Been Had Part Doux...TWO!

In case you have been busy earning a living possibly with TWO jobs of 28 hours each or VERY busy and dedicated with ONLY ONE in a NON-Obamacare state... This info is for YOU,BUD! Even an immigrant can dare to ask,"Can an immigrant oppose immigration?" When writer Tim (Bill) Murray asks," How many immigrants can we absorb before we degrade into an unsustainable civilization? Anyone who can read English can read Jared Diamond’s book, "Collapse—How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". After doing so the reader will come to the sa realization that America as well as Canada —already on the edge is in "dire straits" because American citizens—some of them actually college-educated—are choosing to “fail” this as well as Cnada's society. The current president and "latest elected, unflushed-properly" Congress place us on a 60 degree sloped Hell-ride to failure. That’s a fact, Jack! (Or whatever your name may be!) Just how near to the prepice of Heck-fire, Fourth World darnation? Richard Steinberg’s book," Peak Everything—Facing a Century of Declines" proffers "cold-light-of-day" realities as to just how much American and Canadian environmental resources, i.e. water, energy and other resources decline and slide toward oblivion and unsustainability. Murray stated succinctly and plainly, in his “Elevator Metaphor”, that many immigrants have come to the sad realization that mass immigration is bad for both Canada as well as America, but feel constrained in making their feelings known in deference to being called hypocrites of the "Twelth Magnitude". The stock answer flung at them is, “So now that you’re here, you want to pull up the ladder.” This is saying, "you got your immigration and happiness in the New country so to heck with the ones behind you." Just about any immigrant from America as a half-grown child would tend to be sensitized and even hurt by that said to them. A wise immigrant from "down below" stated,“I don’t think an immigrant with or without a foreign accent should be disqualified as a credible critic of immigration policy. Arguments of that nature are the inverse of Groucho Marx's famous remark that he would not belong to any club that would accept him as a member. They don’t make sense. If you were admitted to the club, you are a club member and should have all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of other club members. “There should be no second-class club members. And all club members should have the right---and the responsibility---to shape and revise club policies including who should or should not be able to join in the future. Maybe club facilities are already over-used. Maybe the club should raise its admission standards. Those are decisions which all club members should have the right to participate in. “It is logically contradictory for pro-immigrationists to argue, on the one hand, that immigrants should be afforded all the rights that other Canadians (or Americans) enjoy, but on the other hand, to argue that they do not have the same right to criticize immigration policy as other Canadians have. Do people who enter a theatre or a restaurant forfeit the right to complain at some point later that the theatre or restaurant manager has allowed it to become too crowded, that is, that the number of patrons has obviously exceeded the number the fire marshal has determined as safe? And do not people who feel sorry for those left standing outside in the rain have the option of giving up their seat and leaving the premises so that one of those outsiders may come in and take their place? Who is being hypocritical here?” HMMM...even a very large public room in a civilized city will have a "fire code" posted somewhere,"OCCUPANCY BY MORE THAN X-Number of PERSONS IS ESPRESSLY PROHIBITED". This indicates that the Fire Department has "sized up" the room and decided for the good of all "occupants" that X-number of persons could safely EXIT in the event of a fire so that no infamous "Coconut Grove" mass casualty fire events will be "waiting to happen" because 5000 persons are nose-to-nose in a room "rated" as 100 MAX. Enter the "Elevator Metaphor" for the two countries NORTH of Mexico's border...namely Canada and the USA. “There have been several times when I found myself in an elevator that was jammed with so many people that my face was almost "up against the wall". Occasionally, when I was close enough to the control panel of buttons, I pressed the "close door" button in an attempt to stop more people from attempting to "pile on". “Was I being a hypocrite? Indeed,I was once standing in the lobby, wanting for my turn to enter the [Otus elevator, rated at 1000 kilograms and deemed UNSAFE WITH MORE] yet I also wanted to rise to the "Mezinine, floor #2 or "all the way up." I was not going to #13 since "Trixophobia" or Fear of Thirteen had caused the designers to skip that floor naming it instead "14". How could I have deny my fellow elevator passengers "the right to rise", especially since 40 people crowding into a stairwell can be very dangerous! After all, I had stood in those very "wanting to rise in the elevator" -- shoes. That being the case or my father or grandfather once wanted to "rise up" as passengers of the elevator too, and the door was open for them. After all, we are continually told, that we are all from "the lobby" or are descended from people who came from the lobby. As Americans we are an elevator of former lobby occupants, as we are reminded continually over and over again, sometimes by "political parties" opting to check the voting population seemingly for "had it up to here"- ism and "zenophobia", the fear of strangers, especially those from Islamic countries that do not sell life insurance policies to Christians because getting recognized as Christians MAY subject said Christians to being murdered at any time just walking to the store for a loaf of bread? Thus being from another country or descended from immigrants initially disqualifies us from having a moral right to close our doors to people who wish to follow us? Thus goes the reasoning. Actually the rationale and COMMON SENSICAL DEDUCTION is that once on board the "elevator", I have a right to safety, and if more people were allowed on the elevator, it would not serve their interests or mine to have the cable break, plunging all to a disasterously broken and bloody pile of humanity - at the bottom from that "sudden stop" not the falling itself. For the sake of convincing, I am not against passengers who just entered the elevator BUT I am FIRMLY against any policy that would keep the elevator door open to allow more passengers than the elevator can handle. Just how many people an elevator can carry is a question that should be informed by scientific analysis. Take for instance CANADA, “In Canada, 25 of Canada's top scientists, all members of the Science Council of Canada---determined in their Report No. 25 that future resource constraints would make it unwise i.e. imprudent i.e. not at all semsible -- to go very far beyond 30 million people, that we should decrease our population growth rate so that there were not diminishing economic returns with each increment of population growth. UBC's Dr. Michael Healey leading still another group of scientists, back in 1997, came to the conclusion that Canada needed a "Population Plan" so that Canada's growing urban centers did not inflict the same kind of ecological damage that his team of researchers discovered in the Fraser Basin. This area, a low-lying area, part of the Nechako Plateau, flanking the Fraser River in the Central Interior of British Columbia sustained a lot of damage from over-population. Like the Columbia of the USA, it,also, drains into the Pacific Ocean. So for logical and saftey concerns, “I am in favor of closing "the elevator door." But what if I closed the door because I noticed that most of the people in the lobby were non-white? What if I closed it because I am a bigot?” That seemingly and from indications, be a bad reason, but it would NOT put aside the most relevant one that one being that the elevator has a limited carrying capacity. Should the cable break, plunging all to a disasterously broken and bloody pile of humanity - at the bottom from that "sudden stop" not the falling itself -- that would NOT be LOGICAL, PRUDENT or even make any sense whatsoever. Certainly the "dead and dying" would NOT be yelling "filthy bigot" or much of anything beyond a feble,"HELP" or groaning in AGONY or perhaps BITTERLY CURSING the engineer for STUPIDLY not putting styrofoam "supports" to prevent over-loading? The latter is the "Blame Game" and serves no purpose when lives are LOST because of inane and bureacratic --STUPIDITY. That said...consider the following scenario...“Bad character does not preclude correct judgment. The right decision can be made for the wrong reasons by wrong-headed people. “Imagine though, if someone had a vested interest in cramming as many passengers as they could into that elevator. Imagine if some were able to charge elevator entrants a fee. Imagine if some on board were salesmen who thought that they would have more opportunities to sell more of their products if more potential customers were allowed to come in. Imagine if some were temporally blind and thought that the elevator had more space than was safely available or that they couldn't understand that the law of gravity and other biophysical laws high-suit-carded all other considerations. “You really wouldn't have to imagine that scenario, would you, because as a resident of Canada or These United States of America, with a proverbial ring-side seat to political correctness, censorship, blacklisting, character-assassination, guilt-by-association, and the social ostracism of those who challenge orthodoxy, you would realize that you are seeing it unfold before your eyes. Our political culture is closed to reasonable discussion and education in the fundamentals of math and logic. We have to contenance political GOPers like Rubio and Jeb who see no end to the "benefits" of wall-to-wall-border-to-border" immigrants even if they do gets cars they are not adept at driving or may drink to excess because they had no money for liquor "back below the border". America actually has a beuracracy that is SUPPOSED to work WITH the Mexican government so that their newly released convicts do not head "North" but many Mexicans see nothing wrong with "losing 1000s of criminals that would infest Mexico --into the US.

WeHaveBeenHad-Congress Generous Tightwads

Buy Bendover Brand-Obama's Hillary Approved

Famously known is the story of real life-bigger-than-life-even, American hero David (Davy) Crockett [1]as a U.S. Representative from East Tennessee who met a very intelligent, well-read farmer named Horiatio Bunce. The farmer was livid about Congress' donation of $20,000 to Georgetown fire victims. The U.S. Constitution does not allow for such charity. As a result, Crockett gave his legendary "Not Yours to Give" speech. It was vehemently critical of his Congressional colleagues who were willing to outlay taxpayer money to help a widow of a US Navy man who had lived long enough to require that he retire from his naval service, but would not contribute their own salary for a week to the cause.[2] Ellis wrote in his tome how the once sure-fire-passage proposal died in committee because of Crockett's speech. Crockett was a "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" type who thought for himself, even against President Andrew Jackson, which had caused him to lose his bid for re-election once.

The point is, Congress DOES NOT have the right to whimsically throw taxpayer money at "problems" as Congress sees fit. This is Woodrow Wilson/FDR Fabian socialism imported from Germany, most likely. The source of the plague is as MOOT as is the uncopywrighted brand of socialism, as the damage is extensive.

The 111th Congress, due to a GIVE-UP Republican 2008 candidate, has rode rough-shod, so-to-speak, over the cries and moans and complaints of the American people to spend money on bills "passed to see what is in them" to para-phrase Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker.

This is a TRAVESTY only to be remidied by VOTING OUT THE RASCALS of BOTH PARTIES.

If the Republicans try to run non-Conservatives or unknowns masquerading as Conservatives, The Tea Party people/unafiliated TRUE Republicans will have to defeat liberalism in whatever form it rears its UGLY HEAD.

THAT is the only cure for this spendthrift madness that has the USA so seeply in debt in 2010 with astronomical interest to pay...a total waste.

De-funding all the unreasonable Van Jones inspired if-not-written-by-Jones health care, cap and tax, left over unsqandered porkulus, and careful guidance into gradual elimination of debt-slavery, G_d willing.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett
[2] Ellis, Edward S., The Life of Colonel David Crockett; Porter & Coates, 1884

esterday the Senate voted another $30 billion in stimulus," he warned. "They're like someone in the last throes of alcoholism. They're in the hospital. Doctors say 'your liver's gone. There's nothing we can do for you.' The patient says, 'That's fine. I'd just like a bottle of whiskey.'

"They are incapable of not spending your money. The best thing we can do with Congress is shut it down," he said.

But he said what is happening shouldn't be a surprise, because Obama simply is doing what he expressed a desire to do.

"This is not Bill Clinton," Corsi warned. "This is a trained, ideologically committed communist, trained by Frank Marshall Davis."

He cited Obama's links to Davis, who was a student of Saul Alinsky, whose book was dedicated to "Lucifer."

Hillary Clinton's 1969 Political Science Thesis ("There is Only the Fight") refers to an earlier version of Alinsky’s training manual. "In 1946,” she wrote, "Alinsky's first book, Reveille for Radicals, was published."



Hillary Rodham Clinton is a menace to underwear and everything that is in it. But that was her younger "baracuda" days. After she and Bill chose Janet (El Reenyo) Reno for Attorney General
not expecting Reno would blackmail a second term out of Bill according to assertions and allegations of Dick Morris, who knew both intimately allegedly. Reno had been "taking out Whitey Male for feminizm" in Florida and that was throughly vivariously thrilling for the too-busy Hillary who had too many capers on her plate and "irons in the fire" so to speak.



"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

Obama helped fund 'Alinsky Academy': "The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy.... Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.... 'Midwest describes itself as 'one of the nation's oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.'... Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing."

Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.... Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

"Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)

Saul Alinsky wrote "Rules for Radicals" in 1971 thus chiselling in granite his legacy of political depravity and maniacal mayheim. He even dedicated the book to his "boss", Lucifer. Conservatives are convinced by all the evil inspited by this book and his earlier "Reveille for Radicals" which trashed the minds of many intellectuals including Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Alinsky's "Rules for Radical" tactics were taken from and imitated the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. By relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process instead a violent, Che Guevara-style bloody revolution, Gramsci's transformational Marxism was so cunningly subtle that few people even noticed the cautious, but continuous and deliberate changes.

Like Saul Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev diabolically chose to follow the malevolent, viralent teaching of Antonio Gramsci, not Lenin. Consequently, Gramsci made Stalin livid by suggestions that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't be effective in the freedom-loving West. Rather the initial frontal assault would attack Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be obliterated as a redeeming social force before the new socialistic façade of Communism could hatch out like a pit of vipers and flourish. Malachi Martin reported progressive virilence :

"By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible.... Gramsci's master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity's transcendent God."
Perhaps Lucifer's other followers see Western decadence as ripeness for the outreach and tentacles of their own holy book's law. Is it written thus in the Satanic "Bible" and other literature? Probably. The allowance for deception by various means practically stipulates and condones gradual or not-so-gradual takeover of all host countries like a parasitic scourage.
One can even speculate that, like a Ouija Board, the tome, "Rules for Radicals" has its own accompanying demon pouncing on or embeding itself immovably into the reader who absorbs the diabolical tripe therein. Perhaps some see the dedication of the book to Lucifer as a joke.
Perhaps, like a Ouija Board and Nazi Paraphernalia, there is a fascination with evil that goes far beyond adherent innate curiosity to obsession and Socialistic mania accompanying the usual resident megamania of many Democrat and some Republican office seekers.