TOFOOEY

ON A RECENT EPISODE OF THE "LARS LARSON" TALK SHOW WE HAD OCCASION TO HEAR NOTED CONSERVATIVE ROCK STAR TED NUGENT expound on the flaws in "pacifist" thinking. Ted pointed out that for anybody to eat EVEN TOFU, living things had to die; that bugs and gophers and such had to be eradicated from the soyabean patch so as to ensure that they did not eat the food before humans did. At a minmum these beings were denied food and died of starvation, and in most instances they were killed outright; all so some "nipple-pierced wierdo can eat tofu and say he's not harming anything"

NOW OF COURSE TED IS RIGHT, bur we got to thinking about various responses that might be posited by members of the Left and the Vegan crowd and/or parroted by the jejune youngsters these evil people decieve. And the first thing to come to mind was "organic Vegan" gardening wherein "natural" repellents are used to dissuade uninvited guests from the soybean harvest. Well, other beings - and according to Vegan theory, an aphid's life is as valuable as a human child's - STILL starve to death. But let's just say there is something called "common-sense" Veganism. There isn't, of course; but just for the sake of argument....

SO. WITH "NATURAL REPELLENTS" AND NETS TO KEEP OUT THE STARVING BUNNYKINS (and assuming there is some way to deal with gophers and moles) and an intense amount of labor in growing and processing, the end result is "certified organic Vegan tofu". Now, if your mission in doing all of this was to get everyone to eat "harm-free" tofu, we would think that it might be offered at the same price as "evil tofu" and that greater sales volume would make up the profit difference, or even (Leftie Vegans being by and large rabidly anti-Capitalistic) just provide enough to keep the old tofu commune producing. Yes, we would think so. But we would be wrong.

SUCH VARIETIES OF TOFU EXIST and they cost much more than ordinary capitalist-produced tofu. These chunks of soy protien are almost invariably wrapped with labels featuring sunrises and buttercups and butterflies and labelled "Organic" or "Artisanal" or some such. W.C. Fields would be at awe at such a scam. "Artisanal" tofu!! What a crock. (and some of it is in fact sold by the crock!) You see, these tie-dyed throwbacks need all that extra cash to convert their Mercedes to run on marijuana-seed oil or some such crapola.

NOT THAT THE REST OF US OUGHT TO BE GADDING ABOUT WHEREVER WE WANT in a car fuelled by cannabis byproduct or anything else. According to the Vegan Left, we need to cram ourselves as tightly together as possible and rely on whatever shops are "in walking distance" to (hopefully) provide what we need (which the Left will tell us what that consists of). We are baffled, given the "peace and love" mentality professed by the Left, why they have this attitude. All experience has shown that, the closer human beings are forced to live to one another, the greater the potential for conflict; and the more "diverse" the crowded population the greater the potential for violence. There is a good reason why God confounded Human speech and stopped the building of the "Tower of Babel".

WE DISPARAGE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS; and we certainly do not say that there is a mighty "Vegan Left" conspiracy to take over the planet or even these United States. What we face here is a situation in which a mixed bag of individuals have been inspired - brainwashed in most cases - by two men in history: Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky (who was himself inspired by Marx).

Karl Marx of course was (along with Freiderich Engels) the founder of the political philosophy of communism. In fact, the word "capitalism" is itself a Marxist invention. The linchpin of Marxist philosophy is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". And we at the Alexandria Daily Poop must agree that ideally that would be just great. Except that there has to be some way of determining what those abilities and needs are. And someone has to do the sorting. After all, if you have twenty individuals whose best ability is the manufacture of lamps trying to meet the needs of fifty blind people, there's a problem. And how often have you said, "I need a vacation!!"? Well, says you. The Marxist authorities might just say otherwise.

AND SO HOW DO YOU DIVERT THE TALENTS OF A LAMPMAKER TO SATISFY THE NEEDS OF A BLIND MAN? The Marxist answer is "re-training". But what if the lampmaker is quite happy to make lamps? Well, this is the reasoning behind the Soviet "GULAG" system. The lampmaker, being resistant to being retrained, must be harshly and expediently re-educated. And if the "re-education" results in his death, it will be an example to his fellows who; if they are at all concerned about their own hides, quickly fall into line and learn to produce canes and seeing-eye dogs. And if a dearth of lamps results from this, the elite rulers can then claim a savings of electricity costs. A win-win situation unless you are eating dog-doo soup in Siberia. That is communism.

"Socialism" is nothing else but the larval stage of communism. But and especially to the young words have exaggerated meaning. "Socialist" and "Liberal" sound much more agreeable and comfortable than "strict" and "conservative". Famously, in their hit song "Chicago" (which was about the "Chicago 7" trials of the 1968 Democrat Convention Protest leadership) the group "Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young ("CSNY" or David Crosby, Steven Stills, Graham Nash, and Neil Young) sang these lyrics:

"Rules and regulations, who needs them?"

Indeed. BUT from the very same then-kids who now run this nation comes the chant for more and more rules and regulations. This, while the chanters disparage "strict constructionalism" in "interpreting the Constitution". We are at a loss. "Strict"= restrictive=bad=evil; While "Liberal"=regulation=need for strict enforcement=restrictive=good??

The popular music group "Tears for Fears" put it succinctly: "Everybody Wants to Rule the World". And there has been no truer statement ever made. And here is where Saul Alinsky comes in.

Saul Alinsky was a goddamned Communist who wrote a book called "Rules for Radicals" (previously mentioned on this web log). Alinsky's proposition was that "power" must be taken from the "Haves" and given to the "have nots". Now this is a splendid example of "circular logic" since what Alinsky meant by "Haves" and "have-nots" is those who have and do not have "power". This absolutely begs for an answer to the question: If those who have power are evil by lief of their posession of power; and those who have not power are good because they do not posess it; then what net good can result from a reversal of the situation? And let us suppose that Alinsky meant not power but material goods? Should the rich keep their material goods but surrender power to the "have-nots"? What else will the "have-nots" use this power for other than to forcibly confiscate the wealth of the "haves"? Thus making them - according to Alinsky - virtuous "have nots" while the erstwhile "have-nots" morph into evil, parasitic "haves".

Actually, "Haves" vs "Have-nots" is a false dichotomy. We have seen in our experience the estate of a very wealthy lawyer - one to whom we were delivering about ten suitcases full of documents for him to work on over the weekend. And the estate was a marvellous thing. An Olympic-size swimming pool and a tennis court, and the house so large we mistook it for a church of some kind. And we realized as we watched this harried individual sign for the buttload of work we had delivered; that he would not be doing any swimming on Saturday. But we would; and perhaps a bit of fishing as well. We suppose we might have the best of both worlds - the freedom to swim and fish plus lots of money to buy better fishing tackle and even overnight accomodations to extend our weekend - if we could forcibly take from that lawyer all of his wealth, leaving him in a truly "have-not" state. But then we would be one of the "haves"; and God forbid he might read a copy of "Rules for Radicals"!

Ideals have their place. And in a perfect Universe there would be plenty of everything for everyone. Indeed we believe in an Almighty God who has unlimited supplies of everything and who can make unlimited quantities of anything, who overflows with everything and more. And furthermore, this same God is the only being in the Universe who is capable of doling out these goodies in any way even approximating Karl Marx's ideal. Yet the followers of Marx deny Him, or worse seek to subjugate His worship to their own selves. The modern Left consists not so much in a "global Communist conspiracy" - although great and small collusions of leftists abound - as in groups of people who have made contributions great and small to a false god -- an idol -- upon which they place their various faiths and bow down to.

What Alinsky meant by "haves and have nots" was and is mainly the American very wealthy and very poor. But by global standards, all but the very poorest one or two percent of Americans are richer than Henry VIII. Here in Alexandria, Virginia we have "Public Housing" containing "the poor" that is well above the standard of living for a middle-class family in, say. Hyderabad, India (where a family of Missionaries of our aquaintance went to teach the locals how to use "Squatty Potties" rather than just poop in the roadside). Only in America does a person who flushes his toilet with drinking water consider himself "underpriveleged"; and yet it is such as these to whom Alinsky ascribed the term "have nots".

And let us not forget that the current "President" Obama has a family member - HIS OWN BROTHER - who lives in poverty in Kenya, in a hut made of mud and sticks; and who subsists on one lousy dollar per month. Yet this same "President" who professes "Hope" for all America and for the world's billions; does not spare from his own - and considerable - wealth a measly double sawbuck to better the existence of his own blood relative. Yet Obama is an apostle of Alinsky.

As are most of the makers and sellers of "organic Artisinal Vegan Tofu". And we have nothing against tofu, we have eaten it and have even had some very tasty vegetarian cuisine; although we dined on such fare not to be morally superior but rather because we enjoyed the taste of it. Still, purporting to champion the "have nots" over the "haves"; quite like championing the gophers over the starving humans; necessarily means placing oneself in a position above them both; which means usurping the very Throne of God Himself.

"Everybody wants to rule the world". To-Phooey.

A GREAT AND MOST APPROPRIATE HONOR

YES, DEAR READERS, YOU NEED NOT PINCH YOURSELVES, WE AT THE ALEXANDRIA DAILY POOP REALLY DO BELIEVE that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to "President" Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm MMMM is altogether fitting and appropriate.

WE HAVE DISCOVERED in discussions with various members of the public that there are many victims of the public schools who do not know the background or origins of the prize. And so, a little history first.

ALFRED NOBEL was a Swedish weapons merchant who invented dynamite. Dynamite was one of the very first safe-to-handle high explosive compounds. Basically it was and is nitroglycerin compounded with diatomaceous earth. Such a thing naturally had tremendous implications for warfare, and the 19th Century was quite as infested with leftist peacenicks as the present day. Nobel was condemned as a "Merchant of Death" for his invention. Allegedly out of shame but more likely to shine up his "legacy"; he endowed a prize for outstanding contributions to peace. The endowment, however, was and is funded by the sales of weapons and explosives (Nobel continued to sell the stuff, and Dynamit Nobel is today a fully functional arms manufacturer. They make a humdinger of a rifled shotgun slug round)

BEING THEREFORE FOUNDED ON THE TWIN PILLARS OF IRONY AND HYPOCRISY; And having been born of Leftist scorn; the Nobel Peace Prize is therefore altogether fitting as an award for this "President".

NOW IT IS ALLEGED BY MANY CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS that "President" Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm MMMM has done nothing to deserve this prize. We disagree. Obama has - even from the early days of his campaign - denigrated these United States, and since being elected has continued to do so. He has stated as a goal of his the diminishment of our role as the world's only remaining superpower. He has intimated that he is even willing to prostitute our National interests to the benefit of some of the world's worst tyrannies. And to the snooty Scandanavian leftists who run the Nobel Prize program, this is the road to peace. To them, the greatest goal of anyone seeking peace is to get the United States of America to surrender. "President" Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm MMMM is the best hope they have ever had. Oh, Obama has done PLENTY to deserve the Nobel.

Conspiracy theorists. Give it a rest. Please.

BE IT THE BIRTHERS OR THE TRUTHERS the tide of "Conspiracy Theory" is at an all time high-water mark. Lately we have seen theories that drug manufacturers are in bed with the Bilderberg whatever and the Rothschild something or other to collude with General Motors and "President" Obama - who is secretly in bed with the Bush family - to take over the globe and enslave us all. Or something like that. Puh-leeze.

WE AT THE ALEXANDRIA DAILY POOP DO NOT DOUBT FOR ONE MINUTE that there are various corrupt corporate and individual entities. And there have been since the beginning of time. And probably by the fourth or fifth generation of modern human beings, groups of people have conspired against other groups and individuals. Oog the flint-chipper might have made common cause with Ogg the arrowhaft maker and Ugg the bowmaker to corner the market on hunting tackle. The weak spot there is the same weak spot that eventually dooms all conspiracies. Oog was looking out for his own self, as were Ogg and Ugg. One fine day a guy named Yagg invented a way of putting feathers on arrowshafts and met another guy named Gagg who had invented a compound bow. Oog the flint-chipper saw that people would love this new superior tackle. He abandoned Ogg and Ugg and threw in with Yagg and Gagg. But since demand exeeded supply, soon Ogg and Ugg were making their own versions of the new tackle. Oog still made the warheads, and hired new people, and even ran into competition as some of his employees tried and in a few cases succeeded in making better designs of arrowheads.

Then along came some guy who found out how to make metal arrowheads, and upset the whole applecart.

"CONSPIRACY" IS A CRIMINAL JUSTICE TERM. TO CONSPIRE IS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT THAT IS NOT ONLY MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL BUT ALSO - BY DEFINITION - CRIMINAL. You cannot "conspire" to feed the poor, heal the sick, or clothe the naked. Yet simple business arrangements have often been described as "conspiracies" by those who have neither the brains nor the wherewithal to make a similarly advantageous deal for themselves. Walmart making a deal with China to import shoes is not a "conspiracy" to force everyone else out of the shoe biz. It is an arrangement to obtain quality goods for a low price, sell them slightly above cost, and thus permit children to walk shod to school, where they will be taught the evils of doing business the Walmart way. But wait, you say. China uses underpaid workers to make those shoes! So isn't Walmart in a conspiracy with China to promote slave labor?

NO.

Walmart is in a conspiracy with Walmart to get the best stuff it can as cheaply as it can and sell it for less than anyone else. Walmart had the same idea everyone else wishes they had gotten first. If Walmart were instead Kennedymart, nobody would be bitching. The whole "Walmart Conspiracy" angle is a steaming crock.

As to true conspiracies, if there are any, their fundamental weakness and the assurance of their eventual downfall is that any conspiracy is founded by two or more entities who (although they share a few common interests) are more than anything else concerned about their own interests. An "altruistic conspiracy" is the very definition of oxymoron. At some point, the effects of the conspiracy will begin to be felt by its victims, who will then begin what will either culminate in violence and/or its equivaent of "government action/reform". The larger and more wide-ranging this conspiracy, the sooner it will reach this stage. A conspiracy between a hundred entities might survive - if very well led and managed - a quarter century, but eventually the various conflicting interests will begin to be unnerved at the attention directed as the public wises up.

Conspiracies can last only so long as the interests of the conspirators do not come into conflict. This - human nature being what it is, and human beings being what conspiracies consist of - is inevitable. Once this conflict is realized, the breaup of the conspiracy is ditto inevitable; and the only way the conspiracy will live on is in the efforts - born out of fear - between the members of the conspiracy to keep it from being uncovered.

We do not here say that conspiracies do not abound. Teenage lovers will conspire to kill interfering parents, contractors and politicians will conspire to manipulate public service projects, currency speculators and businessmen will consspire to maneuver the wealth of entire nations to their own advantage; and it has always been so and will continue until GOD comes to establish His Perfect Justice (and look out!) .

But the bald fact is, the larger the conspiracy the more human beings are involved. And each and every one of them is looking out primarily for his own interests. A conspiracy is a chain which cannot be stronger than its weakest link. The larger the conspiracy, the more links in the chain. And the more links, the greater of a weak one in a fatal position. Two people may conspire to swindle a third person and get away with it. Two dozen people may be successful in swindling a county out of some money if they do not get too greedy (but they inevitably will),

Many more than a dozen, however, and the individual interest of the participants (and the aggregate interest of various factions) will sooner or later lead to a downfall. There may well be conspiracies between well-heeled groups that have lasted for centuries. But these have largely roped out into the above mentioned denial stage. There are indeed large groups of people who have tried to garner absolute control of wealth and power unto themselves. And they will do so - or try - again if they can. But their individual members have succumbed to greed and gotten themsselves arrested and in many cases imprisoned or even executed for crimes great and small. A conspiracy requires closely enforced cooperation for the greater - and criminal - good. But he who enters into a conspiracy does not do so for the interests of the group but rather for his own interests. Conflict is inevitable, and the more participants, the greater and more disastrous the potential for disintegration.

In a like vein, the larger conspiracy alleged by the accuser, the less likely there is that there was a conspiracy in the first place. A conspiracy of two may be built of bricks. A conspiracy of three is a hut of sticks. A conspiracy of four is a shack of straw, and anything more is a fortress - no matter how formidable in appearance- of playing cards, which the merest wind might well take down. Two words: Joe Valachi.

LOOKY HERE GOOGLE.

WE ARE EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED that we allowed advertising on this blog, which is conservative and nationalist and most assuredly NOT supportive of "President" Obama and his enablers. And yet when we have tried to get help, there is no readily apparent way in which to register our objections. Our objection is that the readership of this rag, all three of them, are not about to click on an ad for "canonize Obama" T-shirts or "Single payer healthcare now" bumper stickers. Come on Google. How about some ads for firearms or Ann Coulter's latest book or Mark Levin or something?? THAT is what our readers are interested in. Putting an ad for contributions to some Ubamanista concern is like putting an ad for Zyklon B in the Bnai' Brith newsletter.

PLEASE GOOGLE!! Get us some relevant ads or we will drop out. And our apologies to our readers. We don't get to choose the ads, and we do NOT support the Left.

DEBACLE AND DISGRACE!

"PRESIDENT" BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS DISGRACED THE ENTIRE COUNTRY BY PUTTING HIMSELF IN A SITUATION WHEREIN HE COULD BE AND WAS VERY THOROUGHLY DISRESPECTED, AND IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD AT THAT. His trip to Copenhagen Denmark to promote Chicago as a site for the 2016 Olympics utterly failed.

Now this would not BE a disgrace if Chicago had been turned down after several rounds of voting. And one woulld think that such a couteousy might have been extended to the "Leader of the Free World". But with "President" Obama and his wife standing there, Chicago was the VERY FIRST CITY REJECTED. In diplomatic circles this is what is known as "a kick in the balls".

It is entirely possible that the International Olympic Committee had heard Obama's frequent apologies for America, his frequent denial of the innate greatness of America; and agreed with him. They may have thought they were doing him a favor by giving us the humiliation he has often intimated we deserve.

Or perhaps they thought he was a pompous ass - and he is - deporting himself all over the place as if he thinks he is the King of the World. Perhaps they thought that he had a lot of nerve showing up in Copenhagen and implicitly using the power of the Presidency to twist a few arms. Perhaps they resented him.

Or maybe Michelle Obama's comments about her big "sacrifice" in coming to Copenhagen insulted them. Can you imagine someone coming to America, checking into a luxury hotel where he or she was pampered and every whim catered to, where beautiful sights and history abound, enjoying it all and then sighing that he or she was making a "sacrifice" in coming?? How insulted would we be??

Or maybe the IOC took all three of the foregoing into consideration. But no other conclusion is possible other than that by disqualifying Chicago ON THE FIRST VOTE was a DELIBERATE slap at Obama and by extension to the nation he is "President" of.

Of course the Obama White House and the various "drive by media" have been falling all over themselves trying to explain away this debacle. One of the more ludicrous explanations is that Obama went there for a "secret meeting" with one of his Generals about Afghanistan. But the fact is that Obama really opened himself - and therefore the entire nation - for a thorough dissing by going to Denmark to shill for his hometown - and America - in the first place.

We conclude that if Obama can't keep from putting his own self in a place where he is vulnerable to a kick in the nuts, where does that leave US??? Huh? Take a guess.....

MARK LEVIN VS. THE FOUNDERS OF AMERICA

Well, we certainly hope we got your attention. Actually we are in darn near complete agreement with the author of "Liberty and Tyranny". However we must take issue with a remark he made last night.

Mr. Levin said that if the Founders knew what was taking place today would take place they would never have ratified the Constitution. We disagree, for the following reasons:

WE ARE NOT YET IN THE GRIP OF A TYRANNY. Oh, the wannabe fascists are trying and they seem to have met with some measure of success. We do not say that these are not dangerous times for Liberty. They definitely are. But the Founders could see this possibility, and the Document they crafted provided for just such an emergency. Every two years one third of the Senate and every seat in the House is up for re-election. If this does not dissuade those who would pervert the Constitution from attempting to do so or from passing disastrous legislation, The People are able to remove them before their actions have done too much damage; and put in new people who will reverse course and clean up the mess. Witness the tumult over the present various DemonRat boondoggles, notably the "health care reform" nonsense; and the nervousness of many "centrist" Democrats, whose votes are needed if these disasters are ever to see the desk of "President" Obama.

In order to engender said tumult, the Founders gave us the First Amendment. It is very revealing that the Ratz have put out feelers toward blunting criticism by trying to re-institute the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and otherwise attempting to muzzle the speech of those who disagree; only to find out that they have picked up a very hot potato indeed. And so We the People are being informed of the parliamentary acrobatics used to thwart our will. As the Ratz use cornier and hokier tricks, they are doing so not in the back room and the cloakroom but under the searing spotlight of modern mass media, of which we and Mr. Levin are part. Freedom of Assembly is also beng put to very effective use with the Tea Party movement, and in the midst of all this, demonstrations that the Second Amendment is alive and well are also being made.

Far from being disgusted with the present spectacle, we believe the Founders would be looking at this and feeling pleased that the Constitution is working as intended. We believe they knew very well that such as the DemonRatz would arise. We believe they knew that, as is happening now, they would slowly move to chip away at the Constitution until they believed they had weakened it enough to mount a massive final assault. And we believe they knew that The People would not long sleep, but once rudely awakened take such measures under the Constitution as to quell the threat to our Sacred Liberty. And this is exactly what is happening. The Founders DID see this coming, and our magnificent Constitution is working exactly as designed.

And the Founders also foresaw Mark Levin and this blog, and we believe that we both are doing them proud. And so are the People, as long as they fight. The Constitution is a massive weapon against tyranny; it is a commission to all citizens to act in defense of Liberty. The Militia has been activated and the Sword of free speech, assembly, and the Vote is in our hands; and also we have the Musket if need be. Only tyrants need tremble before us; and make no mistake, they do.

AND SO, MARK LEVIN; Patriot and warrior for freedom though you are, on this point we must very respectfully disagree.