March 22, 2010

What were they thinking?

From my new VDARE.com column:
Journalists always like to say they write "the first draft of history," but, really, there are three drafts. And it’s the middle one, in between Breaking News and History, where the worst distortions creep in. Between the raw feed and the history books, journalists quickly simplify the immense complexity of events into stock clich├ęs that can go unchallenged for decades. For example, by 1992 the press had rewritten the 1988 election around Willie Horton.

Likewise, it will probably take one to two generations before historians can cut through the rewrites to understand the fundamental dynamics of the last decade. Why did the Bush Administration waste eight years on Immigration, Invasion, and Indebtedness? Why did it encourage Mexicans to illegally immigrate to America by calling for amnesty? What was Karl Rove thinking when he tried and failed in four different years (2001, 2004, 2006, and 2007) to shove through amnesty and guest worker legislation?

With Rove’s boss, George W. Bush, the question is less of a puzzle. I suspect that minimizing the border between Mexico and America was Bush’s personal passion, while Rove just thought they were being clever.

Striking a deal with Mexico was traditional Bush family business, going back at least to 1960 when George H. W. Bush’s Zapata Off-Shore oil company formed a partnership with Jorge Diaz Serrano to sneak around Mexico’s ban on foreign involvement in its oil industry. (Diaz Serrano later became head of Pemex, the Mexican oil monopoly, and then went to prison for corruption.)

Further integration of the U.S. and Mexican economies was naturally attractive for the Bushes. The senior Bush negotiated NAFTA and encouraged Mexican president Carlos Salinas to turn public monopolies such as the phone system into private monopolies (a policy which has made Carlos Slim the richest man in the world). Yet, in NAFTA, Mexico withheld from privatization its crown jewel monopoly, Pemex.

Business and immigration all blended together for the younger Bush, which is why his 2001 plan was to have his Secretary of State negotiate an immigration deal with Vicente Fox’s Foreign Minister. In his 1995 New York Times op-ed, No Cheap Shots at Mexico, Please, then-Governor Bush warned Republicans off from the immigration issue by holding forth on the profits to be made from further integration with Latin America:
"Mexico is proving to be a strong economic friend. Our economic bond with Mexico carries with it some very positive long-term results. An isolated United States will not be able to compete successfully in a world economy where Europe and Asia are united into common-market partnerships. The trade agreement wisely affords our country the opportunity to join forces with Canada and our neighbors to the south—first Mexico, then Chile, then other emerging capitalist countries in Latin America."

On the personal side, George and Barbara Bush employed a live-in Mexican maid, Paula Rendon, of whom W. has said, "I have come to love her like a second mother." He went on to employ another Mexican immigrant, Maria Galvan, to raise his two daughters. Younger brother Jeb married a Mexican girl, Columba Garnica, who had spent some years as an illegal immigrant in California.

Jeb and Columba’s son, George P. Bush, was such a natural politician and heir to the Bush dynasty that W., who nicknamed his father "41" (for being the 41st President) and himself "43," called his nephew "44."

So, from 43’s dynastic perspective, electing a new people in order to keep electing Bushes to the White House all made a certain grandiose, demented sense.

Yet, for Rove, who was supposed to be the brains of the operation, the motivations are murkier —other than sheer submissiveness toward his willful boss.

Let’s run through the possibilities:

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

45 comments:

Whiskey said...

Agreed but old news Steve.

News flash -- Bush is not President anymore. OBAMA IS.

And he plans to ram through total Amnesty to about 20 million illegals here and another 30 million from Mexico. Instantly. To win in November.

Your navel gazing on the idiocy of GWB (agreed) is useless. It does not deal with the danger NOW, which is how to stop Obama from rahm-ing through Amnesty.

Bush tried and failed to get Amnesty repeatedly because Republicans stopped him. Now Obama has a template -- get enough votes in the Senate and the House through tricky parliamentary maneuvers to rahm through Amnesty no matter how much people don't like it.

BUSH IS NOT PRESIDENT. OBAMA IS.

What do you propose to do about it?

My solution is "cultural attack." Obama and the Media control the terms of the debate completely, in the above the line sort of way. All the newspapers, magazines, TV broadcasts, all of them.

So go "Andrew Sullivan." He and Tina Fey and David Letterman successfully defined Palin AND HER FAMILY as a bunch of inbred Alaskan hillbillies and sluts. Making her family look trashy to make her look trashy. So take a page out of that book.

With no responsibility, who cares about a Web reputation, conservatives can paint Pelosi, her FAMILY, Obama, and HIS FAMILY as drunken, corrupt, drug abusing monsters, by digging into family scandals and misdeeds and arrests and so on, and Obama's kids, Wife, and himself as virulent racists, corrupt abusers, Obama as gay (this is a common theme in the National Enquirer) and so on.

Most people don't decide on policy, they decide on personality. Moreover, Dems are not afraid of voters, figuring Obama will either rule by decree in a self-coup or import all those Mexicans as instant voters and citizens.

The only way to stop Dems is to make explicit examples and instill fear. Fear that they and their families will be defined as ugly jokes, somewhere between OctoMom and Snookie and Jessie James. Particularly as "low class" and "not our kind of SWPL dearie."

FEAR and total, scorched earth cultural warfare against key Dems AND THEIR FAMILIES is the only way to go. It was what destroyed Palin. If everyone thinks Obama is a combination of flamingly gay and Louis Farrakhan, all of a sudden his power to move Dems is gone.

Anonymous said...

I think you misunderstand.

All sorts of Ponzi schemes in the US, from Social Security to union pension plans require fresh victims, err, members, so those already in can get paid out. We falling fertility, where are those fresh victims, err, members to come from?

Unfortunately, those pushing for unlimited immigration forgot to ask themselves whether the sort of people they would get could afford to be victims, err, members.

Anonymous said...

you and I have a fundamentally different worldview: yours is that of contention and war among races whereas I see all people as morally equivalent.

i don't favor or disfavor white people.

you do. That anchors your entire worldview and philosphy and politics

josh said...

This reminds me of a cartoon I saw ponce,after Menachem begin invaded Lebanon. It showed him alone,hunched over a table,writing,"I did it for you,Jody." I think a similar thing is going on with the grotesque Karl Rove .whose story is like something out of a Southern novel. Weird.

Anonymous said...

Striking a deal with Mexico was traditional Bush family business, going back at least to 1960 when George H. W. Bush’s Zapata Off-Shore oil company formed a partnership with Jorge Diaz Serrano to sneak around Mexico’s ban on foreign involvement in its oil industry...

In defense of Dubya [or at least in defense of his motivations], I think that he honestly believed in the rhetoric which he was spouting during his time in politics ["all people yearn to be free", "all children can learn to read", "all people can & should own their own homes", etc etc etc].

It seems to me that a healthy dose of HBD realism [and cynicism] would have done wonders for Dubya and his braintrust - Dubya seemed to have been working on the assumption that the Castilian-Hapsburgian caucasian hispanics whom Daddy partied with back in the 1950s and 1960s were indistinguishable from the Central American aboriginals [Nahuatl, Yucatec Mayan, Mixtec, Zapotec, Tzeltal Mayan, Tzotzil Mayan, etc etc etc] whom Dubya welcomed across the border by the millions in the 2000s.

And to confuse people whose IQs are in the 100s and 110s and 120s, with people whose IQs are in the 80s and 70s and 60s - and to operate under that confusion when faced with the specter of the migration of literally tens of millions of people - is a terrible [really historically inexcusable] failure of statecraft.

But given the way that the elites have [physically] isolated themselves from the day-to-day disaster which is life with black and aboriginal neighbors, I don't think that we're going to get much in the way of HBD realism out of them anytime in the near future.

Fred said...

Whiskey,

Attacking a politician's young children will backfire on you something fierce.

Regarding Palin, she's not "destroyed". She's doing better financially than ever. She isn't a viable candidate for president, but that's not because of the Democrats. That's because she knew nothing of current affairs and embarrassed herself in interviews about it.

wintermute said...

The only way to stop Dems is to make explicit examples and instill fear. Fear that they and their families will be defined as ugly jokes, somewhere between OctoMom and Snookie and Jessie James. Particularly as "low class" and "not our kind of SWPL dearie."

FEAR and total, scorched earth cultural warfare against key Dems AND THEIR FAMILIES is the only way to go.


You couldn't do this to Communists, how are you going to do it to Democrats?

Also, as Steve has recently pointed out - at great length - on VDARE, Democrats don't rule America. Someone else comprises the ruling class, and they are well invested in the Republicans, the other Big Government/ invade/ invite/ in hoc party.

Are you telling me that the American "right", whether Christer, Paleo-, or Alt- is going to stigmatize our ruling class?

You and which publishing houses, buddy?

To paraphrase the song: "if you don't make it There, you won't make it anywhere. It's up to you - New York, New York".

Anonymous said...

America's strength for 200 years was an abundance of human capital and a bold vision of the future. But in 1965 the tide began to turn. The immigration flood gates were opened and now we have a nation like Terry Gilliam's Brazil. No more bold expeditions to other planets. No brilliant medical research or cures. No great scientific achievements. Just fat, unhealthy, slovenly, uneducated, indeterminate race people waddling about a sagging, cracking, infrastructure, leading pointless lives of consumption and self amusement when they are not at their government jobs performing worthless bureaucratic tasks (or standing in line waiting for psychiatric counseling in Spanish).

I hope an asteroid is on the way.

Thrasymachus said...

As I have said Bush was very successful in doing pretty much whatever he wanted as president, amnesty being his only significant failure. And an amnesty program of the type he wanted is still in the offing.

Anonymous said...

Considerations of what might be good for the country as a whole, what might be good for it's people, never seems to enter into the calculations of all these power seekers. Everything is just cynical manipulation. The perceived legitimacy of the government itself seems to have worn thin in the mind of the public. Perhaps those in government sense this and so become more controlling and duplicitous.

Glossy said...

"you and I have a fundamentally different worldview: yours is that of contention and war among races whereas I see all people as morally equivalent."

This is a pretty vague statement. Can you expound on it further? Do you think that:

1) People never or almost never fight each other over race and ethnicity. Most humans think that all races and ethnicities are morally equivalent. Therefore you do not feel the need to be ethnocentric to defend your interests. In other words, since humans never steal, why have locks on any doors?


2) People do fight each other regularly over race and ethnicity. Most think that their group is better than all others. Unilateral disarmament (i.e. your refusal to be ethnocentric) WILL hurt you in the long run. Perhaps even in the short run. But you like it when others hurt you. You'd rather feel like your definition of a saint, even if it's for a short while, than defend your interests or your life. You'd rather feel like a saint NOW than leave any descendants or anyone who might remember who you were. The now is THAT important to you. In other words, you want to sacrifice for your faith.

3) Something else? If you answer 3), please describe in detail how it differs from 1) or 2). Thanks in advan

Anonymous said...

Boy Steve the comments section has gone to hell. Whats stupider than demanding someone write about something else? Don't like the post, don't read it.

Anyway, good column. I think you give Rove and Bush too much credit. I agree that incompetence is often the most likely explanation - except Rove eats sleeps and drinks politics. He certainly knew Amnesty was a loser POLITICALLY - but didn't care.

Sad American said...

Steve,

Thank you and all the others like Pat Buchanan and Peter Brimelow for sounding the alarm on this issue for the past 20 years. But unfortunately it is probably too late to do anything about it now.

Our last chance was having a republican president and a republican controlled congress. Unfortunately, they were just as bad as the democrats, and now we will never get another chance to correct the ill provisions of the 1965 Immigration Act and to secure our borders.

You guys did your damndest to warn us about the impending demographic change, but we allowed you to be marginalized by the left who brandished guys like you racists. Instead of standing by you, most conservatives ostracized you to avoid taking any political heat. Now look at what that expediency has gotten us.

I know there is a lot of talk going around these days about the Frankfurt School and Political Correctness. I found this fantastic 20 minute video presentation by William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation. It was a thorough explanation and opened my eyes. After viewing it, I really can see how guys like Sailer, Buchanan, and Brimelow were marginalized according to plan.

For those who haven't seen it, it is worth 20 minutes of your time.

The History of Political Correctness

ben tillman said...

you and I have a fundamentally different worldview: yours is that of contention and war among races whereas I see all people as morally equivalent.

Funny, then, that you invariably deposit your pay check in your own bank account. Like everyone else, you put yourself first on a personal level (some "moral equivalence"!), but you've been brainwashed into not putting yourself first at the racial level.

Normal, healthy people of all races consistently apply the principle that you apply inconsistently.

Starker said...

Whiskey, get a grip, brother. You're advocating that Steve and a handful of conservative bloggers do a demolition job on top Dems and their FAMILIES, which you keep capitalizing so we don't miss the point. Where to begin? First of all, there is the moral issue. Even mafia bosses usually spare the families as they settle their scores.

Then there is the blowback. Most people, including myself, would be nauseated if people unfortunate enough to be related to Obama, Pelosi etc. were unfairly and viciously attacked. It also wouldn't work. You cite Sullivan, Fey and Letterman as complicit in Sarah's (self) demolition. These are all mainstream media figures whose influence is infinitely larger than bloggers who get a few thousand hits a day.

"With no responsibility, who cares about a Web reputation [?]," Speak for yourself, champ, last I heard Steve makes a living at this, and he might care about his reputation as a human to boot. You've got a blog, why don't you test drive some of your bright ideas yourself.

Look, Obama sat at the feet of Rev. Wright for 20 years and it didn't hurt him. The Census Bureau predicts an increase of 97 million Latinos between 2000 and 2050, between immigration and natural increase. This is not a secret, but I see little evidence that anyone gives a shit, even on HBD blogs.

If the American people are willing to accept, or sleep through, which amounts to the same thing, the future their leaders envision for them, then they deserve it. But spare us the dirty tricks.

Anonymous said...

I see all people as morally equivalent.




Good for you. Rather more important is what people see themselves as. And they don't see everybody else as "morally equivalent" to themselves and their kin.

You only think what you think because you've spent your entire life having those thoughts hammered into your head. That does not confer any special validity on either you or those thoughts.

Anonymous said...

My current pet theory: W. and Rove were a pair of closeted homosexuals in search of red herrings as a form of protective coloring. They cynically intuited that by taking wildly unrealistic (but "compassionate") positions on several liberal causes (immigration, education) they would distract/flumux their "bleeding-heart" enemies on the left.

Anonymous said...

My current pet theory: W. and Rove were a pair of closeted homosexuals in search of red herrings as a form of protective coloring.

And you censor half of my posts?

Ugh.

Jeff said...

My analysis: Rove for years ran a business with only one customer. He did a good job pleasing that customer because he was a natural fit for what that customer wanted.

GWB wanted a smart political advisor. Rove was smart enough to pass GWB's inspection.

GWB wanted an advisor that would help him feel good about himself as a helper of the downtrodden. Rove did that.

GWB wanted a detail man, because he did not want to get involved in the details. Rove did that.

Now I personally would never hire Rove to do anything. I would throw his fat, stupid ass out the door. But GWB was Rove's customer, and GWB thought Rove was perfect.

Anonymous said...

A Guamanian/Chamorro (late-20s unemployed construction worker, in the NW after a brief stop in CA) was arrested for being in possession of my stolen motorcycle (speeding down the road in Tacoma).

He'd painted the windscreen with flames and the word "Chamorro", but hadn't thought to renew the tabs.

According to the police report, he asked the arresting cops if they wanted to "buy a motorcycle for cheap."

The prosecutor refused to seek jail time or conduct any investigation, so this "hard working immigrant" got off with 6 months probation.

Nice to find out that we've given him his own census category.

Another true story: last weekend I chatted with a couple of foreigners, and - as I always do when I hear an accent - I asked them where they were from. Turns out they were Nepalese "refugees" from Bhutan.

http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/01/20/bhutanese-still-in-nepals-refugee-camps-after-18-years/

They said that there were 100k of them, and that 60k were being resettled in America. All had been given the choice of a number of Western countries, including Australia, Denmark, Canada, England, and others I don't remember. The majority chose America. I asked why, and he said that they were given the most benefits here: free rent, job-search assistance, etc. etc.

He admitted that India had offered asylum too, but that no-one wanted to go there.

And to top it all off, he proudly said that his family emigrated from Nepal to Bhutan 200 years ago and had never assimilated.

The West in general and the US in particular are being targeted for demographic annihilation.

Anonymous said...

"Indeed, judging from Rove’s memoir, he has almost no clue about the nation’s largest state."

Very few pols and certainly few "journalists" seem to have a clue about CA.

For that matter many Californians who live in the affluent enclaves of the state have no clue about CA.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey,

Don't forget, though, that even the disgusting details of the blue dress and Monica didn't do in Bill Clinton. It did in the country in the sense that once he was found out, he didn't mind the store for a long time as he had to plot his defense.

Anonymous said...

BTW,

I wouldn't have any problems believing Louis Farrakhan to be gay--flamboyantly so, in fact.

I could easily believe O relaxes with a joint after dinner.

Anonymous said...

We should march with the Mexican illegals and their supporters--straight to Mexico City, where we should demand for them their full rights of Mexican citizenship, and demand that they be able to share in the bounty of a county that could rival all tourist destinations.

Yep. I'd be happy to accompany them on the busses and join in their raising hell--in Mexico.

JudgeStone said...

Problem is that the middle history (basically the consolidated propaganda) is what remains in the school history books forever.

mmkoopljjh said...

"My current pet theory: W. and Rove were a pair of closeted homosexuals in search of red herrings as a form of protective coloring."

All politicians are gay in the sense that they wanna do us in the ass.

Sad American said...

Here is the latest from Pat Buchanan. He sadly documents what we have suspected.

The correlation seems absolute. The more immigrants who come in and become citizens, the more Democratic the country becomes.

Immigration's killing the GOP

Tommy said...

Since the passage of the healthcare bill shows that the Republicans, despite their incredible party discipline, can't block legislation in a Democrat-controlled Congress, the only way to block immigration reform is to appeal to those Dems who rely on working-class white votes. To do that, you have to get those working-class whites energized to fight for their own self-interest.

Anonymous said...

Despite the constant focus on the low IQ of NAM's on this blog, many of you also share the same low IQ and want collectivism with the white elite because they are leaving you behind. It's poetic justice that proponents of HBD will also be victims of HBD. There is not a conspiracy by white elites to hold the “white man down”. Just face the fact that many of you have low IQ and can only compete with low IQ Nam’s.
Many of blogger on this site are deluding themselves about their supposedly high IQ. If many of you bloggers truly have an IQ in excess of 115 that you normally claim, your worries about NAM’s should be non-existent. If you were in the cognitive elite or successful in your life, you would not care about NAM's. Most of the cognitive elite whites lives and works in mostly white enclaves, with few encounters with NAM's during the week.

Dutch Boy said...

If I am not mistaken, Karl Rove has no children. Screwing over your country for short-term political gain is a whole different kettle of fish if your children will suffer for it.

Svigor said...

I see all people as morally equivalent.

In other words, you don't think about the issue seriously at all, and delegate the responsibility to your betters.

I mean, how can one see two groups as morally equivalent when one is parasitizing the other via the state?

Individuals aren't morally equivalent, and neither are groups. If they were, they'd be having a similar discussion in Niger, Mexico, and India.

Steve Sailer said...

Rove has one son. (Looks just like him, too.)

Steve Sailer said...

"With no responsibility, who cares about a Web reputation, conservatives can paint Pelosi, her FAMILY, Obama, and HIS FAMILY as drunken, corrupt, drug abusing monsters, by digging into family scandals and misdeeds and arrests and so on, and Obama's kids ..."

Attacking Obama's little girls would be nuts.

Truth said...

"FEAR and total, scorched earth cultural warfare against key Dems AND THEIR FAMILIES is the only way to go. It was what destroyed Palin. If everyone thinks Obama is a combination of flamingly gay and Louis Farrakhan, all of a sudden his power to move Dems is gone."

Whiskey, I never thought I'd catch myself saying this, but, the next time you catch yourself writing about politics, please change course and pound out a post about Alphas and Betas. Those posts make you look like a moron, but it beats looking like a raving psychopath!

Anonymous said...

Many of blogger [sic] on this site are deluding themselves about their supposedly high IQ. If many of you bloggers truly have an IQ in excess of 115 that you normally claim, your worries about NAM’s should be non-existent. If you were in the cognitive elite or successful in your life, you would not care about NAM's.

Looks like anon has never heard of Asperger Syndrome, limbic disorder, major depression, etc.

Truth said...

"many of you also share the same low IQ and want collectivism with the white elite because they are leaving you behind...There is not a conspiracy by white elites to hold the “white man down”. Just face the fact that many of you have low IQ and can only compete with low IQ Nam’s.

LMAO......

"Dat Amnesie an' Afurmative axhin, dat jes' be duh man holdin' us down!"

Anonymous said...

"Most of the cognitive elite whites lives and works in mostly white enclaves, with few encounters with NAM's during the week."

Been to Berkeley, CA lately?

Anonymous said...

The "many of you have low IQ" commentator seems to be in that category himself judging by the numerous errors of writing he makes. He should use "we", not "you". An eighth grade teacher would send his paper back with lots of red checkmarks on it.

Anonymous said...

I think Steve assumes too much sincerity in Rove's explanations for wanting amnesty. Rove is an astute political operator, and I think it's safe to say he can see that massive immigration is ultimately bad for Republicans. Steve has often pointed out that the imperatives of the ruling class are Invade the world, invite the world. I would suggest that Rove knows the limits of acceptable opinion in America, and that if you want a successful career in politics, you can't challenge those two imperatives.

In the charade of a two party system we have in America, the Republicans' ultimate role is that of designated losers. They make a show of opposition to the growth of government, to give the appearance of a fair process, but never are determined enough to win. The only times Republicans are successful is when they try to expand the government in some way.

John

Anonymous said...

Anon,

My computer wallpaper is now your comment which ends:

I hope an asteroid is on the way.


------------

Aaron said...

"Obama and the Media control the terms of the debate completely, in the above the line sort of way. All the newspapers, magazines, TV broadcasts, all of them.

"So go 'Andrew Sullivan.' He and Tina Fey and David Letterman successfully defined Palin AND HER FAMILY as a bunch of inbred Alaskan hillbillies and sluts. Making her family look trashy to make her look trashy. So take a page out of that book." -- Whiskey


That's a neat trick, explaining why your plan won't work before presenting it.

Do you think there aren't a thousand bloggers out there trying to do this to Obama? Haven't you seen all the 'birther' sites, and all the Obama/Che/Mao artwork? Didn't you see the picture of Obama in Muslim garb, or Jeremiah Wright yelling God damn America?

All that stuff is out there, and plenty of people are already trying to do what you suggest, but the Obama-loving media isn't going to help disseminate it like they helped Fey and Sullivan against Palin. Good luck changing that. The MSM wouldn't touch Clinton's scandals until the Lewinsky thing was just too tantalizing to avoid, and even then they turned it into such a joke that no one could remember why we used to frown on such things.

As you say, stuff like 'is Obama gay?' is already right there in the grocery aisle, but unless people see it parroted by mainstream sources the way the Palin stuff was, it'll always be seen as fringe kook stuff. That's not going to happen, so you'd better come up with a new plan.

Charlie said...

"Despite the constant focus on the low IQ of NAM's on this blog, many of you also share the same low IQ and want collectivism with the white elite because they are leaving you behind. It's poetic justice that proponents of HBD will also be victims of HBD. There is not a conspiracy by white elites to hold the “white man down”. Just face the fact that many of you have low IQ and can only compete with low IQ Nam’s.

Many of blogger on this site are deluding themselves about their supposedly high IQ. If many of you bloggers truly have an IQ in excess of 115 that you normally claim, your worries about NAM’s should be non-existent. If you were in the cognitive elite or successful in your life, you would not care about NAM's. Most of the cognitive elite whites lives and works in mostly white enclaves, with few encounters with NAM's during the week."

etc. Presumably this fellow is Chinese. People like this are why I am not so enthusiastic about IQ testing: yes it works, but a society that uses standardized tests for very long will produce more and more creatures like the above commenter, whose entire worldview consists of: you pass test, get iron rice bowl; you no pass test, lose evolutionary struggle.

Are school tracking programs, pre-university and pre-employment screening etc. really worth the price?

Anonymous said...

The second post in this series is greeted by me with disciplined tolerance. But in all candor,
Humans have evolved an inherent
"us/them" mechanism, and inescapably so. I do not love your child as much as my own. Push come to shove in some lifeboat survival
pressure, I would with horrible
pain, throw your child out rather than have mine thrown out. We work very hard to prevent such situations and the mere imaginative invocation of them is repulsive to all of us. But the anchor of Love is REALITY. "Love"
and "Idealism" unachored to reality require all the imaginative and merciful euphemisms possible. It is a pardonable fallacy of the human heart to suppose we can remove the cruelties that Nature has imposed upon humans by vetoing them emotionally so they cease to exist
cerebrally. Can't be done on a sustained basis
by s u r v i v o r s.

Anonymous said...

CORRECTION
The comment jsut submitted incorrectly identifies SECOND
post when it should have specified
THIRD

Anonymous said...


Attacking Obama's little girls would be nuts.


Rush Limbaugh got away with insulting Chelsea Clinton ... I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's daughters get the same treatment at some point.