More Yale Pervert Dirt & "Dumping Dubya: Why The Regressive Right Desperately Wants To Erase The Bush Presidency"
Mort Zuckerman
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com,
bob.d...@latimes.com
Subject: More Yale Pervert Dirt & "Dumping Dubya: Why The Regressive
Right Desperately Wants To Erase The Bush Presidency"
Date: Sep 25, 2009 4:50 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
============================
"3:11. For he that rejecteth wisdom, and discipline, is unhappy:
and their hope is *vain,* and their labours without fruit, and their
works unprofitable."
http://www.tldm.org/bible/Old%20Testament/wisdom.htm
It's funny that Heiney says Europe doesn't have a vision,
when the truth is that America doesn't have a vision- that
is, in the "LOOKING FORWARD" sense:
http://www.actionlyme.org/index.htm
Kissinger picks Gordon Brown for NWO Leader of Europe (I guess that's
because Blair flopped when they lost the Iraq War II):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6219992/EU-US-views-Europe-as-little-more-than-a-trade-partner.html
"Speaking in 2008, Kissinger identified a “vacuum between Europe’s
past and Europe’s future”. “Nation states have not just given up part
of their sovereignty to the European Union but also part of their
vision for their future. Their future is now tied to the European
Union, and the EU has not yet achieved a vision and loyalty comparable
to the nation state,” he said..."
And that vision of course would be loyalty to the NWO first, commerce,
first, a New Secular Order, first, and country second.
“Europe is a lot about process and Americans hate process,” says Mr
Volker, who is now at the Centre for Transatlantic Relations at John
Hopkins University. “But when you think what Europe stands for –
democratic foundation, rule of law, free markets, ***secularism,
standing up against radical Islam*** – these are things we are very
passionate about....”
"'Secularism,' 'standing up against A-Rabs'
(who happen to have all the oil). Don't let
morality hold you back from nation-rape
and getting rid of Iran, who might be the
great protector against the Greater Israel
which intends to help the USA manage the
refining and the pipelines... and in the end
be the World's Central Bank..."
[Yeah. We graduated from ^^^ that compulsory
primary school.]
He who would not be sensitive to the abhorrence by the Religious
(including the Muslims) of the illogic of spreading debasements,
would
not be sensitive to Western Society's debasements of women
(in particular), and would not detect a partner among the Religious
and the Muslims in Human Rights protections. People like that
have a hard time, for instance, associating gay queer behavior
and influencing children or young adults into accepting a lifestyle
based
on the thrill of images (porn and coming-out parades), and sexual
gratification as if gratification was the sole end of the behavior,
and not
for a common union to raise children and respect/cherish the wife and
mother.
Let me give you a for-instance:
http://www.drsusanblock.com/
This ^^^ Yale graduate is a pervert by anyone's standards, and look
at the images of herself!! How is this woman doing anything more
than debasing women?
That's just ASKING for sexual violence and sexual abuse.
My point is that condemning Bushisms for their moral debasements
and worshiping and promoting vain behaviors on the part of US
punditry hasn't captured the objections against US/Western world-
wide abuses. You have to capture the *ERROR* in everything VAIN:
http://www.actionlyme.org/DIABOLICAL_PERVERSION_PSYCHOANALYSIS.htm
All false beliefs serve some self-flattering purpose.
For the rest of the Regressive Right, none among the
Evangelitards who cheered the wars is really a Christian.
For one thing, they would be demonstrating that they had
no faith in The Word, alone, to be terrorizing Arabs, just
because the Arabs have oil and object to Israel's intentions
and human rights abuses, and for another thing, they
would be more interested in the Truth of Everything.
In general.
Evangelitards would be screaming about New Energy! if they
were smart enough or, ***HAD THE WILL to investigate***
if it were possible to supply the country with energy without
mass-murdering Arabs.
That's why I somewhat object to gay would-be scholars
who leave out the details of why Arabs object to Western
thought and behavior. They don't like the pervert stuff.
I don't blame them.
Sex obsession doesn't get anything done. Doesn't get
anything fixed. And it apparently warps even the
Evangelitards who *PREFER* (choose to) to focus on that,
rather than the facts and the *case* of Energy/Economy.
If there was one simple statement about what America's
main problem is, it would be that we can't focus on the
Truth, no matter what subject under that heading.
And *I* am *real* tired of saying the same damned thing for
30 years:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/6940a8d9e0024621/8591b95e0ece47f7?q=Bush%2FGore+ENERGY+&rnum=1#8591b95e0ece47f7
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_frm/thread/e4359868117b8d81/e066f6566802741e?q=lehrer+bush+gore+bombs+bursting+in+air&rnum=1#e066f6566802741e
We all knew we had this ^^^ energy problem in the 1970s.
Physics dictates it would not have gone away magically
on its own. That was the Reagan era. The Reagan era
was the era of magic.
There is *no* *excuse* *whatsoever* from the educated class
and the MSM for not screaming bloody murder about what
was happening to money/energy/society/wars/healthcare/foreign
relations all those years in between.
We lost the country because of a bunch of dicks, literally.
We lost it to *STUPID*: ME, ME, ME!! Mine, mine, mine!
'Self-blinded, arrogant, self-centered, short-sighted, perverted
vanity and me-ism, and the even the progressive pundits can't think
themselves out of it.
Nobody is holding out some Ring of Sanity on this Merri-go-round
for us to grab.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org/index.htm
=================================
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/24-5
Published on Thursday, September 24, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Dumping Dubya: Why The Regressive Right Desperately Wants To Erase The
Bush Presidency
by David Michael Green
Hey, wasn't that George W. Bush presidency really fantastic?
You do still remember it, don't you?
Wasn't it great? Don't you have lots of warm and fuzzy memories of
it? Isn't it a shame that he couldn't have a third term?
Okay, so maybe you don't see it that way. Maybe the last eight years
weren't such a party for you. But remember the regressive right?
Remember how much they loved the guy? Remember how they adored Ol'
Georgie, especially back in 2001, 2002, 2003? Remember how they
gloated and stuck it all in our faces? Remember how much they loved
not only Bush's politics, but his in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway,
love-it-or-leave-it, macho cowboy routine delivery?
I don't know about you, but I recall all of that really, really well,
thank you very much. Painfully well, one might say.
Which makes it all the more puzzling that the troglodytes of the right
seem to have disappeared their former grand hero almost completely
these days. Isn't that odd? They never talk about him anymore, as if
he had never even existed. They seem quite desperately to want to
vanish him entirely, like the body of some beaten-to-death prisoner at
Abu Ghraib.
Hmmm. Wonder why? Wonder what gives?
I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that it might have something
to do with the fact that the Bush presidency was a spectacular
failure. You know, a total train wreck. A complete cock-up. A
gigantic exercise in FUBAR so bad that nobody wants to be associated
with it, anymore than with syphilis or projectile vomit.
But that's kinda weird given the former adoration directed toward the
Caligula Kid. Isn't that kind of intellectually dishonest? Can it be
that the right in America is actually disingenuous? I mean, everyone
knows they are destructive, selfish, hypocritical, racist, sexist,
xenophobic, homophobic, imperialistic, nasty, brutish and short. But
who would have thought they were dishonest too? This is almost more
than I can bear!
If you pin a regressive to the wall and torture them (a practice which
I recommend as often beneficial for both parties involved), they will
do two things to try to stop you from beating them up about Lil' Bush.
First, they'll attempt to deflect your attention away from the whole
painful affair by talking about a certain Ronald Reagan fellow, patron
saint of lost causes. That's an interesting move, given that Junior
Bush was more Reaganistic than was Reagan himself. And, especially,
given that Reagan was last in the White House an entire generation
ago, making him about as relevant to many Americans today as Millard
Fillmore.
It's also more than a bit weird because, of course, Saint Reagan bears
little resemblance to Ron Reagan, the dude who actually was
president. (Indeed, Ron Reagan the person - a guy so out of it during
his presidency that he actually introduced himself to his own cabinet
members and his own children in White House receiving lines, and used
3 x 5 cue cards even to read his small talk lines with people ("Pretty
humid today, huh?" "How ‘bout those Yankees?") - actually bore little
resemblance to the presidency he played in the movies, but that's
another story entirely.) Saint Reagan solved all our economic
problems. Ron Reagan, on the other hand, gave us the worst recession
since the Great Depression (until little Bush would trump him), and
tripled the national debt (until little Bush trumped him again).
Saint Reagan was a great champion of American values. Ron Reagan
shredded the Constitution in the Iran-Contra Affair. Saint Reagan was
tough on the Soviets and ended the Cold War. Ron Reagan nearly agreed
to eliminate all American nukes in a pow-wow with Gorby, tucked tail
and ran from Lebanon, and was so powerful that he succeeded in rolling
back the Soviets from every square single inch of the Carribean island
of Grenada, current population 90,343. And so on...
So playing the Reagan card is the first game used to avoid the horrid
little reality of Bushism. But if that particular line of
diversionary legerdemain fails miserably, the next thing you're likely
to hear is that conservatives have abandoned George W. Bush because he
wasn't really a conservative.
This is my favorite. Oh yes, indeed.
Do they mean by that that Bush was too nice in his foreign policy,
concerning himself too frequently with world opinion rather than
American self-interest?
Do they mean that he failed to invade other countries - like, say,
Afghanistan or Iraq - when he should have?
Are they upset that he was too squeamish to deploy American military
forces in endless wars based on lies?
Or are they angry that the administration didn't privatize everything
in sight, including the country's armed forces?
Do they mean that he was too nice to the mealy-mouthed diplo-nothing-
burgers at the UN, rather than sending a thug over there to jam policy
down their throats?
Do they mean that he wasn't unilateral enough, always worrying about
what Europeans and other pansy countries were concerned about?
Is their problem with him that he coddled the Russians and refused to
shred the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty?
Or that he was far too deferential to bearded, Birkenstock-wearing, Al
Gore-adoring dittoheads, and wouldn't unsign the Kyoto Accord?
Or that he failed to undermine the International Criminal Court at
every possible opportunity?
Maybe it's all about how he negotiated too much with North Korea.
Are they angry that Bushiekins didn't have the guts to piss all over
international law by authorizing illegal invasions, torture and
renditions?
Are they miffed that he constantly kowtowed to Palestinian terrorists,
never taking the side of Israel in the endless rounds of Middle East
peace negotiations he presided over?
Oh, I know what I was. They're angry that he didn't slash taxes
during his presidency! That's obviously it.
Or, wait, was it that he was too pro-choice, both at home and in US
family planning policy abroad?
Maybe they're fuming because he didn't put real regressive, pro-
government, pro-executive branch, pro-corporate, 13th-century-social-
policy-preferring, justices on the Supreme Court - people like John
Roberts or Sam Alito, for example.
Could it be that they really wanted a president who would absolutely
thrash the historic barrier between church and state, and all they got
was this lousy Bush-Cheney 2004 tee-shirt instead?
Maybe they're pissed because Bush refused to spy on Americans. Or
that he was so weak-kneed that he went and got warrants before he did
it. Or that he waited for Congressional approval to do any of this.
Or is it that he refused in principle to autograph over a thousand
signing statements appended to legislation, which would have effective
wiped out the role of Congress in American government?
Possibly they don't think he was a real conservative because he
refused to jump on Air Force One and fly across the country in the
middle of the night in order to intervene in one family's legal,
medical and ethical nightmare over whether to unplug Terri Schiavo
from life support.
Maybe, as fans of small government, they're angry that he used FEMA so
effectively to save lives and to save the city of New Orleans, before,
during and after Hurricane Katrina.
Could it be that Bush was too tough on corporations, refusing to give
them tax credits for exporting American jobs, or blocking any massive
giveaways to them under his prescription drug bill?
Or was it that the Bush White House was just too much in favor of
corporate regulation, across the board?
Certainly it must have had a lot to do with how Bush took the lead in
fighting for the very survival of the planet by calling the country
into battle against the peril of global warming, a total fabrication
by evildoing scientists.
Are they mad that the Bush White House flinched at politicizing the
institutions of government - for example, I'll just pick one at random
here, the Justice Department - in order to turn them into agents of
the Republican Party?
Or are they angry that there was hardly any cronyism in the
administration, so that party workers could never get government jobs
- say like running the Iraq occupation, for example - because the
president was too scrupulous.
Probably they're just furious that Bush let accused terrorists and
other assorted brown people run free in America, because he didn't
have the guts to defy a bunch of mamby-pamby lawyers and open up a
bottomless-pit of a jail in some hell-hole somewhere, like say at
Guantánamo Bay.
And I know they're still mad that he didn't have the stones to steal
elections when push came to shove in confronting those tough, take-no-
prisoners Democrats.
Are all of these failings why regressives don't think George W. Bush
was one of them as president? Of course not. In fact, Bush did all
of these things. In fact, he and his fellow-travelers fulfilled every
single item on the regressive wet dream checklist during his
presidency.
Except for two. First, they expanded the size of the national
government through reckless spending. And, second, because they were
careful not to take any popular goodies away so that voters would
experience the real pain of regressive politics, they paid for it all
(and the tax cuts, and the wars) by borrowing. Future generations
could pay for it. Plus interest, of course.
Those are both important issues to the right, to be sure, but it is
absolutely ludicrous to argue that those two items, stacked up against
everything else he gave them listed above, remotely suggest that Bush
was not a conservative. Utter nonsense.
So what's going on?
The obvious answer is that Bush was a total disaster as president who
was hated by a country that couldn't wait for the clock to run down on
his nightmare. Who wants to be associated with that?
The less obvious answer is even more telling, though. It's true the
Bush folks were grossly incompetent, at least at the things they
didn't care so much about. But the deeper and more profound reality
is that this was far less a failure of one fool than it was the acid
test for an entire ideology, which in fact failed the exam miserably.
I know how shocking it can be that regressives are hypocritical or
deceitful. Go figure, eh? But, truthfully, this is the biggest
whopper of them all. The King Kahuna. The Mother of all Deceits. So
big, in fact, that I'm pretty sure that they even lie to themselves
about it at the same time they're lying to us.
Because if they didn't, here's what they'd have to admit: We tried
their ideology. Big-time. And it totally sucked.
Unless, of course, you happen to like war, recession, environmental
destruction, constitution shredding, prejudice, hatred, greed, deceit
and failure. Those things enjoyed rather remarkable success,
actually.
Americans can be astonishingly stupid, and embarrassingly easy marks
sometimes. But, even so, they're usually able to see that these are
bad things.
If only there were national figures within the supposed opposition
(that means you, Mr. Happy Face, in the White House) who were willing
to label this disaster for what it was, perhaps we might have stamped
out the scourge of regressivism for a generation or six by now. But,
alas, that would require a modicum of political courage.
Unfortunately, that's just about the only thing regressives have.
Even more unfortunately, it is often enough to carry the day, even
when your ideas are so unequivocally destructive.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra
University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions
to his articles (mailto:d...@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that
time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work
can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci