Leany on Life -- October 2009

We are screaming "Can you not see this coming!?!?"

Meanwhile, the people who are all enamored of themselves because of their "role in history" . . .

Continued below
(Best viewed with a mind not clouded by the Kool-Aid)

Leany home   |   Articles   |   Chronicles   |   Prostitution Arrests   |   Who is Frank Leany?   |   Libotomies   |  

The John Galt Society

It can be discouraging to look around at who's running the show these days and wonder "Where have all the grown-ups gone?"

Take heart. There are still some people who are not drinking the Kool-aid. Here's where to find them.

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is a feisty conservative bastion. You loved her book "Unhinged" and you can read her columns here.
Ann Coulter
Ann posts her new column every Thursday, or you can browse her past columns.
George Will
What can you say? It's George Will. Read it.
Charles Krauthammer posts every Friday. Just a good, smart conservative columnist.
If you want someone who gets it just as right, but is easier to read, try Thomas Sowell, who just posts at random times.
Jonah Goldbert seldom disappoints.
David Limbaugh carries on the family tradition.

Jewish World Review has all these guys plus lots more good stuff.

Or you can go to radio show sites like
 Laura Ingraham's or Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's..

If you'd like you can study The Constitution while you wait.

Then there's always World Net Daily, NewsMax.com, The Drudge Report, FreeRepublic.com, News Busters, or National Review Online.

For the Lighter Appetite

If you have to read the news, I recommend The Nose on Your Face, news so fake you'd swear it came from the Mainstream Media. HT to Sid for the link.
Or there's always The Onion. (For the benefit of you Obama Supporters, it's a spoof.)

Dilbert.
Dave Barry's Column
Daryl Cagle's Index of Political Cartoons
About half of these cartoonists are liberal (Latin for wrong) but the art is usually good. (Fantastic, if you're used to the quality of art on this site.)

Or just follow the links above and to the right of this section (you can't have read all my archived articles already). If you have read all my articles (you need to get out more) go to my I'm Not Falling For It section.

Above all, try to stay calm. Eventually I may post something again.

Isn't it ironic?
10.28.09

We are screaming "Can you not see this coming!?!?"

Meanwhile, the people who are all enamored of themselves because of their "role in history" for pulling a lever in a voting booth are saying "Relax. Nothing has changed. Nixon had an enemies list, too. Both Roosevelts got the government involved in private business. We've always been trying to socialize our health care system."

Isn't it ironic? The people that voted for Change are the ones insisting that it's not happening.

I was struggling with how to describe how it felt to hear NPR talking about the current situation. I had to use words like "bizarre" and "surreal" but I never could come up with a suitable analogy that convey the fantasy world they live in.

I found one.

Last week we took care of an elderly family member who is experiencing dementia. She'll be riding in the car to go to the store and say "I wonder if all these people are late for Sunday School, too?" Or she'll talk about her hospital stay as "back at the college" or introduce members of her family as people who used to work with her at Gibson's.

It's kind of comical at times, but more often it's sad and disturbing. If she's away from her son she confuses him with her dead husband and thinks that he's kicked her out of the house, or that he's cheating on her with her daughter-in-law.

She's living in a "reality" that doesn't exist.

If you can think of a better word than "demented" to describe NPR (and MSNBC, etc.) I'd like to hear it.

This is the coolest costume you'll see this year. It was made by a very bright young man who lives very, very close to where I live.

John was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young laying hens, called 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.

He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced. This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance which rooster was performing.

Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

John's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover.

To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he was a big hit with the judges. The judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also gave him the Pullet Surprise as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making.

Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention?

You know the drill. Read Ann Coulter's column. Just do it.

You have a friend like this—everyone does. This friend bashes your other friends when they're not around. "Did you catch that? Don't you hate the way Julie talks about her family's money, like they're so privileged?" Yeah, that kind of bugs me, too. "Yeah, well, you know, I heard that . . ."

It seems like you're having a bonding moment, both of you united in your common disdain for another. But something's nagging in the back of your mind. You don't feel comfortable about the conversation, and not just because it's not morally right to talk about someone behind his back. There's something more practical at work here.

Eventually it dawns on you. If she's bashing a friend to you, she's going to be bashing you to another friend.

It's a simple rule. If a woman is cheating on her husband to be with you, you're stupid to believe she's going to be loyal to you.

The concept is as clear as can be in my mind, behind that membrane where consciousness exists without language. But I struggle with how to convey the concept in words. The press that is so in the tank for Obama right now has no clue about the game it's playing.

Today it's Fox News that Obama's trying to run out of business. If you're MSNBC and you're gleefully helping him do that, you're a fool . . . well, saying MSNBC and "fool" in the same sentence is redundant, but you get the idea.

When you're helping the devil, don't expect him to return the favor when you're no longer of any use to him.

I know, I know. You didn't have the same parents, teachers, and friends that I had. You've read different books from me. You don't listen to the same radio programs that I listen to. Your experiences in foreign countries were different from mine.

And you didn't get the story about Salvador Allende from someone who lived in Chile at the time he rose to power.

We have different perspectives. Tomato/to-mah-to, Fox News/PMSNBC. I get it. What I don't get is how anyone can look at what's going on today not see what's coming.

It's like one of us is hypnotized. We're looking at the exact same thing and seeing two completely different images. Is it a dragon or is it a Corvette? Which one of us is under the influence of the hypnotist? (Hint—I know the answer.)

I'm screaming at you "Heliocentric solar system!" You're staring at it saying, "I don't know, I like the way Ptolemy explains it."

No matter what happens, there is always an explanation that prevents you from seeing it all coming apart. But that can only be sustained for so long. At some point the explanations fabricated to support the flaws in the earlier explanations compound until it all collapses.

We are living in interesting times. The country is at a crossroads. If Obama gets his way, your grand kids will grow up in an America that's fundamentally different from the one you grew up in. For the benefit of those with the Kool-Aid mustaches—that's not a good thing.

If America does survive it won't be because Obama (and his associates) didn't try to prevent that.

Does that sound too radical? Maybe we ought to have a quick review of what has always happened when the dog hears the doorbell, and see if we can predict how the dog is going to react to the next doorbell ringing.

Obama has a history of taking out the opposition. You might recall what he did to Alice Palmer—what? They didn't cover that one on MSNBC? He works in the active mode, like he did with Palmer and like he's doing with Fox, Glenn Beck, Rush and others. In other cases, like with Stoger's Soldiers, Joe the Plumber, and countless others, he's more passive, just giving tacit approval by refusing to say anything to thwart those doing his destruction for him.

If you've been listening to his comments you are aware of the indisputable fact: This dictator doesn't have a lot of use for anyone else's opinion. If you disagree with him, you're not allowed to "do a lot of talking."

Well, there's the wall. My political electrolytes are all used up. You know the deal—if you already know it, I'm wasting my breath; if you refuse to see it, I'm wasting my breath.

As usual, David Limbaugh says it much better than I can. You should read his comments on the way the left clotheslined Rush. He nails it. Everyone knows this is not about Rush. It's about sending a message that it's against the rules to hold a viewpoint different from what the politburo prescribes.

Read the whole piece. Below are some excerpts.

To the left, Rush is the most prominent face of conservatism and the most influential opponent of President Barack Obama's destructive agenda and so must be stopped.

And he also immediately made the connection between the fabricated quotes this time and the lies of Dan Rather.

To Rather, it didn't matter [that he knew he was lying] because he was convinced Bush possessed the character of someone who would have engaged in the acts of which he was falsely accused . . .

The parallel with Rush's leftist slanderers is striking. "How dare you suggest that we have done anything wrong in attributing statements to Rush he never uttered? Even if he didn't say those words, you know he was thinking them or something much worse."

And the bizarre thing—the leftists who are chortling today about their "victory" over conservative free speech are clueless to the fact that there is plenty of room in the gulags for them also.

If the supporters were just slightly honorable, at the very least they would condemn the slanderers for their indefensible tortuous utterances. They wouldn't even have to say one word in defense of the super patriot they loathe; just call to the carpet the brutish verbal thuggery of their ideological soul mates . . .

If any of you are sufficiently naive to believe this NFL incident is merely about Rush, you have a rude awakening in store. The left is on the march — the march to isolate, stigmatize, demonize, discredit and ultimately silence those who stand in their way. If you haven't read up on the plans of Obama's Federal Communications Commission czar to shut down talk radio or if you aren't following the tyrannical workings of the administration in trying to cram down unpopular legislation without a shred of transparency, then you'll eventually witness the lengths to which these people will go — as illustrated here.

At the risk of sounding trite, we are at a crossroads in this country, and the left is proving each day how ruthlessly unprincipled it will be in advancing its goal of fundamentally changing this nation.

Those of you too young to remember Tiananmen Square (Obama supporters) should go ask your Uncle Google about it.

It's pretty safe to be all uppity about the civil rights movement when you're showboating for your little professor at the local community college. But I guaran-damn-tee you: If you view what they did to Rush as a victory, you are the exact kind of scumbait that would have been turning dogs and fire hoses on the civil rights marchers back when Martin Luther King was around.

And one more thing. He who laughs last laughs best. Rush is smarter than the left and he spends more on lunch than Checketss will see in his lifetime. If he wants an NFL team he'll just buy the league or start his own or something. This is not over and I guarantee you he'll come out with what he wants when it is.

I checked. I am required to say something about the kid in the balloon incident.

I ain't gonna' do it.

You know me. When I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it.

Well, I have to admit, I was wrong when I said that there is no two-headed Elvis love child from Mars. There has to be one, because standing in a checkout line I saw it reported that there is.

Just like Rush Limbaugh has to be a bigot because it was reported that he was.

I wish I were making this up. Ayn Rand in cooperation with Stephen King could not craft a more scary scenario than what's going on right now. Rush Limbaugh has been closed out of buying the St. Louis Rams because it was "reported" that he's a racist.

Seriously. The close-minded racists in the state-controlled media fabricated Limbaugh quotes—completely made them up out of whole cloth. They invented things that he never said—things that are completely contrary to things that he has said—and used them as "proof" that Limbaugh is a racist.

There are two types of people involved in this discussion. First, those that say he is a racist. The second group is composed of anyone who has ever listened to his show ever.

When confronted about it, these enemies of Liberty go to the Dan Rather defense. Dave Barry and I are not making this up. They say that sure, he never said any of that, but the fact that the evidence is fabricated doesn't mean it isn't true! (She's a witch . . . well, we did do the nose, but . . . she's a witch!)

One interview that I heard went like this.

"How do you address the fact that the 'slavery' quote you used turned out to be false?"

"Well, I should have said 'reported,' but look, that's the whole point here. So much has been reported about his views as a racist that it's pretty clear that he's not suited to own an NFL team."

At which point my radio suffered a boot heel to the faceplate malfunction.

Here's one of the greatest comments I've seen on the whole thing:

"It is sad that a racist can be president but a racist can't own an NFL team."

. . . but I was mistaken.

Dave Checketts distinguished himself here locally as a complete schmuck. A complete loser crybaby piece of crap self-absorbed scamming lying dickwad. When I heard that he was involved with Limbaugh in the deal to buy the Rams I thought "Hmm. I might have been wrong about Checketts."

I wasn't wrong.

Could someone explain this to me? Why does this work for liberals and against conservatives?

I was railing against that e-mail about Obama and Blagojevich—the one that said Obama said he'd never met the man. Obama never said that. Saying that he did undermines our credibility. It's the old "If you have to lie to convince me I don't want to buy it." There's plenty of real stuff to use against the guy, why damage the credibility of that by making stuff up?

But when liberals do it, it bolsters their case. "Well, sure, the evidence is completely fabricated, but the story it tells is true."

It has to have something to do with whatever mental disorder allows you to listen to NPR without your brain exploding. (Does having brain damage cause you to listen to NPR, or does listening to NPR cause brain damage?)

You can see how the colonists felt. You try to use reason and logic. You try to understand. Eventually you just have to start shooting.

You run down to your local computer store. Gimme four of them Dell 390s, you say. The geek says "If you buy five, this month only, we're running a special, you get free hard drive upgrades." Okay, I'll take five.

You walk out of the store with five identical computers. Same RAM, same processor, same build of the same software—identical in every way. You install those five identical computers at five desks in your business.

One week later they are five different computers.

Every program that runs, every setting that's changed, every different way that items are searched, every time files get moved, the dll set on that computer is affected. They will never be identical again (probably not even if you scrub the hard drives). That's why Julie in accounting gets that weird little flicker in the left pane when she has thumbnails displayed and Eric in Marketing doesn't. That's why Todd in Engineering has to wait forever to attach a file in Outlook and Robin over in shipping has no problem.

Your mom might have read "Freckles" to you in the car on the way to Cedar City, but maybe you didn't get the set of plastic wings from the TWA flight that your dad took when you were a kid. Maybe you went to Missouri with your family for a week to spend time on a farm riding horses and exploring in the woods, but maybe you didn't read "Farmer Boy" when you got back home. Maybe your family didn't read the same Christmas story every Christmas Eve and maybe you didn't have a hill up by Wengert's house that iced over enough to run your Flexible Flyer down. You might not have spent two summers in Mexico driving a tractor when you were 12 and 13 and made a fool of yourself with that crush on Judy Bowman. Maybe you didn't read "Black Like Me" when you were in sixth grade or QB VII in high school and maybe you didn't happen to pick up a book about "How Cars work" when you were in the second grade and realize that you were in love with internal combustion engines. Maybe you didn't spend a couple of weeks at Washington Workshops congressional seminars and a couple of summers learning how to jam with blues scales from a hippie percussionist who was a surprisingly good all-around musician with a degree from Julliard.

And maybe you didn't spend two years in Argentina talking to regular people every day and observing their system, then walk into the lunchroom the day after Obama's election to have your friend from Chile say "I've seen it all before," and proceed to tell you about Salvador Allende's taking Chile down the road to communism.

What I've done here is successfully compressed the phrase "everyone is different" into three rambling paragraphs.

Grab on to something, we're not done yet.

New Yorker magazine had an article about a guy who studies bees under the influence of cocaine. When these bees do their "I've found pay dirt dance," they invariably convey that the honey is much closer than it really is. They have a skewed view of reality.

Almost there.

I was going to lunch with a friend in her car. NPR was on the radio. It was like listening to bees on cocaine describe something completely different from the situation I am looking at

Since that day I've struggled with how to convey the cognitive disconnect I felt listening to that twisted take on the world. It was bizarre. It was Lewis Carroll does political commentary. It was truly surreal.

I'm telling you "Omigosh, what are we going to do to help Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter save the country from that crazy lunatic Obama?!!"

NPR was saying "Omigosh, what are we going to do to help Obama save the country from those crazy lunatics Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter?!!"

Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game.

You, the fully enlightened Leany on Life reader, understand this. Long before Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel PC prize it was rendered meaningless by being awarded to terrorist Yasser Arafat, anti-semitic imbecile Jimmah Carter, and global warming scammer Al Gore. It's exactly the same thing as the word "racist."

Obama is a Nobel PC prize laureate, we are all racists. Neither moniker has any meaning at all.

Just going through more notes . . . old notes . . . old, old notes . . .

Kudos to the media

You know me. I like to give credit where the credit is due—no matter where that is. I've said a lot of nasty things about the state-controlled media. But I've got to give them credit. They are learning. Or at least, as that Joan Walsh chick says, they are "trying really hard."

I'm talking about the way they used to automatically excoriate anyone who was accused of racism. You remember Jimmy the Greek, Judge Bork, football commentator Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, the Duke Lacrosse team . . . All it took was accusing them of being racist and it was time for them to be ejected. No questions, no defense, nothing.

It is universally acknowledge that being a racist is bad. But shouldn't some proof be required before someone is pronounced a racist? The press used to take the very accusation of racism as a signed death warrant on the accused.

But not anymore. When Glenn Beck pointed out that Obama is a racist, the press didn't automatically accept that. In fact, in this case they viciously turned on the accuser. It's as if they are trying to atone for decades of sins, ending peoples' careers by accusing them of racism. Now that they've seen the light, they're going to go the other direction.

Well, it's a start. Now they just need to take the next step and actually engage their brains. They need to take a look at the facts, amply available and well presented by Beck. Then they could make a determination on the accusation based on its merit, not just based on who is saying it.

It's classic. It's like the reformed gambler who wasted his life and is now annoying everyone he can with his proselytizing and moralizing.

The press, feeling guilty for ruining so many lives with its spurious charges of racism, is now going to the other extreme, letting people get away with saying absolutely anything, no matter how outrageous.

I'm talking about Whoopi Goldberg defending disgusting, putrid child rapist Roman Polanski. He drugged and raped a little girl, but according to Whoopi that wasn’t' "Rape-rape."

And not a word condemning her coming from the people who crucified Glenn Beck for laying out an ironclad case about Obama's racism.

You know the rules. I wrote down the notes, I've got to make the post. (Or as Johnny Cochran would say: "If it's done been writ, you gotta' post it.")

So I will talk about race here. I don't want to. Frankly when it's not mind-numbingly boring, it's just frustrating. It's frustrating because the whole debate is so dishonest.

But I do it because we refuse to let them silence us. I talk about it because I won't allow my behavior to be dictated by the transparent tactics of evil people.

The liberals brought it up. They always bring it up. You remember "They'll say I don't look like other presidents—that I have a funny name." Only "they" didn't ever say it. He did.

A couple of seminal events you should be familiar with: First Joan Walsh saying : "Obama got where he is because he makes white people feel like he knows we're all trying really hard and we really like it when black people make us feel that way." You really have to hear this transparent projection of her own racism to appreciate the texture of the debate.

Then there's Rush Limbaugh predicting how this would play out clear back in February of 2008. He predicted that the race war would be flamed, not extinguished. (I think I already talked about this in the context of understanding the elevator trim on an airplane. When you are struggling it typically means you don't understand something. "With all thy getting get understanding.")

And you've seen it play out. The state-controlled media calls any opposition of Obama "Race inspired." The rallies are race-inspired? Can you tell me anything the demonstrators did at that rally that was close to the vitriol spewed toward Bush? So the liberals are calling themselves racist?

It's like that sign at a 9/12 rally said: "It doesn't matter what this sign says, you'll call it racism."

I like what the Laura Ingraham caller said: "Hey, the man promised us transparency during the campaign. We're finally getting it. You can see right through this strategy—it's as transparent as it gets!"

"It is an indisputable fact" that Obama is a racist. In contrast to when Obama that phrase, this time it really is undeniable. If you can read what he says in his books and in his speeches and then come to any other conclusion, you are either stupid or dishonest. "That's just a fact."

Obama's reaction to this latest racial hoax (the Gates arrest deal—I told you these were old notes) dispelled any lingering doubt about that.

So call me a racist. That's fine. That doesn't make me racist, that makes you stupid or evil. So I will gladly give you the opportunity to condemn yourself.

Jonah Goldberg talked about this same thing—what I call the Wild Weasel Effect—in connection with the Roman Polanski deal. If you want to find out where the enemy is, you send out the F4s (yes, they still use F4 Phantoms) to light up their radar. When they shoot at you then you know where they are.

Throw up a putrid waste of human flesh like Polanski, see which Hollywood weirdoes come out in his defense, and you know exactly where everyone stands.

Someone once told me that Europeans are more enlightened than Americans because in Europe the breast has been "de-sexualized." Wait a minute. That's supposed to be a good thing?

Yeah, they said that Europeans are so used to seeing boobs that it doesn't do anything for them. If there's a better reason to keep boobs covered than that I've never heard it.

You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about flinging around the now meaningless word "racism." (And I am also proving the point that no topic is so complex that it can't be explained using boobs.)

If it's rarely used and only when applicable, it keeps its impact. Otherwise it becomes like a fatty pectoral deposit that appeals to those fairies in Europe about as much as a forearm or an ankle.

Finally got that group of notes hauled off to the internet equivalent of the thrift store dumpster.

The last few weeks we've been getting ready for winter. We trimmed back the trees, burned a huge pile of brush, mowed the north pasture . . . Saturday we went through the sheds and did the annual major haul to the thrift store.

So I guess it's time to do the same thing with my blog notes.

This is a health care commentary from a Rush caller named Stacey. At the time I heard it weeks ago it sounded worthwhile. I hope it still is.

And this cartoon ran in the Chicago Tribune in 1934. A friend sent it to me months ago. Here's an article about it.

The colors are changing up in the mountains. The weather is beautiful. This is the time of the year when you try to get in as much trail riding up in the mountains as you can before winter comes on. So that's what we were doing last Saturday. [ed. Note—last Saturday when I wrote these notes. Two or three weeks ago now.] On the way down I was teaching my daughter about downshifting early.

When you've got a horse trailer pushing you down 3500 feet of mountain you have to understand what's happening. The easiest thing in the world is to just use the brakes. And that works great . . . for a mile or two. Then you and your expensive rig and a pile of innocent horses wind up in a twisted pile at the bottom of the canyon.

See, brakes can only take so much. They can be overwhelmed, and pretty easily.

You know I'm not talking about horse trailers and brakes. I'm talking about what Obama is doing to this country. He either 1) has not the slightest clue about the consequences of his actions (stupid), or 2) is intentionally trying to overwhelm the system (evil).

This is the same "One scene, two interpretations" deal as the man holding a knife standing over the dead body. What Obama is doing will trash the system. The only question is, is he well-intentioned and stupid or is he fiendishly clever and evil?

When my wife was asking "Why is he doing this?" I didn't have the answer other than the Argentina thing and the scorpion deal. I was trying to remember what Glenn Beck was saying about that. Then he explained it again. Obama can't replace the system ("We are five days away from fundamentally changing America!") as long as the system is still working.

It's like my son said about our snowmobile. "I wish we didn't even have a snowmobile, because the one we've got is a piece of crap, but as long as we have one that functions we won't buy a new one."

(I'm not sure why I didn't post that one—it was complete and everything . . . )

You get what you get here. I'm just going to post the notes without too much editing. But first, speaking of "random" . . .

My son had a friend over Saturday. Seems like kids these days say "random" a lot. She kept talking about random this and random that. It occurred to me that the word explained the latest Nobel Peace Prize award.

Anyway, on to the notes.

We live in a majority rule kind of a system. That works great when you have an informed populace. The problem can creep in through one of two ways: 1) when a tiny fraction controls that majority . . . and the second way that I was thinking when I wrote these notes but can't remember now.

The problem is that you've got a tiny fraction of the people running everything. ACORN, unions, etc., It's a majority rule country, but a tiny fraction of the population is running the show and we can't do anything because a larger group has abdicated the control, saying "He's a black man, you can't oppose him."

I'm talking about the conference call to designate 9/11 as a day of service—all the radicals who were in on the call, the actual Americans had no say. Here's the story.

Back in August we had the big week of celebration with cardboard boat regatta, kids' rodeo, tractor pull, parade, fireworks . . . everything but a soap box derby. So I'm standing in line for breakfast Saturday morning and the city council is going down the line greeting people. The newest councilman asked what happened to the derby this year. I told him I didn't know, I was going to ask him the same thing.

The mayor spent a long time talking to everyone down the line but passed me by with a quick handshake and a "how ya' doin'?" Another council man had the courtesy to lie to my face. "Yeah, you know, these insurance companies. We can't control what they do." I mentioned that they didn't seem to bothered by high explosives and seven year olds riding steers. He said, "Yeah, I know, I know. It doesn't make any sense, but it's out of our hands."

It occurred to me that it was the perfect metaphor for health care "reform." Act contrary to the will of the people, and blame it on insurance companies.

Here's a YouTube video about a speech given October 25th, 1966, at Brigham Young University titled Our Immediate Responsibility where Ezra Taft Benson said the following:

In September 1959, Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev visited the United States. During his visit he said to then Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, "Your children will live under communism." "On the contrary," Secretary Benson replied, "My grandchildren will live in freedom as I hope that all people will." Khrushchev then retorted (in essence): "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."

That's interesting enough, but how about this quote?

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

That statement was made by Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Sec. of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

Worst president in history.

These are just a couple of entertaining hits you get if you type "Jimmy Carter Worst President in History into a Google search box.

Look in the mirror, Carter.

Worst. President. Ever

Be sure to read the comments, too.

The cops would run out of ticket blanks if they started making arrests for TUI: Thinking under the influence of the Kool-Aid.

The Nobel Peace Prize and the Chicago Olympic Debacle make this article by Nile Gardiner more timely now than ever. Read it. Just do it. It's about Obama's ridiculous UN speech and dovetails with my comments about how Obama is Ellis in Die Hard in way over his head trying to negotiate with terrorists.

In fact, why not just bookmark his blog which has lots of great stuff.

While you're doing exactly as I command, read this article by Thomas Sowell.

Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Muammar Qaddafi and Vladimir Putin have all praised Barack Obama. When enemies of freedom and democracy praise your president, what are you to think? When you add to this Barack Obama's many previous years of associations and alliances with people who hate America — Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, etc. — at what point do you stop denying the obvious and start to connect the dots?

The reason I hadn't posted the following rants on moderation is because they weren't cleaned up to the point I wanted. They didn't convey the message I intended.

But they never will. They are the wrecked four-wheel-drive F250 that was way too valuable to get rid of that junked up my barnyard for the last five years. I had Kidney Kars haul it off this morning. I'm posting the moderation posts today.

As is. No warranty express or implied.

I was travelling on business with two co-workers and we were discussing politics. The driver said "You two are more tuned into this than I am. I'm curious, have politics always been like this, or is the situation more polarized now than it's ever been?"

We both answered immediately. I said "Absolutely yes." The guy in the backseat said "Absolutely not."

The backseat guy had a point. Sure, politics has always been rough and tumble. Who can forget the way Clinton polarized the country? Even going back to the beginning there have been attacks, like on Andrew Jackson's wife, etc. Actually, he had an excellent point. The left's vitriol toward Bush was much worse than anything we're seeing today.

But the point is, I was trying to convince them that Obama is a threat, which sounds pretty whacked out, doesn't it?

During that entire five hour drive I found myself trying to make it clear that I did not share the conspiracy theories of another guy that all of us in the car work with. Backseat Guy sounded very reasonable and moderate. I sounded . . . well, a little less so. I guess I sounded like I was trying to sell my side of the story. So if my views come that close to sounding like conspiracy, do I really believe them?

Coming across as reasonable is a powerful weapon. That's why the other side tries so hard to make us look like radicals.

Today's democrats come in two fun flavors:

1) Creepy Man-crush Nutty Crunch
2) Moderation Mint.

The ones who are scanning eBay for a chance to buy Obama's used underwear are either irrelevant or useful to our cause because they are so whacked out.

The dangerous ones are the ones saying "Hey, look, there's nothing to worry about. Really. You're too radical."

They're the one who have the statistics, it's not as bad as it seems. "This guy is associating with radicals." No, let me give you a statistic, it's not that big of a deal. It's just one guy, I might remind you during the Bush administration . . . " just throwing out statistics to show that it's just a small number of people within a very large organization. They'd like you to believe that nothing has changed—it's not as bad as you make it seem.

Not true. They're missing the forest for the trees.

"Over-reacting" is the term I'm looking for. You're over-reacting. Van Jones, Bill Ayers, Singer, Jeremiah Wright . . . you're over-reacting. Every administration has had people with some positions that don't align with the President's. He didn’t "Take over" GM. He's not nationalizing all banks. He's less radical than FDR or even Abraham Lincoln. You're over-reacting.

But tell me, What do you cry when the wolf really is there?

Barry Goldwater called it. Moderation in defense of Liberty really is not a virtue.

We've got a man in the White House who is taking us down a road that will destroy this country. The best defense his supporters have for that is that he's stupid, not evil. Oh yeah, that's comforting.

We have to do the right thing, but in order to play the game we have to do it in a way that doesn't make us look like radicals. (More on that later).

They got the combination—you can't call him radical without sounding like a radical yourself, but he is. Barack Obama appears moderate compared to Ahmadinejad. He wears the suit and tie and shaves. But he only looks different.

"Oh, come now, we've got to assume that Barack Obama has the best interests of the country at heart. He's only doing what he has to do because of the situation." No. Founding Fathers foresaw it, Reagan foresaw it. (What is the Reagan saying?) (No, seriously, I can't remember what I was thinking when I jotted down these notes.)

We have a president who is as radical as they come. He is destroying America, and our priority is to be civil? No, it's time to get radical. Obama's saying "Don't want them to do a lot of talking." (Google it) But it's time to not shut up.

We've walked through this before. Doing bad things is a great way to make those who oppose you sound negative. "Did you see that? He was drowning baby kittens?" I don't know, it sounds like somebody's got a bad case of the Grumpy Gusses.

That's the strategy. Make us look like radicals. These people oppose "Health Care Reform!" How evil is that? We look like radicals.

This ties in with Sotomayor and the way to play the whole game. Sotomayor plays it one way, Michael Medved plays it the same way. Where do you strike the balance? Barack Obama is an enemy of America. But if you say that maybe you don't get to play in the game. So how do you take down the enemy if you can't even acknowledge that he's the enemy?

And that's how moderation is going to kill this country. It's too radical to say "The President is trying to transform us into a Marxist nation." That's too radical. You've got to be moderate. Let's think about this with reason and moderation. Let's be calm.

And that's the load for today. Maybe later I'll haul off the rest of these notes and dump them into that verbal thrift store dumpster that I call a blah-blah-blog.

Really, what do you say? Barack Obama has joined terrorist Yasser Arafat, Idiotic Anti-semite Jimmah Carter, and fellow beta male Al Gore as a recipient of the most useless award since the "World's Greatest Grandpa" bumper sticker.

Everything that can be said about this has been said. Among my favorites:

Ronald Reagan, the man who ended the Cold War, never received the Nobel "Peace" Prize.

In a related story, The Yankees have been awarded the pennant for their intentions to play really really good baseball this year.

Obama won the Nobel "Peace" Prize? For what?

And everybody's favorite: WTF?

Look, it's no secret what's going on here. This is Ellis being manipulated by the Die Hard terrorists. Obama is the dumbest, most naive crooked politician you've ever seen. He's the only person on the planet who can't see through this transparent flattery.

The international community is bribing him to act contrary to the interests of the United States.

What's he going to do now? "Hey, I can't commit troops to Afghanistan. I have a peace prize. And fund national defense? Are you crazy? I say we unilaterally disarm!"

What a weinie.

Okay, I've already wasted way way too much time on this political equivalent of a Golden Globe. Just one more worthless accolade to another mindless celebrity.

Like I keep saying, if you had any interest at all, you've already heard all the takes on everything.

Except this.

That really disturbing "Barack Hussein Obama . . Mmm mmm mmmm!" video that you saw? Yeah, I know, it's ancient history. But I read one comment from a whacked out liberal (do they come in any other flavor?) saying that it was obviously a conspiracy by the right wingers, 'cause they're the only ones that use his middle name.

But you, the enlightened reader of Leany on Life, understand this. This is them intentionally doing to "Hussein" what they did to the word "Racist." The first time you hear the "f" word in a movie, you recoil. After so many times you just get bored. Same thing with racist. We held back and held back because what if oh, for crying out loud, someone calls us racist? Then they did and you know what? That didn't hurt. The more they say it, the less it means.

It's funny that they understand that with "Hussein" but not with "Racist."

Ann Coulter already did this a little by calling him B. Hussein Obama. At first it was just weird. But like Alexander Pope said . . . First you . . you know, but then, you know, vice and frightful mien, needs only be seen, but seen too often . . . something about familiar with face, then tolerate or something then embrace. I think he might have said it better.

You get the point.

I heard them using a new word the other day: Racialist.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Speaking of which--this deserves a new post, but I'm too lazy to un-indent, etc.--I've always been fascinated with people who could piece together the past to predict the future. I'm talking Ayn Rand and how she called this, and Rush Limbaugh and how he predicted that any opposition to Obama would be called racism.

Well, I can do it, too.

Here's what's going to happen. King Hussein is going to have some success implementing his socialist policies. That will result in pain and poverty and people being hurt like it does everywhere it's implemented.

But here's the prediction: Any pain that naturally flows as a consequence of those types of damaging policies will be blamed on conservatives.

That's my prophecy. The left will say that our opposition is what caused the hurt and turmoil and trouble, because we opposed them they were only able to implement them to a limited extent. If it weren't for those darn conservatives they could have gone full bore with their policies and the whole world would have been daffodils and butterflies.

Mark my words.

When Carter started spewing his ridiculous bilge about "the overwhelming majority" of Americans being filthy, stinkin' racist scum, you probably thought "Here it comes again. Just more of the ravings of a lunatic." You probably took the viewpoint of most people, that it was horribly sad that the ravages of dementia had taken over whatever brain Carter once had. That viewpoint was bolstered when you heard him deny that he said it, even after he listened to audio of himself saying it. Poor, poor demented old fossil. Poor old befuddled idiot.

But not me. You know how open-minded and intellectually diligent I am. I was able to piece together the puzzle and come up with an explanation that makes sense.

Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes is the conservative black man who ran for President in 1996. No, think about it. Carter wasn't talking about people that oppose Obama. He was talking about the "overwhelming majority" that didn't vote for Alan Keyes.

I went to see Keyes speak and I was amazed. A politician that gets it. An intelligent, well-spoken man who could see through the crap and who understood what it means to be an American.

So we had an opportunity to have a black president more than a decade ago. Did the "liberals" who are calling us racist now support him then? No. They obviously have a problem with a black man being president.

If you supported Alan Keyes in 1996 let's chat about how America feels about black politicians. Otherwise, STFU.

Chris Matthews: Racist. Janeane Garofalo: Racist. James Carville, Paul Begala, Terry McAuliffe: Racist, racist, racist.

Jimmy Carter: Racist.

The Alan Keyes that I saw speak was the pre-birth-certificate Alan Keyes. Hey, Barry Goldwater went insane later in life, too.