Reflecting upon the events of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, we felt compelled to once again examine the alleged source of all the chanting, frothing, eye-bulging, beheading, suicide-bomb vest-donning, IED-planting, plane-crashing, WMD-seeking passion that is Islamania: the existence of Israel.
At a recent Al Quds Day Celebration (October 5 if you missed it), the “It Girl” of contemporary fascism – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – declared, “The creation of the Zionist Regime and the continuation of its existence are an insult to human dignity.” This is a most telling declaration on the part of Mr. Ahmadinejad (although it tends to get far fewer laughs than, “There are no homosexuals in Iran.”)
Therefore, let us now disassemble Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement into two parts and analyze them separately. Then, employing Aristotle’s method of deductive reasoning, we shall reassemble them as the major and minor premises of a syllogism which will lead us to a reasoned conclusion. (Hint – for those of you not wanting to read the whole bloody post, our reasoned conclusion is that all this rubbish about “Zionism” is nothing more than brute racism, Islamo-Fascism is very very bad and not at all in the interest of actual human survival … oh and that Ahmadinejad is a jackass – but you knew that.)
Item 1. “The creation of the Zionist Regime and the continuation of its existence.”
In terms of the creation of the “Zionist Regime,” few individuals were as instrumental as Sir Winston Churchill. An unapologetic Zionist, Sir Winston fought passionately – at times virtually single-handedly – to hold Britain to the promises it made via the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the subsequent Palestine Mandate of 1922 to facilitate the establishment a Jewish national home in Palestine.
Why? Did Sir Winston so hate the people of the nation of Palestine that he wished to force them from their homeland and replace them with Jews? No, for there was no, nor has there ever been such thing as a nation of Palestine. In his superlative essay, “Does Israel Have a Right to Exist,” Michael Medved writes:
“First of all, it’s not true in any sense that the modern Jewish State ever supplanted or destroyed an existing nation of “Palestine.” From the time of definitive destruction of the ancient Jewish commonwealth in 70 A.D., the land that comprises the current State of Israel never enjoyed independent existence but, rather, passed back and forth among competing world empires - Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mamaluke, Ottoman and British. Over the course of more than 1,800 years, no nation with the name “Palestine” appeared on any maps, anywhere.”
What there had been, and what enchanted spirits such as Sir Winston’s so thoroughly, however, was a slow but steady resettlement of the Holy Land over the centuries by Jewish immigrants who, by their own industry and ingenuity, were transforming a veritable wasteland into a prosperous community. As Sir Winston detailed in his White Paper of June 1922:
“During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics."
Again, in 1939, before the British House of Commons Sir Winston related:
“Yesterday the Minister responsible descanted eloquently in glowing passages upon the magnificent work which the Jewish colonists have done. They have made the desert bloom. They have started a score of thriving industries, he said. They have founded a great city on the barren shore. They have harnessed the Jordan and spread its electricity throughout the land.”
But surely, all this Zionist prosperity came at the expense of the Arab Palestinians? In fact, quite the opposite is true, as Sir Winston pointed out:
“So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.”
This fact is confirmed by many sources, including the Zionism and Israel Encyclopedic Dictionary whose excellent analysis of the Arab Revolt in Palestine states that by 1937:
“Palestine contained more Arabs than ever before in its history, and they enjoyed a higher standard of living than ever before…”
BUT (here’s where things start getting ugly)…
“…but they could only be supported as long as they were dependent on the economic activity of the Jewish minority and the investments of the Zionist movement. At the same time, the Arabs of Palestine insisted that this Jewish minority was dispossessing them and tried to rid themselves of the Jews and the Zionist enterprise. The Arabs would say that they had been impoverished by Zionist "dispossession," but in fact they enjoyed a higher standard of living and faster economic growth than their neighbors in Syria, Jordan or Egypt.”
So what was the cause of increasing Arab Palestinian dependence upon the Zionist economy? As detailed in the 2005 essay Zionism and Its Impact, Ami Isseroff explains that Arab Palestinian infighting, disorganization, and obsession with blaming the Jews resulted in “the almost total lack of constructive effort in building up their own institutions, investing in the Arab sector of the Palestinian economy and creating their own ‘state in the making’ as the Zionists did.” Envy instead of industry possessed the Arab Palestinian population, and – as is usually the case in such instances - violence erupted.
While the most significant violence of this era took place during “The Great Uprising” of 1936-1939, previous riots had set the stage in 1929. Here it is instructive (and somewhat amusing) to read the Arab account of the events of 1929, as compared to the Jewish account. We will leave the decision as to which seems the more credible to you the reader.
It is important to remember, however, that this violence – so nauseatingly similar to that of today – occurred at a time when there was not as yet any nation of Israel, no Israeli military, no 1948 War of Israeli Independence, no war of 1967 and Jewish taking of territory, noYom Kippur War of 1973, no oil, no Shah of Iran, no U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, no sanctions on nor war in Iraq etc. etc. etc. all of the “atrocities” which our Islamaniac brethren point to today as justification for blowing up shopping malls, discothèques, and office buildings the world over. There were merely two communities in a desert – one thriving, one disintegrating – both by their own hands.
Many might here suggest that it was British repression of non-Jewish Palestinians in contrast to their support of the Jews that fueled such violence. While no one will deny that British support was decidedly behind Jewish efforts to extract civilization from desert (in much the same way one is more apt to water the budding plant than the inert rock lying beside it) every issuance of policy from the British government – and Sir Winston - regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home was rife with qualifiers ensuring that full recognition of the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians was of paramount importance.
From the Balfour Declaration of 1917:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
From Sir Winston’s 1922 White Paper:
“Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
And …
“The Secretary of State would point out that already the present administration has transferred to a Supreme Council elected by the Moslem community of Palestine the entire control of Moslem Religious endowments (Waqfs), and of the Moslem religious Courts. To this Council the Administration has also voluntarily restored considerable revenues derived from ancient endowments which have been sequestrated by the Turkish Government. The Education Department is also advised by a committee representative of all sections of the population, and the Department of Commerce and Industry has the benefit of the co operation of the Chambers of Commerce which have been established in the principal centres. It is the intention of the Administration to associate in an increased degree similar representative committees with the various Departments of the Government.
The Secretary of State believes that a policy upon these lines, coupled with the maintenance of the fullest religious liberty in Palestine and with scrupulous regard for the rights of each community with reference to its Holy Places, cannot but commend itself to the various sections of the population, and that upon this basis may be built up that a spirit of cooperation upon which the future progress and prosperity of the Holy Land must largely depend.”
From the Palestinian Mandate of 1939:
Article 2 – “The Mandatory shall be responsible for … safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
Article 6 – “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions…”
Article 9 – “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights. Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.”
Article 13 – “Nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.”
Article 15 – “The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.”
Article 22 – “English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.”
From Sir Winston’s speech before the House of Commons in 1939:
“I cannot feel that we have accorded to the Arab race unfair treatment after the support which they gave us in the late War. The Palestinian Arabs, of course, were for the most part fighting against us, but elsewhere over vast regions inhabited by the Arabs independent Arab kingdoms and principalities have come into being such as had never been known in Arab history before.”
And once again….
“So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.”
Without doubt there were British (Harold MacMichael) and Zionist (the Irgun Response) excesses in reaction to Arab unrest. In the end however, it cannot be denied that the only real motivation behind Arab objection to Zionism, was – and is – bald face racism.
Item 2. “…an insult to human dignity.”
Thus spake Ahmadinejad: The Zionist venture and support of such a thing is “an insult to human dignity.” In other words, to employ ingenuity, commitment, hard work, dedication, industry, wisdom, loyalty, and good will to create one of the world’s most prosperous societies is “an insult to human dignity.” To share one’s wealth and make peace with one’s enemies - Israel established diplomatic relations with West Germany on May 12, 1965 (causing several Arab nations to break ties with West Germany on May 13) and Egypt in 1979 (causing Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to be shot to death by Islamic fundamentalists) – is an “insult to human dignity.” To ask nothing more than the right to tend one’s own people and business on a parcel of land slightly smaller than New Jersey amidst a vast Middle East landscape is “an insult to human dignity.” Fascinating.
One is compelled to ask then, how exactly do you define “human dignity” Mr. Ahmadinejad? Does it consist of the chaos, violence, poverty, and misery that has characterized much of the Islamic world throughout its history? Murder-suicide on an international scale? Repression of women, people of non-Muslim faith, and homosexuals? Being only a parrot, perhaps it’s all beyond me but as best I can tell, there is little of humanity or dignity in any of that.
Our Conclusion
Now let us re-examine Mr. Ahmadinejad’s original statement via Aristotelian syllogism:
Major premise: The creation of the Zionist Regime is an insult to human dignity
Minor Premise: The continuation of the existence of the Zionist Regime is an insult to human dignity
Conclusion: The Zionist Regime is itself antithetical to human dignity
Very well then. Let us for a moment remove the element of “Jew” from the concept of Zionism. The above syllogism then would mean that a society that employs behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, philosophies, and actions which result in the well-being and prosperity of those employing them are an insult to human dignity. Is this what Mr. Ahmadinejad intends to say? Likely not. For even he would have to acknowledge – at least publicly – that societies such as these comprise mankind’s only hope for survival. Adding the element of “Jew” back into the equation, however, renders in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s mind – and the minds of those who agree with him – such societies antithetical to human dignity and justifies their destruction.
Here we see plainly the effects – like rabies – of Racism Gone Wild. This is what we call, “Islamania.” This is what we are fighting. And this, if we fail to succeed in that fight, will quite likely be the end of human civilization.
Cheers,
Charlie
Oct 28, 2007
Oct 22, 2007
Happy Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week!
Our planned Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week festivities have been waylaid by a rather devastating computer virus. (Coincidence?). We are working furiously to rectify the situation. In the meantime, we refer you to the following sites for your education and edification, regarding this – the greatest threat to the survival of Western Civilization.http://www.terrorismawareness.org/
http://foehammer.net/
http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/
http://jihadwatch.org/
Oct 16, 2007
Facebook Facing Left?
Not since I was declared a fraud by the BBC, About.com, the Museum of Hoaxes, Wikipedia, NPR, The Churchill Centre, and others, have I been forced to endure such indignity. Facebook, the upstart would-be MySpace, has deemed me, ME – the brightest feather of the Right Wing, the only Conservative pundit who can fly – unworthy of membership, and disabled my account!
Why?
“Your account was disabled because you violated Facebook’s Terms of Use, to which you agreed when you first registered for an account on the site,” says the friendly Facebook form rejection FAQ. “Accounts can either be disabled for repeat offenses or for one particularly egregious violation”
Zounds! And, pray tell, what was my egregious violation?
“Unfortunately, for technical and security reasons, Facebook cannot provide you with a description or copy of the removed content,” replies Facebook. Most helpful. Facebook does, however, provide a list of egregious offenses from which to choose that may or may not actually be the reason for one’s having been jettisoned from amongst its worthy ranks.
Egregious Offense #1. “We do not allow users to send unsolicited or harassing messages to people they don’t know, and we remove posts that advertise a product, service, website, or opportunity.”
As I knew no one on Facebook, I directed my content to no member in particular. Furthermore, this content contained no harassments, solicitations, nor advertisements. It could be argued that I advertised enlightenment by encouraging members to visit my blog (www.churchillsparrot.com). However, as the Facebook registration process encourages members to list any blogs or websites they might have in their command, and provides a feature by which to stream one’s blog content through one’s Facebook site, it seems not a stretch to assume this is well within the bounds of acceptable behavior.
Egregious Offense #2. “We do not allow any obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit photos, as well as any photos that depict graphic violence.”
Other than the occasional reference to MoveOn.org, my content did not, nor has it ever contained anything obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, nor graphically violent.
Egregious Offense #3. “We also remove content, photo or written, that threatens, intimidates, harasses, or brings unwanted attention or embarrassment to an individual or group of people.”
Hmmm. We may have something here. A quick review of my most recent posts produces titles such as, “Study Finds Democratic Party May have Died Decades Ago”, “Useful Idiot Hall of Fame Announces Massive Expansion,” “Our Second Interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” (not at all flattering to Mr. Ahmadinejad), “Celebrate Talk Like a Terrorist Day”, and more. It is certainly fair to say there is much “unwanted attention and embarrassment brought to individuals and groups of people” here. But such is political commentary. Does Facebook mean to say members are not to share political commentary via their online forum? Most curious, particularly as it was through a political site – www.BritainandAmerica.com – through which I became involved in this mess in the first place. (Although this site now no longer advertises its Facebook option either. Again, hmmmmm.)
Egregious Offense #4. “Facebook does not allow users to register with fake names, to impersonate any person or entity, or to falsely state or otherwise misrepresent themselves or their affiliations.”
Here we have, at once, the most likely and the most hilarious “reason” for my expulsion. As referenced earlier, this is not the first time the validity of my identity has been called into question. While I can well appreciate the seeming unlikelihood of there actually being a 107 year-old parrot claiming to have once been the pet and confidant of Sir Winston Churchill and issuing scathing indictments of Leftist tyranny via the Internet on a regular basis, that is, nonetheless, who and what I am.
Let us, for the sake of argument, however, suppose that I were not actually Charlie – Churchill’s Parrot. Imagine instead that I were, say, a frustrated Conservative writer from Wisconsin, USA, seeking outlet and audience for his or her thoughts, opinions, and writing. Would not the employment of the “Churchill’s Parrot” identity fall under the definition of “nickname” or “avatar,” devices used by 90% of those participating in online communication? Am I to believe that others encountered during my brief stint on Facebook are actually who or what they say they are? “Odo Barn Owl,” “Peace Love Bird,” “Ford Taurus,” “Linus McKitten,” “Tuna Bird,” the entire membership of a Facebook Group entitled, “Facebook Members Who are Not Human” to name a few … these are all somehow exempt from the “fake names,” “impersonations,” and “misrepresentations” standard?
Having brought this issue to Facebook’s attention they responded as follows,“If you see any individuals on the site who are currently in violation of our Terms of Use, it is only because they have not yet been disabled for misuse.”
Right then. We shall full well expect that, in keeping with its principles, Facebook is thus now in the process of purging well over half its membership for violating the high standard of identity integrity to which it aspires. As we say in the Queen’s Dominion, “Not bloody likely.” To attempt such would prove not only impossible – Facebook currently boasts nearly 34 million active users – it would be idiotic. Creativity (though admittedly much of it at a third grade level) is an amusing and positive outgrowth of such ventures.
What is far more bloody likely is that only certain kinds of members of questionable identity are being purged from the esteemed ranks of Facebook: those expressing overtly Conservative views and opinion. My suspicion is that some Lefty took offense to one of my posts and reported it to the Facebook security ninnies who – rather than defend my content as legitimate contribution to an open forum – saw fit to acquiesce to Lefty whining, disable my account, and throw these lame excuses at me by way of “explanation.”
Understand, what ruffles my feathers is not my exclusion from the Facebook community – I appeared to be the only one bothering to contribute any actual content anyway – but that here we may well have yet another forum wherein Conservative expression is being denied. Thus, I write this post, and thus I have solicited the assistance of the mighty Media Research Center to aid in my further investigation of this potential.
If I am proven wrong and revealed as merely an hysterical Right Wing paranoiac, so be it. I will, at such time, willingly and publicly eat crow - a far more repugnant act for parrots, mind you, than for you non-avians!
In the meantime, I would be very interested to know if there are any other Right-leaning individuals out there who have found themselves expelled from the Facebook roster. Drop us a line at churchillsparrot@gmail.com. Perhaps we shall discover that what we have here is not just another pretty Facebook.
Cheers,
Charlie
Why?
“Your account was disabled because you violated Facebook’s Terms of Use, to which you agreed when you first registered for an account on the site,” says the friendly Facebook form rejection FAQ. “Accounts can either be disabled for repeat offenses or for one particularly egregious violation”
Zounds! And, pray tell, what was my egregious violation?
“Unfortunately, for technical and security reasons, Facebook cannot provide you with a description or copy of the removed content,” replies Facebook. Most helpful. Facebook does, however, provide a list of egregious offenses from which to choose that may or may not actually be the reason for one’s having been jettisoned from amongst its worthy ranks.
Egregious Offense #1. “We do not allow users to send unsolicited or harassing messages to people they don’t know, and we remove posts that advertise a product, service, website, or opportunity.”
As I knew no one on Facebook, I directed my content to no member in particular. Furthermore, this content contained no harassments, solicitations, nor advertisements. It could be argued that I advertised enlightenment by encouraging members to visit my blog (www.churchillsparrot.com). However, as the Facebook registration process encourages members to list any blogs or websites they might have in their command, and provides a feature by which to stream one’s blog content through one’s Facebook site, it seems not a stretch to assume this is well within the bounds of acceptable behavior.
Egregious Offense #2. “We do not allow any obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit photos, as well as any photos that depict graphic violence.”
Other than the occasional reference to MoveOn.org, my content did not, nor has it ever contained anything obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, nor graphically violent.
Egregious Offense #3. “We also remove content, photo or written, that threatens, intimidates, harasses, or brings unwanted attention or embarrassment to an individual or group of people.”
Hmmm. We may have something here. A quick review of my most recent posts produces titles such as, “Study Finds Democratic Party May have Died Decades Ago”, “Useful Idiot Hall of Fame Announces Massive Expansion,” “Our Second Interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” (not at all flattering to Mr. Ahmadinejad), “Celebrate Talk Like a Terrorist Day”, and more. It is certainly fair to say there is much “unwanted attention and embarrassment brought to individuals and groups of people” here. But such is political commentary. Does Facebook mean to say members are not to share political commentary via their online forum? Most curious, particularly as it was through a political site – www.BritainandAmerica.com – through which I became involved in this mess in the first place. (Although this site now no longer advertises its Facebook option either. Again, hmmmmm.)
Egregious Offense #4. “Facebook does not allow users to register with fake names, to impersonate any person or entity, or to falsely state or otherwise misrepresent themselves or their affiliations.”
Here we have, at once, the most likely and the most hilarious “reason” for my expulsion. As referenced earlier, this is not the first time the validity of my identity has been called into question. While I can well appreciate the seeming unlikelihood of there actually being a 107 year-old parrot claiming to have once been the pet and confidant of Sir Winston Churchill and issuing scathing indictments of Leftist tyranny via the Internet on a regular basis, that is, nonetheless, who and what I am.
Let us, for the sake of argument, however, suppose that I were not actually Charlie – Churchill’s Parrot. Imagine instead that I were, say, a frustrated Conservative writer from Wisconsin, USA, seeking outlet and audience for his or her thoughts, opinions, and writing. Would not the employment of the “Churchill’s Parrot” identity fall under the definition of “nickname” or “avatar,” devices used by 90% of those participating in online communication? Am I to believe that others encountered during my brief stint on Facebook are actually who or what they say they are? “Odo Barn Owl,” “Peace Love Bird,” “Ford Taurus,” “Linus McKitten,” “Tuna Bird,” the entire membership of a Facebook Group entitled, “Facebook Members Who are Not Human” to name a few … these are all somehow exempt from the “fake names,” “impersonations,” and “misrepresentations” standard?
Having brought this issue to Facebook’s attention they responded as follows,“If you see any individuals on the site who are currently in violation of our Terms of Use, it is only because they have not yet been disabled for misuse.”
Right then. We shall full well expect that, in keeping with its principles, Facebook is thus now in the process of purging well over half its membership for violating the high standard of identity integrity to which it aspires. As we say in the Queen’s Dominion, “Not bloody likely.” To attempt such would prove not only impossible – Facebook currently boasts nearly 34 million active users – it would be idiotic. Creativity (though admittedly much of it at a third grade level) is an amusing and positive outgrowth of such ventures.
What is far more bloody likely is that only certain kinds of members of questionable identity are being purged from the esteemed ranks of Facebook: those expressing overtly Conservative views and opinion. My suspicion is that some Lefty took offense to one of my posts and reported it to the Facebook security ninnies who – rather than defend my content as legitimate contribution to an open forum – saw fit to acquiesce to Lefty whining, disable my account, and throw these lame excuses at me by way of “explanation.”
Understand, what ruffles my feathers is not my exclusion from the Facebook community – I appeared to be the only one bothering to contribute any actual content anyway – but that here we may well have yet another forum wherein Conservative expression is being denied. Thus, I write this post, and thus I have solicited the assistance of the mighty Media Research Center to aid in my further investigation of this potential.
If I am proven wrong and revealed as merely an hysterical Right Wing paranoiac, so be it. I will, at such time, willingly and publicly eat crow - a far more repugnant act for parrots, mind you, than for you non-avians!
In the meantime, I would be very interested to know if there are any other Right-leaning individuals out there who have found themselves expelled from the Facebook roster. Drop us a line at churchillsparrot@gmail.com. Perhaps we shall discover that what we have here is not just another pretty Facebook.
Cheers,
Charlie
Oct 10, 2007
Study Finds Democratic Party May Have Died Decades Ago
October 10, 2007- London, England. A ground-breaking study funded by the Churchill’s Parrot Foundation released findings today indicating that America’s Democratic Party actually died sometime between the assassination of JFK and the end of the Johnson Administration.
“What we have now in the DNC is not a political party but a hideous, brainless, zombified caricature of what once was the Democratic Party of the United States,” declares the study’s director, Morton Clathwock, Ph.D., Dean of Political Science at Hipslawn College in Ipswich, Massachusetts.
The study cites, among other things, DNC leadership’s phony complaints about phony controversies over phony soldiers, constant references to unidentified flying economic woes, and, of course, the championing of causes which don’t exist such as man-made global warming.
“These guys make Don Quixote look like an actuary,” adds Clathwock. “At least his delusions had something to do with honor!”
Charlie – Churchill’s Parrot, Executive Director of the Churchill’s Parrot Foundation, says he called for the study in response to increasing reports of monstrously reckless behavior on the part of leaders in the American Democratic Party.
“There is a school of thought which maintains that the Democrats have always existed antithetically to America; from the cowardly Copperheads at Lincoln’s heels to the Socialists behind FDR’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society debacle,” says Churchill’s Parrot. “Through all this, however, the party and its advocates were at least to some degree deferential to the central hypothesis of the American experiment. Our study makes clear these New Lefties just want to blow up the laboratory!”
The study postulates that in a representative government such as that of the United States, a political party needs to actually represent something of substance in order to actually exist.
Dr. Clathwock explains. “Republicans generally represent the principles of what today in America is known as ‘Conservatism’: limited government, national defense, free enterprise, individual liberty, and traditional American i.e. Judeo-Christian values. In truth these are the principles which gave rise to the creation of the United States itself and its Constitution.” Clathwock says that a party’s success or failure in advancing policy in accord with its stated principles provide a means by which you can measure its vitality. “The body’s vital signs if you will,” illustrates Clathwock. “The Republicans are good here, not so good there, and so on. The Democrats? We can’t even find the body!”
In fact, what DNC positions could be identified by the study’s specially designed Issues Matrix™ pinpointed them Left of Maoist China and slightly Right of total anarchy.
“Amnesty for illegal aliens and ‘out of Iraq now’ for the anarchists; universal health care, government bailouts for homeowner mortgages , and the Kyoto Protocol for the socialists. There’s nothing for America in any of this,” says Clathwock.
The study concludes that today’s DNC does not constitute a viable political party presenting any serious option for American voters. “What you have is a loose confederation of malcontents, nihilists, lunatics, and children,” explains Clathwock. “Unfortunately, with the aid of a complicit media, you have nearly 50% of the American population taking this rot seriously. Forty years of demonizing the Right has paid off. After all, who wants to be painted as a greedy racist, homophobe, prude as surely you will be the minute you vote Republican.”
Dr. Clathwock says by all indications the Democartic party actually died the night of February 27, 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson abdicated responsibility for American foreign policy to Walter Cronkite and CBS News.
“That was really the end of it,” says Clathwock. “The party had gone from – ‘we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty’ - to letting a twit like Cronkite paint victory as defeat. After that, everything ‘Democratic Party’ has just been putrefaction and decay. I give you Dennis Kucinich.”
Clathwock and the study’s authors warn, however, that a dead DNC is by no means a harmless DNC. “This thing we have today that calls itself The Democratic Party is a dangerous creature. A corpse enchanted by the funds of millionaire Marxists , inflated with feel-good rhetoric, this brain-eating zombie of a party will do whatever it has to to keep itself alive, regardless of the consequences. Consider yourselves warned!”
###
Via his web log, http://www.churchillsparrot.com/, Charlie, Sir Winston’s 107 year old pet parrot, endeavors to reinvigorate flagging Western Civilization through regular injections of the Churchillian spirit, so desperately lacking in the enfeebled, addle-brained “culture” left us in the wake of the 1960’s.
“What we have now in the DNC is not a political party but a hideous, brainless, zombified caricature of what once was the Democratic Party of the United States,” declares the study’s director, Morton Clathwock, Ph.D., Dean of Political Science at Hipslawn College in Ipswich, Massachusetts.
The study cites, among other things, DNC leadership’s phony complaints about phony controversies over phony soldiers, constant references to unidentified flying economic woes, and, of course, the championing of causes which don’t exist such as man-made global warming.
“These guys make Don Quixote look like an actuary,” adds Clathwock. “At least his delusions had something to do with honor!”
Charlie – Churchill’s Parrot, Executive Director of the Churchill’s Parrot Foundation, says he called for the study in response to increasing reports of monstrously reckless behavior on the part of leaders in the American Democratic Party.
“There is a school of thought which maintains that the Democrats have always existed antithetically to America; from the cowardly Copperheads at Lincoln’s heels to the Socialists behind FDR’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society debacle,” says Churchill’s Parrot. “Through all this, however, the party and its advocates were at least to some degree deferential to the central hypothesis of the American experiment. Our study makes clear these New Lefties just want to blow up the laboratory!”
The study postulates that in a representative government such as that of the United States, a political party needs to actually represent something of substance in order to actually exist.
Dr. Clathwock explains. “Republicans generally represent the principles of what today in America is known as ‘Conservatism’: limited government, national defense, free enterprise, individual liberty, and traditional American i.e. Judeo-Christian values. In truth these are the principles which gave rise to the creation of the United States itself and its Constitution.” Clathwock says that a party’s success or failure in advancing policy in accord with its stated principles provide a means by which you can measure its vitality. “The body’s vital signs if you will,” illustrates Clathwock. “The Republicans are good here, not so good there, and so on. The Democrats? We can’t even find the body!”
In fact, what DNC positions could be identified by the study’s specially designed Issues Matrix™ pinpointed them Left of Maoist China and slightly Right of total anarchy.
“Amnesty for illegal aliens and ‘out of Iraq now’ for the anarchists; universal health care, government bailouts for homeowner mortgages , and the Kyoto Protocol for the socialists. There’s nothing for America in any of this,” says Clathwock.
The study concludes that today’s DNC does not constitute a viable political party presenting any serious option for American voters. “What you have is a loose confederation of malcontents, nihilists, lunatics, and children,” explains Clathwock. “Unfortunately, with the aid of a complicit media, you have nearly 50% of the American population taking this rot seriously. Forty years of demonizing the Right has paid off. After all, who wants to be painted as a greedy racist, homophobe, prude as surely you will be the minute you vote Republican.”
Dr. Clathwock says by all indications the Democartic party actually died the night of February 27, 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson abdicated responsibility for American foreign policy to Walter Cronkite and CBS News.
“That was really the end of it,” says Clathwock. “The party had gone from – ‘we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty’ - to letting a twit like Cronkite paint victory as defeat. After that, everything ‘Democratic Party’ has just been putrefaction and decay. I give you Dennis Kucinich.”
Clathwock and the study’s authors warn, however, that a dead DNC is by no means a harmless DNC. “This thing we have today that calls itself The Democratic Party is a dangerous creature. A corpse enchanted by the funds of millionaire Marxists , inflated with feel-good rhetoric, this brain-eating zombie of a party will do whatever it has to to keep itself alive, regardless of the consequences. Consider yourselves warned!”
###
Via his web log, http://www.churchillsparrot.com/, Charlie, Sir Winston’s 107 year old pet parrot, endeavors to reinvigorate flagging Western Civilization through regular injections of the Churchillian spirit, so desperately lacking in the enfeebled, addle-brained “culture” left us in the wake of the 1960’s.
Oct 2, 2007
Useful Idiot Hall of Fame Announces Massive Expansion
10/2/07 – Washington D.C. Due to a virtually unprecedented influx of exceptional nominees, the Churchill’s Parrot Useful Idiot Hall of Fame has announced plans for a massive expansion of its facilities.
A number of exciting new exhibits are in the works, all bringing to life with vivid clarity and realism the jaw-dropping idiocy and bone-chilling treachery of certain of our comrades doing their best to bring about the collapse of Western Civilization.
Expansion activities will focus primarily in the Disgrace and Dishonor wing (the Left wing) of the facility. Features will include:
* The John Murtha Multimedia Circus
* The MoveOn.org House of Horrors
* The New York Times “Truth or Consequences” Game Room (discounts available for MoveOn.org members)
* The John Kerry School of Military History
* “Variations on Objective Reality” - an art exhibit by Dan Rather
* and Étiquette pour l'Élite - a series of live seminars with Columbia University’s Lee Bollinger. (CAUTION: Guests may be subject to unexpected tongue-lashings at the whim of the host.)
Further construction to accommodate the plethora of additions to our standard roster of idiots will proceed simultaneously. Most recent inductees include Harry Reid, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, and of course, Rosie O’Donnell.
We are also pleased to announce we have successfully commissioned world renowned sculptor Fah’rt, to erect towering statues of George Soros and Jimmy Carter to adorn our magnificently re-designed entry way.
And for the Kiddie Winkies … our new “Dennis Kucinich Nut Hut” will provide a cornucopia of wacky and zany games and activities for kids to explore the joys of Marxist/Leninist delusion while being free to behave like the five-year-olds they are.
Originally constructed in 1945, The Churchill’s Parrot Useful Idiot Hall of Fame has endeavored to recognize and honor every useful idiot - from Neville Chamberlain to Nancy Pelosi - who has contributed to the defamation and demoralization of both America and England.
###
A number of exciting new exhibits are in the works, all bringing to life with vivid clarity and realism the jaw-dropping idiocy and bone-chilling treachery of certain of our comrades doing their best to bring about the collapse of Western Civilization.
Expansion activities will focus primarily in the Disgrace and Dishonor wing (the Left wing) of the facility. Features will include:
* The John Murtha Multimedia Circus
* The MoveOn.org House of Horrors
* The New York Times “Truth or Consequences” Game Room (discounts available for MoveOn.org members)
* The John Kerry School of Military History
* “Variations on Objective Reality” - an art exhibit by Dan Rather
* and Étiquette pour l'Élite - a series of live seminars with Columbia University’s Lee Bollinger. (CAUTION: Guests may be subject to unexpected tongue-lashings at the whim of the host.)
Further construction to accommodate the plethora of additions to our standard roster of idiots will proceed simultaneously. Most recent inductees include Harry Reid, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, and of course, Rosie O’Donnell.
We are also pleased to announce we have successfully commissioned world renowned sculptor Fah’rt, to erect towering statues of George Soros and Jimmy Carter to adorn our magnificently re-designed entry way.
And for the Kiddie Winkies … our new “Dennis Kucinich Nut Hut” will provide a cornucopia of wacky and zany games and activities for kids to explore the joys of Marxist/Leninist delusion while being free to behave like the five-year-olds they are.
Originally constructed in 1945, The Churchill’s Parrot Useful Idiot Hall of Fame has endeavored to recognize and honor every useful idiot - from Neville Chamberlain to Nancy Pelosi - who has contributed to the defamation and demoralization of both America and England.
###
Via his web log, http://www.churchillsparrot.com/, Charlie, Sir Winston’s 107 year old pet parrot, endeavors to reinvigorate the flagging will of Western Civilization through regular injections of the Churchillian spirit, so desperately lacking in the enfeebled, addle-brained “culture” left us in the wake of the 1960’s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)