There Really is No Sharp in Sharpton

The DJ Formally Known As:
Reverend Al Sharpton



Today, New York Senator, Antoine Thompson, along with The Rev. Al Sharpton held a press conference to announce their new stance against bad words being used by Black Rappers. Sharpton stated, "The idea of divesting New York State taxpayers' money from record companies that have a double standard when it comes to language is something that will be a priority," said Sharpton.

Ok…stop. Before I even hit The Political Sage rage, let me just address Al directly…

Al; first of all, that whole statement makes me think reverting back into primitive ‘grunting’ would possibly help humans like yourself speak a little more perceptibly, so the rest of us can understand just what the hell you mean, man! You make NO sense. And the fact that YOU of all people claim to have a vested interest in where tax payer money goes is utterly outrageous and just down right offensive.

Anyways… Sorry, I really needed to get that off my chest.

Sharpton and Thompson’s news conference held today in Buffalo, NY, comes just a few months after Rev. Sharpton “called” for the firing of Radio Host, Don Imus for his offensive comments that he made on-air. If you happened to turn on the television around that time, then you probably were able to witness the network debates and heated discussions that arose from that situation. I think a lot of you would probably have to agree; it was Liberalistic Idiocy at it’s finest. But, I must admit, the “list” of Deomcratic Racist qoutes, including statements from Sharpton, himself that Sean Hannity broke out, in light of the Sharpton charade; was really touching, to say the least.

Sharpton has issued a proclamation emanicpation, I guess, to all Black Rappers, and that is what it is. We all know very well he isn’t talking to band members from the group, Korn or to the any of the pasty musicians from head bangers ball. The New York Daily News specifically described Sharpton’s sermon to the music industry to be a “…four-day conclave to deliver a thundering jeremiad against offensive rap.” Sharpton has even seemed to hypnotize one of Hip-Hop’s legends, Russell Simmons along with his “Hop Summit Action Network. Simmons is now even making gut wrenching suggestions advocating for and setting up industry watchdogs which will recommend guidelines for lyrical and visual standards. What the hell, Russ? Visual standards, you say. How about setting up a watchdog group that makes sure 12 and 13 year-olds don’t keep showing their booties while they sport your wife’s “Baby Phat” clothing? I think it all sounds like another lofty way for a liberal program to get funding. I wonder if the tax dollars that will be removed from the Entertainment industry will just be allocated to the new Russell Simmons, Entertainment Industry’s “watchdog” group? Come on, Russell…these idiots got to you too??
It isn’t so bad that Al and the Gang are making suggestions to eliminate bad words, from songs, I guess. But, I just really have a hard time with what Sharptons’ next step might be. How about ending the actions that really occur in “real-life” from which the rap lyrics come from? Then Super Al could set up stations in all the communities he takes interest in, and monitor the street action? Maybe Sharpton should be spending his soapbox moments exposing all on the filth that is taking place in the DEMOCRATIC RUN inner cities around the country. Well, wouldn’t that be more conducive to the mission and purpose behind expelling of words in songs?
Also reported in the New York Daily was this little comment:
"Some of these people see Sharpton as an opportunist," says one source involved in the planning. "He's crying about rap lyrics. At the same time, he's calling all the major music labels to get them to donate $50,000 apiece for a table at his convention tribute to [Island Def Jam chief] L.A. Reid."

Money, money, money. Of all the crap I read about this Rap Crusade I found one sentence that carried a hint of refreshing, self-accountable truth, “We need talk about mentorship - not censorship,” one rebel stated in opposition to Sharptons’ insane idea of healing the community. Well said, I thought.
In the Associated Press they reported what I thought might be a slightly more productive role Sharpton could play in healing the community. Sharpton, being primarily positioned in Buffalo, New York, told reporters he would “consider town hall forums and other venues to steer young blacks toward positive goals,” Yeah, I thought. Then I kept reading, “…especially now that the city has elected its first black mayor and has a black schools superintendent and police commissioner.” Wh^%$ the F#$K are you F#@!ING Serious, AL??? Of course YOU are. But then I had a Political Sage moment of clarity, and said out loud to myself; well that would make total sense….since it has been The DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT HAS DOMINATED BUFFALO POLITICS FOR THE LAST HALF-CENTURY!

Do you think these Liberals are EVER gonna put 2 + 2 together???
References:
1)http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=395674

2)http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/24/721923.html

3)http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/04/17/2007-04-17_war_of_words_for_rev_al__rap_execs.htm


© Tracy Phernetton 2007

"Mr Reid Goes to Washington"

A Production by:

The Democratic Military Strategy Theatre Group:



Starring: Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin & Co.



Once again, I am moved to pursue the facts. I always find comfort in historical records. Some days are harder than the others, I guess. Being the news junkie that I am, I am fully aware that the “harder” moments are completely my fault. My daily ambiance consists of my computer, C-SPAN on in the living room, FOX news back in my bedroom, all while the voices of Sean or Rush gleam out of my radio. (Al Gore would despise me!) However, even for an obsessive compulsive truth seeker like me, annoyance and bubbling agitation can sometimes set in. And the straw that always seems to break the camels’ back (Is it still ok to use that phrase?) is when I happen to catch those little “top-of-the-hour” news clips with recorded audio from Harry Reid or read quotes from Nancy Pelosi, and then catch a glance of some “Democratic Strategist” churning out their Liberal take on the latest “issue.” And then, I have a moment of temporary insanity and scream at all of my appliances! But eventually, I calm down and recognize that God put The Political Sage on this Earth to seek, find and report Truth, and then I resort back into my comfy, little safe haven which is found in History and Facty-tale land.

This article is inspired by the wonderful quote I heard from Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) yesterday, “This week we’ll make Republicans answer for their refusal to allow an up or down vote on the most important issue facing our country today,” Mr. Reid said. “We’re going to work today. We’re going to work tomorrow and work tomorrow night. We’re going to continue working on this until we get a vote on this amendment.” Of course, if you haven’t heard yet, the Democratic dingbats in the Senate are held an “all-nighter,” in the efforts to get those darn Republicans to explain themselves to the American people. Mr. Reid and his little intelligence committee in his head claims, “…they are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.” No, Mr. Reid, I think that is called “supporting,” our President rather than “protecting,” him! And I like his play on words, “the President,” and, “our troops.” Sorry Mr. Reid. If I were you, I would have constructed that statement this way, “they are supporting our President and protecting our troops.” In other words, Harry, that’s what some of us like to call, being an American!

So here I am again, on another rampage. The Political Sage will not rest until the Loony Left is silenced. And, this time I was moved to investigate U.S Troops and their history of staying positioned in areas of “need” after a conflict. So, what exactly is our definition of “need,” anyways? Well, Six decades later we are still in Germany, Japan, Italy and many other countries as a result of World War II. That obviously means that someone should be “protecting” President Roosevelt, because 60 years is a long time to keep U.S troops in a region, wouldn’t you say?? The “need” of keeping U.S troops’ present in post-WII Regions is not seen as a conspiracy is it?? I think if you ask any Historian or Military official why they believe there is a “need” for U.S Troops in those regions, they just might give you a simple answer; Democracy.

But of course, we are dealing with a Democratic Majority in Congress today, and we all know that to them a, “78-day war,” consisting of dropping cluster bombs into marketplaces, hospitals, and other civilian areas, that kills 2,000 civilians is a much better Defense strategy. Did we already forget about President Clintons’ surge in Kosovo?? 2, 000 civilian causalities in 78 days seems pretty disgraceful compared to the numbers of casualties that have occurred over the last 6 years!! Liberalism rationality says that killing is ok, as long as it is done “quickly and “easily.” Just take a look at their positions on Abortions, Government “hand-outs” and Military strategies. The Democrats in this country, along with their faithful Left-Wing “Activists” are proven to be much more deadly and threatening than any other “whoever” or “whatever” they choose to accuse.

So Senator Reid’s “all-nighter” proved to be a great big slumber party, with the Republicans sleeping and talking amongst themselves, while Senators, Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all take turns playing “Jefferson Smith,” from the 1939 movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Maybe Hillary will even whip out a great voice impression of Jimmy Stewart, since we all know just how skilled she is in doing impressions! But in this case, I don’t think Hillary, Dick and Harry will be reading from the Constitution like Mr. Smith did. In this screenplay they will most likely be reading from the 1992 Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian book titled, “Chronicles of Dissent.” That is sure to keep the republicans amused!

Let me close by offering a handshake to Senator Harry Reid and Senator Hillary Clinton for pretending to care about Human life. I hate war too, and I also hate having to fight people who insist on seeing people like you and I blow up into little tiny pieces. Your effort to show human kindness and attain a Political facelift is cute compared to your heartless whines to defend the slaughtering of babies and the killing of human dignity every time you cry for more money to give people who maybe could get it themselves if you allowed them to. So with that said, I will leave with a complimentary reminder of 1990’s history:

Number of military deaths during the Clinton administration:

1,245 in 1993;
1,109 in 1994;
1,055 in 1995;
+ 1,008 in 1996.
= 4,417 “Peacetime” Deaths

(Will someone get a calculator and a calendar to the Senate floor, pronto?!)


For more Information Go To:

http://democrats.senate.gov/agenda/
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0101e.asp

© Tracy Phernetton 2007

Remember... or ELSE!
Putting All This Terrorism Business Back Into a Historically Accurate Perspective


{“Well this looks like a job for me…now everybody just follow me; cause everyone needs a little controversy, cuz it feels so empty without me” -Marshall Mathers}

Well, this looks like a job for The Political Sage! I guess it is in my destiny to be the one who reminds the public about a few historical facts. Apparently, some very important details in history have slipped the minds of too many Americans. It is so typical of the American media to exclude relevant, past events from present dramas. Well, personally folks, I am sick and tired of defending a President who is merely pressing on in the campaign against terror. The problem of Terrorism is so old news, people. The only difference with the current situation is our current American President, you see. It looks like the battle against terrorism was only meant to be battled by those who have political backbones.

The only unfortunate revelation about our current President is that he just happened to be President on September 11, 2001. What happened to that American unity and forthrightness that existed at around He was bound to be “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” President Bush has taken this old battle against terrorism by renewing rigorously and aggressively fighting terrorism.
Already, the common American calamity of amnesia has set in. And the Party that was not in power on 9/11/01 has somehow twisted those tragic events into partisan diversions that attempt to boost their own political image. I’m telling you that is much more disgraceful and corrupt than any of the crazy accusations that have been aimed at this President and his Administration.

Oh, and I haven’t forgotten about all of you conspiracy advocates! This article is also dedicated to you. You may want to include these forgotten, yet documented, historical episodes into your conspiracy theories. Hey maybe Michael Moore should put out a 2nd edition of his 911 documentary, which includes some other examples of terror-related squabbles and verbal battle words from previous Presidents. And I wish that the conspiracy theorists would at least think about considering the relevance in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, the Bojinka Plot, the 1998 US Embassy Bombings, the Millennium Bomb Plots, the 2000 USS Cole Bombing and all the countless Foreign Intelligence Warnings that occurred. If you argue that the 911, 2001 tragedy was made up; then why not enhance your argument with all the other pre-911 tragedies?? At least, then it might result in a slightly more balanced display of conspiratorial propaganda. You can use my references and ideas Michael! All’s I ask in return of you Mr. Moore is that I at least get a shot out in your revised movie! That’s T-r-a-c-y P-h-e-r-n-e-t-t-o-n, T-h-e P-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l S-a-g-e.

No matter how Americans view the present media arrangement of this current battle against terror; the truth remains; President Bush, Vice President Cheney, John Ashcroft, and all the other officials that are made to look like evil antagonists are just plain inaccurate illustrations of reality. Besides, it exposes to any intelligent person just how much American and World history has been forgotten by the main stream media and the Left. We are all aware that George W. Bush majored in History, right? Just checking.
The Liberals and the mainstream media (oops that was rather oxymoronic of me, I meant; the Liberal Mainstream Media) have been making President Bush and his Administration the scapegoats for the sake of fabricating the Liberalistic partisan fairytale. Liberals love to erase historical facts and replace them with present distractions, consisting of blame, aggressive smearing tactics and personal pot shots.

No more, I say. I DEMAND that America take a breath, relax and review what is truly in front of them. And this goes for all of you spineless congressmen that still call yourselves “Republicans,” but are obviously lacking Conservative backbones. This ones’ for you, too ex-compadres. Each and everyone you need to take a moment of silence breathe and stop falling prey to the present charade of Liberal/media deceptions.

The rest of this article is dedicated to the facts; nothing more. I have inserted one particular documented report from the not so distant past. I have chosen to include the document, in its’ entirety simply because I do realize the lazy tendencies of those who just rely on, as Rush would call, “the drive-by media,” to formulate your opinions. You are not getting off that easy, this time! No measly links as references that can give you an option whether or not to click on it, to further your knowledge…Uh-uh. This is The Political Sage, and in my world; accuracy comes in full written expulsion. Then it’s much harder for you to argue. However, a Liberal will always have an argument, even after the truth is laid out for them. Their argument, however will just be downgraded to smearing tactics and be a barrage of personal, immature attacks. That’s ok, that is expected.

Enjoy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) Wednesday, December 16, 1998 (CNN)

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S: O.k. will let you have one link to choose to either ignore or see for yourself. I realize that this whole 1998 transcript from Bill Clinton was probably hard on some of you. Take it easy, there will be more to come……
For complete pre-911, 911 and post 911 timeline, go to: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org

© Tracy Phernetton 2007

A Moment in Clarity

from the

The Political Sage

{This is an inspirational column that is used in addition to the main mission, purpose & theme of The Political Sage. This special segment is known for its' many healing and medicinal qualities. The Political Sage created this specific format for one simple reason: to help to lighten the Liberal Load of negativity and ill-intent that so many Conservatives find themselves bombarded with these days.}

Conservative Principal 1: Individuality.

True Happiness is Created, not Pursued.

It is much more fun to smile in the face of adversity. This is the technique I use in the face of a Liberal also.

Man...I am so happy to be a Republican. Smiling just comes easy to people like me. My heart is free from bitterness, my mind is free from tainted constructions and my ideology is based in originality; a concept that is quite foreign to the average Angry Liberal.

True Conservative Ideologies need no external scapegoats as their springboard. I find comfort in the Conservative philosophy that says, "I AM, because I chose to be." It's that individuality that gives every True Conservative mind independence from Liberal mania.

The strong Republican seeks no other mind as it's scapegoat for what I like to call, "Battered-Mind Syndrome," otherwise known as (BMD). BMD is one of the main indicators for Conservatives to call upon when stumbling across a Liberal with this Intellectually debilitating dis-ease. BMD seems to target Democrats, Liberals, Green Party Activists. You might be familiar with two particular BMD victims which include Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell.

BMD a disheartening dis-ease. Just the idea that one's mind can be battered in such complete illusionary pain is frightening to even the Best of us. But it is good to know that there are preventative measures one can take in not letting this scary dis-ease invade your cranial sanctuary. One particular method of prevention is fighting any or all of the ignorant-susceptible perceptive neurons that are found in everyone's system. This means, the next time you hear someone on one of the main media outlets utter anything about the current President, the Administration or even about Republicans in general; DO look into the linguistics that were truly used. In order to fight this ugly dis-ease, you must be "on top of it," constantly. Negative and false information seems to be the "carrier" of this illness.

The reason so many Conservatives seem to escape this type of dis-ease, begins with the first principle that started off this addition of "A Moment in Clarity," and that was happiness. The individual who creates their own happiness, doesn't feel the need to go search for it elsewhere. The "pursuit" of happiness is a perfect example of how the liberal seeks to fill a lot of their voids. What ends up happening is heartbreaking. Anger and disappointment can fill the Liberal who seeks happiness from external means. The Mind is then battered with unfulfilled ego-driven expectations; hence, Battered Mind Syndrome.

Creating happiness means that even when I only hear nagging, psycho-babbling, and negative- smearing banter from the Left all day, I can still smile. I can continue to laugh, live and love and think to my self, and more importantly I realize fully that no matter what; I can ALL-ways think for myself.

Libby Doesn’t Count:
Understanding where Hillary’s Liberal Compassion Ends.
By: Tracy Phernetton


Isn’t one of the symptoms and tell tale signs of Menopause, memory loss? I think so. But, did Hillary really forget about all the pardons her husband gave to his sleazy,
criminal buddies? I could understand, if maybe it was just ONE pardon; but it was 140 sleaze balls that got the Presidential pardon by our all time favorite political womanizer, Bill Clinton and I know she didn’t forget he is her husband, since she just let him out of his kennel to round up more support for her presidential campaign.
"This particular action by the president is one more piece of evidence in their ongoing disregard for the rule of law that they think they don't have to answer to," Hillary said to a group of her supporters shortly after President Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s 2 ½ year prison sentence was made public. President Bush commuted one mans’ prison sentence; he didn’t completely erase the convictions and punishments of 140 sleaze balls. Will someone tell menopause face that there is a huge difference? And also pass it on to her, that I’m still waiting patiently for her and Bill to answer to all the mysterious dead individuals that popped up around the Clinton’s several corruptive cover-ups. If I had the chance to meet the Clinton's, I would take that opportunity to ask them about Suzanne Coleman. Reportedly, Suzanne had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General and she died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head. But it was ruled a suicide. Suzanne also happened to be pregnant at the time of her death. If anybody should be demanding answers here, it should everyone, EXCEPT the Clinton's doing the demanding.
And it also probably just slipped the innocent, menopausal mind of Mrs. Clinton that as she demonized Scooter for “lying under oath,” and committing, “perjury,” and “obstructing justice,” she forgot her husbands’ criminal convictions just a few years back? And just think… she didn’t even think to offer any of her authentic, liberal compassion to Mr. Libby? I mean, she did have to live through a similar legal matter and an overall horrible experience plotted and carried out on her and her husband brought about by the evil, “Right-Wing conspiracy.” Man, this menopausal thing is really starting to diminish Mrs. Clinton’s ability to demonstrate that good ol’ Liberal tolerance.
Scooter’s particular criminal convictions don’t even cause a stir in her big Wellesley College brain? Oh, wait, that’s right; after her husband was found guilty on those charges he bombed the crap out of Iraq because he thought it was time for the ‘Saddam hiding the mass destructive weapons just in time for the inspector’s visits’ was getting a little old. But we all know that Billary also has completely forgotten about that attack on Iraq, because that was too long ago.
And, I suppose I will let Hillary slide on her inability to relate and show empathy to Mr. Libby, since this time, in Libby’s case, it is not a conspiratorial plot brought about by the “Right-Wing Conspiracy,” it is much different. Libby has suffered from the conspiratorial “LEFT-Wing Coup d’etat!” Yeah, that is a very different situation, Mrs. Clinton; I understand now.

For a complete detail list of Bill Clinton’s death count, go to:
http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-body.html

For the list of Bill Clinton’s Presidential Pardons, go to:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a913f6a413f.htm

© Tracy Phernetton 2007

The Double Standard Dilemma:
Diagnosing the Liberal History Deficit Disorder (LHDD)
By: Tracy Phernetton


I have come to the conclusion that the The ‘double standards’ that seem to be so common in partisan politics is a disorder. The constant stabs at Republicans by the Democrats and Liberals have always been an insane attempt to portray the Republicans as this elite group of individuals that are just a bunch of white, rich, greedy, prejudiced, racist and insensitive bible-thumpers. It’s true! The Democratic Party has been trying to take down the Republican Party since the days of Lincoln. You see it today when you watch the political talk shows, and listen to the different politicians from the Left that insist on discredit and defacing the Republican Party and it's TRUE platform. Democrats put down and smear Republicans and Conservatives at any opportunity they get. Yet, the Democratic approach to creating their image is founded in a Liberal mental disorder which I have recently diagnosed as Liberal History Deficit Disorder (LHDD).

Let me paint you a better picture of this angry, bitter disorder that seems to appear in so many Liberals around the Country. For instance, let’s just start with Senator Robert Byrd (D) from West Virginia. He is a known segregationist and is well remembered among his peers for his community activism as a proud member of the Klux Klux Klan organization. But who talks about that? Is Al Sharpton calling for his resignation? No, I guess serving a 110 years in the congress and using the "N" word regularly, is acceptable to Sharpton. Instead, we talk about President George W. Bush’s hatred of black people and how Bush deliberately caused Hurricane Katrina so he could wipe out the Black people in New Orleans is more of a red flag for Al.

Another great example of this ‘double standard’ problem is seen everyday in our very transparent and amnesiac liberal media. All’s we hear about are the constant criticisms of President Bush. From Michael Moore’s conspiracy theories that oil and money is the Bush administrations’ only motive in the decision to invade Iraq, to the Nancy Pelosi battle yell to the President telling him to, “Calm down…there’s a new congress in town.” It must take a lot of energy to be that angry and antagonistic all the time. History and the facts must be a Liberal’s biggest fear. Why? Because, the facts always seem to contradict their endless attempts to rewrite history, to make themselves look better.

Let us take a trip back to the year 1998. President Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq stating, “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.” He goes on to say, “…Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.” Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Ironically this move by President Clinton came on the eve of his impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Was Clinton's’ bombing parade a “Wag the Dog” situation? Maybe, maybe not. The more important point of the whole rare move by Clinton is found in his public announcement and appeal he laid out as his justification for the attack. And of course, today we only hear about the Left’s protest and dismissal of the nuclear weapons argument that Bush and his administration supposedly “conjured” up. And even more stunning are the insistent accusations against President Bush claiming that he “lied” about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Wouldn’t it be only fair then to say that President Clinton also “lied”? This media memory loss madness is really dangerous to the American psyche. It is also dreadfully irresponsible of the American media to exclude imperative information like this, because it is, in a sense, telling us that historical facts do not matter anymore.

And it is so, the Democratic battle cry marches on; “Bush lied; People died!” Where is the integrity? I got a better catch phrase, and a great idea for a bumper sticker to put on my SUV; "Clinton Lied, Monica Cried; People Died!" Where is the consistency? Why is it that so many liberals seem to be infected with the Selective Memory Syndrome? Or is it in there donkey blood to ignore historical facts, and rewrite it as it fits for them. (“Fitting” to them means; anything that could possibly destroy a Republican fits). Whatever their dilemma may be, is unknown to me. I just know the Liberal History Deficit Disorder (LHDD) truly exists and seems to be contagious and hard to contain. This leads me to believe that where the principles of consistency, integrity and truth are found; No Liberal will be in sight.

© Tracy Phernetton 2007

Rewriting History

Civil Rights and the Democratic Hallucination

By: Tracy Phernetton



Thank God for John F. Kennedy, the Democratic Catholic with the good looks and charm! Who knows what the Blacks in America would have done without him! John F Kennedy is remembered as the President who ended segregation in schools and gave blacks the right to vote. President Kennedy’s relationship with Blacks is seen as historical; however history often tends to be rewritten, reedited and reinterpreted over time. Specifically, the memory of the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction proposed by Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower in 1957 failed thanks to the Democrats in congress who passionately voted against it. Among the Pro-segregationist Democratic “nay” dissenters who blocked Eisenhower’s anti-segregationist efforts on the highly overlooked 1957civil rights proposal included none other than the young Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy Jr. Can we hear an, “Amen,” for JFK?

Conversely, I’m not about to waste any more time on John F. Kennedy and his appalling “nay” vote. Why would I, when I could be spending that invaluable time and energy on so many other pro-lynching, pro-slavery segregationists? That would be unfair to you and highly unfair and rather discriminatory to people like Sen. Robert Byrd, J. William Fulbright, and Albert Gore Sr., who really deserve my time and energy regarding this discussion. I can honestly say that John F. Kennedy’s 1957 “nay” vote will seem well-mannered compared to all the other racist Democrats and Dixiecrats who did so much more for the cause of preserving legalized racism and promoting segregation. The quantity of racist bigots (A.K.A: The Democratic Party) is terribly vast and bottomless, so we should probably get busy.

1866; can I get an, “Amen?” The real “Thank God’s” should be used for all the events that took place thanks to the Republicans that controlled the congress in 1866. Why? Because only one year after the “Great Emancipator,” and one of America’s best Presidents was asasignated, and the 13th Amendment was ratified, which ended slavery; Democratic Andrew Johnson became President. After all that progress, the Democrats had to find some territory to pee on, I guess. President Johnson vetoed every piece of anti-segregation legislation brought to him from the Republican controlled congress. “Thank God” for the two-thirds majority rule! 1866 offered the newly formed Union a new type of leader, one that would eventually go down in history as one of the worst Presidents of our American history. President Johnson could be called the “Great Racist Illiterator.” Yes, my liberal friends, The 17th President of this wonderful Nation was an illiterate, pro-segregationist, pro-slavery, slave owning Democrat. And its funny to note that America’s best President was a anti-segregationist, anti-slavery, never owned a slave in his life and found the whole idea of racial inequality quite peculiar, Republican. Just for the sake of marinating, let me repeat that again, so it’s sure to sink in: AMERICA’S BEST PRESIDENT WAS AN ANTI-SEGREGATIONIST, ANTI-SLAVERY REPUBLICAN, and AMERICA’S WORST PRESIDENT WAS AN ILLETERATE, PRO-SEGREGATIONIST, PRO-SLAVERY, SLAVE OWNING, DEMOCRAT. Ahhhhh, juicy, isn’t it? “Thank God” for the first Republican president; can I get an Amen? AMEN!

Out of all the years in American history one could choose that would paint the best picture of how devastating it can be when Democrats are allowed to control any aspect of the Government; the prize would have to go to the year of 1866. There might be a tie for that prize that would go to the Democratic Party in 1865 however; it may be questionable since I did say that it was devastating when any aspect Government was allowed to be controlled by Democrats. The other nominee fulfills the “any” requirement since it was the ‘big business’ wing of the Democratic Party (which I guess could be linked to the Government) started and funded the infamous organization, “The Klux Klux Klan.” The guideline requirement of “allowed” is however, questionable, since the hateful, violent, racist organizations’ creation was not voted on.

The 18th Presidency was obtained “thank God,” by a Republican. President Ulysses S. Grant and a Republican controlled congress easily passed the 15th Amendment­ which prohibited any state from denying a citizen the right to vote because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. In 1872, Grant won a second term and was accused by the Democrat-led hate group called the “White Leagueís” of “stealing the election.” (Sound familiar?). Despite the Democratic crusade against what they called the “Republican Radicals,” (Radical to the lofty Democrats meant anti-racist, pro civil/equal rights supporters. Those crazy Republicans!) Grant and the Republicans also pushed through the other highly overlooked legislation; the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which ­states that no citizen can be denied the equal use of public facilities such as inns, restaurants, etc… on the basis of color.

Hmmm, what happened? Why the eighty-nine year break from racial equality and desegregation? The Democrats happened. And the Redeemers happened. The Redeemers were another pro-business wing of the Democratic Party that branched off and formed for the sole purpose of removing those crazy “black-loving” Republicans from office and redeeming the Nation of its “sins.” I guess one could say that all this civil rights mumbo jumbo was a little to much for those white supremacist Democrats. It was just way too much for their race obsessed primitive minds, I guess. Or maybe they thought when the time was right and they were grown up enough and ready to accept the fact that blacks are people too, they might reconsider.


The fact of the matter is this: In 1963, John F. Kennedy had a change of heart since his stance against Civil Rights in 1957. President Kennedy decided along with the Minority Republicans that another shot at racial equality might be clever. I can give President Kennedy a high five I suppose for being the very first Democrat in government to finally grow up and let go of their fears that drinking out of the same water fountain as a black person might make them black too, or whatever their phobia is about. I’m still not sold on the whole “thank God,” for JFK, what would the blacks do if JFK hadn’t strolled into the Whitehouse crap. From my point of view, it is a nice gesture from a Democrat after so many years of such an oppressive, white supremacist, lynching mentality that the Democratic Party stood for. The filibusters from the Racist Democrats, the coup d’etat’s the Democrats started, organized and funded all created in the name to combat the Republicans and blacks that threatened their segregated livelihood.

Thanks President Kennedy…I guess. Better late than never, I suppose. That seems to be the mantra of the Democratic legacy; the later the better. You got to hand it to them Liberals, the later the better strategy they operate on seems to position themselves on issues that make it seem that it was actually their idea in the first place. That is of course the idea has become “popular.” Of course they use a reverse strategy when they want to distance themselves from their past doings, if they become “unpopular.” President Clinton showed us this reverse distancing strategy during his “high scale,” bombing escapade on Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction” back in 1999, just hours before the Congress was going to vote to impeach him.(How convenient!) He had the right idea, with the wrong motive; therefore he balked when his approval ratings seem to dip. Now with the twist of Democratic ideological imbalances and immoral motives, these Democrats have people looking at our current President as an Oil-greedy, war loving, stubborn psycho, when in fact President Bush is just finishing a job that President Clinton couldn’t hack. Maybe Clinton should have sought for some war tips from his mentor/friend and known segregationist friend, J William Fulbright.

Aw well, if a Democrat ever finds him/herself out of a job, he/she should feel comfort in knowing that he/she could always make a successful career in rewriting history. Rewriting history is the only way that they can keep trying to convince themselves that the Democratic Party is the party for the Black people. (Shhh: let’s not tell them that History has already been written. Besides, it keeps them busy, and it will keep conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and aspiring Rush Limbaugh’s, like me employed.) AMEN!

The Manifesto of the Perpetual Victim
By: Tracy Phernetton


A survivor of the holocaust wrote and published a book titled, “Man’s Search for Meaning.” Victor E Frankl’s book gives a detailed account of his personal experiences while he was held captive at Auschwitz. Frankl theorizes on the compiled, experiential observations he made during this horrific time in his life. In his book, Frankl proposes a theory and some concentrated evidence of the repercussions that oppression invoked on him and other survivors of the holocaust. His experiences after Auschwitz suggest that the effects of oppression are not always concrete. Oppression is also an enveloping, toxic message that saturates the psyches of it’s’ survivors.

Victor E. Frankl was truly oppressed. He was held captive, while he was tortured, and humiliated by the Nazis. Frankl serves as a great living example of how someone who is oppressed can rise above the mental manipulation that also comes with oppressive experiences. False consciousness was forced upon those who were imprisoned in Nazi camps. By force, a group of people were told they were inferior, and therefore became oppressed. The oppressors in this case, were the Nazi’s and the Hitler regime, and in Germany, they were the dominant class.

In a less threatening example, capitalism is thought to be another form of an oppressive construction. According to Karl Marx, oppression was the consequence of a corrupt economic system, which by his estimation was Capitalism. Karl Marx was the grandfather of conflict sociology which consisted of sociological and economic theories of a society that was always in battle. Conflict sociology is at the heart of the Marxian assumptions on social classes and false consciousness. In a Marxist world, capitalism was the cause of the unfair divisions in society. Marx determined that capitalism was the cause of unequal distributions of wealth which in turn created the “haves” being the oppressors to another group, the “have-nots,” being the oppressed.

Marx only analyzed and theorized of oppressive inequities. Marx gave society labels and distrustful explanations were assigned to those who happened to have achieved more material success than others. Marx and his quagmire of pessimistic theories may have done more damage than what had ever really existed in the first place. How so? Marx’s message to the oppressed was not filled with constructive means to a successful end, yet it was left open ended, creating a mind set of resentment and self-restriction.

Victor Frankl described a real-life scenario in his book about how the released captives who were once held hostage in Nazi camps reacted to their new found freedom. Their reaction is truly shocking to those of us who have never been contained in a Nazi camp. Many released victims reacted to their new freedom by going back to the camp! They were plagued and poisoned by the underlying message of oppression longer than they were physically oppressed. These survivors of the Nazi camps did not understand freedom. This is a very important example that indicates negative, limiting, suppressive messages can be more damaging than the negative, limiting, suppressive acts.

While survivors from Auschwitz may seem like an extreme example in the case for the Marxist theory of Capitalism; it really is rather telling of the inaccurate assumptions that were created by Marx and his outlook on social classes and consciousness. The influence that Marx had on sociological theory also spilled over into certain political ideologies. The real damage was not so much in the original Marxist theories and writings; anyone can theorize anything and write it down. The real atrocity was the stir it invoked into the psyches and stradegies of the people he called oppressed. Instead of seeing the social class divisions and positions of hierarchies as possibilities for achievement and advancement, he argued that it was a battle. The elitist and mean wealthy people were all purposefully hoarding all the wealth and keeping it from the little, weak-minded people. The revolution that Marx saw in his Nostradamus-like premonition served as a battle cry to the little people, to resent, revolt and take down.

Marx expelled socially, disgruntled theories on socialism/communism vs. capitalism/entrepreneurship. Marx was rather sophisticated in his approach to the pigeonholing that he believed occurred in a capitalistic society. Marx believed that until the socialist mindset could be applied to the organization of society, society would continue to be in a state of inequality and unfair social disparity. Marx drove his theories straight into the growing inferiority complexes of peasant mind sets. He did this during a time in our human history when politics were controlled and monopolized by the aristocrats. From a Marxian, panoramic view on social classes, one finds financial gains and losses to be the evil twins of the paradoxical human experiment gone bad.

Marx speculated quite a bit about Religion and how it fit into a capitalist society. Ultimately he down graded religion and compared it to drug use. Marx even went so far to say “…religion is the opiate of the people.” Marx’s hypothesis devalued the thinking abilities of those who were victims of capitalism. His conclusions that Religion was used to subdue the social ills of the oppressed made it appear as if the oppressed were just dumbed-down infidels that really didn’t think for themselves. The oppressed used Religion solely as their antidote. These cynical evaluations made by Marx regarding Religion and society, inadvertently accused those whom he thought were victims of a Capitalist society also victims of Religious persuasion.

The Marxian umbrella perspective of Capitalism places a great deal of emphasis on tales of surviving the social inequities found in capitalism. His view of social inequalities however reduced the confidence of the lower class mentality to pure survival. These types of incessant anti-Capitalistic assessments made by Marx contained an array of subtle, underlying allegations and stigmas. Eventually the messages and terms used to describe the peasants, candle-makers, and blacksmiths in society became the mantra of the lower classes’ outlook on their position in society. A false consciousness eventually developed in the lower classes, which cast an inferiority complex that sanctioned the so-called “oppressed” group psyche. A cloud of resentment and envy emerged under the pretenses of a sociological theory.

In the book, “Mans Search for Meaning,” Frankl makes a self-reflective observation of his former experiences, “When a man finds that it is his destiny to suffer he will have to accept his suffering as his task.” This chilling statement made by an Auschwitz victim intersects with the Marxist perception of being oppressed. Frankl goes on to say, “It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us.” If “life” is telling someone that they are victims, or oppressed because they don’t have as many material goods as another in society, the result in the psyche of those who received that message face a much greater risk having been fed that message. The message of the Marxist theory is clear; for those who have less will inevitably achieve less. And so it is, down with Capitalism.

These early sociological observations made by Marx and other anti-capitalist thinkers labeled a group of people and left an indefinite scar in the mentalities of those whom he claimed to be speaking in defense for. In Marx’s view, oppressed people were truly inferior. It could be argued that the assessment by Marx in itself was the most destructive on the lower classes in society. Someone’s socio-economic place in society suddenly became an economic offense committed by the capitalists. Capitalism became the enemy. This type of class envious attitude from Marx and other conflict theorists helped in the emergence of a false class consciousness that would fight oppression with the adverse strength of a victim hood mindset until this very day.

Political ideologies have since been curved and incrediousibly launched based on the Marxian conflict theories regarding a dominant class sneering and hoarding over the lower class. The devastating anomaly in this instance is that dominant didn’t necessarily have to mean “superior.” However, with a struggle-based perspective focused on the social organization of class materialism, this anomaly retained much more substance (ironically) than moralistic and religious nonmaterial fancies. Somehow class divisions were made to be glimpses of evil inequality and social/economic stratification. And this type of, “I’m down. Your up,” thinking gave way for the socialist revolution to manifest.

The Marxian apathetic view of achievement formulated around victims and oppressors. His sociological theory sought to undermine the competitive free market of the entrepreneurial spirit. The arguments were based in superior vs. inferior and encouraged class rivalry. Anti-capitalists’ could in fact also be called anti-opportunists, and that alone turned ideological debates inside out. Marx and his view of an endless class struggle served as a pursuit that desired uncovers the industrial elements in the establishments of commerce. This eventually gave rise to a revolution and insurgency against the reigning financial class.

The perpetual struggle of the perpetual victim was the lower classes’ out in an unfair capitalistic society. Clearly, class conflict can be marked as the hypothetical woes that spawned the great Marxian depression. Marx’s view of society was just downright depressing and his incomplete efforts to unravel the free-thinking democracy became food for thought for finding economic equality. To a conflict theorist, order almost seems to be a sinister concept. However, order is what conflict theorists seem to search for. It is the brand of order that sets Conflict theorists like Marx apart from great thinkers like Alexis de Tocqueville whom viewed order as the explanation of collective experience. Tocqueville would emphasize individualized incentives and opportunities and Marx would view economic inequality as a perpetual problem, with no individual incentives. Marx made it very clear that material freedoms were meant to be attained by everyone. From his viewpoint, unequal classes in society needed to be equalized by uniformed control. Just what type of unified control he really had in mind, is up for discussion.

We can see these sociological debates in our modern day politics. Today’s political debates reflect this original Marxian v. Tocqueville clash. The Marxian paradox is found in the destiny of what he believed to be the “natural superiors” of his premise that materialism ruled the day. He assigned his own imperial enemy to a life of successful exploitation of the oppressed. In other words, by demonizing the dominant class, in effort to debunk a free market playing field, he yielded to the self-consciousness of all he sought to advance. The class struggle that Marx revealed also indefinitely revealed a code for victimizing the lower class and labeling them “oppressed,” instead of empowering them and instead labeling them “free market opportunists.”

Marx let the oppressed labor workers off the hook when he cast them and characterized them in the eternal flame of victimhood. Consequently, he also invited the illusion of a larger division; a wall of separation that made peasants believe they couldn’t be anything more than peasants for the rest of their unappreciated days, as long as capitalism endured. In effect, this contempt for the ruling class actually ridiculed the lower classes, which may have been able to sees the fruits of their labor through the eyes of St. Simon. St. Simon made the bold yet common sense observation and conclusion that it was not the Kings and Queens that ran society, but it was the peasants; candle makers, blacksmiths and farmers that held society together. Just imagine if the lower classes had adopted the St. Simon attitude and class consciousness that saw their economic positions as important, worthy and indispensable instead of the Marxian attitude of seeing themselves as inferior victims oppressed by the kings and queens?

Marx may have intended for a non-physical fantasy land, or maybe he dreamed of a non-humanistic setting where human potential meant nothing and class and rank were pre-decided and permanent. Either way, the battle Marx fought did not truly defend the persons he defined as oppressed; rather the battle displayed the achievers as superior constructs that ultimately repressed in stead of achieved. The repressed were of course the “oppressed” and achievement was not attainable thanks to the oppressors who repressed them. Achievement could not easily be looked at as a goal from an oppressed point of view. Progression was set aside for an elite group of individuals that were unrealistic, egotistical and had an unfair dominance that prevailed in the end. So his oppression argument never ends as long as a free democratic state exists.

Marx’s demonization of free market entreurprenurship and potential sliced the mental constructs of the people he claimed he sought relief for. The destruction of capitalism hasn’t occurred yet in America, however the devastating debate and pessimistic argument is still seen in some of today’s modernized versions of what social/economic equality is supposed to mean. The debate is tiresome, and it revels in the game of superiority and inferiority. The destruction of Capitalism vision that Marx had as not yet happened; thank God. Instead we can see a much greater destruction; the victim mindset and the self limiting beliefs that kill individual dreams brought to us in part by class envy. It can be argued that Marx has successfully had a theoretical hand in killing the idea of the American dream for many people.

In conclusion, it is silly to think a socialist state could some how create an equal playing field for everyone which would in turn give power to the inferior persons. In his ambiguous battle for the class struggles to cease, he instead launched a battle that produced the social constructs of a victim’s endless battle. Oppression is a today’s victims’ greatest defense, but it’s a weak one at that. The equality of opportunity is still attainable and flexible, with ultimately no barriers for achievement other than a Marx appointed oppressed status’s that so configuratively survived in many minds. We can only fly as high as we really want to fly. In Marx’s world, the seekers of that flight have been blinded by a haunting Marxian overcast of victimhood.

© Tracy Phernetton 2007

The LAZY Left vs. The RATIONAL Right
By: Tracy Phernetton


Americans are falling prey to the sweeping media discredit crusade against America’s 43rd President. The media representations and the rampant, negative assumption are spewing from every left-wing orifice. I believe this psychotic rampage has “tricked” a lot of people. The laziness of the accusatory travesty materializing from the various media types and crazy left-wing nuts, gives lazy liberals an easy out, after one of the hardest hits our country has been faced with in a long time: (911).

The sad part of all is that this same laziness seems to be taking over our country’s consciousness and masking and disguising some rather noteworthy details looming beneath the public spectacle of accusations and unfair assessments made of our President. That evening, during the Presidents’ address to the Nation, I consciously forfeited my position in the lazy charade. I am an active participant in making my own educated assessments of the President. There fore, I am able to truly able to evaluate his agendas, instead of blindly allowing others to evaluate his agendas for me.

The Faith-Based Initiative is one of the best conceptual, political proposals that has ever emerged from a sitting President, as far as I’m concerned. It’s about time, that someone speaks up for the thousands of small organizations and community-based volunteer groups. President Bush made it very clear in that State of the Union address, in 2004; it didn’t matter whether you were Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Catholic, what mattered was what these “faith-based” groups were doing for the poor, the battered women, the prisoners, the addicts, and the oppressed. How could an Initiative, like this go wrong?

As far as the nay-sayers conflict with where the tax-payers’ dollar goes; well, it is my firm belief that an Initiative like this delivers public dollars to the private, small community-minded organizations that deserve the most help. The help that these faith-based organizations get from this Faith-Based Initiative only better helps the addict, the hungry family, the low-income single mother and the prisoners looking for better ways to live.

The originators of this great Country’s Constitution made it very clear that it was, “One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” How can that be misinterpreted? Just look at the paradox with the phrase of “one” and “all;” promoting the common welfare of all Americans is an individual right, but it is also our collective responsibility to “promote” it. Lifting another person up, by volunteering or mentoring is a personal responsibility to ensure the collective right to liberty and justice “for all”. This initiative promotes the common welfare by ensuring the small private faith-based groups be adequately employed to help the less fortunate.

There doesn’t need to be lines drawn on the primitive basis of skin color, religion or sexual preference, there only needs to be equal opportunity and collective support to enhance our natural human right to help another in need. The church that hands out clothes, toys on Christmas and serves meals three times a day, should not be discriminated because of its religious affiliation, it should be judged on its service it provides for the less fortunate.

It’s obvious that the “separation of church and state” phrase didn’t mean keeping church or rather “God” out of government. This is clear when we see “In God We Trust,” on all our coins and plastered all over our judiciary walls. The phrase was intended to keep government out of church. It was intended to prevent government from ever adopting one religious denomination. Faith-based covers a wide range of possibilities. Atheists have faith that there is no God, “New-Age” communities have faith in their new age philosophies. Faith covers a lot of ground. The truth is, is that Government grants that we approve of to build that new loosing teams’ multi-billion dollar stadium, require all those fans and team members to have “faith” in their sport.

The principles behind this Faith-Based Initiative are clear. The government can be a medium in the enhancement of social programs, but it needs not be the sole provider. The providers are you and I, and the mosque down the street, the synagogue up the road, or the soup kitchen in the basement of the Methodist church down the hill. We are our best hope.

We all have different beliefs, faiths and preferences, but we also all have a natural right to the common good. It’s in the best interest of all Americans that we all put our difference aside, and learn to serve one another because of the simple fact that we are each responsible for one another. The government can’t be our caretaker; however it can be our resource.

The grants that go to these faith-based programs grant the people authority over our own destinies. It gives us (“We the People”) back the power and responsibility to change America from the inside out, without finding lazy ways out by just blaming one man for all our social ills.
Ironically, that one man the Liberal nutcases have been blaming this whole time is actually the one who has been our greatest advocate for healing our country within; too bad so many people are blinded by the illusion that one man could be responsible for all these social deficiencies that exist. I guess that’s an easy way out and much easier on our egos when the person we need to blame can be found in our mirrors. We need to blame ourselves, not George Bush for our neighbors going hungry; look in the mirror every time you nonchalantly throw away that half-finished Latte form Starbucks, and say to the mirror, “You are the axis of evil.”

© 2007 Tracy Phernetton