7/31/2005
Kill Bush and leftist pro-assassins
If this picture has your attention, this is the kind of stuff the leftists are putting up about Bush at their websites. They are directly promoting violence towards Bush. The amazing thing is…for WHAT? Bush isn’t a dictator. Bush was ELECTED by the PEOPLE. The leftists should get a clue on that one. With all the BUSHITLER crap floating around, you’d think he was another CASTRO. No, I stand corrected. Commie dictators are to be adored, it’s capitalist elected presidents who are demonized.
After the direct threats I’ve endured through email, and on this website including the threats to report me to the FBI, (for what I’m not exactly sure) threats for lawsuits for libel and slander (because I disagreed with Stephen Pearcy?), I have to say that these little productions from the left are doing what, exactly?
Promoting peace and pacifism?
I don’t know where I was, but according to Steve at Pardon My English, there on conservative talk radio, people were outraged. This bled out into the conservative press and the blogosphere, so it was yanked to be replaced with this disclaimer:
The “Kill Bush” products have been removed from CafePress.com. They were created by individuals across the globe, as are the more than 8 million products available on CafePress.com, a diverse network of more than one million shops.
Hate related materials are in violation of our terms of service and are prohibited from being sold through CafePress.com. CafePress.com is an automated service, and as such, products are reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure that merchandise that is in violation of our terms of service is removed from our site.
This one says ‘end terrorism now’. REAL nice.
Of course, that isn’t the only representation of hatred from the left that passes for “art” these days…consider this, from Worldnet Daily:
The above piece of “art” was on display at Columbia College (in Chicago) for an art show at the Glass Curtain Gallery.
Source: Pardon My English
Granted, people objected to the cafe press Kill Bush tshirts and they were removed without apology, but the point is, the leftists are doing much more as far as promoting and inciting violence than anyone here in my world.
I guess it’s ok for them to do it, because they’re “justified” in their “elitist” cause, while we’re just a bunch of stupid red tater staters who apparently don’t understand the “nuance”.
Source: Worldnet Daily
Or how about this one: Dear Tom Delay, please commit suicide.
And before the “everybody does it” apologists pooh-pooh this lunatic anti-Bush merchandise: There’s tasteless political paraphernalia on both sides of the aisle, but I’ve already searched and there are currently no “Kill Kerry” products, blood-spattered or otherwise, being sold at Cafe Press.
“Oh, but it’s all in good fun,” the libs will shrug. Yeah, just like the Guardian’s call last fall for someone to kill Bush. Just like the wave of campus attacks on conservatives. Just like the vicious anti-troops, anti-Bush slogans: “We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot their Officers” and “Bush is the disease. Death is the cure.”
“Where’s your sense of humor?” the libs will ask.
Where’s their decency? Their sanity?
Welcome to the sick world of the pro-assassination Left.
I’ve peered into their sick little world, no thank you, Michelle Malkin. Other people are just as outraged as I am about this stuff. And just imagine: all this started because of being prodded by a pasty lily white wimpy elitist Berkley boy…who went and tattle-taled and cried to his progressive butt buddies.
I gather the FBI is seriously all over this stuff.
Oh and let’s not forget: “We support our troops when they kill their officers”. Now that one is unparalleled. June 29, 2005..
Look, if you guys want violence, bring it on. We’re not only opposing the terrorists, we’re opposing people that follow Ward Churchill and Naom Chomsky, who believe that our government is the enemy. If we don’t watch out, we’re going to be living in a totally different society–one that doesn’t support free speech unless you’re praising the government. Do these people have any concept of what they’re doing?
This isn’t FREE SPEECH, people. FREE SPEECH is the right to talk on a street corner, carrying your bible. FREE SPEECH is the right to picket outside of a hospice when a young lady is being starved and dehydrated to death. THIS is TREASON. THIS is SEDITION.
Thanks to Indepundit, Outside the Beltway. the Jawa Report, Basil’s Blog
NIF linked with Sheriff of The Ministry
The Wide Awakes linked with Kill Bush and Leftist Pro-Assassins
third world county linked with What is LPD?
July 31st, 2005 at 7:40 am
The Leftists’ pathological hatred of GWB defies description, as your graphics here point out. I wish that I had on hand a textbook in abnormal psychology so that I could list all the applicable terms.
July 31st, 2005 at 8:31 am
Always on Watch: Try “Narcissism, Pathological Narcissism, The Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), the Narcissist, and Relationships with Abusive Narcissists and Psychopaths”
It’d be a good place to start exploring the “Liberalist Personality Disorder”
Still, LPD (Liberalist Personality Disorder) seems to encompass much more than Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There are many in the Loony Left Moonbat Brigade who also exhibit signs of Histrionic Personality Disorder.
See:
“A pervasive pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
*is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention
*interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior
*displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions
*consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self
*has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail
*shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion
*is suggestible, i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances
*considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are”
Yeh, I guess LPD is a complex of co-morbidity issues. Once one starts to dig into the snakepit that is LPD, signs of so many disorders become plain that it’s impossible to separate one out as dominant in the groupthink.
Regardless, I think good public health policy would be to treat this disorder similarly to TB: isolation from the population at large. heh
Of course, those who advocate that soldiers shoot their officers ought to be given the opportunity to do so in person, don’t you think? That is, ship them to Iraq and let ‘em tell it to the guys in Deuce-Four (I-24th) in Mosul… it’d probably result in some VERY effective psychological “reality therapy”.
July 31st, 2005 at 9:04 am
What is LPD?
… it’s easy to distinguish between “Liberalists” and “Liberals”. Liberals—genuine Liberals—listen to opposing views, engage in reasoned discourse, argue fairly and can “agree to disagree” amicably. Liberals also believe in free Spe…
July 31st, 2005 at 10:10 am
[…] things they were selling through Cafe Press until enough people complained about it. More on that here. Also, consider their outrage when we challenge their patriotism, like Michelle talks about […]
July 31st, 2005 at 12:07 pm
I hope the FBI will nail these jackasses for publishing such stupid; Communist-loving **** on the Internet and send them away for a long time … preferably to an Islam/Muslim jail.
Comments by Cao — “all this started because of being prodded by a pasty lily white wimpy elitist Berkley boy…who went and tattle-taled and cried to his progressive butt buddies …
If we don’t watch out, we’re going to be living in a totally different society–one that doesn’t support free speech unless you’re praising the government. Do these people have any concept of what they’re doing?”
I’m not surprised that Stephen Pearcy and his little rack-buddies are behind all of this (most likely some of those “Eye-De-Ho Tater-Brains are too) -
- we’re already living in a different society today, as Communism has been slowly creeping into America — just like Stalin predicted it would, years ago in one of many speeches.
July 31st, 2005 at 12:41 pm
I probably should clarify that. If it weren’t for Pearcy, I wouldn’t have learned all that I have in the past couple of weeks about the terrible things the anti-war people are doing and saying. This stuff is unimaginable to me. The fact that they’re pushing this stuff in our faces screaming about “free speech” when it qualifies as TREASON really bothers me. If they hate capitalism so much because it’s evil and imperialistic, maybe they should just leave. I love this country. My sons have put their lives on the line for it.
I don’t appreciate Pearcy’s soldier in effigy or any of that other **** about the Iraq war, including siding with the terrorists after Paul Johnson’s beheading.
Pearcy personally wasn’t behind the images in that post, Yat, that I’m aware of, anyway. He’s responsible for a lot of other anti-american hatred, though.
July 31st, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Sheriff of The Ministry
Weekend Edition of the best NIF on the web!
July 31st, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Hey Cao! I think it’s revolution time!
July 31st, 2005 at 3:32 pm
This will terrify you…
I’ve told many thousands over the years, Communism is quickly and quietly taking over America … now, here’s a website that spells it out, complete with official Congress documentation of why Washington wants our Borders to be completely open!
Scroll down and read about “The Government Is Telling Us That Terrorists Are All Around Us …
The Solution They Say — Submit to a …
Highly Dictatorial Police State
I came across it by stumbling upon a site about “Alex Jones” — apparently, President Bush personally ordered an Arrest Warrant on Alex Jones … you can read about it … here
Pretty scary stuff when you read his personal website called — Genesis Communications Radio Network.
July 31st, 2005 at 3:44 pm
It’s pretty much common knowledge in my world, anyway, that they’re trying to scare us into handing over our freedom for security. I’m not sure if it’s the Bush administration necessarily–it’s government in general.
The 9/11 Report recommendations were full of ways to make government bigger. And people were all freaked out about it…yes, yes, let’s hurry up and follow through on those recommendations! No, we should have looked at it first. But if people had dragged their feet and THOUGHT about it, we wouldn’t have ended up with all this intrusive legislation. It’s hard to tell what’s reasonable anymore, things are so out of control with government spending, giving to other nations, helping with the Tsunami and all kinds of things we shouldn’t be involved in. Let these nations take care of themselves. We should take care of ourselves before we’re just run over by illegal aliens and our companies go to other countries for cheaper labor and Americans are left holding the bag.
People conservatives and call us “neocons” and accuse us of increasing the size of government, claiming we’re for “big” government. That’s a pile of ****. I’ve always been for limited government, knowing full well that you have more freedoms when government is small. The bigger it gets, the fewer freedoms you have.
This is a runaway train IMO. We haven’t had much control over this–they legislated all kinds of things for the “sake of security” -not even really reading the 9/11 Commission report to see if the recommendations were even SOUND and MADE SENSE or what the IMPLICATIONS WERE. Was Bush responsible for the 9/11 Commission report, what went into it, and the legislation that followed? I don’t think so. You can’t blame everything on Bush, we have other branches of government…this isn’t a dictatorship…yet.
Hell, the president has had the power for a long time to declare himself a dictator and declare a police state in the case of national emergency. If that ever happens, I doubt if we’ll ever go back to life as we know it.
July 31st, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Not to mention that the man directly in charge of the infamous Abu Ghraib, worked before that as a Virginia corrections officer. The infamous Charles Graner was also a prison guard in Pennsylvania since 1996. If you put those things together it paints a picture that is not very pleasant.
July 31st, 2005 at 5:21 pm
I think I am going to move… being a few blocks away from Pearcy’s “second” house makes the neighborhood not such a nice place to live anymore.
July 31st, 2005 at 6:23 pm
I can’t even imagine it, Steve. Maybe all the neighbors should put up “for sale” signs in the properties surrounding his house..
July 31st, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Comment by Cao — “You can’t blame everything on Bush, we have other branches of government…this isn’t a dictatorship…yet.”
No; far be it from me to blame our President for anything that’s going on — the blames lies on the people of this Nation, for not taking a firm stand … I do, however, pray daily to my Living God, that He intervenes and changes this Nation, and this World.
August 1st, 2005 at 3:45 am
I didn’t mean you specifically, Yat, I probably should have chosen my words more carefully. The libs blame everything on Bush…and it really bothers me, since he’s not responsible for everything that’s happened. It’s convenient and simple to pile the blame on one man; it’s more complicated and difficult to actually look at what has occurred and then try to come up with solutions.
August 1st, 2005 at 9:59 am
Revolution would be welcome in this country given the number of anti-Bush freaks and those veterans and pro-Bush individuals who can use a firearm.
The numbers definitely favor the side who has made it a practice to defend this country over those ankle-biters like Steve-o and the great unwashed masses with whom he associates himself.
I’d attend that fight anyday.
August 1st, 2005 at 4:07 pm
“Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.”
August 8th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
““Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.” So true . . . like the countless number of idiots on this blog . . .
August 8th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
BTW, thanks for the beautiful pictures. They’ll come in handy for my Treason Hunter’s contest.
August 9th, 2005 at 4:20 am
You’re sick, obviously, and don’t understand the definition (of treason) apparently. To me, the leftist ideology of “communism has only killed over 100 million people, give it another chance!” is idiocy…but whatever,
You guys live in a fantasy world of blame eeevvviiilll capitalism, elevate murdering dictators to respectability (and defend them!), no personal responsibility, denial and deception.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Ok, Liberal-tree-hugging mindless verbatim is horrible and omnipresent in our media. The like spouting noble but ultimately empty and somewhat hypocritical ideas. Agreed.
However on the other hand, the government has clearly lied to us (WMD?)and has been using national resources (both money and people) to pursue a non-national agenda. At last check, Iraq invaded Kuwait, not Kansas.
The problem is not the left or the right wing, but with people making opinionated un-informed decisions in both our nation’s policy and our nation’s leaders. In other words; idiots.
I will not comment on the effectiveness of democracy or capitalism. We have plenty of the latter but I do not believe America is a true democracy.
A democracy is a form of government when the majority of the population has the choice to elect the ruling class. However, this previous notion was based upon the assumption that the populace is well-balanced and informed. American Democracy has degenerated into who has the most effective smear campaign and propaganda. It is not about who is most suited to lead the nation but is a over-glorified popularity contest.
I do not support Bush nor Kerry, but I do not wish either of them killed. For the liberals stating that Bush is the cause of the war, he is not, American voters ignorance is.
For all the right-wing nutjobs saying that liberal media is destroying our way of life, perhaps you should re-evaluate your way of life and welcome yourself to the modern world.
And as for all the people and politicians using or being affected by religion I would like to ask what does the Division of Church and State mean?
Do you know what a theocracy is? And do you really want to be like Iran?
BTW Cao, nice article I agree with many points but I think the current situation is a failure of thought and everyone is at fault.
By the way, I am Canadian, but we’re basically the undiscovered state.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:27 am
BTW 4:20am? lol
August 19th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Doc, lol, I log in very early to get online for work and do some work before I go into the office. I prepare my posts the night before, and reply to comments before I go to the office.
First, I’ve observed that you have an unusual combination of leftist arguments and attitudes that I agree with in this comment. I find that curious. I also find it curious when you say that my country lied about wmd.
As for the rationale for the war; the United States does not go to war to enforce all UN Security Council Resolutions. It did not for example go to war to enforce the first 16 UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq, though it would have been fully justified in doing so. We did, however, fly daily military missions over the Iraq no-fly zones in an attempt to enforce the clauses in those resolutions that forbade Saddam Hussein from using poison gas on the Kurds again because we knew that without a military invasion of Iraq’s air space, diplomatic means alone could not prevent a monster like Saddam Hussein from doing just that. President Clinton did fire 450 cruise missiles into Iraq in a futile military invasion (futile because we needed a force on the ground to make it work) designed to compel Saddam to honor the inspection clauses of the 16 Resolutions. He did this in 1998 after Saddam threw the inspectors out. So in a sense we had been going to war over the Iraq UN resolutions for more than a decade prior to 2003 – something critics never mention.
We finally sent a ground force into Iraq over UN Security Council Resolution 1441 – the 17th UN resolution – because this was explicitly a war ultimatum. It said to Saddam: Comply with the terms of this resolution by December 7, 2002 or else. The Saddam regime did not comply. This is the view of chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and not just the United States, Britain and their allies, and all of these facts support the President’s position that the Saddam regime could not be made to observe the truce agreements of the Gulf War and the 16 UN resolutions without the use of military force.
Every move that Saddam did make to comply with the UN Resolutions was out of fear of American military reprisal and was part of a strategy designed to confuse the well-meaning political elements in the West and inspire to malign ones to his advantage. Thus when he thought he could get away with it during the Clinton Administration, Saddam expelled the UN inspectors. The Bush Administration began sending clear signals in January 2002 that it meant business and that if Saddam did not comply he would be taken down. In June the President made a speech at West Point that was widely reported as a signal the United States was preparing for war. In the next months he began a military buildup in the Middle East. Then and only then did Saddam invite the inspectors back into Iraq. But he put restrictions on them so they could not adequately do their job. This was a violation itself of the truce agreements and the UN Resolutions. But Saddam knew his half concession would be enough to mobilize the credulous, the appeasers and the enemies of the West in the western countries themselves to escalate their efforts to tie America’s hands (by rejecting the military option). One of the main causes of the war in Iraq was the misnamed “peace movement” itself which made Saddam believe that American threats were idle and that the United States would never live up to its word.
The UN Security Council refused to enforce its own resolution. Why? Because the Soviet Union, France and China were all allies of the Saddam dictatorship and had veto power over Security Council resolutions. They approved the war ultimatum because they knew they could veto the actual use of force. They were the Saddam regime’s military suppliers and thus complicit in his crimes (France had even built his nuclear reactor) and they were on the receiving ends of hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes and promised oil contracts.
This war was was about enforcing international law (which is disturbing to me) and legitimizing the UN (which is also disturbing) – and more particularly and importantly in my opinion – showing that when America speaks, she means what she says. Why is this important? Because the next rogue regime – Iran, Syria, perhaps one day Pakistan – needs to know this so it doesn’t make the mistake that Afghanistan did of attacking us. In other words, it’s the most basic requirement for avoiding war in the future.
The war was not about forcing Iraq to destroy its weapons. It was about forcing Iraq to comply with the UN Resolutions – the truce in the Gulf War. What’s the difference? It was estimated at the time that Saddam could reconstitute his WMD programs within four months if he so desired. We had 200,000 troops on his borders – which is the only reason there were any UN inspectors in Iraq. Once we had pulled those forces (and we would have had to do that sooner rather than later) Saddam would be free to do what he wanted. He had already launched two aggressive wars and spent $40 billion on a nuclear weapons program. We were put in the position of trusting his word (that he would comply) or going to war. We took the prudent course. To say that we went to war merely to destroy the stockpiles every intelligence agency in the world said he had is to misunderstand entirely what this war was about.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
And what is that weird statement you made about ’separation of church and state’ about?
Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: “separation”, “church”, and “state” do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.
Yes, I know what a theocracy is. DO YOU? I think this piece of information that you put into this discussion is not only irrelevant but is somewhat disengenuous, considering that American law is based on the Mosaic law. This is the reason that the ten commandments are posted in and around our courts.
A theocracy is a place where sharia law rules, not the Bible.
The United States isn’t a “theocracy”, although it’s founded on biblical principles….it’s a leftist argument to use terrorism/Islamic states as the example why Christians should hide their faith in public, but that doesn’t really make any sense when a rational person puts that under the magnifying glass.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
There is enough leftist rhetoric in what you said to lead me to believe you’re a Canadian, lol. But thank you for your comments. I’m in agreement with some of your other points.
This point is rather irritating to me, however;
Actually authoritarianism is leftist. Ideological Leftism is seen as a desire for constant change that is motivated in most instances by strong ego needs — principally needs for attention, power and excitement. Leftists generally gain satisfaction of these needs by advocating equality of various sorts and by proposing that an ever-increasing government role in society is needed to ensure equality. This enthusiasm for imposing an ever-widening nimbus of government regulation on all human activity is quintessentially authoritarian. Conservatives, by contrast, are primarily motivated by a desire for individual liberty and a concomitant dislike of government activism so are quintessentially anti-authoritarian.
The old (and might I add outdated) equation of conservatism is that conservatives have a love of the status quo and a dislike of change and new arrangements. Whether one advocates change or not simply reflects whether or not one is satisfied with the existing arrangements. People today on the right will advocate change in order to tear down welfare and liberate business, or restructure the tax code, while Leftists will advocate change to extend welfare and restrict big business. The status quo, then, no longer has any role in defining one particular side of politics.