Schumer: The Liberal Concept of the Groady Toady.

There are many exciting features and some straining exercises to living a life and one of them is tolerating the Groady Toady or its quasi equivalent. We have many candidates to select from ranging from Jack the Ripper to Paris Hilton, but the senior Senator from New York State, the Honorable Chuck[les] Schumer is the pick of the day.

Chuckles has a long litany of dubious legislative proposals and fundamental resistance against the hunt for terrorists including the Patriot Act, probably as the behest of the large number of criminals in New York state. He should Sing at Sing Sing for more votes in a barber shop quartet—something that fits his mentality and physical appearance with the apparent barber itch on his face and all. If he moved across the borough he might be known as the Flatbush Flubber, or, perhaps, the Red Hook Hooker. He is a pugnacious media whore who poses for any and all face-time opportunities especially on Sunday, a slow day for liberals. [1] He has the distinction of voting ‘NO’ twice on the Clinton Impeachment in both houses of Congress. [2] The rest of his legislative career is pedestrian left-wing and unremarkable. He does not decide on strategy—he just barks and plays the churlish doggie that worries ankles and long pants. He is an middling chum-chucker for the left.

Here are some of his customary, rubber-stamp votes cast from the party agenda and having endangered no neurons in the process:[3] Below is his current stance on SCOTUS nominations by President Bush, a remarkable piece of bipartisan politics.

Abortion Voting Record[4]

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)

Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

Standard abortion rights stance. Standard stuff.

Gun Voting Record[5]

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Standard anti-gun radical who cannot stand for the gun laws to be enforced. He would rather take away guns from honest citizens than arrest and force heavy penalties on gun-toting mobsters used in drug wars, muggings, carjackings and other street crimes. He would allow his leftist lawyer friends to sue gun manufactures when some old lady gets her brains blown into the street by some drug-crazed parasite who was let off by a lenient liberal judge and who would probably vote for the Democrats. Liberals need the votes.

His Tax Voting Record[6]

Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)

Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)

Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)

Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)

Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)

Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)

Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)

Voted NO on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000)

Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)

Rated 19% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

This is all standard no-brains-needed liberal blather and grunt. He would vote for any tax increases that could be used to get more Democrats elected.

Here are some of his peculiar Quotes:[7]

Anyone who thinks they have a monopoly on truth, and there is only one way to see the world, always gets us into trouble. --Charles Schumer

Does this apply to the tautological Sen Kennedy, who always knows what the American people want??

But I don't think the Democratic Party is at eye level with the middle class. --Charles Schumer

He probably means zipper level here.

Democrats don't relate to middle-class people. --Charles Schumer

The MC pays the bulk of the taxes in this country. I wonder if that is what he means?

Giving up even an ounce of precious freedom is a very serious thing to do. --Charles Schumer

Like the right to bear arms? The Second Amendment is a right or so it seems to non liberals.

I got support from teachers from one end of the state to the other: rural areas, inner cities and everywhere in between. --Charles Schumer

That is because they are unionized, vote Democrat in droves and cannot be fired for being incompetent. Any unionized teacher cannot be fired. Any standardized tests administered to students or their teachers will show us who is participating in the education process and just who is frustrating it. Far left-wing Democrats populate the mass of incompetent and criminal teachers who just hang on the job like blobs of meat on a hook and refuse to do a good job at education. These types vote, faithfully, for Chuckles and his union cronies. Their union dues go directly the Democrat party coffers as payment for their loyalty.

I think teaching should be an exalted profession, not a picked-on profession. --Charles Schumer

How about getting rid of incompetent teachers then Chuckles?

I think the people who are pushing vouchers are not interested in educating our kids.

Charles Schumer

The people who push for vouchers want to avoid the sleazy unions and their dumbed-down teaching methods. The only way the liberals can get equality for their stooges is to eliminate tests and make everybody equally uneducated or resort to cheating and race-norming. We have to turn around the slimy socialism the current teachers espouse.

I want to attract the best people into teaching. --Charles Schumer

They put up a minimum SAT score for all teachers and do some rigorous testing. The test scores, shunned by liberals, will tell us the facts and truth.

I went to the public schools myself. And they were great for me. --Charles Schumer

We saw how you turned out.

I'm totally opposed to vouchers. I will fight them tooth and nail. --Charles Schumer

Your phony job probably depends on just that.

If we say the Geneva Convention is obsolete, then what do others who have our soldiers say? --Charles Schumer

[1] Nobody said that but you and others of the drooling left. The others (Islamo-Fascisti allies of liberals) celebrate your words.

[2] The GC was set up NOT to allow terrorists and spies to be free to operate. Let us all realize that liberals Democrats will sacrifice American lives for political gains. They did just that in WW1 and WW2.

[3] The terrorists who cut off the heads of Americans [in violation of the Geneva Convention?] and the liberals celebrate their chance for power. They would vote for you, and probably do, in a heart beat

In today's competitive economy, to stand still is to die. --Charles Schumer

This is a crude paraphrase of Paul Samuleson’s comment in his Economics book, probably the 11^th Edition. Plagiarism of this sordid sort is a bit below that of Senator Biden’s disgusting law school antics, but still unethical.

So much for Chuck Schumer. He is a pedestrian, middle grade non-thinking liberal populist who uses tax monies to get fame and power. Grunt and Grab!

So, after all this wisdom, fluffery and soggy pomp we find he will oppose all new Supreme Court Judges appointed by President Bush. [8] This kind of muddle-headed ultimatum is exactly what a far leftist would proclaim as he talks about cooperation, bipartisanship and ‘education.’ Apparently Chuckles would allow 5/4 decisions in SCOTUS to reduce to 5/3 or 5/2 from the current 5/4 thus hamstringing the liberals even more. That kind of suicidal Rule or Ruin mentality is a hallmark of Fascists such as Schumer.

We expect things like this from the sallow left from New York, a rust-belt state that is losing population due to poor education, crooked politicians and the highest taxes in the nation.

Keep up the good work Chuckles! You can help to bring down liberalism in your lifetime.

rycK

The Isms, Fatalism and Failure.

We are besotted with isms of one flavor or another and have been taught, at an early age, to sort them out as to their political value. History should be a useful guide and defining the array of such human political programs and would offer us a ranking system whereby the relative merits and attributes of any ism might be evaluated. It does not. History is but the suborned mindless instrument of the political redactionist. We can find many thousands of definitive writings and preachings on any given ism that can be used to support of condemn a particular choice. We can identify at least a million papers, reports, books, sketches, speeches and such about, for example, communism, that shows, clearly, that this ism is either very good or very bad depending on who wrote the piece and what their political aim was at the time. The same trial goes on for capitalism.

So, how are we to decide on the particular isms are to be enjoyed and which are to be discarded? Clearly, as history has shown us by negative examples, the metrics of murder, war, revolution, inflation, economic collapse and such adverse sociological attributes cannot lead us to the preferred ism. History deftly ignores the palpable defects if properly written and circulated. There is no way to arrive at a firm conclusion on any ism and incessant failure in a wide variety of variables is not a political viable mechanism to teach people which pathway to take.

Of the isms that would, in any other endeavor such as science, bookkeeping, architecture or bridge building, be flung on the nearest dung cart and hauled off to the moldy archives of history tribalism, Marxism [and its various variants] and racism might be at the top of the list. History is ballooned to overflowing with depressing examples of how these isms work to defeat a successful society.

There is no way that anything good can be said about tribalism given the detailed histories of the calamitous outcomes of tribal wars and conflicts. The vendetta process extends back into time beyond reason and memory and becomes the prime teaching of children within a given tribe. The machete-mediated downsizing of whole African tribes for reasons lost in obscurity persists today with a few examples being the Tootsies and Hutus of Rwanda[1], the Sunni-Shia conflicts now entering its fourteenth consecutive bloody century and more complicated by Sharia, the all-encompassing and elastic system of religious laws[2]. A reading of the Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T. E. Lawrence[3] shows that the tribal conflict is complicated by the usual cooperation with enemies of Islam and other anti-nationalist notions mediated by mercenary pay and opportunistic looting in case of a success in battle. All this tribalism is ruthlessly compounded by a religious schism between the Sunni and Shia divisions of Islam thus raising the number of problems to the square of the number of social inputs or 2 x 2 =4. Only one of these societal factors is sufficient to destroy the Arab [or any other] society. No society that suffered from both tribalism and religious divides ever evolved from the savage state without the presence of a colonial power, an imperial power and direct military occupation by a strong external army. The most important factor is tribalism is the extermination of the opposing tribe or tribes.

Marxism [or Bolshevism--pick your sordid flavor here from Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Che, Fidel, Allende, Ho, Pol Pot, etc…], remains the highly touted ‘solution’ to capitalism with the antisocial practice of profiteering filtered out as the primary evil of economic societies. That should bring success it is argued The history of Marxism is, oppositely in common observation, smothered with failure, murder and a body count of a mere 100,000,000 and more since 1917. Failure aside, the quest for wealth and power by those who cannot obtain it seems to continually reinvent more reasons to set aside capitalism and return to the equality. The problem with Marxism is that those who make decisions in commerce are usually political hacks, losers, incompetents and criminals and the notion that ‘the workers’ know hot to run a business efficiently is clearly routed. We saw this in Italy in 1919 when the workers took over companies and could not make them function efficiently.[4] Failure aside, the attraction of Marxism is apparently based on the proffered false promise that there will be ‘land reform’ or ‘equality’ or ‘prosperity’ for those who will fight [and mostly die] in the struggle against the capitalists. It is indeed remarkable that after dozens of Marxist governments have collapsed, mostly by inflation and economic decay, the remaining ones [North Korea, Cuba] seem to be touted as sterling examples of some limited aspect of society, as the medical system in Cuba that most other societies have mastered for decades or centuries. As an alternative to capitalism, the American left have no other option but to support Marxism in one or more of its phony variants. Controlled by radical leftists, the American Democratic Party chooses to attack capitalism in every place however small. They are wedged in an ideological sarcophagus; they cannot just abdicate and join in with business and commerce—there are no votes for them there with the tax disease that they openly suggest. They are locked in the past with their miserable social histories.

Liberalism, a Marxist offspring with alleged good intentions but pedestrian results, has no successful consequences unless you count jobs and wealth created entirely from the tax base. Without taxes upon those who are adept in creating jobs and wealth, liberalism becomes mere socialism with the temptation to strictly enforce wealth and property rules and destroy entrepreneurism and success. Politics is the process of decision making in groups and is dependent on power to implement and enforce the decisions. There are no known cases where an increase in taxes was not advocated by the left in America. There is an endless list of leftist social programs and penalties on business in the west. A brief inspection of The Great Society[5], War on Poverty[6], shows a distinct lack of success with only the tax base supplying to daily essential needs of the poor, mostly residing in inner cities. The central political notion here is that the left buy votes with taxpayer dollars so they can vote for and implement higher taxes to buy even more votes and so on and so forth. The proof of this resides in the fact that reducing welfare monies leads to social unrest, no effective change in unemployment or crime and riots.

Socialism appeared to be a viable middle case between capitalism and other social forms of government until the fractional national gross domestic product increases beyond 50% by government spending, as we saw in France with the Sarkozy elections. Government can only grow so large [ hence inefficient] when educated people realize this effect and vote against it. The biggest governmental joke of all time was Moscow Central Planning, the bunch who sought to tell farmers when and where to plant potatoes and when to harvest them without asking. The only socialist states that really prosper [for all citizens] are those with small populations, abundant natural resources and tourism. The People’s Republic of China is now a case of wild capitalism based entirely on mercantilism [another ism!] with a shadow government of discredited Marxists who follow the money trail and admire the growth of the economy and success although with suspicion. Still, the Chinese have a billion poor people. India has half a billion poor. Both these examples, together having about half of the world’s population, are interesting examples of capitalism’s powerful ability to generate jobs, prosperity and success in countries where authoritarianism was [or still is] the predominant form of government. All this argues for capitalism as a form of human cooperation in manufacturing and distribution of goods and services and appears to be independent of political ideology.

So, what has history shown us and, more importantly, how does the success of capitalism demonstrate that it must be the first choice for government and society? Exactly nothing. History is not even an issue in contemporary leftist politics in their rabid quest for wealth by taxation and confiscation. It matters not whether capitalism in success or not because the far left cannot participate and would rather see war, pestilence, poverty and such as precepts to revolution and correction of the effects of capitalism.

So, what have tribalism and religious schisms show us in terms of government and society and prosperity? Exactly nothing. Tribalism is more important than prosperity as shown distinctly among the last 150 or so Marxist government in Africa, the Arab Kingdoms of the Middle East and elsewhere. Starvation, murder, poverty, ignorance and sloth are more important than prosperity when Marxism, Tribalism or other factors are present. It should be apparent that the orangutans in the cage at the National Zoo in Washington, DC could [and probably did] invent tribalism, Marxism and other schisms.[7]

For the third world, it is more important to die supporting some ideology than to live in peace and affluence. Thus, the political pump of destruction is self priming and the outcomes are highly predictable. Tribalism and Marxism, inter alia, will destroy a society.

rycK