Posted on 02/03/2005 6:06:36 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
I’ve never before used a long quote from anyone who has, in Dave Barry’s words, the IQ of a kumquat. But there are exceptions to every rule.
The following appeared on an exceptionally paranoid website known as the Democratic Underground. See for yourselves that this quote is typical of DU.
"The Iraq vote is making me sick this morning
"All the media keeps talking about is how happy the Iraqis are, how high turnout was, and how ‘freedom’ has spread to Iraq. I had to turn off CNN because they kept focusing on the so-called ‘voters’ and barely mentioned the resistance movements at all. Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?
“I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this ‘democracy’ bullsh*t. They have to know that the Americans don't want them to have power, because they know that Bush is in this for the oil, and now that he finally has it he's not going to let it go. This election is a charade. The fact is that the Iraqis have suffered during the past two years more than any people on earth at the hands of the American gestapo. Maybe they're afraid and felt they had to vote. That's the only way I can explain it to myself.
“OR... maybe they're smiling because they're using the Americans own game to defeat them. They're voting in candidates who they know will widen the resistance, take the fight to the streets, and finally drive the occupying forces out of their country. Perhaps they're smiling because--right under the American's noses--they're planting the seeds of a bigger and more effective resistance movement....
“... if the Iraq vote is seen as a success that spread ‘freedom’--the world is screwed. Bush's inaugural speech left little doubt that he has other countries on his list to spread ‘freedom’ to. They will be his next targets, and the world will burn because of it.
“Let's hope the resistance got voted in, or if not, they only increase the fight and take down those who betrayed their country today by voting in this fraud election.”
The scary part is that there are maybe a few million Americans who are just this ignorant about American ideas about government. There are hints of this aggressive ignorance in comments by Senator Ted Kennedy before the Iraqi vote. And in the comments made by Senator John Kerry the day AFTER that extraordinary vote.
Have these people never read Aristotle, John Locke, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln? Dictatorships are the most common government in history and are still a majority of the United Nations. But do these Democrats really think human beings prefer to live under dictatorships, rather than have elections and a free press?
The political future of the human race does not lie in dictatorships, religious or secular. Neither does the future of transportation lie in better horses. Nor the future of communications lie in words printed on paper. Add your own examples, ad nauseam.
While we’re talking about boneheaded foolishness, let’s look at Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. In his Democrat rebuttal to the President’s State of the Union, he talked about the “one trillion dollars in additional debt” for the “initial costs” of the Bush plan to save Social Security.
Now, the President’s plan will include the sale of US bonds to make up for the changeover, when younger workers choose to put a some retirement contributions into private accounts, rather than into the Social Security. But is this “additional debt”?
The citizens are already alive, who will eventually receive Social Security. The law which defines their benefits are already on the books. Based on anticipated life spans, it adds up to at least $10 billion dollars. That unfunded liability IS THERE, TODAY.
So the bonds for the changeover do not represent “new” debt. Even Harry Reid is not dumb enough to miss this point. So I conclude that he, and others peddling the “new debt” claim, are bald-faced liars.
While we’re taking about Harry Reid’s lies, add this. Today, he claims that allowing younger workers to put some of their money into private accounts will “destroy” the system. But on Fox News Sunday, on 14 February, 1999, Reid said “Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the social security proceeds and putting them into the private sector.”
Either Harry (“My father was a hard-rock miner in Search Light”) Reid was lying then, or he is lying now. He should pick one and explain the other.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net
John / Billybob
Well done. Always appreciate your insight.
Don't you mean $10 trillion?
Did Harry Reid mention that he grew up in Searchlight, Nevada?
He should have done something like that.
BTTT. As usual, great column (though the typical DUmmie has the IQ of the average pebble, not the smarter kumquat).
He said his mother was a sk8t3r who told him she wanted to be a little boy with a washboard under his arm at a lighthouse with a cafe. Or something.
Excellent post except I think you misplaced a decimal point. Isn't it 10 trillion instead of 10 billion?
The fact is the Democrats say the private accounts would take money 'out of' social security. Not true, the private accounts will be the new social security system. The money, apparently, will only be taken 'out of' the hands of Congress who spends it and turns it into debt.
Also, it has tape of Kennedy's afternoon rant against the Iraqis. If I find a thread on it, I'll link it here.
And a great contribution is is! Thanks Billybob!!
I think Harry Reid is saying whatever Nancy Bellicose-y tells him too.
Harry Reid on Social Security
Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)
by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
http://activote.ontheissues.org/AVA/Senate/Harry_Reid.htm
Members of Congress are covered under one of four different retirement arrangements, financed through a combination of employee and employer contributions:
• Full coverage under both CSRS and Social Security;
• The "CSRS Offset" plan, which includes both CSRS and Social
Security, but with CSRS contributions and benefits reduced by the amount of their
Social Security contributions and benefits;
• FERS (Federal Employees' Retirement System) plus Social Security; or
• Social Security alone.
Senators and Members of Congress covered by FERS also pay 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Members covered by the CSRS Offset pay 1.8% of the first $87,900 of salary, and 8.0% of salary above this amount, into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a nonpartisan department of the Library of Congress, as of October 1, 2002, 411 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 340 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $55,788. Seventy-one Members had retired either with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only, and their average annual pension was $41,856.
http://reed.senate.gov/socialsecuritymyth.htm
I only read a little of the article. I'm wondering if some medicine exists that could ease these DUer's symptoms.
Laxative and marihuana!
The SS System has grown into nothing more than a SLUSH FUND for the DUMMO'S. That is ready money they can get their hands on whenever they wish and account for it which ever way they choose!
Excellent job. Thanks very much!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.