An Open Letter to Russell King

I saw this guy on MSNBC – the Moonbat Channel – and couldn’t help but respond to his “viral” letter.

An Open Letter To Conservatives

Russell King
March 22, 2010

Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now.  You’ve lost me and you’ve lost most of America.  Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I’d like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation:  Come back to us.

Ummm…return to whom?  Please be specific.

Now the advice.  You’re going to have to come up with a platform that isn’t built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more.  But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Where do I start with this lunacy?  Seriously, Russell, you’re frickin’ deluded.

I have no idea where you get the assumption that Conservatives in this country have problems with people of color.  This is just utter insanity, or you’re just throwing lies out there (I’m apt to believe the latter).  After all, your typical liberal / socialist has absolutely no problem telling lies to forward their agenda, because it is the Left who has adopted the philosophy, “by any means necessary.”  In fact, we have a leftist organization in Michigan called By Any Means Necessary (BAMN).  They are avowed Marxists, and like you they lie through their teeth.

So, just that I’m clear about this, I want to know up front that I’m calling you a liar.  Pure and simple.  A full-fledged liar at that.  Oh, and while I’m at it, you’re an idiot.  Actually, you’re a rather large idiot.  I thought I should throw that out as well.

First and foremost, a Republican does NOT equate to a Conservative.  Period.  There are lots of liberal Republicans (commonly known as RINOS – Republicans In Name Only) who talk a good deal about what makes them a Republican, but in the end they’re just a bunch of Democrat liberal wannabes who think that being a Republican they can rub elbows with the country club crowd while advocating for the “common man” without having the stink of said Comman Man invading their nostrils.  You see, liberalism is often best done at a distance so that the ruling elite don’t have to mingle with them on an extended basis.  Rockefeller was one of these liberal Republicans as was Milliken.  They presided over the gradual decline of their respective states due, in part, to their liberal philosophy (I grew up in a Republican household too, under Milliken, and I guarantee you, that man was NOT held up with any high regard with my parents).

Furthermore – and I think this is where you are slightly “confused” – there is a fundamental difference between a “platform” and little things called “principles.”  Platforms change based on the changing conditions or events in a society.  Principles are unchangeable beliefs.  I thought I should point that out as, well, you seem to lack any distinction between the two.  Conservatives stand on principles: limited government, personal liberties, freedom of expression, and so on.  We believe in the principles that the Founding Fathers espoused, and not the whims of your modern-day liberal intellectual.

The Founding Fathers believed in the ideas espoused by John Locke, and one of them was that the individual ownership of wealth was a basic human right.  They felt that wealth is NOT derived from government, whereas the communist, socialist, and fascist ALL believe that wealth is controlled and distributed by the state.  So, anyone who believes in the PRINCIPLES on which this country was founded should indeed fear the encroachment of communism, socialism, and fascism.  Period.

I hope that clears up your confusion, though I seriously doubt it.

As for fear of people of color…does the name Clarence Thomas ring a bell?  Remember what your beloved liberal Democrats did to him?  They dragged a decent man through the mud with baseless accusations for which there was NO evidence and NO pattern of behavior.  But you obviously think that’s OK, right?  Or how about when political cartoonists made Condoleezza Rice out to be Aunt Jemima?  Or how about when those precious, forward-thinking liberals threw Oreo cookies at Michael Steele?  Oh wait, I forgot: these things don’t count.

As for the fear that America will be transformed into a “social/commun/fasc-ism” (whatever that means), frankly a little fear of those kinds of outright tyrannies is sorta healthy.  I mean, not only is that what the Founding Fathers risked their lives to usurp, but also sought (which great pains, I might add) to prevent in the future.  Anyone who ISN’T just a little afraid of becoming a socialist/communist/fascist state is immediately suspect.  Specifically: you.

Afraid of becoming an Islamic state?  I mean, if you ignore what’s happening in Europe, Asia, Africa, and discount the words of an entire movement of people whose side can be counted in the hundreds of millions then you can certainly come to the conclusion that us Conservatives are a little hair-triggered on the whole Muslim thing.  Yeah, that’s it.

When it comes to being against regulation, I work in the automotive sector which is HIGHLY regulated.  I can say without reservation that when it comes to talking about the effects of government regulation, you have NO FRICKIN’ CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.  Government regulations like CAFÉ standards, safety standards, and so on costs the auto companies – domestic and foreign – millions upon millions of dollars each year, and are partly responsible for the massive declines in the automotive industry.  I document this on this very site.  But please, don’t let your complete ignorance of a subject get in the way of you making a point (no matter how baseless that point actually is).

When it comes to intenment camps, well, ou REALLY don’t know your history on this.  The whole internment camps legend was actually recycled from the wingnuts that disliked the last administration, and they regularly pointed to pictures of a bunch of abandoned buildings supposedly controlled by FEMA.  I know this because several links to this still exist on the web.  I won’t bother to post these because, well, you won’t bother to admit you’re wrong.

Seriously, are you really this misinformed, or just plain stupid?

I could go on and on for pages of just how illiterate, ignorant, and wholly uninformed your first frickin’ paragraph is.  I pray to God the rest of this isn’t as utterly moronic.

Your party — the GOP — and the conservative end of the American political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational.  Worse, it’s tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred.  Let me provide some examples — by no means an exhaustive list — of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you’re going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you’ll have to start by draining this swamp:


You can’t flip out — and threaten impeachment – when Dems use a parliamentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that’s centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.

I guess that paranoia over the nationalization of one-sixth of the US economy (and a growing sector at that), in the face of the nationalization of one HUGE domestic automaker and several large banks has us Conservatives just a little jumpy.

(If you can get past the sarcasm, what I’m basically calling you is a moron.)

You can’t vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it’s done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) —  114 of you (at last count) did just that — and it’s even worse when you secretly beg for more.

This is probably the only thing you’ve gotten right thus far in this “letter.”

You can’t fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.

I dunno.  A sword in the hand of a friend is of more use than the same sword in the hand of an enemy.

You can’t call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.

If you can’t pay for it, then yeah you SHOULD vote against your own ideas…moron!

Are they “unlawful enemy combatants” or are they “prisoners of war” at Gitmo? You can’t have it both ways.

Actually, it was because of the hyperventilation of liberal Democrats that people who would have been otherwise been tortured (under the auspices of “interrogation”), tried, and then executed were changed from their status as spies and partisans to “unlawful enemy combatants.”

Maybe you haven’t been reading the papers for the last – oh – eight-or-so years?

You can’t carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.

Yeah I can.  First, because I PAY for most (if not all) of those handouts.  It is called “return on investment.”  Putting this aside, please enumerate the “quarter-million in government handouts” this Conservative has personally received.

You can’t refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn’t meet with you.

Yeah, actually you can.  What point is there in talking to people who have already told you that they’re going to ram through THEIR bill using reconciliation regardless of what you may have to contribute?

You can’t rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.

Actually, there was no railing going on.  It was more like we were pointing out how Boy Wonder couldn’t put two syllables together without the teleprompter being present.  And after a year of playing president, Boy Wonder still struggles without someone else putting words in his mouth.  Kinda like that incoherent seventeen-minute answer to a simple question about the logic of raising taxes during a massive recession.

You can’t rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening. (It was Bush who came up with that one.)

First, Bush WAS NOT a Conservative.  He was more like Nixon, who also professed his belief in Keynesian economic theory.  And, if you actually were a Conservative – which you are not (read: liar) – you’d know this.

You can’t be for immigration reform, then against it.

Being for amnesty, when it didn’t work in the past, isn’t “reform.”  Again, you propensity for being a moron is showing.

You can’t enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.

Not this Conservative.  I’m against continuing both Medicare and Medicaid, mainly because – like all socialist programs – they end up being inefficient money pits.  Once more, if you were a Conservative – which you are not (read: liar) – you’d know this.

You can’t flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same.  Bush.  Ford.

Last time I checked, Bush sucked, and Ford was incompetent.  Neither of them were Conservatives either.

You can’t complain that the president hasn’t closed Gitmo yet when you’ve campaigned to keep Gitmo open.

Yes.  Exposing the lies, incompetence, and outright broken promises of a Democrat president is so hypocritical. 

Again: your idiocy is showing.

You can’t flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush.  Nixon. Ike. You didn’t even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth) leaders of countries that are not on “kissing terms” with the US.

Your idiocy is now in full-force.

In Japan, there are degrees of bowing.  A slight nod, like what Nixon did, was acceptable as it shows a mutual respect.  Just like Bush’s hand-holding is considered a friendly gesture of mutual respect.  And Eisenhower’s bow to De Gaulle was after a speech of greeting by an old Comrade in Arms (remember that whole World War II thingie back in the Forties).  However, Baby Doc Obama’s bow to the Saudi king was not only unprecedented, the guy was almost kissing the frickin’ ground!

That’s not a show of mutual respect, and any foreign liaison would tell you the same.

So, it’s clear you have not a frickin’ clue as to what you’re talking about!

You can’t complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent.  (And, no, Newt — the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)

Actually, the Richard Reid was a British national, and certain diplomatic agreements exist between the United Kingdom and the United States that do NOT exist between the US and Nigeria.

But please, don’t let that get in the way of your long list of “profundities.”

You can’t attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hours when you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn’t issue any condemnation).  *Obama administration did the day of the event.

Ok, maybe you’ve made a second point.  It’s weak, but you need all the help you can get at this point.

You can’t throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when — in fact — only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.

Most intelligent people usually learn from past mistakes.  Call me crazy.  Then again, maybe if Baby Doc Obama didn’t declare that he’s going to shut down Gitmo, this wouldn’t be an issue.

You can’t condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attempted terror attack on his.

Actually, yes you can.  Especially when the Dem president is trying to dismantle everything that the Republican president did to prevent further attacks on American soil.  It also doesn’t help when said Dem president is trying to return to a policy of treating terrorists as criminals, which only spurred further attacks on American soil.

Again, smart people learn lessons from the mistakes of the past.

You can’t mount a boycott against singers who say they’re ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he’s ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Maoist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.

I thought dissent was patriotic these days?  That’s what we were told back during Bush by the likes of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi.

If you can’t live within the constraints of your own rules, you’d best not change them in the first place.

You can’t cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it’s too short.

Actually, they were initially crying that the bill should be dead on arrival.  Again, please don’t let these little facts get in the way of your “profundities.”

You can’t support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas.

You mean, like Baby Doc Obama criticizing Hillary Clinton for imposing individual mandates for health insurance in a primary debate?

You can’t demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it. Repeatedly.

Yeah.  As if the media doesn’t have steep tilt towards liberal Democrats.  None whatsoever. (Rolls eyes.)

By the way, if you don’t pull your head out of your rectum, you’re likely to suffocate…

You can’t praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects under a Rep president, then call it “treasonous” under a Dem president.

When and where, pal?

You can’t propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.

That’s generally because when a Democrat takes up a Republican “idea,” they usually remove all vestiges of a private sector solution, and create a massive federal bureaucracy to go along with it.

You can’t be both pro-choice and anti-choice.

First, it’s called pro-abortion or pro-murder, and pro-life.  Second, you’re right: throw out the people who are pro-murder.  Simple.

Pardon me, but isn’t Bart Stupak (D-MI) pro-life?  Oh wait, liberal Democrats aren’t EVER hypocrites.  I forgot…

You can’t damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you’ve paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.

Yes.  Ignore the liberal Democrat lines of “everyone pays their fair share” in the future.  This is all Republican-fueled hyperbole…

(Once more: your idiocy is showing.)

You can’t condemn criticizing the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president’s party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up).

If armed conflict does not remove out right to speak up, then why are you criticizing Republicans for “speaking up?”

Seriously, did your mother drop you on your head when you were a kid?

You can’t be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.

Lindsey Graham isn’t what I’d call the “Republican Ideal.”  And if you want him out of the Republican party, I’m game!

You can’t vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of  ’open debate’.

You can if the bill is going to destroy the country and one-sixth of the nation’s economy.

If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether it’s 2004 or 2010.  This is true, too, if you’re taking GOP money and giving anti-gay rants on CNN.  Taking right-wing money and GOP favors to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution.  This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God’s stand, too.

Last time I checked, once those people having gay sex got exposed, they resigned.

Then again, the alternative – liberal Democrats – fondling congressional pages is seen as a resume enhancement, and a sure ticket to get reelected.

So…uh…which would you prefer?

When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you can’t send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you made it hypocritical as well).

Actually, when all was said and done, that 16-year old boy ended up being an 18-year old adult, and the Republican in question had to resign in disgrace.

This contrasts with Barney Frank, who had a male prostitution ring being run out of his apartment, and ended up sleeping with a higher-level executive of Fannie Mae.  Oh, and Barney Frank got reelected after all this crap became public.

Again, which would you prefer?

You can’t criticize Dems for not doing something you didn’t do while you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have done more in one year than you did in 16.

And you really can’t criticize Republicans for not overturning every wrong-headed socialist program that the liberal Democrats implemented in their forty-year dominance of Congress.

You can’t decry “name calling” when you’ve been the most consistent and outrageous at it. And the most vile.

Yeah.  Because liberal Democrats in this regard have been pure as the wind-driven snow for the last forty years.

And their allies in the media.

And their stooges in the entertainment industry.

I think you get the point.  When it comes to name-calling, Republicans ain’t got NOTHING on Democrats.

You can’t spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare.

Quit repeating yourself.

You can’t praise the Congressional Budget Office when it’s analysis produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it’s unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don’t.

Actually, you can when you have a better track record of the final outcomes of your legislation being better than the initial CBO scoring.

Democrats, unfortunately, can’t make that sort of claim.

You can’t vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X under a Democratic president. Either you support X or you don’t. And it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake obstructionism.

First, quit repeating yourself.

Second, you most certainly can vote against “X” when “X” in your bill is handed by the private sector, whereas “X” in the Democrat bill is handled by a massive government bureaucracy.

You can’t call a reconciliation out of bounds when you used it repeatedly.

Reconciliation has been used in the past for BUDGET bills, not massive, sweeping pieces of legislation that nationalize whole sectors of the US economy.

Big difference.

You can’t spend tax-payer money on ads against spending tax-payer money.

Actually, that’s probably one of the best uses of tax-payer money to date.

You can’t condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill, when the mandates were your idea.

Actually, the mandates stem from Hillarycare…who was and is a Democrat.  No one disputes this.

You can’t demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don’t.

You can if the generals are wrong.  Lincoln and FDR both did this.

However, when a known, trusted, and tested general demands 80,000 troops, it is fair to be critical when Boy Wonder takes months to figure out when in the hell he’s going to do (aside from sitting in a corner and sucking his thumb).

You can’t whine that it’s unfair when people accuse you of exploiting racism for political gain, when your party’s former leader admits you’ve been doing it for decades.

Yeah, because Democrats haven’t been playing the race card at all.  Right.

Once more, if you don’t pull your head out of your rectum, you’re going to suffocate.

You can’t portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and passionately support terrorists.

Name the terrorists.

You can’t complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you’ve routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain — threatening to filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than any other since the procedural tactic was invented — and admitted it.  Some admissions are unintentional, others are made proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your own ideas.

You can when Democrats already announce that they’re going to ram a bill through Congress in advance of a meeting where they decide to ask your ideas on the subject.

You can’t question the loyalty of Department of Justice lawyers when you didn’t object when your own Republican president appointed them.

Eric Holder wasn’t appointed by Bush, dumba**.

You can’t preach and try to legislate “Family Values” when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer’s wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheating on your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coerce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife’s mother.

1) Resigned.
2) Should resign.
3) Was a Democrat when he did that.
4) Was accused of having gay sex because he tapped his foot while sitting on the toilet.
5) Name the Republican who authorized the rape of Iraqi children, you frickin’ coward!
6) Half of the Democrat party is looking to have sex with children, and is in bed with NAMBLA.
7) Don’t talk to me about Republicans cheating on their wives after Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, and James McGreevey.

Of course, we could also discuss the peccadilloes of the likes of Kwame Kilpatrick, David Patterson, Tim Mahoney, Gavin Newsom, Sam Adams, Barney frank, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Chuck Robb, and so on, and so on.


You really need to disassociate with those among you who:

* assert that people making a quarter-million dollars a year can barely make ends meet or that $1 million “isn’t a lot of money”;

Real Conservatives don’t begrudge other people because of their wealth.  Besides, most Democrats are up to their ears in dirty money, they don’t want to have to justify where it comes from.

* say that “Comrade” Obama is a “Bolshevik” who is “taking cues from Lenin”;

Yes.  The “spreading the wealth around” comment, and the fact that the guy associates with radical Marxists (Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Alice Palmer and the like) is all pure coincidence.  He’s really a supply-sider in disguise.

* ignore the many times your buddies use a term that offends you and complain only when a Dem says it;

I’m sorry that Baby Doc Obama is being called a Fascist.  But frankly, that shoe fits rather well given his proclivity for nationalizing private companies.

* liken political opponents to murderers, rapists, and “this Muslim guy” that “offed his wife’s head” or call them “un-American”;

You mean like when Jack Murtha claimed people in uniform murdered civilians in Haditha?  Or when Jim McDermott compared out men and women in uniform to jack-booted Nazis?

* say Obama “wants his plan to fail…so that he can make the case for bank nationalization and vindicate his dream of a socialist economy”;

Excuse me, but what do you call AIG and GM?

* equate putting the good of the people ahead of your personal fortunes with terrorism;


Either give an example, or put down the crack pipe.

* smear an entire major religion with the actions of a few fanatics;

Yes, a “few” fanatics that populate large portions of Europe, Asia, causing genocide in Africa, killing civilians in the Philippines, blowing up trains in Russia, causing wars in the former nation of Yugoslavia, and  have been responsible for slaughtering one million Armenians in the previous century.

Yeah.  We’re making a mountain out of a mole hill here…

* say that the president wants to “annihilate us“;

Well, 9.7% unemployment, nationalizing large corporations, and letting hostile nations know that you won’t respond with the nuclear option even if you launch a chemical of biological attack against the US tends to cause that kind of reaction.

Silly us.

* compare health care reform with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, a Bolshevik plot the attack on 9/11, or reviving the ghosts of communist dictators;

It might help if Baby Doc Obama didn’t act like a communist himself.  It also might help if he wasn’t putting avowed Marxists into his administration.

* equate our disease-fighting stem cell research with “what the Nazis did”;

Fetal stem cells have produced next to nothing when it comes to “cures.”

But if you feel better killing unborn children for little gain, knock yourself out.

You really are pretty ignorant.

* call a bill passed by the majority of both houses of Congress, by members of Congress each elected by a majority in their districts, an unconscionable abuse of power, a violation of the presidential oath or “the end of representative government”;

Well, when the representatives openly violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution (as in the remark, “I don’t care about the Constitution,” made by Democrat representative), and openly ignore the desires of a majority of their constituents, I’d say that representative government is taking a hit in this country.

Maybe I’m just being overly pessimistic.

* shout “baby killer” at a member of Congress on the floor of the House, especially one who so fought against abortion rights that he nearly killed health care reform (in fact, a little decorum, a little respect for our national institutions and the people and the values they represent, would be refreshing — cut out the shouting, the swearing and the obscenities);

But one who sold out one of his core “principles” to keep his party bosses happy is a saint, right?

Actually, I think the term “baby killer” is quite apt for Mr. Stupak.

* prove your machismo by claiming your going to “crash a party” to which you’re officially invited;

Ted Kennedy was a Democrat, son.

* claim that Obama is pushing America’s “submission to Shariah”;

I believe it was George Stephanopoulos who had to remind Baby Doc Obama that he was a Christian.

* question the patriotism of people upholding cherished American values and the rule of law;

Actually, it was either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid who outright called certain Americans “unpatriotic.”  One of them being Rush Limbaugh, I believe.

Again, try reading the papers every now and again.  And stop being an uninformed idiot.

* claim the president is making us less safe without a hint of evidence;

Shutting down Gitmo without having a clue as to where you’re going to put a bunch of dangerous terrorists, and reverting to treating terrorists as criminals (which has historically shown to spur more terrorist attacks) isn’t exactly what I’d call keeping America safe.

Then again, it’s pretty clear that you are easily impressed, and rather dim.  So, I’ll excuse your ignorance.

* call a majority vote the “tyranny of the minority,” even if you meant to call it tyranny of the majority — it’s democracy, not tyranny;

Actually, Democrats said the same exact thing through most of the 1990s, and through Bush’s term.

Your point being?

* call the president’s support of a criminal trial for a terror suspect “treasonous” (especially when you supported the same thing when the president shared your party);

You might be right on this one.  It isn’t exactly treason.  Horribly stupid, and dangerous, but not treason.

* call the Pope the anti-Christ;

Compared to what liberal Democrats call the Pope, and Christians in general, this is kinda tame.

* assert that the constitutionally mandated census is an attempt to enslave us;

How many of those questions on the present census are Constitutionally mandated, and in the original census?

* accuse opponents of being backed by Arab slave-drivers, drunk and suicidal;

Didn’t Democrats accuse Bush of being a cocaine addict, a lush, and beholden to Arab shieks?

* equate family planing with eugenics or Nazism;

Actually, abortions and selective breeding were pillars of the Eugenics movement.  All you shown is how you don’t know much about this as well.

* accuse the president of changing the missile defense program’s logo to match his campaign logo and reflect what you say is his secret Muslim identity;

This is a new one by me.  Maybe you’ve got better information from your DNC talking points than I do actually following the news.

Then again, whatever happened to that secret deal between Dibold and Bush, and Dibold and McCain?

* accuse political opponents of being totalitarians, socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists;  terrorist sympathizers, McCarthy-like, Nazis or drug pushers; and

It might help if liberal Democrats didn’t a) espouse the same ideals as militarist socialists, and b) actually befriend terrorists like Bernidine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.

* advocate a traitors act like seccession, violent revolution, military coup or civil war (just so we’re clear: sedition is a bad thing).

I’m sure Waco didn’t help in this regard.


If you’re going to use words like socialism, communism and fascism, you must have at least a basic understanding of what those words mean (hint: they’re NOT synonymous!)

No, but they are all collectivist.  They all have similar goals, and similar methodologies.  They are also documented historical failures.

I’m pretty sure what you know about socialism, communism, and fascism doesn’t go much beyond the definition in Webster’s Dictionary.

You can’t cut a leading Founding Father out the history books because you’ve decided you don’t like his ideas.

Well, when the liberals gave Lincoln and Reagan the boot…

Furthermore, what liberals claim they know about Jefferson is usually nothing more than a bunch of progressive myths concocted in the literary guilds of Fantasyland.

You cant repeatedly assert that the president refuses to say the word “terrorism” or say we’re at war with terror when we have an awful lot of videotape showing him repeatedly assailing terrorism and using those exact words.

He also has a cabinet secretary who has blamed Canada for 9/11.  He also wants to sit down with one of the biggest sponsors of Islamic terrorism in the world without preconditions, to have tea and crumpets.  So, if we Conservatives think the Baby Doc Obama regime is a little confused by this whole terrorism “thingie” we’ve got more than enough examples to illustrate our point.

If you’re going to invoke the names of historical figures, it does not serve you well to whitewash them. Especially this one (Bush and terrorism).

Well, 9/11 definitely wouldn’t have happened if Clinton would have taken the Sudanese up on their offer to hand over bin Laden back in the 1990s.  Sometimes, you have to play the hand you’re dealt.

You can’t just pretend historical events didn’t happen in an effort to make a political opponent look dishonest or to make your side look better. Especially these events. (And, no, repeating it doesn’t make it better.)

Steve Doocy screwed up on the reporting of a 2006 earthquake.  This is major historical revisionism?

Are you high?

I mean, how does this compare to…oh…creating false memos concerning Bush and his National Guard service?

You can’t say things that are simply and demonstrably false: health care reform will not push people out of their private insurance and into a government-run program ; health care reform (which contains a good many of your ideas and very few from the Left) is a long way from “socialist utopia”; health care reform is not “reparations”; nor does health care reform create “death panels”.

Actually, the same thing that was signed by Obama was tried in several states in the 1990s, one of them was Kentucky.  Premiums rose through the roof in the state, insurers fled the state, and it became so bad that they eventually had to repeal the whole frickin’ system.

Call me crazy, but when a health insurer pulls out of the game, you tend to lose your insurance.  They don’t offer an alternative.

So, uh, head…out of rectum…suffocation.


You have to condemn those among you who:

* call members of Congress n*gger and f*ggot;

Robert Byrd?

* elected leaders who say “I’m a proud racist”;

Robert Byrd?

* state that America has been built by white people;

Robert Byrd?

* say that poor people are poor because they’re rotten people, call them “parasitic garbage” or say they shouldn’t be allowed to vote;

Robert Byrd?

* call women bitches and prostitutes just because you don’t like their politics ( re – pea – ted – ly );

Well, Alan Grayson did call Ben Bernanke a “K Street whore,” but that’s OK – Bernanke is a guy.  Perfectly acceptable.

* assert that the women who are serving our nation in uniform are hookers;

To Democrats, they’re just sexless Nazis.

* mock and celebrate the death of a grandmother because you disagree with her son’s politics;

What, the “typical white woman?”

* declare that those who disagree with you are shown by that disagreement to be not just “Marxist radicals” but also monsters and a deadly disease killing the nation (this would fit in the hyperbole and history categories, too);

Again, it might help a bit if some of Baby Doc Obama’s stooges didn’t openly profess to be Marxist radicals.

* joke about blindness;

Joe Biden?

(In all fairness, I don’t remember Joe Biden crapping all over blind people, but would it really surprise you if he did?)

* advocate euthanizing the wife of your political opponent;

John Edwards?

Oh, I’m sorry – John Edwards was just using his wife and her illness (inoperable cancer) as a campaign gimmick while he was banging his mistress in the local Motel 8.

My bad.

* taunt people with incurable, life-threatening diseases — especially if you do it on a syndicated broadcast;

Like hoping people die screaming of rectal cancer?

* equate gay love with bestiality — involving  horses or dogs or turtles or ducks — or polygamy, child molestation, pedophilia;

Ever herd of NAMBLA?  Big, big Democrat voting bloc.

* casually assume that only white males look “like a real American”;

Or a “clean, articulate” black guy (Joe Biden).

* assert presidential power to authorize torture,  torture a child by having his testacles crushed in front of his parents to get them to talk, order the massacre of a civilian village  and launch a nuclear attack without the consent of Congress;

Actually, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo were attempts to massacre cities, and not just villages.

Who was in charge during WWII?

* attack children whose mothers have died;

Democrats do that all the time.  It’s called “social services.”

* call people racists without producing a shred of evidence that they’ve said or done something that would even smell like racism — same for invoking racially charged “dog whistle” words (repeatedly);

Yeah, Democrats have NEVER done anything like that!  Never!  Never, ever never!

Once more: are you high?!?

* condemn the one thing that every major religion agrees on;

Like Democrats and God?  Or Democrats and basic morality?

* complain that we no longer employ the tactics we once used to disenfranchise millions of Americans because of their race;

Yes.  Asking for a photo ID before allowing people to vote, so as to avoid massive voter fraud, is right out of Jim Crowe!

Curse those Republicans and their wicked ways!

Oh, someone remind me, haven’t ACORN workers been prosecuted for voter registration fraud?

* blame the victims of natural disasters and terrorist attacks for their suffering and losses;

I believe Ward Churchill votes Democrat.

* celebrate violence , joke about violence, prepare for violence or use violent imagery, “fun” political violence, hints of violence, threats of violence (this one is rather explicit), suggestions of violence or actual violence (and, really, suggesting anal rape wth a hot piece of metal is beyond the pale); and

Like Alec Baldwin calling for the beating death of Henry Hyde and his family?

What party does Alec support again?

* incite insurrection telling people to get their guns ready for a “bloody battle” with the president of the United States.

Yes.  Books about Bush’s assassination don’t qualify.

Oh, and I’m not alone:  One of your most respected and decorated leaders agrees with me.

John McCain is not what I’d call the Republican Ideal either.

So, dear conservatives, get to work.  Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bold-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred.  Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America.  We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we’ll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms.  We need you.

If you’re the American “mainstream,” moving to Costa Rica doesn’t seem all that bad.  At least down there they have people who actually read things like books and newspapers, and they don’t walk around with DNC talking points guiding their “intellectual ventures.”

 (Anticipating your initial response:  No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.)

I started out by praying to God that the rest of this article wasn’t as stupid and uninformed as the first paragraph.  Obviously, God didn’t hear my prayer.

Now I could have really hammered home with the facts that much of what is detailed here comes from sources that are totally undocumented, or derived from flaming nut-jobs like Keith Olbermann.  They fact that you appeared on MSNBC – the DNC house organ – to tout your viral “letter” really doesn’t give you any credibility.  Frankly speaking, I’ll say that you’re outright full of crap on most of these points.  I mean, when you’re citing the DailyKos, whose membership includes people who think that Bush flew the jets into the Twin Towers themselves (parachuting out one second before impact), any credibility you have is akin to that of a snake oil salesman – a career for which you are aptly suited.

I also might be able to help you with your problems with straining on a gnat, but that whole swallowing a camel whole thing is a genuine talent that shouldn’t be discouraged.  Your last sentence pretty much illustrates that sufficiently.

If you’re a Conservative – which you’re not because I’ve properly identified you as an outright liar – my only advice is this: don’t let the door hit you in the a** on the way out.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: