This week's internet radio show on Saturday at 2pm at THE UNTRAINED EYE will be called "Sobsister History."

Young people may not remember the term "sobsister."

A sobsister is some woman who sits around moaning and groaning about how bad things are for her. Older people may smile when they hear the term sobsister because all they remember is how silly sobsisters were.

What they DON'T remember is how VICIOUS sobsisters were.

Here is a woman whose family has probably been supporting and putting up with her for decades. All they get in return from her is being told how horrible they are. There was no rumor or smear too vicious for a sobsister to spread about her own long-suffering family to show how evil they were. Such smears helped her to prove they were the horrible people she said they were.

Our history today is entirely "Sobsister History." It is based on showing how white gentile Americans, who created America, are really just nasty, vicious, mean, and have no redeeming qualities.

Every respectable conservative and every liberal, those who represent what is "both sides" in our political debate, agree that to solve the "race" problem," the white race must go.

That would be ideal.

That is what passes for Idealism today. A white gentile who attacks his own race is considered an Idealist. For some reason he is not considered a traitor. He is considered an Idealist who is making some sort of great sacrifice by demanding the end of himself, and his own kind.

If that is regarded as IDEALISM in a society, you can imagine the depths to which such a society can plummet when it is not being "idealistic!"


Respectable conservatives are city people who keep quiet about the insanity of gun control. Since it is soldiers in Holy Uniforms who have imposed the New York gun law in Iraq, this gives them an added impetus to stay silent about it.

So what are the conservatives screaming about? They are sobbing loudly over the Federal prosecution of the hard left limousine liberal Martha Stewart. Martha fights for gun control. Martha likes nothing better than to see a law-abiding people imprisoned when they have guns to protect themselves in DC and New York.

Martha Stewart would be the first to report on an honest person who had a gun and send them to prison. She blames her problems on the "vast right wing conspiracy."

So why are conservatives going to pieces about Poor Martha? For the same reason they are ignoring the false start in gun control in Iraq. If men in Holy Uniforms enforce gun control in Iraq, that trumps any concern about whether it makes sense.

Such a debate would be good for America and for Iraq. But the good of America is never the first concern of respectable conservatives any more than it is for liberals.

For conservatives, anything done by a Holy Uniform is Good. By the same token, conservatives have another rule: Martha Stewart is Rich and therefore Martha Stewart is Good.


In this crisis as in all the others, one government spokesman after another lined up to tell the media that "our allies are behind us" ( See April 14, 2001 -- THE "ALLIES" GAMBIT).

In this crisis as in all others, the backpedaling began almost immediately.

President Bush now tells us that, yes, our "allies" love us, but they do it in their own way. Each country will contribute what it wants to. Some will give money. Some will give information.

Americans will do most of the dying, of course.

Am I being cynical, or do I just listen more closely than others?

Listen to conservative spokesmen, and see if they do not seem to tacitly welcome our "allies'" reticence. They want this crisis to be used to build up AMERICAN military expenditures. This has always been the case.

Throughout the Cold War American troops and American taxpayers took on the main burden of protecting Europe from Communists. Europe was many times as rich as the Communist countries and Europe had far more people than the United States did. But conservatives never seriously complained.

In fact, it was not until America had been bearing that European burden for a generation that a presidential candidate finally complained about it. That candidate was the most liberal major party candidate in American history, George McGovern.

McGovern wanted less money for military expenditures and more for liberal social engineering. He didn't care about America, he just cared about his liberal agenda.

But at least and at last he said SOMETHING.

If Europe had taken on more of its own defense, then America could have cut back on its Pentagon expenditures. That was the last thing professional conservatives wanted.

By exactly the same token, the more our "allies" come to America's aid, the less our Pentagon will have to do alone, and the lower those precious military outlays will be.

Conservatives will never push our "allies" to do their share.

So when it comes to making our allies do their part, conservatives certainly will not speak for America's interests.

And liberal foreign policy is NEVER concerned with America's national interests.

If we are aware what is driving the professional conservatives in Washington, this routine betrayal of our troops might be stopped this time before it goes too far.


I think we are also at that point that as a political movement we could promise liberation, liberation from PC and the goofs that lord it over us.

Comment by Simmons


The platform plank Simmons is advocating will begin:

"The established religion of the United States of America, Political Correctness, is hereby disestablished."

Those who oppose this plank will be antidisestablishmentarians. I bet you never expected to see that word used in a sentence!

Ann Coulter's new book, "The Church of Liberalism" is a straight steal from my "Political Correctness is not LIKE a religion, it IS a religion." So this concept is no longer a far out idea.

All outstanding student loans will be paid out of the giant reserves universities have. Harvard University alone has several billion dollars. The rest will be charged to professors and deans and contributors who have contributed tax-exempt funds to the Political Correctness seminaries we call colleges and universities.

We just got several million votes right there.

Other platform sentences:

"Under American laws, all monopolies are illegal. Two men in the same business are subject to criminal prosecution if they DISCUSS prices in their common filed of business."

"By the same token, anyone who discusses graduation from a Political Correctness seminary as a qualification for hiring is subject to prosecution under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act."

A few million more votes from people who qualify for Mensa but never finished college.

A million votes here, a million votes there, and it adds up to serious political clout.