« Hey, guess what? | Main | Speaker Pelosi »

The Republican Party of today.

"Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan

"My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them." -- Barry Goldwater

If we needed any further evidence that the Republican Party of Reagan and Goldwater is a thing of the past, we need look no further than today's news.

US President George W. Bush this week is expected to sign a bill making it harder to place bets on the Internet, a practice which already is illegal in the United States.

Bush was expected to act quickly after Congress approved the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act making it illegal for financial institutions and credit card companies to process payments to settle Internet bets. It also created stiff penalties for online wagers.

So why was this law so urgently needed?

"If Congress had not acted, gamblers would soon be able to place bets not just from home computers, but from their cell phones while they drive home from work or their Blackberries as they wait in line at the movies," [Jim] Leach said.

Yeah. So?


Barry, congratulations for finally seeing the light! Catch the Goldwater documentary on HBO; he'd be an outcast in his own party if he were still around.

The saddest thing is that there is no political alternative for most people, unless one considers the Libertarian Party to be a viable one.

The Democrats, supposedly the "pro-working folk's Party, expanded GATT and passed NAFTA, increased and still push for more open borders.

The so-called "Country-Club" or "Moderate Republicans" have always been enemies of working people - putting cheap labor above all else and tending to be as socially Liberal as most northeast Democrats.

Both Parties have engaged in rampant corrruption on both the local and federal level - NY & NJ are two great examples of Democratic corruption run amok, and the post-Gingrich Republican Congress is an example of Republican abuse.

In retrospect Gingrich's greatnesss is woefully underestimated.

For years people wrongly gave Bill Clinton kudos for "cooperating with the Gingrich Congress," while now it seems more and more evident that it was Gingrich who both kept that Congress under control and focused on specific objectives and even convinced Clinton to sign on with the bulk of Gingrich's "Contract With America."

There has long been a "crisis in leadership" within the Democratic Party, but post-Gingrich the Republican Party has suffered the same...and an even more startling fall from grace.

Congress-members have been getting paid off by the casino industry for years to prevent Internet gambling. Then they claim that they are protecting gamblers from themselves. Yet the casinos are still open and more are opening all the time. And the states endorse gambling through the lotteries and the race tracks. So we know what they say about protecting gamblers is bogus. Of course, they'll make claims about protecting kids from gambling and that is as bogus as any other claim.

When did the Republicans become the party of the Nanny State? I thought that was just for us liberals (and I despise the Nanny State, by the way).

You make a good and important point. In my opinion, the republican party of today (RPT) is highly incompatible with libertarians. Beyond the corruption issue (which I love to mention all the time), the RPT is partially (and I emhasize partially) controlled by religious fundmentalists who have been changing its nature. If these guys take complete control of that party, they will transform it completely to some sort of a religious party. You never know, it may happen. The Schiavo case etc etc that we witnessed were highly worrisome signs.

Reagan and Goldwater were great men, and patriots.

Chimp and Cheney are criminals and traitors.

Carter was a boob.

Clinton was a solid moderate leader.

Bush I was a boob.

Ford was a boob.

Nixon was a piker compared to Bush and Cheney.

It's as simple as this:

Casino winnings = taxed

Offshore Internet winnings = not taxed

That's the difference.

The GOP needs a real kick in the ass for the many screw-ups they have had as the party in power.

But to just say "We are not the Republicans" is not exactly the answer to convincing folks to change horses.

The fact that the Dems have openly avoided having any policy on Iraq is both baffling and weak. They want to have it both ways and nobody can do that these days.

They talk about going after bin Laden as if all we have to do is somehow send 50,000 troops into Afghanistan or Pakistan et voila!

It isn't a serious alternative, folks. You would risk the overthrow of both governments by their radical elements. Not to mention the fact that there is no way to get intel from that area as to his whereabouts, thanks to the Dems law prohibiting the CIA from dealing with the riff-raff.

Folks, that's all there is around that SOB.

> The GOP needs a real kick in the ass for the many screw-ups they have had as the party in power.

But to just say "We are not the Republicans" is not exactly the answer to convincing folks to change horses.

True on both counts, mal. After every single electoral defeat, the Dems look up in astonishment and ask "What more does the GOP have to do to lose power?" Funny how anxious they are to play a completely passive, defensive game. They never ask the question "What do Democrats need to do to exploit GOP vulnerabilities?" That's probably why they always lose.

"The fact that the Dems have openly avoided having any policy on Iraq is both baffling and weak."

How do you expect the democrats to have any real policy on Iraq? They are not in power and they never had real information on what was going on there. The democrats will have a real policy when they regain power (as they will) and will try to get us out of these mess that the republinans/neocon radicals created.

It is astonishing that instead of some self-criticism, the republicans criticize the democrats for not having a policy on Iraq. That's a war created by deliberate lies thats has been conducted in the most incompetent way, and has resulted in complete failure and a massive disaster of unprecedendent proportions. Bush and the rest succeeded in creating something clearly worse than Vietnam, but they still criticize the dems for not having a policy on that. Truly amazing!!

"How do you expect the democrats to have any real policy on Iraq? They are not in power and they never had real information on what was going on there." (BW)
MUST HAVE a clear-cut strategy, not only on Iraq, but on Afghanistan and the West's "war against Sharia-based Islam" - it's not just "radicalized Islam" any more.

Otherwise they're trying to sell that proverbial "pig in a poke," and that'll only sell to their loyal base (that 15% or so of the elctorate that is diehard Liberal), the Republicans can't even use that strategy, even with a somewhat larger base (that 25% or so of the elctorate that is diehard Conservative)...both Parties are fighting for the bulk of that 50% to 60% of the elctorate that is neither diehard Liberal nor Conservative...THEY must be sold.

Mal made a valid criticism - the GOP post-Gingrich has lost its way. It DOES deserve some reprisals for that, but he's also right in saying that for Democrats to offer, "We are not the Republicans," is certainly not enough.

Barry hit the nail right on the head - the Democrats always seem to focus most of their energies on what the Republicans have done to lose, and very little on what they have to do to win!

You, Blue, highlight another one of the Democrat's Liberal core's shortcomings, a hyperventilating political over-estimation of what they see as "flawed Republican policies."

They did it with tax policies, until the economy with near historic lows in unemployment, rising income, strong GDP growth, low inflation, interest rates and a Dow nearing 12,000 took the economic issue off the table.

I guess those tax cuts really DID WORK after all!

As far as the GOP's flawed strategy in the Mideast goes;

(1) The "war with Iraq" was over in less than 3 WEEKS!

That was an unmitigated success. Saddam's rogue government was toppled in less than a month, and he was captured within nine months.

The failure in Iraq occurred during what has traditionally been a favorite use of the U.S. military by Democrats - "peacekeeping and nation-building."

The Bush administration's plan to foist a Western style democracy on Iraq and rebuild that country has been both costly and largely unsuccessful.

In Afghanistan the Taliban was ousted, once aqain in less than six weeks!

A pro-Western government was installed (Karzai) and the U.S. has used Special Forces to go after the remaining Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in the Afghan mountains, inflicting horrific casualties on both those groups.

The reality in the Mideast is this, a huge segment of the Arab world, though not radicalized as al Qaeda, Hezzbolah and Hamas are, still adheres to Sharia Law, and through the prism of Sharia, they see the West as not just decadent but "offensive to the eyes of God/Allah," and view Western non-believers (infidels) as dhimmis or non-persons.

Beneath the fight between "radicalized Islam" (terrorism) and America, is a larger cultural struggle between traditional Islam and the Western "Classically Liberal" traditions.

Right now, Islam is culturally resurgent, while the West is waning - not merely with below replacement birth rates, but with moral cowardice, especially from the Left.

Consider the Western media's apologetic response to the "Muslim cartoon controversy" - the Muslims see that kind of reaction as the West's Liberal core's willingness to surrender unconditionally.

The Democrats NEED to have a coherant strategy on those issues to seal any deal with America's voters.

Until they do, they don't deserve to be taken seriously no matter how inept the Republicans are. But they owe it to the American electorate to offer that viable alternative, that so far, thay have not.

The handicap they carry is the albatross around their neck of the Soros-Moore Left - that is the group, along with many in the MSM, that has appeared to many Americans (and many Muslims worldwide) as "the Surrender-cats."

Many Democrats fail to see that as a problem because they don't really feel there is any real threat from a globalized Islamic jihad.

That is where they're very wrong.

See, I don't really think the Dems need to propose concrete policy alternatives (although it'd be nice). I'm hoping they regain control of both houses of Congress just to ensure that nothing overly crazy gets done in the next 2 years. The GOP yells about the Dems raising taxes, etc, etc, if they win control.
Calm down. No they're not. Rangel could push thru Ways & Means a 50% tax hike, but Bush would veto it and there'd be no override. Same with any off-the-wall Democratic initiative.
Gridlock government, yay! Some actual oversight and hearings, yay! Some brakes on the Christian wackos, yay! No more federal judges nominated as sops to the right, yay! And maybe Bush will grow some testicles and actually veto some spending legislation for once, yay!

Ridiculous. The Republicans didn't gain power because of their clear-cut positions, they bought media, especially radio, and started assisinating character, smearing, and propogandizing. They used every dirty trick and made up a lot of new ones.

The Democrats will win this time because they have finally learned the new rules -- anything to win.

Nobody could seriously believe that Dems weren't well aware of Foley being a sexual predator until five weeks before the election.

It was a dirty trick, just like when Rove funded Swifeboat Lying for Bush and Drudge (Rush, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc...)perpetually harped on it for weeks on end until the non-story caught on.

Air America is finally catching on, and they are replacing reasonable nice-guy hosts with attack dogs.

Republicans think they will pull out a victory again, but this time every indication is that the Dems are loaded for bear, and the October surprises are coming in rapid succession.

With absolute power, it is very difficult to point the finger at the party that was completely locked out of every decision, so the Repugs want to make the Dems give a detailed plan to give them something to attack. But I really think the Dems have learned and will not offer anything to attack. Polls show that they don't need to.

I am very much looking forward to the absurd and depraved depths that both parties will surely plunge into to find ever filthier mud to sling for the next month.

The Republicans have lost the middle, the swing voters, and I don't see how they can recover this round. They will be better off in 2008 when they will have something to attack after a couple of years of Dems in power.

Just when I was beginning to think you were getting more sensible.

For starters, AAR just recently declared bankruptcy!

Left Mourns Air America's Bankruptcy Declaration

September 13, 2006

They have already put on their black mourning cloth over the imminent demise of Air America. The declaration of bankruptcy by that failing liberal radio network is expected to take place this Friday.

As a result the Leftwingers are now in a state of mourning over their loss as you can see at the Democratic Underground and the Huffington Post. So break out your hankies and take a look at these expressions of grief (and unreality) from the leftwing mourners:

John Kerry has never been more popular than Jane Fonda with Vietnam era vets.

Conservative Radio has been around for over forty years! Bob Grant started his show on the West Coast back in 1963.

That genre had two things going for it, like Country Music, it only praised America and never languished on the bad. Sure, there are those who might say, it's as much an "acquired taste" as is Country Music - "Both speak to the heart, unfortunately they have to go through the ears to get there."

The Democrats have shot themselves in the foot over the past quarter century - the support 60's styled "anti-poverty" programs that cost tons of money and do little more than mire recipients in grinding poverty, they've claimed to champion the "worker" while supporting open borders, for "diverstity's sake," a Dem Congress expanded GATT in 1991, a Democratic Congress passed NAFTA and a Dem President signed NAFTA into law in January 1994.

The post-Gingrich Republicans have been a disspointment, at least witht heir over-spending on non-discretionary social spending and their porous border initiative (only recently and partially addressed with the Senate finally passing the "Border Fence Measure")...but incredibly enough, the Democrats offer an even worse alternative; higher taxes and inane social spending, an ostrich view of the clash between Sharia-believing Islam and the West and an absurd "open border policy."

You're angry at globalization (globalized Free Trade), BH.

Yes, the Republicans support it whole-heartedly, but so do the Democrats...in fact, so do the American people, by better than two to one.

Maybe my memory is shot, but wasn't NAFTA passed primarily due to GOP backing?

And I'm trying to find what big spending anti-poverty programs the Dems are proposing...unless one counts the GOP's big Medicare expansion.

NAFTA was indeed passed with GOP backing!

The Republicans have always supported Free Trade and "globalization" (the global economy), Fred, BUT NAFTA was passed in January of 1994 with both Houses of Congress in Democratic hands and a Democratic President at the helm.

Thus, I can say with impunity, that BOTH Parties support Free Trade and globalization whole-heartedly.

"The agreement was initially pursued by free-trade conservative governments in the United States and Canada, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and U.S. President George H. W. Bush. There was considerable opposition on both sides of the border, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after President Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. Vice President Al Gore attempted to build support for the bill by debating the issue with H. Ross Perot on the Larry King Live talk show. Perot was an outspoken critic of NAFTA during his 1992 presidential campaign, claiming that passage would cause a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the United States for Mexico.

"After intense political debate and the negotiation of several side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor) and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38 (The United States Constitution requires 67 votes in the Senate to ratify a "treaty"). Some opposition persists to the present day, primarily directed towards specific clauses within the agreement."

Both the Senate and the House were still controlled by Democrats in January of 1994, it wasn't until January of 1995 that the "Gingrich Revolution" would take hold.

The Democrats have ALWAYS supported ever increasing social spending, much of it completely unnecessary, in my view...and wrongly believe despite mountains of proof that raising across the board marginal tax rates decreases government revenues, just as decreasing marginal tax rates down to about 22% always increases government revenues.

I support tax cuts BELOW that 22% margin to reduce government spending, while most Republicans have espoused cutting those tax rates only to increase revenues, which to me, is ALWAYS a bad deal for the people.

Hey JMK,
How can you be defending a party whose leaders were covering up for a criminal like Foley? How? What kind of moral values does the republican party of today have? Forget it man. This party is corrupt and it just started imploding...There will be a huge collapse of the RPT in November, and I would not be surprised if the democrats won both house and senate. Wait and watch.

Blue, I detest most politicans.

I do, however, like Gingrich and Buchanan, (liked Reagan and Goldwater a lot too) but Gingrich & Buchanan are both educators first and pols second, in my view.

I'm more disappointed that the GOP is NOT Conservative enough.

As far as the Foley case goes, has he been charged with pedophilia or something?


I haven't really had much time or interest in this, as I've been getting some electric work redone around the house.

Last I knew he was charged with sending "inappropriate" emails and IMs.

Not quite on the level of "pedophilia," or "possession of kiddie porn," is it?

Moreover, he resigned his position and checked into the perfunctory "rehab" facility - the tact that all such folks use to evade actual responsibility and the requisite jail time that responsibility generally entails.

But if this is really such a momentous consideration for you, one that you feel should shake Conservative's support away from the GOP, then why didn't the Democratic Party's defense of the disgraced Mel Reynolds and Clinton's subsequent pardon of Reynolds turn YOU away from the Democrats back in 2000....hmmmmm???

I'll refresh your memory;

“Lost in the hoopla is Clinton's repugnant clemency action for former Congressman Mel Reynolds....Clinton ordered Reynolds released from federal prison and commuted the remaining two years of his term. A federal jury convicted Reynolds in 1997 on 15 charges of bank fraud, wire fraud and lying to the Federal Election Commission. Reynolds had also been convicted in 1995 by an Illinois jury on two counts of solicitation of child pornography, three counts of criminal sexual assault, three counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and four counts of obstruction of justice.

(Actual sex with an underaged girl)

“If that weren't shameful enough, Reynolds also had repeated adulterous sexual encounters with an underage campaign volunteer, Beverly Heard, whom he met when he cruised her Chicago high school in his Cadillac. They carried on in his legislative office and at a nearby apartment. Reynolds gave the then-16-year-old girl cash at each meeting and supplied her with his pager number and apartment keys.

“In explicit taped phone conversations, they reminisced about group sex encounters with another woman, laughed about Reynolds' crude nickname for Heard's genitalia, and casually discussed Reynolds' three young children while planning a sexual tryst with a 15-year-old Catholic high school girl Heard had said wanted to have sex with him.

"Did I win the Lotto?" Reynolds chortled after Heard made the offer.

“Reynolds instructed Heard to take Polaroid photographs of the 15-year-old girl's genitals and breasts. No "face shots," Reynolds ordered.

“Reynolds' lawyers dismissed the talk as harmless fantasy. In classic Clintonian style, Reynolds smeared his young accuser as a "liar" and "nut case." A diverse jury of six blacks and six whites believed the troubled girl, not the conniving Rhodes Scholar. Yet, Reynolds bitterly blamed racism in a 40-minute courtroom tirade: “When they shackle me, like they shackled my slave ancestors and take me off to jail, nobody in this room will see me crawl." He called reporters who covered the case "animals."


Mel Reynolds didn't have the decency to walk away from his office. He had to be dragged out of it in handcuffs.

A sitting Democratic President, not only defended Reynolds (no Republicans I've heard have defended Foley), but he pardoned him...for that laundry list of high crimes!

So...is it OK to ask you, "How can you defend a Party whose leaders covered up for a criminal like Reynolds? How? What kind of moral values does the Democratic Party of today have?"

Both are silly questions...and the idea that diehard Liberals like yourself, or diehard Conservatives like me, would change our ideologies based on the flawwed characters who populate politics on both sides of the aisle is assinine.

Don't you agree?

The only problem, JMK, is that you are again lying:


"Reynolds was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April of 1997, he was convicted on fifteen counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators and as a result, was sentenced to an additional six and a half years in federal prison. After serving 42 months of his 78 month sentence, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted his sentence and Reynolds served the balance in a half way house. Mel Reynolds served his entire sentence on the original charges."

Clinton did not pardon his sex crimes. You are lying. He was expelled and convicted.

Stop your ridiculous defense of the sexual predator Foley, and the Repug leader who covered it all up because the Repugs are NOT the party of morals, they are the party of "anything to win".

Oh, I missed the first part:

"On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995."

Reynolds sexual indiscretions were defended by Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, and many other leading Democrats at the time...and in fact Clinton DID pardon ALL of Reynold's crimes - expunging his record.

No Republicans have come forward in defense of Foley.

ABC News reported Foley's behavior, not the Democrats. And the Democrats weren't the ones who ignored the information for more than just one year before it broke on ABC. And if the Democrats knew of this earlier, why didn't they use it in 2002 or 2004? Just more smokescreen this trying to blame the Democrats for the story breaking.

When you blow all the smoke out of the room, you're left with a little group of Republican Representatives, one of whom is a sexual predator trying to seduce children, cynical politicians who don't care if someone is a sexual predator as long as his party retains power, and enablers. Foley, Hastert, Boehner, Shimkus, Reynolds, LaHood.

What sort of person do you want representing you? If character was sch a big issue in the past, why is it no longer an issue? If they would allow this to go on for the sake of not embarrassing the Republican Party, what else would they allow to go on?

NO JMK, you are lying AGAIN.


Clinton NEVER pardoned Reynolds for his sex crimes.

Stop lying. All you do is lie. Shouldn't you have your own wingnut talk show?

Well said. And the most remarkable thing is that Laura Bush will still be the keynote speaker in a fundraising event for Reynolds this week. I think she just showed her true colors (not that I ever thought she was anything better). What kind of "moral values" does she and her husband have when they fundraise for a guy who was covering up for a predator? Yuk.

Turns out that Reynolds knew about Foley's behavior and convinced him to run for re-election anyway.

What sort of person do you want representing you?

Since we are on a voyage in the Way Back Machine, let me go back in time for a minute. While Ted Bundy was on his murder spree; torturing and raping 33 women before killing them, he was not only a registered Republican, a Republican activist, but was also a paid employee of the Republican Party. In fact, his first murders were done while traveling for the Republican Party.

"Turns out that Reynolds knew about Foley's behavior and convinced him to run for re-election anyway." (DBK)
"But as of this writing, no criminal or civil charges have been filed, no laws have been demonstrably broken and nobody has claimed to have been harmed by his actions (though one page says Foley's photo request "freaked me out")."

In fact, in Maryland and almost two dozen other states, the age of consent is a mere sixteen years, so even if a Foley or a Reynolds did have sex with a willing Page, there'd be no crime.

Since there are no such charges pending against Mark Foley at this time, I don't understand the Democratic reaction of trying to paint this guy some sort of pedarist, based entirely on supposition.

First, as noted, even if he did have sex with a willing Page, sixteen years or over, he wouldn't even be guilty of statutory rape (sex with an under-aged partner), let alone pedophilia.

And much of that is due, ironically to the Democrats overwhelming support for lowering the age of consent and lowering the threshold for pedarists. In some states, a person can't be charged with pedophilia unless the victim is under twelve!

But more than that, I'm heartened by the reaction of many Democrats - the same people who claim that it's wrong to "jump to conclusions" merely because a Muslim-America attends a radical Mosque, or gives to Charities with ties to terror organizations.


There's far more of a smoking gun with regards to the Muslim-American who attends a radicalized Mosque (like the Long Island Muslim International Center or LIMIC) which Democrats have attacked the great Pete King for excoriating, than there is, at least right now, for Mark Foley.

I'm happy Foley resigned - he's "as gay as McGreevy" and he's an admitted alcoholic to boot.

If actual charges are filed against him, I agree with the vast majority of Republicans that he should be fully prosecuted.

BUT it's even more important to make sure that the people are made aware of how rampant this kind of behavior is. For instance, in NYS, Assemply Speaker Sheldon Silver had an accused serial rapist (J MIchael Boxley) working on his staff and kept him on staff through two successive rape trials.

Clinton, Jesse Jackson and other prominent Democrats supported Mel Reynolds throughout his entire sleazy ordeal...and these are only some of the more high profile cases.

It's only ONE of the reasons I've long supported lower taxes, LESS government (a LOT less) and much reduced government regulation and meddling...because I know too well the level of people who serve in it.

Sadly, there are none of the "best and brightest" in government. For the most part, elective politics is peopled by political hacks who couldn't compete in the private sector - that's as true for Giuliani, as it is for Howard Dean, and for most of those in between.

So, a disgust in government overall?

YES. I'd call that a very healthy attitude.

A view that one Party or the other is going to "save the day" or "restore decency?"

NO. I'd call that very naive.

How about somewhat quicker and harsher judgments on all our parts...on both politicians and terrorist suspects?

I'd say that too would be a very good devlopment. I've found that a good rule of thumb is always assume the worst (of both politicians and terror suspects), and you'll rarely be disappointed.

GOP -- Guarding Old Perverts

Recently Republican Randall Casseday of the Washington Times newspaper was arrested for soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet. I suppose he wants to start teaching those REPULICAN family values at a tender age so they sink in.

Huffington Post has a great list to get you started on your way to understanding just what great family values many Republican have.

http://www.huffingtonpost.c om/2006/10/03/stewart-on-th e-capitol-hi_n_30815.html

My favorite example of just what family values can mean to SOME Republicans is

“Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year-old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.”
I mean it takes a really special person to try to protect the children from GAYS, so you can have them all to yourself.

Some more from the list include
“Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year-old girl.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year-old girl and was sentenced to 10 years' probation
Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business
Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13- and 14-year-old girls.
Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year-old girls.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year-old girl he murdered.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years' probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year-old girl.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year-old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and
sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk-show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11-year-old girl.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the Internet from a 14-year-old girl.
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year-old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a boy.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year-old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer
and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year-old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year-old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.”

The list on Huffington is contains more but I chose only the ones were the person either confessed or was convicted of a crime, not accused with the exception of Randall Casseday, who I must admit I found somewhat confusing. After all, the favorite newspaper of conservatives, the Washington Times, is owned by self proclaimed, second coming, messiah, true parent, father of all mankind Sun Yung Moon. The Conservatives Savior should have been able to look into the soul of this man and know he was a pervert, unless of course the Sun Yung Moon and his fellow conservatives actually approve of this activity.

Of course none of these REPUBLICANS with their moral superiority did anything as egregious as receiving oral sex from an adult female, and then lying about it. I suppose they are just naturally better people.

You're engaging in the fallacy of Special Pleading, acting as though such things are more the province of one group than another.

Usually such Special Pleading is used to attempt to show that blacks are more prone to criminal activity than whites (an equally difficult generalization to make).

The problem with Speical Pleading is that it's generally too ham-handed...too obvious.

Take heart, far smarter folks than you have tried to use Special Pleading and failed.

Aside from Reynolds and Boxley, there's also
the fact that John Wayne Gacey was not only a Democrat but a major fund raiser for many prominent Dems including Jimmy Carter - there's that infamous picture of Gacey with Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter at their inaugaural gala.

Then there’s the case of Brian J. Doyle (born April 7, 1950), who was the deputy press secretary for the United States Department of Homeland Security when he was arrested in an undercover sting of internet child predators.

At that time, he was the fourth highest ranking official in the department's public affairs office.

From 1975 to 2001, he worked on the Washington news desk for Time Magazine.

On April 4, 2006, Brian Doyle was arrested at his Silver Spring, Maryland home on 23 charges related to the use of a computer to seduce a child and transmitting harmful materials to a minor. Polk County, Florida investigators allege that the incident began March 14, 2006; Doyle was contacted by an undercover detective posing as a 14-year-old girl in an AOL chat room, and after numerous conversations online the two allegedly began engaging in sexually explicit conversation -- this included the sending "hard core" pornographic movie clips by Doyle to undercover detective over the internet...Doyle is and was a registered Democrat.

In fact, two of the founders of NAMBLA (including Father Paul Shanley) were Democrats.

Of course, Dennis (BTK) Rader was a registered Republican.

He also served 4 years in the Air Force.

What does any of this prove ideologically?

Probably not very much.

It SHOULD however, give anyone pause for thought about the state of those involved in elective politics across the political spectrum these days

This is just another one of those "stacked" lists that purports to offer meaningful data when, in fact, it simply ignores any data that might be inconvenient to the premise.

If you want to show us a meaningful list, produce a full, or at least random sample, list of sex offenders and then show us which political party to which they are affiliated. I'm sure someone could produce a similar list of Democrats -- if it were worth the trouble.

Earl "Butch" Kimmerling, by the way, was a bus driver who may have been registered as a Republican, but had no official position or standing in the Republican party.

And, BTW, lying under oath is an egregious act. Especially when the lie occurred in a sworn deposition in defense of a sexual harrassement suit.

John Wayne Gacy a MAJOR Democratic fundraiser? HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHA. Where's that stated? Please, not wikipedia.

A photo of him with BOTH Carters at the inauguration? I've seen the meet-and-greet type photo of him and Rosalynn. Please provide the one you allege was taken. I need a laugh for the afternoon. No photoshopping allowed!

I'm pretty sure Jack the Ripper voted Labour.

While Ted Bundy was on his murder spree; torturing and raping 33 women before killing them, he was not only a registered Republican, a Republican activist, but was also a paid employee of the Republican Party. In fact, his first murders were done while traveling for the Republican Party.

What do OJ Simpson, Shannen Doherty, Timothy McVeigh, Shirley Temple and the BTK killer have in common? They are all despicable, evil people. They are also all Republicans.

Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend in high school:

"What do OJ Simpson, Shannen Doherty, Timothy McVeigh, Shirley Temple and the BTK killer have in common? They are all despicable, evil people. They are also all Republicans." (BH)
""We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

There have been and will continue to be many despicable people in politics...even child-sex fiends, from Mel Reynolds (D-IL), to Mark Foley (R-FL) to Gerry Studds (D-MA), but Leftism/Democratic Socialism does more than merely attract its share of "despicable people," it's also a mental disorder - economically dysfunctional, morally bankrupt and grounded in a deep-seated self-hate.

Adolf was the leader of the Christian Party, nuff said.

Hitler wasn't even a Christian.

He was, in fact, an occultist, who attended the Thule Gestalt Lodge.

Hitler, as his own words so eloquently make clear, was an avowed and devout socialist.

From Mein Kampf (you know, that book Hitler wrote):

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

From a speech in 1922:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

He wrote it in a book that he published with his real name as the author, and he said it in public for all to hear (he wasn't wearing a mask).

I like this game, we can play as nauseum;

Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:

"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay.

"Rightly so.

"It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."

Hitler, most likely half-Jewish himself and without a doubt a devout occultist was opposed to the Christian Church as it was, as Goebbels correctly noted an offshoot or "branch of the Jewish" faith.

In fact, Christ was a Jew and could be termed the Martin Luther of the Jews.

LOL! So you can't find HITLER calling himself non-Christian, can you? Who should we believe, Hitler or some other guy, about what Hitler believed? Should we believe what he wrote and said, or what someone else said?

Jesus wasn't a Jew. Jesus never existed. The Bible isn't history, it is a silly concoction of homilies and hocus-pocus.

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."


Leviticus 11:9-12:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Shrimp, lobster, crab anyone?

This is right before "God" says homosexuality is an abomination.

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Once again God approves of forcible rape.

8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Not much of a game, loser.

The Old Testament is allegory, the New testament is the accounts (written decades later) by some of the followers of Jesus (Mathew, Luke, John and Mark) of Jesus' teachings and life.

Good Lord, I don't belong to any organized religion and yet I know that and you don't?!

EVERY Biblical quote of yours after "Hmmm" is an Old Testament quote - Jesus teachings were the complete opposite of the Old Testament teachings.

And again, Hitler, by most accounts, almost certainly half-Jewish himself, was no Christian. He was indeed an occultist who attended the Thule Gestalt.

The half-Jewish thing is absurd. There is no proof or even substantial evidence of anything of the kind. Hitler described himself as a Christian over and over, but since Christians don't like it, they try to switch him to some other cult, as if it really matters.

Nobody in America follows even the silly made-up Jesus. Jesus recommended giving up worldly goods, not rampant materialism and capitalism. Jesus did not speak out against slavery, abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, or pre-marital sex, yet the wingnuts (you) still see things like gay marriage as religious issues.

"Adolf Hitler & Christian Nationalism: Nazis Program of Positive Christianity"
from Austin Cline,

Adolf Hitler & Christian Nationalism:
A popular image of the Nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-Christian while devout Christians were anti-Nazi. The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. German Christianity was a divinely sanctioned religious movement which combined Christian doctrine and German character in a unique and desirable manner: True Christianity was German and True German-ness was Christian.
What was Positive Christianity?:
The NSDAP Party Program stated in part: “We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession....” Positive Christianity adhered to basic orthodox doctrines and asserted that Christianity must make a practical, positive difference in people’s lives.
Christian anti-Semitism:
Anti-Semitism was an important aspect of the Nazi state, but the Nazis didn’t invent it; instead, they drew upon centuries of Christian anti-Semitism and extensive anti-Semitic theology in Germany’s Christian community. The Nazis believed that Jewishness was more than just a religion, a position which was supported by religious leaders who supplied the Nazis with baptismal and marriage records to help identify converted Jews.
Christian anti-Communism:
Anti-communism was probably more fundamental to the Nazi ideology than anti-Semitism. Many Germans were frightened of communism and saw Hitler as their Christian salvation. The communist threat appeared very real because communists had taken over Russia at the end of World War I and briefly took control in Bavaria. The Nazi party was also intensely anti-socialist, in the sense that traditional socialism was derided as atheistic and Jewish.
Christian anti-Modernism:
Key to understanding Nazism’s popularity with Christians is the Nazi condemnation of everything modern. Germany after World War I was regarded as a godless, secular, materialistic republic which betrayed all of Germany’s traditional values and religious beliefs. Christians saw the social fabric of their community unravelling and the Nazis promised to restore order by attacking godlessness, homosexuality, abortion, liberalism, prostitution, pornography, obscenity, and so forth.
Protestant Christianity & Nazism:
It is widely recognized that Protestants were more attracted to Nazism than Catholics. This wasn’t true everywhere in Germany, but we can’t ignore the fact that Protestants, not Catholics, produced a movement (German Christians) dedicated to blending Nazi ideology and Christian doctrine. Protestant women were especially attracted to Nazism because of its cultural conservatism and promotion of traditional female social roles. Nazism was non-denominational, but Protestants favored it.
Catholic Christianity & Nazism:
Early on, many Catholic leaders criticized Nazism; after 1933, criticism turned to support and praise. Commonalities between Nazism and Catholics were anti-communism, anti-atheism, and anti-secularism. Catholic churches helped identify Jews for extermination. After the war, Catholic leaders helped former Nazis back into power (Nazis were better than socialists). The legacy of Catholicism from Nazi Germany is cooperation, not resistance; not a defense of principle but a defense of social power.
Christian Resistance to Nazism:
Too often, Christian “resistance” was to efforts to exert greater control over church activities. Christian churches were willing to tolerate widespread violence against Jews, military rearmament, invasions of foreign nations, banning labor unions, imprisonment of political dissenters, detention of people who had committed no crimes, sterilization of the handicapped, etc. This includes the Confessing Church. Why? Hitler was seen as someone restoring traditional values and morality to Germany.
Christianity in Private, Christianity in Public:
Did Hitler and the Nazis only appeal to Christianity as a political ploy and emphasize Christianity in public without intending to promote Christianity in reality? There is no evidence that Hitler and top Nazis only endorsed Christianity for public consumption. Private remarks on religion and Christianity were the same as public remarks, indicating that they believed what they said and intended to act as they claimed. The few Nazis who endorsed paganism did so publicly, without official support.
Adolf Hitler, Nazism, and the Problem of Christian Nationalism:
Traditional evaluation of Christian complicity in the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes focuses on the degree to which Christians allowed themselves to be used for Nazi purposes, but this presupposes a distinction between Nazis and Christians which didn’t exist. Christians actively supported the Nazi agenda. Most Nazis were devout Christians and believed that Nazi philosophy was animated by Christian doctrine.
Christians today find it implausible that their religion could have anything in common with Nazism, but they need to recognize that Christianity — including their own — is always conditioned by the culture around it. For Germans at the beginning of the 20th century, Christianity was often profoundly anti-Semitic and nationalistic. This was the same ground which the Nazis found so fertile for their own ideology — it would have been amazing had the two systems not found much in common and been unable to work together.

Nazi Christians didn’t abandon basic Christian doctrines, like the divinity of Jesus. Their oddest religious belief was a denial of the Jewishness of Jesus, but even today there are German Christians who object when Jesus’ Jewishness is focused upon. Nazi Christians didn’t follow an idiosyncratic version of Christianity nor was it “infected” with hate and nationalism. Everything about Nazi Christianity already existed in German Christianity before the Nazis came on the scene.

The actions of Hitler and the Nazis were as “Christian” as those of people during the Crusades or the Inquisition. Some leading Nazis preferred a neo-pagan theistic religion over Christianity, but this was never officially endorsed by the Nazi Party or by Adolf Hitler. Christians may not like seeing Nazism as having anything to do with Christianity, but Germany saw itself as a fundamentally Christian nation and millions of Christians in Germany enthusiastically endorsed Hitler and the Nazi Party, in part because they saw both as embodiments of German and Christian ideals.

Well once again, on the issue of Jesus, you appear to be wrong.

"Comparatively few recent scholars postulate that Jesus never lived. Such positions are usually viewed as blatant misuses of the available historical data."


"For instance, Paul mentioned that a fellow Christian, James, the brother of Jesus, headed up the Jerusalem Church. That would be a strong indicator that Jesus had lived in the early 1st century CE."


Virtually all Christians and just about every devout Muslim believe in the historical Jesus.

Of course, the Muslims don't view Jesus as "the son of God," nor do they believe in the miracles, etc., nor in his crucifixion, though they do profess to believe in his "virgin birth" and his being taken by God directly into Heaven.

As for Hitler's questionable roots, just because you haven't heard of that, doesn't discount it.

"Here's what we know: Hitler's paternal grandmother, Maria Schicklgruber, gave birth to Alois, Hitler's father, in 1837. She was 42 and unmarried at the time and apparently never revealed the father's identity. Five years later she married Johann Georg Hiedler or Hitler (spelling was a bit casual in those days). But Alois kept the surname Schicklgruber until he was 39 years old.

"In 1876 a new baptismal certificate was issued declaring that Alois's stepfather J.G. Hiedler was in fact his real father. By this time both Maria and J.G. were dead. Why the name change so late in the day nobody really knows, but there is speculation that Alois did it so he could come into an inheritance. At any rate, few researchers today believe J.G. was really Alois's father.

"Now for the weird stuff. After the war Hitler's former lawyer, Hans Frank, claimed that Adolf told him in 1930 that one of his relatives was trying to blackmail him by threatening to reveal his alleged Jewish ancestry. Hitler asked Frank to find out the facts. Frank says he determined that at the time Maria Schicklgruber gave birth to Alois, she was working as a household cook in the town of Graz. Her employers were a Jewish family named Frankenberger, who had a 19-year-old son. The son, according to Frank, was Alois's father and Hitler's grandfather--which would make the man who inspired the Holocaust one-quarter Jewish."


And this from one of the best sites on Hitler's real ideology;

”In the 1958 book "The Affluent Society" by influential "liberal" Canadian economist J.K. Galbraith -- in which he fulminated about what he saw as our "Private affluence and public squalor". But Hitler preceded him. Hitler shared with the German Left of his day the slogan: "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz" (Common use before private use). And who preceded Hitler in that? Friedrich Engels at one stage ran a publication called Gemeinnuetziges Wochenblatt ("Common-use Weekly").

”And we all know how evil Nazi eugenics were, don't we? How crazy were their efforts to build up the "master race" through selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the "Lebensborn" project? Good Leftists today recoil in horror from all that of course. But who were the great supporters of eugenics in Hitler's day? They were in fact American Leftists -- and eugenics was only one of the ideas that Hitler got from that source. What later came to be known as Fascism was in fact essentially the same as what was known in the USA of the late 19th and early 20th century as "Progressivism", so Fascism is in fact as much an American invention as a European one.
”Modern day Leftists of course hate it when you point out to them that Hitler was one of them. They deny it furiously -- even though in Hitler's own day both the orthodox Leftists who represented the German labor unions (the SPD) and the Communists (KPD) voted WITH the Nazis in the Reichstag (German Parliament) on various important occasions.

”As part of that denial, an essay by Steve Kangas is much reproduced on the internet. Entering the search phrase "Hitler was a Leftist" will bring up multiple copies of it. Kangas however reveals where he is coming from in his very first sentence: "Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production". It does? Only to Marxists. So Kangas is saying only that Hitler was less Leftist than the Communists -- and that would not be hard. Surely a "democratic" Leftist should see that as faintly to Hitler's credit, in fact.”


My, my, I wonder how the ROMANS completely and utterly missed this miracle worker who came back from the dead. They completely and utterly failed to document so much as a word at the time. It was as if, as if ... well, as if nobody ever heard of Jesus until he was concocted a few centuries later.

I think that saying Hitler was a Jew is pretty anti-Semetic. If Hitler was a Jew, shouldn't the Jews be paying reparations to the German people? Look at how a Jew destroyed their country. Maybe Hitler just made up the Holocaust stuff to enrich his Jew friends. They certainly never found six million corpses.

"Key to understanding Nazism’s popularity with Christians is the Nazi condemnation of everything modern. Germany after World War I was regarded as a godless, secular, materialistic republic which betrayed all of Germany’s traditional values and religious beliefs. Christians saw the social fabric of their community unravelling and the Nazis promised to restore order by attacking godlessness, homosexuality, abortion, liberalism, prostitution, pornography, obscenity, and so forth."

Sound familiar?

As I noted, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about him, so did Paul.

As the scholar above put it, ""Comparatively few recent scholars postulate that Jesus never lived. Such positions are usually viewed as blatant misuses of the available historical data."


Hitler was a modern day "Liberal"/socialist, as he himself said, in that quote I offered you above.

Goebbels and Himler were both homosexuals themselves...I could go on, but you get the idea.

You're an enigma wrapped in a riddle that fell in a puddle Bailey - a self-proclaimed "racist" and avowed anti-Semite, now dipping your toe into those cool, refreshing anti-Christian waters...but you're apparently in favor of porn, obscenity, prostitution, godlessness, communism and homosexuality.

Well, it's nice to know you've got your priorities in some kind of order.

By the way, how's all that hate workin' out for ya?

"I think that saying Hitler was a Jew is pretty anti-Semetic..." (BH)
"Hitler's paternal grandmother, Maria Schicklgruber, gave birth to Alois, Hitler's father, in 1837. She was 42 and unmarried at the time and apparently never revealed the father's identity. Five years later she married Johann Georg Hiedler or Hitler (spelling was a bit casual in those days). But Alois kept the surname Schicklgruber until he was 39 years old.

"In 1876 a new baptismal certificate was issued declaring that Alois's stepfather J.G. Hiedler was in fact his real father. By this time both Maria and J.G. were dead. Why the name change so late in the day nobody really knows, but there is speculation that Alois did it so he could come into an inheritance. At any rate, few researchers today believe J.G. was really Alois's father.

"...After the war Hitler's former lawyer, Hans Frank, claimed that Adolf told him in 1930 that one of his relatives was trying to blackmail him by threatening to reveal his alleged Jewish ancestry."

Not that hard to believe, considering that many, many mass murderers suffer from a deep-seated self-loathing.

Is it important?

Not really.

What IS important is understanding that Hitler was indeed a Leftist (socialist) and an occultist...both those details are well documented.

His lineage is a little more murky.

But most of the great Leftists you hate were Jews, in fact, I think all of them were. Hitler was a Jew too ... OK. Anti-Semitism is looking like a rational choice according to you. How could you not be anti-Semitic, JMK? The Jews are everything you hate. They have been overwhelmingly Democratic, too, and the leading Liberals were mostly Jewish.

I am simply for America before Israel. You are the true anti-Semite.

I only hate individuals like Bush/Rove and anti-American propogandists like Rush Slannity O'Liely.

You hate Jews.

I don't get your point...are you saying that Mao and Stalin were Jews???

Bush and company is "for America before Israel," but they recognize Israel as a stalwart ally of the United States.

There are idiots among us who don't.

I don't know why your panties are in such a bunch over you being called an anti-Semite.

Remember, I didn't call you that - you did!

I don't care if I'm called an anti-Semite. Saying anything against the Jews makes one an anti-Semite, even if what you say is true. They can critisize you, but you can't critisize them. Lemmings like you and Barry follow that rule, I don't.

Even saying "neocon" is considered anti-Semitic by some. I don't really worry about what a bunch of politically correct morons think.

You are the one who started throwing the term around, not me. I merely pointed out that it seemed to apply to you as well. Are you unaware that communism was a Jewish idea? That is why Hitler rejected it, even though he was a murdering Jew.

Barely, you're making no sense at all, which is slightly less than usual.

You've only criticized Israel because you oppose the current wars in the Mideast.

In point of fact, there are far more Liberal Irish than Jews,, but that merely proves stupidity crosses all ethnic lines.

Irish playwrite George Bernard Shaw "improved upon" Marx's work by introducing Fabian Socialism.

Hating Communism, socialism and G B Shaw doesn't make one anti-Irish either.

See how that works?

Who wrote the Communist Manifesto?

a) James Joyce
b) Nelson Mandela
c) Groucho Marx
d) Harpo Marx
e) Karl Marx

Take your time, dummy.

I schooled you again.

George Bernard Shaw saw the fatal flaw in Marxism (workers never revolt, they're far too tethered to their jobs), he also improved upon it...via his concept of "Fabian Socialism."

These are vital things for a budding Marxist like yourself to know...you should really know them.

Marx's theories were entirely impractical. Sadly there were people like Shaw and Gramci who improved greatly upon Marx's ivory tower ideas.

Of course, THANKFULLY time has shown that neither Shaw's nor Gramci's ideas work much better.

So once again, you show your utter ignorance (lack of knowledge) of a subject upon which you pontificate on.

Par for the course.

So, it is your contention that Jews were not the foremost proponents of communism and socialism. Do I have that right?

You have to be kidding, right?

Again, your logic is very faulty. Yes, Karl Marx was Jewish, but the co-writer of the Communist Manifesto (Friedrich Engels) certainly wasn't.

Marxism was so fatally flawed that Shaw (born an Irish Catholic) and Gramci (born an Italian Catholic) had to literally overhaul that ideology...and it still didn't work.

In short, there are Jews prone to stupidity (anti-market socialism & communism) and Irish, Italian and every other ethnic group who do the same.

So the short answer to your question is "No, there is no proof that either communism or socialism are "Jewish constructs."

The people who carry out ideas, or modify it, are not the ones who constructed the ideology. You have admitted that you are wrong and I am right.


Freidrich Engles was not Jewish.

Moreover, Marx & Engels weren't even the first dolts to advance that particular unworkable ivory tower theory. I believe at least a half a dozen others had advanced similar theories previous to those two.

I don't understand your apparently pernicious obsession with Jews, but it's actually pretty creepy in light of the tremendous upsurge in rabid anti-Semitism, both in the Mideast, in places like France and within the bowels of the American Left.

You really probably should rethink that.

Post a comment