Obama, hear us! Find out what Ted Kennedy wants, and do exactly the opposite of what he asks


David Davis

When old GramscoFabiaNazis such as the “Kennedys” go to die, they are like elephants in a way, or worse: elephants are not known to repent in regard of their pasts sins, for we do not know if they understand the concept of Sin (the Bishop, when asked his opinion about sin, famously said: “I’m against it”) but at least elephants might not be considered essentially evil.

But “Ted” Kennedy (I honestly thought he’d been shot dead? – or was that all the others?) says he wants his dying wish to be an incubus on the American People. Well. That’s kind of like his grandfather.

Old Joe Kennedy, who used to try to shag his sons’ girlfriends, was against us in 1940. Of course you all remember: don’t deny it.

I may be “the babyboomer that the left lost”, being born in 1952, but I still can’t get this Kennedy thing. I will never figure out what the fascination with them was. The men didn’t even look like some object that a woman would like to be shagged by. Sacks of potatoes full of money, with penises attached to one end.

So what went on about them with all you Americans then? I’d just love to understand how and why you all got taken in by this bunch of shysters.

And as for the “Jackie” thingy –  (whatever her name was? Onassis, or was that afterwards?) A walking female skeleton+collagen-binders, wearing clothes and spending money at the same time? What  _were_  you thinking when you elected that? What did you think other nations would think of you and us? Deeply embarrassing and almost unexplainable. Bad. Fail.

About these ads

4 responses to “Obama, hear us! Find out what Ted Kennedy wants, and do exactly the opposite of what he asks

  1. The Kennedy thing? I think some are identified and then promoted. They are given a deliberately crafted mystique in an ordinary sort of way and taught how to wear and use it. Like some memorable people that I can’t now remember and I thought at the time, how did they get such news coverage – front pages on the dailies, on the Telly, and then I hear the name Max Clifford and all is explained.
    But who identifies and promotes and why? Is it really worth it? I guess it must be if one can consider that even Pearl Harbour was, as is reported, a put up job.

  2. JFK’s father was also /hated/ the English. What did they do? Made him ambassador to Britain.

    As for what’s so great about them – I’m not sure, but they’re the US equivalent to royalty or the upper classes. They have political and financial power as a family.
    Just like the Bush’s, and the Kerry-Heinz’s.

    Nepotism is a very strong force in US politics. Chicago has been dominated by the Daley’s, Nancy Pelosi’s father and brother were both mayors of Baltimore.

    I once heard that these are all the people we’d have shoved into the Lords as hereditary peers… (then again, we have our own dynasties – the Benns, Foots, Churchills etc – although some families like the Bonham-Carters seem to have dropped out of politics to enter celebrity life).

    • The composition of the Lords today more closely reflects a sort of hereditary-socialist-dynasty-model than it did, paradoxically, with “hereditary peers”.

      Our Peers were only thrown out because the represented, to Tony Bliar and his GramscoFabiaNazis, the “forces of conservatism”. He wanted a revising chamber which merely agreed whatever GramscoFabiaNazi tyrannical measures he sent up to them. To that end, he aimed to get rid of what he saw as “Conservatives”, and replace them with compliant placemen who would do his tyranny’s bidding without fuss, cloaking all in a veil of “democracy”.

      Scumbags.

  3. Just saw this at Mises and wondered if it had any relevance to JFK assassination:

    With the succession of the ambitious New Dealer Lyndon B. Johnson to the presidency, the drive to build the welfare state became ascendant again. The election of 1964 brought into office a large, extraordinarily statist Democratic majority in Congress. Keynesian economists were assuring the public that they could fine-tune the economy, taking for granted a high rate of economic growth from which the government could reap a perpetual “fiscal dividend” to fund new programs. John Kenneth Galbraith, Michael Harrington, and other popular social critics condemned the failures of the market system and ridiculed its defenders. The public seemed prepared to support new measures to fight a “War on Poverty,” establish “social justice,” and end racial discrimination. Hence the Great Society.[20]

    Congress loosed a legislative flood by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among other things, this landmark statute set aside private property rights and private rights of free association . . . .