Friday, October 29, 2010

Hey, Dude, So Obama’s Not Liberal Enough? Jon Stewart, the Insolent Ultra-Radical…..One Judicial Endorsement—No on Kilbride. More.

                                       Jon Stewart.
       No one likes to see a sitting president of the United  States humiliated—and although I’ve been a critic of Barack Obama from the very first day I met him as a candidate for the Illinois state Senate, I must say I felt the treatment he received at the hands of Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz (aka Jon Stewart) was disgusting.  Who the hell does this schlock-meister think he is calling the president “Dude”?  His lack of reverence for America is disgusting.  He’s been a Lefty radical all his life and has developed a perverse reputation for being funny.
      He quipped on the day after 9/11 that now at least the smoldering Trade Center carnage where 3000 were killed has opened up the vista from his Manhattan window so he can at last see the Statue of Liberty. No, I don’t want him censored.  I just want to see this country develop a little pride in itself so that this clown’s popularity diminishes out of personal choice so he can go back to the venue where he belongs—onstage at Star and Garter where he pours seltzer down somebody’s pants.   His line of smut belongs there anyhow, spewing words on TV like f**k, p**s. 
        His earlier contribution included the suggestion for which he had to  apologize: that Harry Truman should have been put on trial as a war criminal for dropping the atomic bomb.  Were these things supposed to be funny?  Why is this anti-patriotic lanky goon who’s about as funny as a cerebral palsy patient patronized by presidents, candidates, journalists and as happened not long ago the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?   The direction of his questions represented snide questions from the ultra-Far Left, rebuking Obama for not taking this country over a cliff.
        The kids think Stewart’s cool.  He is. So’s the late  Ted Williams standing in a vat of cryonics-chilled fluid.    Come to think of it, both are headless.
                   Vote to Take Out Kilbride, PI Bar’s Darling.
        Illinois Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride’s 10-year term is up and he’s seeking retention.  In this state where judges are elected, voters are asked whether or not they should be retained (there’s no opposition candidate to vote for;   just vote him up or down).  I say vote him down with enthusiasm.. He’s the darling of personal injury lawyers and one principal reason why doctors and specialists are fleeing Illinois and big unions.
           Kilbride joined with other Dems on the Court to overturn a state law that placed monetary caps on damages awarded in medical malpractice cases. He’s the liberals’ darling—having backed McGovern for president in 1972…went to California to help some of the most radical labor forces in U.S. history…has received $650,000 from Mike Madigan in campaign cash which added to the total he’s already pocketed from the Dems is $1,250.00…plus $250,000 from the Illinois Federation of Teachers, $90,000 from the Illinois Education Association PAC. Armed with bundles of PI lawyer cash, he’s an automatic vote to screw the medical profession and is notoriously soft on criminals.
     This Nov. 2 make  it a clean sweep.  No Illinois Supreme Court Justice has ever been voted off the Court—a great incentive to make Illinois history. Be the first on your block to vote “no” on retaining Kilbride.  No I’m not getting paid to write this.  As one who’s benefited from good doctors, I just want `em to stick around Illinois—not be driven out by such as Kilbride.
                                      Mark Kirk.
          I’ve gotten some heat for saying that despite his views are on a swivet  I’m endorsing Kirk because I don’t want a mob banker in the Senate which indubitably we will get if people run to the Libertarian candidate—no matter how nice he is.   Well you’d think I wiped my nose on the American flag from the tone of some responses.    I’m a has-been…the host of a very boring radio show…have been snotty to my old mother before she died…and am a tool of Lucifer and his demonic hosts in hell.
       I hate to bring this up but are these critics happy that we finally got two conservative  jurists on the U. S. Supreme Court—John Roberts and Sam Alito?   Do you know how we got them confirmed?
       In the campaign of 2004 where Bush was running for a second term the question was whether or not he would endorse for reelection the Chairman of Senate Judiciary, Sen. Arlen Specter the Kirk-like liberal.  Specter was opposed  in a very close race for the Republican nomination by Pat Toomey, an inestimably better man—pro-lifer and all.
      This will cause some of your soft pink ears to redden because it will remind you of what Bismarck said about politics and sausage making: you don’t want to witness the details of both.
        Surrogates for Bush sat down  with Specter behind the scenes and said: Listen, Arlen—you’ve been a pain in the neck to this administration but we’ve got a deal for you.  If  you vote to confirm the Supreme Court nominees and help guide them through the committee to confirmation  and help us on the floor, we send up to the Hill, we’ll endorse you now. If you can’t say this, well, we’ll endorse Toomey and it’ll be goodbye Arlen.  What do you say?  Remember we’re going to have to take you at your word which on some things has been notoriously bad—but we’re willing to make this deal.  What’s your answer?
         Specter said: Who are you going to name?
         Their answer: We don’t know and you don’t know Arlen because there are no vacancies yet.
         Specter:  You’re asking me to give you a blank check on this one?
           Their response:  Yeah, Arlen that’s right….just like we’re going to take one from  you that you’ll honor your commitment.  So two blank checks.
           Specter:  You’re suggesting my word to  you is no good?
            Their rejoinder:  We’re not suggesting, Arlen. We are maintaining that as a goddamned fact.  Do  you want us to enumerate chapter and  verse from the past?  Understand we’re going to  take a lot of heat from the conservatives of  our party when we do….so it’ll be no cakewalk.
            Specter:   Er, uh, no.  Okay, I’ll trust you and you’ll trust me. 
            Their summation:  We want you to repeat this deal now Arlen in front of us so that we hear you say it.
             Specter (outraged): WHAT?  YOU MEAN…?
            They: Repeat it, Arlen.  And remember if you break it a friend of ours will divulge [private details on an earlier negotiation in Harrisburg].
            Specter: I resent that you [descriptive words redacted].
             They:  Ok, we take it to mean no deal. Deal’s off? 
             Specter:  I didn’t say that, did  I?  Okay, the president endorses me for reelection.   Then er,uh--.
             They:   Yes, Arlen.  Continue.
            Specter:   I will definitely endorse them.  How many will there be?
              They:   How do we know?
             Specter:  You’re going to put my integrity in handcuffs for every federal court appointment for the  next four  years?
             They:   No.  Just  the Supreme Court.
            Specter:   Okay.   Resuming—the president endorses me for reelection and I will support his Supreme Court nominees and do all I can to get them confirmed—in committee and on the floor.  One thing.
             They:  Yes, Arlen.
            Specter:    At least I will get to have my input on the names before they are announced?
             They:  Yes.   Now repeat it again.
            Specter:    Oh God do I have to go through all this again?
             They:  You do.
            That was the deal—and it was kept.  The appointments were John Roberts for Justice….later for Chief Justice…and  Sam Alito.  Specter cooperated fully. 
             The point of this is: We have two major supporters of  Life and conservative principle because this was done…and we wouldn’t have if the White House wouldn’t negotiate and held firm for
Toomey.    As you know, the wily Specter years later left the GOP when he was due to face Toomey again…became a Democrat…was endorsed  by Obama…and lost.  I don’t cite this to endorse all negotiations when principle is at stake but to say once again there is in politics such a thing as Aquinas’ principle of double effect…where you balance one disadvantageous action for a countervailing good effect that overweighs the disadvantage.
          I got this information from a very prominent House member who was informed of the deal and checked it out with Specter (who cursed and said “You’re right but goddam it you’re not going to make me run through it again now, are you?”


1 comment:

  1. The term "Puritan" was coined as a pejorative for Protestants who were more concerned with purity of doctrine and ritual than with winning souls for Jesus or defeating sin.

    The Wahhabi sect of Islam was notorious for continually denouncing other Moslems for not being Islamically pure. It was known for centuries among other Moslems as "the trouble out of Nejd". (Nejd is the homeland of the Saudi clan. Lately, alas, Wahhabism has become much more "respectable" and influential because the Saudis have so much money and fund it lavishly.)

    The conservatives and Republicans who hate Kirk and want him to lose are of the same stripe. If they wanted a "real conservative" to win the seat, they should have have found a qualified candidate and campaigned for him in the primary. They could have challenged Kirk for re-election to Congress.

    Heck, in 2000 he could have been prevented from getting in at all; he was nominated with less than 32% of the primary vote, because the opposition was split 10 ways.

    In 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 he was unopposed in the primary.

    Where were these Puritans then?

    What conservatives were they getting elected?