not impinge upon the freedom of others is the core of the social contract. Despite the excesses that outsiders and infiltrators have inflicted, with the fall of the repressive regime, Iraqis have proven to themselves that freedom is not chaos.

and this:

The new Iraq will certainly uphold all human rights, starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including of course the right of man to life, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Heh. Property. Heh. I guess the little buggers didn't like their stuff (like oil) taken away, huh, Rumsfeld?

Hey, I was wondering.
Sadaam, in one of his big crimes, drained the marshes. Is there any way we can drain the swamp of Massachussetts and move that crazy statue molesting texan and his kin in? Heh.


I stand in front of you today representing the voice of the Iraqi citizen who has long suffered from cruelty within and outside his homeland. Those within his country have inflicted on him the worst kinds of torture: they have attacked his honour, betrayed his family, humiliated him, enchained him and thrown him into miserable wars. His brothers and friends in the region not only maintained silence, ignorance and blindness toward his catastrophe, they also criticised him and shamed him the day he dared raise his voice. And throughout the world, those that stood to benefit scrambled to trade and work with his torturer.
To those who stood with the dictator and who continue to question the intentions of the American and British governments in undertaking this liberation, we invite you to come and visit the mass graves where half a million of our citizens lie, come and visit the dried up marshes, come and visit Halabja where chemicals were dropped on civilians, come and examine the lists of the disappeared whose right to live was taken away from them by Saddam Hussein. And we the Iraqi people will ask you why you chose to remain silent.

Fuck France. Heh. Heh. Heh.

So, having read the horrific words above, I am forced to issue a sober warning:
Unless you want to be a bad bad bad communist, watch out for that crazy statue hating Texan and his fucking life, property and the pursuit of happiness. Heh.

So, how much is a good texan style troll like this worth? Huh?

P.S. Don't get me wrong. I love the violent commie hating Rumsfeld and hope he strangles lots of people.

Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Yippe! Arnold is in! I can't wait for him to do something entertaining. I hope he runs over some smelly hippie with a hummer.

All those useless liberal elitists can do is talk about how stupid the voters were, how Arnold has no plan (he had the most detailed one out of all the candidates), and how Gray lost his job because Bush ruined the economy. Of-course, it has nothing to do with the incompetence of democrats.
Want proof?
Then you are clearly a liberal and must be shot. Heh.
But you can read this leftist drivel for some very entertaining discussion.

From the Metafilter thread:
"Oh, and he molested women. Non of "our" candidates ever do that. Plus the man can't even say "blow jobs" right. PLO CHOPS?! What the hell! He tawks funny! He's a furriner! I mean... er... wait... isn't "furriner" what /those sort/ say?"

About the groping, let me clarify it for you: Calling anyone who was groped by Arnold any kind of a victim is sheer idiocy. What woman wouldn't want the most desirable man in the world (Mr Universe, remember) groping her? After all, that means that the most desirable man desires ***her***. Get it? I'll Win one for the Groper any day.

Speaking of democrats, I don't know why they keep on missing that the dot commie bubble popped in Clinton's last year and that California was probably singlehandedly responsible for it. Of Course, from a tehcnical level, the pop was mainly due to that communist operating system called Linux. Excuse me that's GNU/Hitler/Stalin/Linux.

BTW, I was a very strong Clinton supporter because I am pro blow job (and pork chop) and pro president - pretty much any president.
I would much rather shoot (for the FBI agents - I mean "hold accountable", everyone else - I mean shoot) all of congress, than shoot the president. After all, its congress that makes the laws that annoy us (oh and the president has all the guns).

Unfortunately, Clinton (or his self assigned help - Monica) never blew me. I can only hope this disturbing trend of no blow jobs will be broken when I elect Hillary in 2008, so I can watch the right wingers froth at the mouth.

P.S. To the FBI Agents - why haven't you fuckers caught Osama yet? What, you think I care that you're the wrong three letter acronym?

Tuesday, October 07, 2003
I do not regularly ask God for favors, but this morning I started off with a prayer:

Dear God,
Please, please eat the mentally disturbed and held back Gray Davis, who thinks the first real election held in the United States in 100 years is a right wing cospiracy. How can something so beautiful, with so many gorgeous candidates, and without the vile political mafia primaries be wrong?

For the Gray there is only one reward. I suggest a saute with onions, with a light cream sauce, and a California wine.

Also, while you are on a murderous rampage, please take out the fat greaseball straight into the trash. We need less fat in our diets.

Although you have a very developed sense of irony and you might think its fitting that Califronia be governed by the man that makes the best movies (Larry Flynt), I urge you to leave it up to the people.


P.S. Why haven't you killed that fucker Allah yet, you incompetent scum. What, you think we can't recall YOU?

Sunday, October 05, 2003
I was reading my favorite (or at least the one I find most coherent) piss on america rag,
the Asia Times, and I stumbled on this wonderful article: about media bias. Here is the article in visual form:
biased news
The misconceptions themselves are interesting (and not lies in the republican sense and are lies in the democrat sense), but what I really want to talk about is the questions. Here are my ideas of good questions:
1) Which is more dangerous to the survival of your children -- buying a handgun or putting in a swimming pool ?
2) Is the "Health Care Crisis" an issue made up by democrats to scare people into voting for them?
3) Are democrats more elitist than republicans?
4) Do you get your news by reading 4 or more sources with 4 radically different points of view?

For my democrat friends, you see its a matter of WHICH misconceptions you focus on. Are any of you people upset that publically funded PBS/NPR is not bothering to provide unbiased news? After all, to see if you are biased, you just need to ASK. Nothing simpler than that.

For my republican friends, don't worry, its IS still legal to shoot foreign trash. And the real opinion that matters here is that of the IRAQis. IRAQis KNOW that "Weapons of Mass Destruction are a danger to everyone" means "things that destroy lots of people" in the hands of mass murdering rapists who were encouraging terrorists everywhere.
You see, the IRAQis don't need to get elected US president, and they don't speak english very well, so they tend to "misinterepret" what WMD means to be something that won't get a democrat elected. IRAQIs are also not up and up about the whole weapons vs programs distinction, since whether it takes Sadaam 30 minutes to make the poision to kill their village, or if Sadaam uses an already existing weapon (like a nice french russian bomb), or if he merely threatens to gas them like he's done before, is kind of irrelevant to them. Silly IRAQis! How partisan of them to be such republicans. Oh well, can't win them all! I'm sure they'll make fine democrats one day!

I hate commies. They should all be cooked and eaten.

Recently I've been thinking about the evil influence of baseball and why crime is good for you.

You've heard of the "three strikes and yer out" laws, right?

That's the ones where we lock up a guy for 17 years when he robs a cash register for 50 dollars, so he can eat some food because his minimum wage job doesn't cut it.

So lets see (putting on my math tin foil hat with mind protection),
17 years times $30,000 dollars a year to lock up a commie, divided by 50 dollars per robbery =
10,000 robberies!

Which means robbing the conviniece store EVERY DAY for 27 straight years!
So the justification for robbing the citizens 10,000 times is baseball logic. We wouldn't have this 3 strikes bullshit, IF NOT FOR FUCKING BASEBALL!!!!!

Who is it really that's the criminal here? Is it the guy that commiteed one robbery or the people that committed 10,000 robberries of honest tax payers (people not like Ariana Huffington, who paid no taxes)? Who has stolen who's base? Who has corrupted who's society with its mindless mind control concepts?

To my sadness, the rational, fair and balanced position on this is clear.

The time to get shot up against the wall has come, Sadaam Lover. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who is against any kind of minor crime should be SHOT IMMEDIATELY. With a very big mean gun. And then beaten up with a baseball bat. And after they are dead, we can chase them around with a riding lawnmower and try to run over them.

What communists don't understand is that minor crime is an efficient way of redistributing charity because hungry "criminals" often rob the fat cats - just like democrats rob the fat cats, except more efficiently (which means they can steal less money for the same result). Isn't it funny how criminals, the big bad boogeymen of our society, steal less money than the democrats? Perhaps we should outsource the role of "loyal" opposition to the criminals, hmmm?

A picture of some commies:

/end truth

Powered by Blogger