Wednesday, April 16, 2014



A few weeks ago, Mountain Democrat Editor Mike Raffety wrote a column which could be summed up thusly: If you want propaganda, read the front page of the New York Times, but if you want facts and truth, then go to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Sure thing, Mike. And if you want truth on television, listen to FOX News and, on radio, tune in to Sean Hannity. All three are owned, body and soul, by Rupert Murdoch.

So I decided to check Mr. Raffety’s dubious assumption. On Sept. 27, on a flight to the east coast, I bought the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Both papers featured prominently the Justice Department’s fine/restitution to defrauded mortgage holders of $11 billion.

The Times played the story straight, in the tradition of Journalism 101: who, what, when, where and how. J.P. Morgan’s chairman, Jamie Diamond, accepted the Justice Department’s charges that his bank was guilty of massive fraud, although he was quick to blame underlings, subsidiaries, overseas branches — everybody but himself and his management team. Nevertheless, Diamond agreed to pay an $11 billion fine and restitution to defrauded mortgage holders. No organization would agree to pay an $11 billion fine, and take such a big hit on its reputation, unless it knew the Justice Department had an air-tight case.

The Times did editorialize a bit when it pointed out that Mr. Diamond is now in “damage control” mode, and is fighting the possibility that the Justice Department will force J.P. Morgan Chase to admit guilt, which would open it to thousands of individual lawsuits. This was the only “opinion” part of the Times’ story.

The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, did not treat this major story as “news.” Instead, it chose to deal with it on its “Opinion” page with an editorial entitled “Robbery at J.P. Morgan.” It accuses the U.S. government of looking for easy money by blackmailing a rich bank; the editorial nurtures the impression that the Justice Deptartment strong-armed Jamie Diamond into admitting that his bank had participated in massive fraud. I waited to read that President Obama himself had driven a 10-wheeler to J.P. Morgan’s vault to haul away the loot. The WSJ tried to elicit sympathy for those poor, innocent Wall Street banksters and place the blame on the victims who were defrauded. Apparently, Mike Raffety considers “blame the victim” rationalization as “fact-based news.” This scenario can only play in the fertile minds of right-wing zealots and Obama haters.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial also stands logic on its head by declaring “preposterous” the idea that J.P. Morgan should be accused of wrongdoing since many of the victims were “almost all large institutions, including Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac,” implying that big guys don’t complain, even when they’ve been robbed in the dubious moral and ethical world in which mega banks, the WSJ and other right-wing publications (e.g. the Mountain Democrat) operate; defrauding big borrowers that represent taxpayers is deemed OK, while the banksters that commit the fraud ought to be immune. Not exactly the kind of morality tale one would expect from the Mountain Democrat, a newspaper that passes itself off as “family oriented.”


Letters to the Editor


Discussion | 83 comments

  • Phil VeerkampOctober 02, 2013 - 5:37 pm

    John Garon, is there even a teensy weensy sliver of blame in your "fair mind" to direct toward those who forced banks to write loans to un-creditworthy people who did not have a chance in hell of paying off the mortgage? Banks were forced to write high risk loans. Those stinkers were repackaged into derivatives(Ithink that's the term). The bigger sucker race was on. ~~~ Anyway, John, thanks for jumping back into the pool.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynOctober 02, 2013 - 6:09 pm

    Phil: Are you referencing predatory lending practices (here) or something else?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 02, 2013 - 6:31 pm

    Help me here as I'm vague on banking practices. How were the banks forced to make bad loans? Were guns held to their heads -- they must have sensed some profits somewhere. Oh, that's right, they sold the loans down the line to suckers. Got their profit up front.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 02, 2013 - 6:40 pm

    I have had one delusion in my life. They wanted to give me a MRI -- I agreed to get in the machine only if they gave me a strong shot of something. This was in the afternoon. I woke up the next morning and thought I had been kidnapped and imprisoned in a steel underground vault. I didn't have a very good hospital room which, I recall, did look like a steel vault, so I can understand how the delusion may have been based. I came to reality only when my wife arrived with a strawberry milkshake.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 02, 2013 - 6:49 pm

    Evelyn I'm referring to Congressional responses to the old "redlining" practices such as The Community Reinvestment Act. To implement the act Congress forced banks under threat of penalty to write high risk loans. - LINK - Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this morning that if there is anyone to blame for the mortgage crisis that led the collapse of the financial industry, it's not the "big banks," but Congress.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 02, 2013 - 6:52 pm

    James the "gun" was the threat of fine/penalty if high risk loans were not made.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 02, 2013 - 7:11 pm

    Phil, I read the site. Now go back and read all the comments attached -- seems there is a bit of disagreement whether the "banks" were force to lend by Congress.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 02, 2013 - 7:13 pm

    James, here is a "respectable" source defining the "gun". ~~~ LINK - Cincotta's group successfully negotiated $173 million in CRA agreements from three major downtown banks in 1984, settlements that served as models for other cities.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 02, 2013 - 7:19 pm

    Phil, I didn't say the previous site wasn't respectable. It apppeared respectable. Gave the Mayor's opinion, followed by comments. Some agreed with him, some didn't.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 02, 2013 - 7:26 pm

    Still, James, read the short article from Encyclopedia of Chicago . I love the phrase, "settlements that served as models for other cities. Guido was never so artful.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynOctober 02, 2013 - 7:27 pm

    "In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. . . . Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position. " - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 02, 2013 - 7:41 pm

    RE: In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis . . . The predatory lending crisis was just one of the unintended consequences of Congress' "solution" to redlining. With banks being backed by Freddy and Fanny and the apparent full faith and credit of Uncle Sam it was all but inevitable to cascade into abuse. The The Community Reinvestment Act was an understandable response to redlining. It carried one hellofa hangover.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 02, 2013 - 8:00 pm

    Evelyn, your long quote comes from an article by Eliot Spitzer. Also within Spitzer's article is this,"Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners." Please view this 4 minute youtube timeline ~~~ LINK - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 02, 2013 - 8:26 pm

    Cookie??? . . . another groaner . . . over here . . .

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 03, 2013 - 9:10 am

    yes, delusions

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 04, 2013 - 5:28 am

    I wish I understood why so many letters don't appear on my account until days later. This is the first I have seen this objective, truth seeking, open minded, intellectually honest offering from mr. garon.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 04, 2013 - 5:38 am

    The term predatory lending needs some clarification. Why would a for-profit mortgage lender provide 100+% financing for a highly over-valued home, purchase for someone who couldn't cover the first month's utility bill? Based on stated income/stated assets? NOT documented income/assets. Has the mortgage loan industry not had stringent qualification guidelines for decades? What caused them to change their lending practices? The better question, WHO caused them to change their lending practices? And WHY? I guess predatory lending means, let me buy you a house at twice its actual value which you can walk away from 6 months from now without paying me back and go back to renting like you have always done.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 04, 2013 - 5:52 am

    Countrywide was a key player in the negative-am subprime mortgage lending. The creation of those loans was how they were able to get the monthly mortgage payment reduced to the point that people who weren't in a position to be home owners could be home owners. chris dodd, Banking committee Chairman who pushed lenders into making loans they have no history of making prior to government interference, received cut rate mortgages from countrywide. He then claimed he was not aware that the loans he received, directly from the CEO, were cut rate. And he was the Banking chair.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 04, 2013 - 6:13 am

    This is the perfect example of government interference in the economy and the results that follow. Thru Fanny and Freddie the government pumped massive amounts of CHEAP money into housing. The cost of housing then skyrocketed. That is what happens when you have 20 people with no skin in the game trying to outbid each other on a 900 sq. ft. shack. Tuition has skyrocketed based on the same principle, which works well for the dems who push student loans since it is themselves who profit off the laundered taxpayer money going thru secondary education. The same thing has happened in healthcare. Tons of cheap/easy money flooding the healthcare industry thru taxpayer funded public sector and union benny's. My biggest frustration is how so many people can't connect the dots. It is a predictable sequence of events. Government/unions interferes, easy/cheap money becomes available, corruption follows, prices rise artificially, the bubble bursts. The public sector is somewhere between artificially high prices and the bubble bursting. It is a certainty. How many times do people need to see it before they learn to recognize it. If you are waiting for the media to tell you, it won't happen. I falls into one of those categories that you have to figure out yourself.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 04, 2013 - 6:22 am

    And another thing that frustrates the heck out of me that gets ignored in the exchange of meaningless talking points is the truth about who made out in the mortgage bubble. Those who made out on the mortgage bubble are those who bought a 1600 sq.ft. 3 bdrm 2 bath house in Antelope, Elk Grove, Roseville, Lincoln and anytown USA for $160k and sold it 2-3 years later for $380k. Those who didn't are the ones who used their house as an ATM to buy the new escalade, boat, rv, quads, wetbikes etc. etc. and those who bought at the top of the market.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 04, 2013 - 6:30 am

    garon wouldn't know the truth if it landed on his head.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 04, 2013 - 6:50 am

    Does Garon know Florence?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 04, 2013 - 7:23 am

    Even tarts have their standards.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 04, 2013 - 7:25 am

    Delusions is the perfect Freudian title for this letter.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Bill E.October 04, 2013 - 7:39 am

    Mr Garron is entitled to his bias no matter how from reality it is rooted. Remember, the greatest insult is indifference.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 04, 2013 - 8:21 am

    The consistent authoring of multiple dispatches producing a thumbsucking impression in the minds of the readers is not a gift bestowed on just anyone.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • 1036-FrankOctober 04, 2013 - 6:13 pm

    Liberal thought process; The WSJ wrote an article therefore all of Fox, talk radio and the MD are guilty of the author's thoughts because of it and the possible "association" with no basis in fact. These loans were started under Clinton's threats and refined under Dodd-Frank and these banks were all bailed out under the Bummer's Stimulus, he rewarded them and they foreclosed on the fools who bought into these fake home loans.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • what's the conservative thought process, frank?October 04, 2013 - 6:29 pm

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynOctober 05, 2013 - 8:48 am

    ADD: "predatory accounting" - THE “HYPER-MERITOCRACY” – AN OXYMORON LED BY CRIMINAL MORONS - HERE: The constants present in each of our three modern financial crises (the S&L debacle, the Enron-era scandals, and the mortgage fraud crisis) were that the crises were driven by epidemics of accounting control fraud and that during the expansion phase of each crisis neo-classical economists praised the worst frauds as brilliant innovators who understood the importance of technological advances. The economists assured us that the massive compensation that the fraudulent CEOs awarded themselves was the just result of an emerging meritocracy. The reality was the opposite.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • boozyOctober 05, 2013 - 7:31 pm

    Mr. have it bad, possibly uncureable...please read this great and accurate information from a very wise man...maybe you will understand your condition is a mental disorder and possibly do need medical attention...Enjoy Mr. Ganon Topical EnrichmentDiana WestJamaat ul-FuqraLars HedegaardOSCEThe OICTennessee Freedom CoalitionLaw and Freedom FoundationPro-Köln and Pro-NRWThe Modoggie ArchivesMullah KrekarNotable Important PostsPoetryThe Poetry of WarThe Poetry of Louis MacNeiceHistory of the CounterjihadPost navigation← Previous Next → Questioning the Sanity of Liberals Posted on February 2, 2007 by Baron Bodissey The British author Paul Weston has sent us another essay, this one on the topic of modern liberals. Needless to say, Mr. Weston does not think highly of today’s liberals. Now, I have to say that some of my best friends are liberals. They are well-meaning people who support abortion, affirmative action, gun control, and a large and proactive role of the federal government in peoples’ lives — all for their own good, of course. These are not evil people; they are friends who happen to hold different political opinions, and we can agree to disagree. But Mr. Weston has a slightly different and more ominous kind of liberal in his sights. Read his article and see what you think. Questioning the Sanity of Liberals by Paul Weston Is it possible to be well adjusted, attractive, educated, successful, and a liberal? Alternatively, is it possible to be both Politically Correct and a liberal at the same time? In order to understand the peculiar contradictions of contemporary liberalism it is necessary first to understand the meaning of classical liberalism circa 1900 and the liberalism of the West in 2007. Classical liberalism meant a belief in the democratic process, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity (although never quite couched in such terms), the presumption of innocence, small government, the individual before the group, religious freedom, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the rights of the child, an obligation to help the genuinely disadvantaged in society and, generally speaking, a live and let live laissez-faire attitude. It was the product of many hundreds of years of gradual evolution encompassing Christianity, the reformation, the enlightenment, common law, the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It was a cause for the good and the term liberal one to be worn with pride. How does this square with the self confessed metropolitan liberals of today? Imagine the smooth young advertising executive, hosting a dinner party in Greenwich village or Notting Hill, suddenly announcing to his Armani-clad coterie of media and public relations friends that, whilst holding himself up as a liberal, he disapproved of mass immigration, multiculturalism, state education’s socialist propaganda, the European Union, same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, atheism and feminism. As jaws dropped around the table some embarrassed diners would make their polite excuses and fumble for the keys to their oh so green Toyota Prius, whilst others, white-faced and shaking with genuine anger, would accuse him of racial bigotry, sexual bigotry, nationalism, religious fundamentalism and xenophobia. Yet whilst these proud young members of the privileged, cosseted elite may believe that they and they alone hold the moral credentials that personify the term liberal, they fail to understand that all their beliefs are the antithesis of true liberalism, that they have followed a long and winding path from the classical liberalism of 1900 to that which they are today — Totalitarian and Fascistic. In short they had mutated from Classical Liberalism to Politically Correct Liberalism. - – - – - – - – - - We see this in their extreme and hysterical reaction to those who disagree with them, their apparent hatred of Western civilisation, of Israel, of free speech, traditional education, our history and the leaders who helped make us what we are, of religion and of America — both internally and externally. And whilst they are busy hating the very society and culture which enables them to parasitically survive and prosper we see their love affair with all the ideologies that threaten our society, manifested in pro third-world immigration, multiculturalism, radical feminism and until very recently, Communism (oh, if only they could have made their economy work), and, of course, Islam. And here the first of their varied pathological contradictions is exposed for the sane world to see — how is it possible for them to sympathise with Islam, a political ideology that runs counter to every issue they apparently deem of transcendental importance? One of the pet words of abuse that the Liberal love to smear their opponents with is Nazi yet are they so blind they cannot differentiate between the white Nazis of 1940 that we “right wing” classical liberalists went to war with and the brown Nazis of 2007 so admired by the “left wing” liberals of today? Just look at the comparisons; Nazism was a racially supremacist, totalitarian, Messianic movement with an avowed aim of global domination; an ambition for which they were happy to use military force. They genuinely believed they were the master race and all others the sub-race. They promoted their ideology via overt propaganda in the brainwashing of their children; they wished to eradicate Jews and homosexuals; they thought women fit only for childbirth, the kitchen and the bedroom; and, finally, they thought nothing of killing their critics. Islam is… exactly the same. It is the 21st Century reincarnation of the Nazi Party and as every white European is now the new Jew or a member of the new sub-race, so Islam becomes our worst possible sweat-soaked nightmare as an enemy. And the Liberal’s new best friend. Not content with ensuring that a new Nazi party is fostered and encouraged to grow within the West, the Liberal also works to ensure that his own society is traduced and destroyed from within. He does this by accepting the edicts of subversion planted by Soviet Moscow, with whose ideology and global ambitions they were not entirely unsympathetic. It says a great deal about the Liberal that he sympathised with an ideology penned by a man with an unhappy childhood and catastrophic adult life whose bearded scribbling led to a flawed revolution carried out in the wrong country at the wrong time which subsequently reduced the Soviet working man (at the expense of millions of deaths) to queuing for bread in Moscow whilst the capitalist working man was queuing for beer in Ibiza. When the Communists were forced — purely by geographical necessity — to waylay their tanks used so successfully in the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they turned instead to the use of Western liberals as their fellow travellers/useful idiots to create economic and cultural mayhem within their own countries, as a prelude to the post anarchic emergence of their longed for Communist International. To this end Western liberals attempted to destroy blue-collar industry via Trades Union action and white-collar commerce by the ruining of education through “progressive” educational techniques. In keeping with their Soviet counterparts they sought, and still seek, to abolish religion and morality, and — via feminism — the family. They do this, as we well know, by their capture of the media and educational establishments within which they use the same brainwashing techniques geared toward the same ends as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao (see: Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education). The political brainwashing of children is a manifestation found only in totalitarian societies. With past dictators it was a necessity to enable permanent power; in the West today it portends a coming dictatorship — why else would they do it? Although Lenin, the propagandist ancestor of today’s BBC or CNN, was the originator of the brainwashing of children, it was difficult, given the technology of the time, to systematically brainwash the adults, but the BBC and CNN have simply taken his practice and adapted it to an international, far reaching audience, surpassing even Hitler. Hitler, whilst adopting the Lenin’s techniques for indoctrinating children, took adult indoctrination to a whole new level, as stated by Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister for Armaments: Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in histor. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technological development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and the loudspeaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought….” What he could have done with twenty-four hour TV does not really beg the question because CNN and the BBC are doing it anyway, subtly perhaps, but this is an even greater method — given time. Hitler was intent on using such propaganda in order to form the Master Race, Lenin the New Socialist Man, but what exactly does the Liberal of today wish to bring about? It is not, despite his insistence, The One World, Socialist, Multicultural Man, because this is where the Liberal deviates from the slavish following of his ideological ancestors — who at least attempted to advance their own countries — and sets up the indigenous population of his own country as the hate figure to be vilified. Hate figures are always necessary in warfare or dictatorships, be it Oceania, the bourgeoisie or the Jew. The white, male, heterosexual, Judaeo-Christian European now fulfils this model by dint of his imperial past and his supposed present day oppression/exploitation of non-whites, females and homosexuals. That the lumpen masses are relatively unconcerned is due not merely to their lack of cogent reasoning but to their numerical advantage. Why should they feel threatened by people they seldom see and via media censorship, rarely hear about? But demographics suggest that the white European will become a minority all across the West within the next fifty years, in some countries even sooner. This reality, coupled with our acceptance of the type of abuse reserved historically for Hitler’s Jews and Lenin’s middle/upper-classes should cause us grave reservations. What on earth is the Liberal thinking of when he introduces “Anti-Racist” maths into school lessons or “Whiteness Studies” into university lectures? Can he not see where this leads, how can he be so blind? Whilst they are busy beavering away at these destructive antics, the Liberal will demonise, vilify and intimidate, both verbally and physically, any opponents who stand in his way. By such repressive actions he again casts himself into the same mould as Hitler, who once said: “A systematically one sided argument must be adopted towards every problem that has to be dealt with. He must never admit that he might be wrong, or that people with a different point of view might be right. Opponents should not be argued with; they should be attacked, shouted down, or if they become too much of a nuisance, liquidated”. The Liberal’s repressive attitude toward free speech can be seen on University campuses across the West today, even if liquidation is a step too far. Hilary Clinton was/is a firm advocate of such behaviour, having immersed herself as a none-too-attractive youth in “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Yet whilst they shout down and intimidate the defenders of Western society, they seem blissfully unaware of the destruction their policies have inflicted on the young, the poor and the elderly – the very people the Liberal purports to represent, and the future international consequences that their peculiar ideology of multiculturalism can only bring about. It is not conservative policy that has resulted in millions of our children leaving school ill-equipped to succeed in our First World economy, and it is not conservative policy that brainwashes these children into a blindness to the racial dangers they will face in later years. It is not conservative policy that causes drug-addicted lower classes to live in crime and squalor whilst the metropolitan liberal elites indulge themselves with recreational drugs, and it is not conservative policy that has bought about the destruction of the family and the serial sexual abuse perpetrated by this month’s “mummy’s new boyfriend”. It is not conservative policy that confines the elderly to their houses for fear of becoming the victims of violent, moral-free children, and it is not conservative policy that allows these feral children to have no fear of the police. It is not conservative policy that has turned the West into an outpost of Arabia and it is not conservative policy that threatens the white European with the very real possibility of eradication well before the end of this century. And finally it is not conservative policy that criminalizes any person who dares point out any of the above. Not only is the Liberal apparently unaware of such destruction, he also appears unaware of where this will lead. This is another pathological contradiction that so assuages his ideology. By any objective analysis the path he has set Western society upon can only end in anarchy and racial based civil war, out of which must arise either an Islamic West or a counterrevolution led at best by a Pinochet, at worst a Hitler. From the cohesion and peace of the 1950’s we are descending into the bitter ideological struggles of the 1930’s Weimar Republic, the reds versus the brownshirts, the liberal left versus the “far” right. Whichever is the winner, there can be only one absolute guarantee; the liberal infidel or the liberal traitor will be the first up against the wall. How can they be so blind? Perhaps the answer to this lies in Tammy Bruce’s book “The Death of Right and Wrong” which ranks as a necessary read in her exposure of the damage caused by liberal ideology. Tammy Bruce was a high-ranking activist in the National Association of Women (NOW) but became so disgusted by their attitudes that she broke ranks and started to write from the compassionate “right”. She believes the driving force of the Liberal to be “Malignant Narcissism”, a mental condition attributable to childhood abuse and trauma inflicted by parents, authority figures, or peers. Bruce quotes psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg, who describes it thus: “This pathological idealisation of the self as an aggressive self clinically is called malignant narcissism. And this is very much connected with evil and with a number of clinical forms that evil takes, such as the pleasure and enjoyment in controlling others, in making them suffer, in destroying them, or the casual pleasure in using others’ trust and confidence and love to exploit them and to destroy them.” Tammy Bruce then goes to say in her own words: “The core components of this syndrome are pathological narcissism, paranoid traits and aggression. Self-preservation, self-promotion and maintaining power are all traits that prevail in the malignant narcissist. The people and issues they supposedly serve exist only to be exploited for their own benefit”. Bruce then concludes with this damning comment: “I have participated at both the local and national levels of NOW; I have spent time with other feminists and gay special-interest groups and their leaders; I have worked in the entertainment industry and all forms of news media; and I have worked with political campaigns for democratic candidates. I have also spent time around universities. I can say with full confidence that what I have seen driving and controlling the actions of the Left Elite in all these venues – culturally, politically and socially – is malignant narcissism. Issues are used and people exploited for the sake of power. Malignant Narcissism is the god of the Left Elite.” One need not look far to see examples of this. Bill and Hilary Clinton, Cherie Blair, Jane Fonda, Marx and Engels, Andrea Dworkin, Germaine Greer etc etc. The list of liberals and dysfunctional childhoods is endless. Liberalism and mental dysfunction go hand in hand, leading to the reality that is the West today; our dysfunctional elites so consumed with virulent self-loathing that they are happy to preside over the eradication of the society they feel so damaged them. The West has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics have taken control at all the various levels in all the various institutions that shape our future. So, after fifty years of the ongoing, politically correct, liberal revolution what exactly has the Liberal achieved? That they have partially destroyed our race, culture, society and countries is not in question, but neither is it a result of well-intentioned incompetence. It is success on a massive scale, if you measure success as evil intent. They have caused untold hurt to the poor, the young, the vulnerable and the elderly and as they did this they utilised the propaganda and repression techniques descended directly from the two most evil empires in history, Nazism and Communism. Their present flirtation with Islam is proof, if further proof is needed, that the appeal of brutal totalitarianism overrides their professed love of feminism and homosexuality, thereby redirecting onto themselves Hitler’s statement with regard to the liquidation of opponents: “The morally squeamish intellectual may be shocked by this kind of thing but the masses are always convinced that right is on the side of the active aggressor.” Perhaps this is why they favour the bellicose invasion of their countries via third world immigration and multicultural propaganda, but what this realistically shows is that they are consumed with such a loathing for the West and indeed themselves that they favour their own ethnic and civilisational demise and are characteristically unmoved that they will take us down with them. To compound obscenity upon obscenity they deliberately camouflage this wanton, genocidal destruction under the banner of tolerance, diversity and equality. They are worse than the Nazis, they are treacherous Nazis. In answer to the opening question of this essay, they are not balanced, sane people, and they are not liberals. Their actions speak louder than their mendacious words; they are self-hating malignant narcissists. To call themselves liberal is as duplicitously self-serving as were a genuine Nazi to promulgate the same views he held in 1940 yet call himself a liberal today. Politically correct liberalism IS Nazism coupled with Communism, whilst classical liberalism is the ideology of we right wing opponents. They are insane, or so utterly evil that that in itself is a form of insanity. We scribblers and readers of the supposed political “right” are not by nature terribly interested in politics. We were never radicals, activists or wannabe revolutionaries. That we exist today is purely a reaction to the Liberal’s attempts to bring down the society in which we live. Without them I would suggest that the vast majority of us would be content to mow our lawns, raise our families, pay taxes, give to charity and support benign political parties. YOU the Liberal have made us what we are today, YOU the Liberal have bought us into existence. Just as a peaceful man may be driven to assault a paedophile that molests his child, so we exist as a counter to your ongoing damage to our countries and by default our children and future children. Your belief that we will go quietly into the night is only further evidence of your arrogant disconnection from reality or sanity. But now, with the advent of the Internet we have access to information that validates what we suspected but could not prove, and the means of using this information to spread and facilitate a defence. We’ve rumbled you, my liberal friend, you can no longer censor us out of your insane destruction of our countries and our cultures. You have lost your grip on the means of information and if you think that you are the self righteously angry defenders of the oppressed, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet. You have no idea how oppressed you make us feel, how angry we are, or how many we number. This justifiable anger is directed principally at the malignant narcissist liberal whose intention has always been to destroy, but you, the middle class liberals filled not with hatred but with well-intentioned guilt must understand that you have been duped, your alliance with politically correct liberalism is just as destructive, and we have had enough. You, the Liberal, must understand that the people whose race and culture is being slowly swept away by politically correct liberalism are the very people who built the civilisation you have inherited. If this civilisation were to die we would become a tribal Iraq, Somalia or Yugoslavia. So I implore you, recognise the reality of what is happening, reappraise your idea of liberalism and channel your guilt not into the past but into the future, the guilt you would surely feel — you must surely feel — if you allowed your children and your grandchildren to inherit a Third World society, with all that implies, bought about by you — The Liberal.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 05, 2013 - 9:12 pm

    boozy, boozy, boozy, that's Garon, not Ganon. And, do I take it from your "book" that liberals are bad, conservatives are good?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 06, 2013 - 5:48 am

    boozy, spot on, however it is so far over the head of your intended audience that it is meaningless to them. Even James rejects the TRUTH of it. There are a couple of gold nugget sentences, "Not only is the Liberal apparently unaware of such destruction, he also appears unaware of where this will lead." And, "That we exist today is purely a reaction to the Liberal’s attempts to bring down the society in which we live." The first of these is proven thru the institutes of indoctrination, "the universities of repeat after me", the leftists professors are so ignorant of history that they fail to recognize the first to be disposed of when their dream utopia is institutionalized. EDUCATION. They themselves serve no purpose where communism is in power. Since the typical college professor has no useful skill they become an unnecessary mouth to feed and we no what happens to them in totalitarianism. The second nugget, "That we exist today is purely a reaction to the Liberal’s attempts to bring down the society in which we live." This statement is explains me to a tee. I EXIST AND DO WHAT I DO PURELY AS A REACTION TO EVIL PEOPLE ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY AND FREEDOM I CHERISH. This entire essay explains my use of the term LEFTIST.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 06, 2013 - 6:15 am

    Leftist have a narrow range of emotions that they all share. Anger, rage, hate, jealousy, envy and one that is overlooked consistently, ARROGANCE. They have an overinflated admiration of their own intellect that is in fact, virtually non-existent. They confuse intellect with the ability to repeat and react to what they have been trained to believe. Arrogance in vital to understanding the mental disorder associated with leftism. Arrogant people are the most easily fooled and the most desirous to be surrounded by groupthink in order to affirm their false sense of intelligence. It is because of their arrogance that they believe we can control the weather and we can make everyone equal and we can make everyone love each other and that they can in fact create utopia. They are fools because of their arrogance. Their arrogance makes them dangerous because in their mind it makes them worthy to control the lives of everyone. Their arrogance also prevents them from recognizing the destruction that is wrought by their ideology and makes them free from responsibility for the consequences of their failed policies. obama is the poster child of not being responsible for anything.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 06, 2013 - 7:45 am

    University of Wisconsin student and teaching assistant, Jason Morgan. - The College Fix - brings to us his refusal to bow to "intellectual tyranny and mandatory radicalism." In his own words, here is where he made his stand and why: -- Dear Graduate Director Prof. Kantrowitz, [snip] As you are probably aware, all new TAs in the History Department are required to attend one orientation session, two TA training sessions, and two diversity sessions. Yesterday (Friday, September 20th), we new TAs attended the first of the diversity sessions. To be quite blunt, I was appalled. What we were given, under the rubric of "diversity," was an avalanche of insinuations, outright accusations, and suffocating political indoctrination (or, as some of the worksheets revealingly put it, "re-education") entirely unbecoming a university of our stature. Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and students at probably every other public institution of higher education in this country, have long since grown accustomed to incessant leftism. It is in the very air that we breathe. Bascom Hill, for example, is roped off and the university is shut down so that Barack Obama (D), Mark Pocan (D), and Tammy Baldwin (D) can deliver campaign speeches before election day. (The university kindly helped direct student traffic to these campaign events by sending out a mass e-mail encouraging the student body to go to the Barack Obama for President website and click "I'm In for Barack!" in order to attend.) Marxist diatribes denouncing Christianity, Christians, the United States, and conservatives (I am happy to provide as many examples of this as might be required) are assigned as serious scholarship in seminars. The Teaching Assistants Association (TAA)-which sent out mass e-mails, using History Department list-servs, during the attempt to recall Governor Scott Walker, accusing Gov. Walker of, among other things, being "Nero"-is allowed to address TA and graduate student sessions as a "non-partisan organization". The History Department sponsors a leftist political rally, along with the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, and advertises for the rally via a departmental e-mail (sent, one presumes, using state computers by employees drawing salaries from a state institution). In short, this university finds it convenient to pretend that it is an apolitical entity, but one need not be particularly astute to perceive that the Madison campus is little more than a think tank for the hard left. Even those who wholeheartedly support this political agenda might in all candor admit that the contours of the leftism here are somewhat less than subtle. At the "diversity" training yesterday, though, even this fig leaf of apoliticism was discarded. In an utterly unprofessional way, the overriding presumption of the session was that the people whom the History Department has chosen to employ as teaching assistants are probably racists. In true "diversity" style, the language in which the presentation was couched was marbled with words like "inclusive", "respect", and "justice". But the tone was unmistakably accusatory and radical. Our facilitator spoke openly of politicizing her classrooms in order to right (take revenge for?) past wrongs. We opened the session with chapter-and-verse quotes from diversity theorists who rehearsed the same tired "power and privilege" cant that so dominates seminar readings and official university hand-wringing over unmet race quotas. Indeed, one mild-mannered Korean woman yesterday felt compelled to insist that she wasn't a racist. I never imagined that she was, but the atmosphere of the meeting had been so poisoned that even we traditional quarries of the diversity Furies were forced to share our collective guilt with those from continents far across the wine-dark sea. It is hardly surprising that any of us hectorees would feel thusly. For example, in one of the handouts that our facilitator asked us to read ("Detour-Spotting: for white anti-racists," by joan olsson [sic]), we learned things like, "As white infants we were fed a pabulum of racist propaganda," "...there was no escaping the daily racist propaganda," and, perhaps most even-handed of all, "Racism continues in the name of all white people." Perhaps the Korean woman did not read carefully enough to realize that only white people (all of them, in fact) are racist. Nevertheless, in a manner stunningly redolent of "self-criticism" during the Cultural Revolution in communist China, the implication of the entire session was that everyone was suspect, and everyone had some explaining to do. You have always been very kind to me, Prof. Kantrowitz, so it pains me to ask you this, but is this really what the History Department thinks of me? Is this what you think of me? I am not sure who selected the readings or crafted the itinerary for the diversity session, but, as they must have done so with the full sanction of the History Department, one can only conclude that the Department agrees with such wild accusations, and supports them. Am I to understand that this is how the white people who work in this Department are viewed? If so, I cannot help but wonder why in the world the Department hired any of us in the first place. Would not anyone be better? There is one further issue. At the end of yesterday's diversity "re-education," we were told that our next session would include a presentation on "Trans Students". At that coming session, according to the handout we were given, we will learn how to let students 'choose their own pronouns', how to correct other students who mistakenly use the wrong pronouns, and how to ask people which pronouns they prefer ("I use the pronouns he/him/his. I want to make sure I address you correctly. What pronouns do you use?"). Also on the agenda for next week are "important trans struggles, as well as those of the intersexed and other gender-variant communities," "stand[ing] up to the rules of gender," and a very helpful glossary of related terms and acronyms, to wit: "Trans": for those who "identify along the gender-variant spectrum," and "Genderqueer": "for those who consider their gender outside the binary gender system". I hasten to reiterate that I am quoting from diversity handouts; I am not making any of this up. Please allow me to be quite frank. My job, which I love, is to teach students Japanese history. This week, for example, I have been busy explaining the intricacies of the Genpei War (1180-1185), during which time Japan underwent a transition from an earlier, imperial-rule system under regents and cloistered emperors to a medieval, feudal system run by warriors and estate managers. It is an honor and a great joy to teach students the history of Japan. I take my job very seriously, and I look forward to coming to work each day. It is most certainly not my job, though, to cheer along anyone, student or otherwise, in their psychological confusion. I am not in graduate school to learn how to encourage poor souls in their sexual experimentation, nor am I receiving generous stipends of taxpayer monies from the good people of the Great State of Wisconsin to play along with fantasies or accommodate public cross-dressing. To all and sundry alike I explicate, as best I can, such things as the clash between the Taira and the Minamoto, the rise of the Kamakura shogunate, and the decline of the imperial house in twelfth-century Japan. Everyone is welcome in my classroom, but, whether directly or indirectly, I will not implicate myself in my students' fetishes, whatever those might be. What they do on their own time is their business; I will not be a party to it. I am exercising my right here to say, "Enough is enough." One grows used to being thought a snarling racist-after all, others' opinions are not my affair-but one draws the line at assisting students in their private proclivities. That is a bridge too far, and one that I, at least, will not cross. I regret that this leaves us in an awkward situation. After having been accused of virulent racism and, now, assured that I will next learn how to parse the taxonomy of "Genderqueers", I am afraid that I will disappoint those who expect me to attend any further diversity sessions. When a Virginia-based research firm came to campus a couple of years ago to present findings from their study of campus diversity, then-Diversity Officer Damon Williams sent a gaggle of shouting, sign-waving undergraduates to the meeting, disrupting the proceedings so badly that the meeting was cancelled. In a final break with such so-called "diversity", I will not be storming your office or shouting into a megaphone outside your window. Instead, I respectfully inform you hereby that I am disinclined to join in any more mandatory radicalism. I have, thank God, many more important things to do. I also request that diversity training be made optional for all TAs, effective immediately. In my humble opinion, neither the Department nor the university has any right to subject anyone to such intellectual tyranny. Thank you for your patience in reading this long e-mail. Sincerely, Jason Morgan

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 7:58 am

    Cookie, would you consider boozy a zealot/fanatic whose message is lost in his rambling?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 06, 2013 - 8:48 am

    James, they are not boozy's ramblings. It is an essay written by the British author Paul Weston in 2007 on the topic of modern liberalism. The only way they would be considered ramblings is if an individual preferred to stay isolated and blind from the pattern of consistent with leftism. James, would you consider obama a zealot/fanatic for giving the leftist propaganda organs pbs/npr $455 million while closing down national monuments that belong to the people NOT the government and threatening the arrest of catholic priests who offer mass to military service personnel free of charge during his tantrum over obamacare? What do you think of the optics being created by the child-in-chief? We have been constantly reminded of the symbolism of obama, this is proving to be an education for America on the substance of obama. Did you realize he had such disrespect for American veterans when you put your X next to his name twice?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 8:56 am

    Cookie, give me a site that describes the president threatening to arrest Catholic priests. Hopefully, not a Fox site. Also, the president didn't close down the WWII memorial, the House did. I have no memory, on October 1, 2013, of the president saying "I am closing down the government and especially take great satisfaction in shutting down the WWII memorial." The House failed to pass a CR, and that caused the government to close. The president doesn't pass CRs. If he did, then you could blame him.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 06, 2013 - 9:06 am

    James, I can offer you dozen's of sites with the story. It is called google and intellectual curiosity James.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 06, 2013 - 9:12 am

    James, how disappointed should I be that you won't/can't get passed/beyond the leftist talking points that the house has shut down the government? Look no further than harry ried and barrack obama. Maybe you actually believe PIGlosi when she says obama is apolitical and nonpartisan. You do realize the National Park service was told by the obama regime to make life as painful as possible for the American citizens. Who does that James?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 06, 2013 - 9:16 am

    LINK - Feds Try to Close the OCEAN Because of Shutdown

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 9:19 am

    Cookie, numerous sites saying that "contract" priests face possible arrest. But, no where that I can see in the sites does it indicate who has threatened to arrest them?? It appears that these priests are on contract and given the government shutdown their contracts are inoperative as there is no money to pay them. Who exactly is the specific boogyman who has threatened to arrest them? The Secretary of Defense? Who?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 9:23 am

    Cookie, come on, how could the president close down the government -- there is no CR to fund the government, that's what closes the government? I know how badly you want to say it's the president but it's just not the case. The president is, however, guilty of not paying blackmail to the Tea/Republicans. Good for him. But, soon we will move on to the real problem: The debt ceiling. It will be interesting.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • bonanzaOctober 06, 2013 - 9:23 am

    2 drive-by postings in one scroll

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 06, 2013 - 9:27 am

    James, show me a site, preferably not an pmsnbc site that shows the house of Representatives ordered the nation park service/police to install wired barricades at the open air national mall to keep WWII veterans out of their own memorial.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 9:31 am

    Phil, Breitbart? Also, the anonymous Park Service Ranger? Perhaps a member of the Tea Party? And, could it be the government doesn't want them way out in the ocean because, given the shutdown, there are limited resources to save their butts should they get into trouble? Or, on the other hand, maybe Obama wants the ocean shut down just for the fun of shutting it down. Presidents don't get to have much fun.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 06, 2013 - 9:34 am

    James, here is the full text of obama's debt ceiling speech while Senator in 2006. I am curious to see how his speechifying will differ this time around. ----- March 16, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S2237-2238: “Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion. Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America. And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans—a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies. But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators CONRAD and FEINGOLD, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again. Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit”

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 9:35 am

    Cookie, the memorials are closed. When memorials are closed, they are closed. WWII Vets should complain to their representatives who can open them with a CR.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 9:36 am

    Cookie, looks like President Obama has changed his mind on the debt ceiling. It happens.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 06, 2013 - 9:48 am

    James, I won't need to watch obama read his teleprompter on the debt ceiling to be able to predictably highlight it for you. "The republicans are irresponsibly attempting to cut necessary services aimed at the most vulnerable among us. They want to starve children. They want to deny women reproductive rights. The want to deny the sick and infirmed access to much needed medical treatment. The want to irresponsibly slash education keeping our nations children uncompetitive in the world. They want to push grandma off a cliff." repeat, repeat, repeat.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 9:54 am

    Well, we will know on October 16th what his appeal to reason will contain.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65October 06, 2013 - 9:55 am

    James, I would never want to think of you as delusional, but you are not helping me.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 10:07 am

    Here's my take on the debt ceiling. The crazies will allow the U.S. to go into default. The president will then opt to obey Congress's spending and taxing laws while disobeying it's debt ceiling, thereby insuring that the U.S. does not go into default. This will anger the Tea/Republicans beyond belief and they will impeach. The impeachment will fail in the Senate and it will destroy the Tea/Republican Party. They will not win another national election until 2050. Well, maybe not even then.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rodOctober 06, 2013 - 10:26 am

    WOW, best discussion I've heard yet here. James, sorry you don't understand Weston's important message, sorrier yet if you refuse to recognize it. Cookie is trying to HELP you. I know a genius friend, Professor emeritus from Madison, his view of 'truth' is how you "perceive it". Can it get any grayer than that? Some are just born to rhetoric no matter how it ends.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 10:30 am

    Rod, I always appreciate Cookie's help, as she is a good person at heart (a dog owner as I am). If she didn't like dogs, then I wouldn't trust and like her.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 06, 2013 - 10:31 am

    James, your question, "Phil, Breitbart?" illustrates your liberal blindness and impermeability to contrary, inconvenient data. Within "Breitbart" is a link leading to the source of the story. ~~~ LINK - Food distributor stalled, charter boat captains docked

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 06, 2013 - 10:39 am

    We have all strayed away from John Garon's original theme which, I believe, is a crusade seeking the crucifixion of Jamie Diamond and exoneration of Fanny, Freddy and Barney.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 10:43 am

    Phil, the Miami story speaks to the problems that occur when the government is shut down. Some people hate the government, but then realize they miss it when it's not there. Brietbart, yes, I consider it a site as flawed as Fox (just as you consider MSNBC). Sorry.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 06, 2013 - 11:19 am

    Cookie, last night we finally got around to watching THE IRON LADY. By any chance are you the ghost of Mrs. Thatcher?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 1:54 pm

    Phil, while in the Army I didn't much think of or keep up with politics (and especially British politics). I only recently became aware when she died that Mrs. Thatcher was hard core. Guess I was in the Army bubble -- apolitical.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 06, 2013 - 2:05 pm

    James, during the Falklands war the US (Alexander Haig) wanted to warn Argentina about South Georgia - British battle plans. Maggie "won".

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 2:11 pm

    Al Haig, a political general whose ego was massive.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 06, 2013 - 2:22 pm

    "Haigspeak", described in a dictionary of neologisms as "Language characterized by pompous obscurity resulting from redundancy, the semantically strained use of words, and verbosity", leading ambassador Nicko Henderson to offer a prize for the best rendering of the Gettysburg address in Haigspeak. -

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • robertdnollOctober 06, 2013 - 2:38 pm

    above politics while in the act of killing,just following orders,how many have used that line of thought to excuse themselves from the Ten Commandments?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 2:54 pm

    Oh, here we go again -- robertdnoll who thinks the military is just pretty uniforms and flying flags. Robert, the military is not intended to dabble in politics -- Republican or Democrat, it accomplishes what the national command authority, not the ten commandments, dictates. Would America want it any other way? The United States invaded, Army and Marine Corps units refuse to repel the invaders because of the commandment not to kill. How would that work out for you?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 2:56 pm

    Finished with Robert and Teabagger.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • robertdnollOctober 06, 2013 - 4:23 pm

    thank goodness we had decorated freedom fighters to save us from the invading armies of Korea,Somalia,Laos,Vietnam Ad Nauseum.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • observerOctober 06, 2013 - 4:32 pm

    Self righteousness, like solitaire, is an addictive single-player pastime.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 4:41 pm

    Not quite finished. Those families in EDC who have lost a son, daughter, husband, wife, or a friend to combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, or in any of our past conflicts, robertknoll disrespects your loss. The lowest of the low. Come on fellow Tea/Republicans, come to robert's defense and join him in disrespecting our military dead and wounded. But, somehow I think he stands alone.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • ⓟⓘⓢⓢ ⓞⓝ ⓡⓞⓑⓔⓡⓣⓓⓝⓞⓛⓛOctober 06, 2013 - 4:50 pm

    ⓞⓗ ⓜⓨ

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • In EldoradoOctober 06, 2013 - 5:17 pm

    James is sooooo funny..He sees tea/republicans in his cheerios. I know Rob Noll and he's like some sort of 65 year old leftest hippy, a true died in wool bleeding heart lib if I ever saw one. But James whole purpose in life is to find any excuse to type the words Tea/ republicans as many times as he can in a day. Hey James, the tea Party watches you while your sleeping, boo..

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • vegetarianOctober 06, 2013 - 6:07 pm

    Yesterday I found some tea/republicans in my cheerios and had to spit them out.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ⓖⓔⓣ ⓞⓤⓣ ⓞⓕ ⓜⓨ ⒸⓗⓔⓔⓡⓘⓞⓢOctober 06, 2013 - 6:19 pm

    ⓣⓔⓐ/ⓡⓔⓟⓤⓑⓛⓘⓒⓐⓝⓢ ⓘⓝ ⓜⓨ Ⓒⓗⓔⓔⓡⓘⓞⓢ ⓜⓐⓚⓔ ⓜⓔ ⓢⓘⓒⓚ

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • robertdnollOctober 06, 2013 - 6:51 pm

    what families have not lost loved ones?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 8:44 pm

    I really don't think the local Tea Party cares about me -- I'm just a liberal in a sea of Tea/Republicans.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 8:46 pm

    Have a few minutes until Homeland begins so thought I would drop in.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 8:48 pm

    How many Berry boys were there and what did they become as adults?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • VernOctober 06, 2013 - 8:51 pm

    After reading most of the comments about John Garons letter, I believe what we have here is a group of average , and in some cases below par people who shill for their political party all over the internet . It’s kind of like what’s going on in Russia where people are paid to blog. Kind if a rapid reaction team. As an example in our County this rapid reaction team would comment on certain articles and responses having to do with McClintock, praising his efforts and issues over an others and abusing the opposition. The difference between the Russian blogger and the American redneck average below par bloggers is the Russians are smart enough to get paid for it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.October 06, 2013 - 8:57 pm

    OK, I'm off to watch Homeland. Excellent TV series. Tomorrow.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • vernOctober 06, 2013 - 9:16 pm

    After reading most of the comments about John Garons letter, I believe what we have here is a group of average , and in some cases below par people who shill for their political party all over the internet . It’s kind of like what’s going on in Russia where people are paid to blog. Kind if a rapid reaction team. As an example in our County this rapid reaction team would comment on certain articles and responses having to do with McClintock, praising his efforts and issues over others and abusing the opposition. The difference between the Russian blogger and the American redneck average below par bloggers is the Russians are smart enough to get paid for it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • robertdnollOctober 07, 2013 - 2:17 am

    i hunt,i fish,i love my cats,my dogs,my horse and donkey.i love my wife,my children and grand children,i love my friends and neighbors.i love Oprah and Reagan.i love what God has given us

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • VernaOctober 08, 2013 - 8:17 am

    Vern: Is it true you're really John Garon?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampOctober 08, 2013 - 3:18 pm

    Vern, I do not "shill for their (my) political party all over the internet ". I am an obscenely compensated TROLL. I am a magnet for troll loot. I catch all the TROLL LOOT. Cookie, Dee, Fran et al are really upset with me for catching nearly all the TROLL LOOT. Plus I control all the GOBs . . . even Parker & co. genuflect. Those others? Pikers. Less than 1K per year.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynOctober 20, 2013 - 8:45 am

    "JPMorgan Said to Have Reached $13 Billion U.S. Accord with DoJ" - HERE ********** I would remind everyone that Morgan is the PRIMARY sponsor of the Next Economy, signed on to by both the Placerville City Council and El Dorado County.

    Reply | Report abusive comment


EDH Fire Dept. annexing Latrobe

By Noel Stack | From Page: A1, 7 Comments

Motorcycle fatality in Greenwood

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1

Greenwood School being restored

By Rebecca Murphy | From Page: A1 | Gallery

Cal Fire increasing staffing, hiring

By Cal Fire | From Page: B1

EID restricts watering days

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A1, 13 Comments

Lover’s Leap fall injures man

By Tahoe Tribune | From Page: A1

Tea Party meeting April 17

By Tea Party Patriots Of El Dorado Hills | From Page: A3, 60 Comments

Town Hall Meeting on Underage Drinking May 1

By El Dorado Hills Community Vision Coalition | From Page: A6

Floating body not a body

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A7

Old mill a goner

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A11, 18 Comments | Gallery



Middle class getting poorer?

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 53 Comments

Real estate lies

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 14 Comments

A great big thanks

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5

Murder? Suicide?

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 8 Comments

‘Drive Clean’

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 4 Comments



Griz have challenging day

By Mike Bush | From Page: A8 | Gallery

Outside with Charlie: Switch gear

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A8

Ponderosa volleyball is a family affair

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A8 | Gallery

Aussie team makes visit

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A8

Roundup: April 15, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A9 | Gallery



At a glance: Take aim on fun

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2

Men to walk a mile in her shoes

By Center For Violence-Free Relationships | From Page: B2 | Gallery

Runners stampede for Sugarloaf scholarships

By El Dorado County Office of Education | From Page: B2 | Gallery

Team works to fight disease

By Placerville Kiwanis | From Page: B3

COOL School is accepting applications

By Rescue Union | From Page: B4

Band of Miwoks fund mission

By Shingle Springs Band Of Miwok Indians | From Page: B12



Crime Log: March 25-27

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

Weather stats 4-15-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2



Numa Edward “Ed” Roberts

By Contributor | From Page: A2

Ronald Russell Rohrer

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 2 Comments


Real Estate



Horoscope, Thursday, April 17, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A10

Horoscope, Wednesday, April 16, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A10

TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A10


By Contributor | From Page: A10

Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A10

Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A10

Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A10


By Contributor | From Page: A10


By Contributor | From Page: A10

New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A10


By Contributor | From Page: A10