« Israel Needs Aircraft Carriers | Main | Another School Shooting? Time to Try Something Different »

February 15, 2008


Correct! "Buy democracy." The Democrat way. (Note: Capital "D") Money and power are synonymous. From " Just a po' governor from Arkansas." What is the purpose, and from where, did all that money come? Cattle trades for the homeless? Geo. Washington made similar observation on Democrat's ideology back in 1798, while still contained within the whig-opposing Democrat-Republicans party. The GOP split later happened because Republicans, foreseeing results of tyranny of the majority, rejected malignant Democrat ideology. My father wisely said: There's nothing democratic about the Democrat party." They have always been about empowerment of an elite aristocracy. History reveals Democrats have been most consistent on their operations w.r.t to the privileged. Some stand out more than others. Actions precipitating the Civil War, WWI: Woodrow Wilson, WWII Franklin D. and Harry S. Even JFK. Al Gore's Buddhist monks, Barack's, and Hill's "pure as the driven snow" benefactors. Power at any cost. And, "These laws I create for you, just do not apply to me."

[From DemocracyRules: Thank you for these useful historical insights. It is only in recent decades that the Dems have come to represent the left, and the Repubs the right. However, your comments about Dem pursuit of 'aristocratic power' still seems to apply, even today. Marxism/Socialism has always been about seizing control of the state for oneself. The proletarians have never ruled. ]

{Comments from HuffPo, Lanny Davis column:
"NABNYC (See profile | I'm a fan of NABNYC)
Are the Democratic Party insiders really so stupid that they don't understand why the citizens are upset about this superdelegate bs?

The question isn't whether the citizens "trust" the insiders to do the right thing.

The question is why would a party insider be given 10,000 votes, while I just get one? I work for a living. I pay taxes. I vote democratic. I'm way over 21. Yet I see a 21 year old very young man on TV saying he's a superdelegate, and he gets to vote 10,000 times.

It is not democratic when a small group of party insiders select the candidate, while decieving the citizens into believing that their vote is what counts.

Nobody knew about this until recently. Or at least nobody except the party insiders.

Another thing. I have sent e-mails to several party insiders asking them whether superdelegates are prohibited from accepting anything of value from candidates or from anyone? Is there a disclosure requirement? This young man noted that he'd been getting calls from Bill Clinton, and Chelsea was wining and dining him. Isn't that a clear conflict of interest?

Nobody answers my question about the money. Is this just another system to allow party insiders to collect bribes? Maybe the author would like to respond." }

'It is not democratic when a small group of party insiders select the candidate, while deceiving the citizens into believing that their vote is what counts.'

Correct: This Democratic. Note the capital "D." Nothing democratic about it. Its a farce, a "play on words." We must read between the lines.

'Nobody answers my question about the money. Is this just another system to allow party insiders to collect bribes? Maybe the author would like to respond." }
Yes. http://donklephant.com/2008/02/22/hillary-will-try-to-seat-michigan-and-florida/She is going to try to seat the Michigan and Florida delegation. Read Wikipedia, superdelegates: They'll have 20% of the "say." Criticism. Carefully note: "The Democratic Party has been criticized for conducting its nominating process in an undemocratic way." Duh! The carpetbagging Clintons are not finsihed. For starters: Money and Energy are synonymous. Power is the time derivative of energy. And, money. Politics, Latin is the struggle for power. Its always been about Money/Power. Face it, we all seek that commodity that we can trade for necessities like food, transportation etc. Lets call it Oil! It will still be: "Buy Democracy." Delegates will hold out to the highest bidder. Lubrication shall flow. I think the 2008 Democrat convention will make the infamous 1968 convention look like a cake-walk. We might see a Bleeding Denver.

I hear lots of talk of "change." This "change" I've heard seems resurrecting the principles of Marxism, once thought "relegated to the ash-heap of history." I'm sure the founding fathers and the Gipper are spinning. If somebody doesn't back down; Will the result be an Obasm: A clash of a messianic, irresistible force against a clintonian immovable object?

Perhaps, the result will be disintegration of the bat/bin-laden, Democrat party into multiple camps: The Marxist/Bolsheviks, and the National Socialists Workers. Perhaps, add a little sharia to the mix. They unite on the common theme of slavery: Ceding individual freedoms to an all-powerful elite/aristocracy for security. Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are created equal. Some animals are more equal than others." A dictatorship of the proletariat that "withers away" when bankrupt, or conquered. Supertramp: "History reveals how great the fall can be." The Who: "Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss." The Master: "A house divided against itself shall not stand." The great statesmen Abraham Lincoln and Sam Houston both echoed this line. They were not accused of plagiarism.

Now, This "Left" and "Right" stuff. As confusing as the "Red" and "Blue". I think the revisionism is to confuse the ignorant. Stalin proclaimed the value of useful idiots. My guess, is the press. Which, Rush affectionately calls "The drive-by media." Look who owns the press. I was raised when the commies were reds, the hawks were true blue. If the Democrats had their way back in the 1860's, the yoke of slavery would still be a reality. The party of Lincoln effected the emancipation. The civil rights act of 1964 only passed because of a majority Republican congress. Otherwise, we'd still have separate water fountains and rest-rooms. I can understand: British loyalists: conservative; The founders: radical liberal. Liber, Latin: To be free. The definitions are now flipped. Ben Franklin was asked: "What type of government will we have?" Answer: "A Republic madam, If you can keep it." Note: Peoples Republic of China; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They're not republics at all. Similarly, today's liberals aren't for freedom. That is toxic revisionism. Today's liberals wish us to cede our freedom.

The common thread: Fascism. Fascist totalitarianism. Deference of power to an elite few that are the "state." Albeit King George, ala Benito, or Adolph, Vladimir or Josef, Hills or his holiness Barack. I can't wait to see what happens in this Democrat convention.

Pax vobiscum.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog."



  • Before posting a comment, ask yourself whether it is polite, fair, and truthful. Comments are auto-deleted if they contain profanity (even with ast*ri*ks). Comments may also be edited or deleted if they include anything false, misleading, insulting, unethical, illogical or spamlike. Rude comments or spam result in a permanent ban of future comments.