On Friday July 27, 2007 a posting hit the top of the Daily Kossack web site. This posting explains better than most how liberals think and how that thought process is absolutely deceptive, and how the use of it leads to self deception: the person is convinced is reality. (And no, liberals: the Administration did not order this article to be written, I am not a conservative blogger, and anyway, they have not responded to me for ...oh, a while. But I'll wait.)

Titled, "White House Says Your Ears are Lying," posted Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:48:54 PM PDT, the posting said: "You did no see what you thought you saw. You did not hear what you thought you heard. And 1+1=3 for reasonably large values of 1. Alberto Gonzales? Not a liar. The White House offered a vigorous defense of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today, insisting that he had not given misleading testimony to Congress, but that national security factors prevented further clarification for now. While you might have thought you heard Gonzales contradict his own previous testimony, this did not occur." In fact, it did not.

"'He has testified truthfully and tried to be very accurate,' the chief White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said of Mr. Gonzales’s testimony this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee. You may have thought you heard FBI director Robert Mueller completely contradict a section of Gonzales' testimony. This did not happen. Mr. Snow said repeatedly that Mr. Gonzales had not been contradicted by Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, as has been widely reported, on whether there were serious disagreements within the Bush administration on its secret surveillance program. The White House could tell you what you actually heard, but then they would have to kill you. In insisting that there was no real contradiction between the officials' accounts, Mr. Snow said Mr. Gonzales was just not able to explain further "because to do so would compromise American security.' That is all." So let me do it, without compromising national security.

First; How liberals think:

Inductively. Like the cat, the liberal will hear the first word or phrase they already are aware of and they will put everything else in that context, regardless if the word or phrase has nothing to do with the real context. They create context, which means they create their own reality. That is why you can read so many defenders of liberal-think showing how the majority of Americans agree with them (not in the real world,) and how everyone else is wrong, (not in the real world.) They just scream louder and now have bigger pockets.

Let's take Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (big cheese) v. Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller (subordinate):

Liberal bloggers, many days after their initial reactionary screams of "liar liar", are now calling the program Gonzales spoke of: 'Project X'. Someone actually used their brain for more than an instant replay machine. It took a while, but at least someone has hope of being more than a robot.

Here we go into March 10, 2004:

George W. Bush's 'reelection campaign charged that an anti-Bush ad campaign funded with "soft money" from billionaire George Soros funding violates campaign finance laws. The Bush camp plans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission regarding a planned anti-Bush advertising campaign by The Media Fund'. (as reported by CNN and written in WikiPedia); somebody celebrated the birthdays of Chuck Norris, Carrie Underwood, Sharon Stone, and Osama bin Laden. Lee Boyd Malvo was sentenced to life in prison. "Mr. Watson, come here. I want you," started the telephone thing. John Kerry was attacking George Bush's guard duty. At the White House Press Briefing, Scott McClellan, in response to a question about Valerie Plame, said, "...the President has made it clear that he wants to get to the bottom of this investigation. The leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. The President directed everybody at the White House to cooperate fully in the investigation... if you have specific questions relating to an ongoing investigation, those questions are best directed to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is the one that is overseeing this matter," and other things.

Tony Snow said, "Unfortunately we get into areas that you cannot discuss openly. It's a very complex issue. But the Attorney General was speaking consistently. The President supports him. I think at some point this is going to be something where members are going to have to go behind closed doors and have a fuller discussion of the issues. But I can't go any further than that." He also said, "Look, the most important thing to do is, I'll refer you back to DOJ to going through all this. But there were a series of briefings for a small, restricted number of members of Congress who seem to have differing recollections about what went on. As I've told you the last couple of days, I'm not going to try to be the fact witness on this." Alberto Gonzales' last congressional committee hearing showed him no fact witness either. He had graduated to 'recused'.

Some reporter asked, "On Gonzales, this Negroponte memo shows an apparent contradiction in what he told the committee two days ago about that briefing at the White House. But yet Gonzales' spokesman says that what he said on Tuesday was true. How can that be? Can you explain that?"

I can.

Negroponte's memo listed people who attended security briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program. That is all it did. To 'assume' that other topics were not likewise discussed is to make an ass out of...well, just the inductive thinker. Deductive thinking prohibits jumping to illogical conclusions.

Over on TMPMuckraker, written by Spencer Ackerman, a source that can always be counted on to inductively screw up the most simple of topics: "Very obviously, the program Mueller referred to was the Terrorist Surveillance Program. It doesn't matter that Mueller never used the term himself, as it's unambiguous from context." Well it DOES matter the name was not used. That created context. To say that it doesn't matter only means Ackerman cannot comprehend there being another topic and inductively assumes through that self-imposed ignorance, a completely incorrect assumption. Ackerman finished with "And no amount of linguistic violence or contextual distortion can bring Mueller's testimony in line with Gonzales's." Which just goes to prove his own definition of reality will not permit anything it has not already agreed to.

Over on RawStory.Com (another dependable site for inductive ignorance) CNN's wunderkind Anderson Copper interviewed one of their own contributors; CNN legal analyst Jeffery Toobin, but referred to him in the headline as a "Former Justice lawyer" which provided a sense of 'authority'. Toobin, who can likewise be counted on to miss the point stated, "Mueller didn't seem confused. No one seems confused, except Alberto Gonzales." Ignore the man behind the curtain, just pay attention to the smoke and mirrors and people like Toobin can be assured to screw it up. If you watched Mueller answer the question that resulted in this absurdity, he stumbles to recall the exact phrase to use. Gonzales stumbled as well in recalling exact phrases to use, but Toobin is a former DOJ employee and is therefore most likely to be a liberal and therefore (deductively) most likely to misunderstand and ignore the most simple of things. It is nearly impossible for a conspiracy theorist to realize that what matters to them is not necessarily what matters to anyone else, other than the nuts that collect at their feet.

As quoted in 'The Hill', writer Jeremy Jacobs gets it right by quoting Tony Snow: "'Now, when you talk about the terrorist surveillance program, there are many intelligence activities in the American government,' Snow said. 'We’re talking about a very thin slice, limited to exactly what I was telling you about, which is monitoring communications between al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda affiliates, one in the United States, one overseas.' 'Notice yesterday the director of the FBI never once used ‘terrorist surveillance program,’” Snow added. “It was used in questions to him and he always said … National Security Agency programs.'" And don't forget it was more claimed to the be 'illegal surveillance program'.

Liberals can't ask a simple question. Who or what would be doing surveillance? The NSA, is what and who. Contrary to the liberal assumption that the NSA are initials that go in front of that illegal bugging program that takes away all known civil liberties; it is a place where there are real people with a whole bunch of really cool new toys, that make the Internet look like Alexander Graham Bell's invention that took the celebrated Mr. Watson to hear, so March 10, 2004 could have ironic meaning. It can, gosh: have more than one thing going at the same time. Like the United States of America, the country liberals are convinced is no greater than their own habits actually has quite a few people doing quite a few things, at the SAME TIME, oh golly. And believe it or not, Insomnia Bin-Laden is the same target he has always been, with the same emotional attachment to seeing D.E.A.D. as he has always been. He just isn't getting all that much good press these days, being as boring as he now is. Traitors to causes as well as traitors to nations do not do so publicly unless they desire incarceration. Liars in hearings do not lie as being caught is what they cannot afford. People who are liberal thinkers are not lying when they declare how bad everything is. They are not lying as to them, it is real. But they are spewing forth illogical propaganda, they must be held accountable for. It's that whole what comes after your free speech right to prove something about yourself' thing. Responsibility and consequence.

Director Mueller referred to the program that was being talked about.

Alberto Gonzales is an American Hero. He is serving his country in a capacity that will make his name revered for generations to come. He is placing country before self, and I am so proud of him. I certainly hope I am the first person to publicly thank him for his sacrifice and service and dedication and loyalty to nation. Thank you, Alberto Gonzales. That only seems fitting for some reason.

If Islamofacism takes over, or if communism takes over, or if anarchy takes over (what's the difference) the human species will kill itself off, both through war and through abortion 'rights' taking the place of personal responsibility. If you can't control your desire to procreate, evolution will settle the balance. The dumb and the ignorant and the weak and ridiculous will perish, while the strong, the intelligent and the most aware, will re-emerge as the beginning that need not take place. Somebody does has a sense of humor, through. For the Defense Department's funding bill to contain 1776 earmarks, someone had to have caused that to happen. For whomever is responsible for doing that, I am also grateful. It is fitting that we remember that year and what it means in history. A nation under God, that not only offers the greatest chance of hope to anyone who dares come to its shores; it offers the greatest potential for hope of the human species. Liberty tends to extend lives. Human dignity tends to enhance humans. Freedom gives the hope to make anything at all from suffering or persecution. A nation that offers them all is a gift.

I find that, the second greatest gift from God; a nation that holds hope for the world. But if that nation does not instill the fear of its very name in the thoughts of those who would do it in, (and that includes those from within and from without,) and does not prosecute its responsibilities to protect and defend the Constitution and the people who make the nation, to the fullest extend of all laws; it will have admitted a weakness that will erase any form of respect to future protections. A nation with an Achilles heel, is a nation no longer.

Senator Chuck Schumer is so fearful he may be facing a Supreme Court that will help evolution put a stop to illogical liberal anarchy, that he is calling on congress to refuse to allow any more President Bush nominated Supreme Court judges. Senator Leahy is so scared, he did not place his name on a document he should have. The Democrat Presidential Candidates are standing aside as the 'three stooges' act out the script. All the while, one of them; Mike Gravel at least told the truth in the YouTube parade of CNN's cherry picked set up questions: “The Democratic Party used to stand for the ordinary working man. But the Clintons and the DLC sold out the Democratic Party to Wall Street. Look at where all the money is being raised right now, for Hillary, Obama and Edwards. It's the hedge funds, it's Wall Street bankers, it's the people who brought you what you have today. Please wake up. Just look at the New York Times of the 17th of July that analyzes where the money's coming from. It comes from the bankers on Wall Street and of course hedge funds, which is code for bankers on Wall Street. And they're lock, stock and barrel in their pocket.”

My only current hope is that the arrow is not permitted to be drawn back too far and is stopped before it can lodge itself. And I am as mad as hell at how my nation is being derided and insulted by people suffering from delusions of grandeur, and making up for loss of self control by seeking to own and control everyone and everything else deceptively, which is anti-American to the max. And I am likewise rather sick at the poor performance of Hillary, Barry and John. Doing controversy based reality TV/shock radio in politics: is pathetically childlike. It is the equivalent of children arguing to each other, both seeking parental attention. It is infantile and transparent. But it is typical of immaturity. Anyway, John's a gettin' his feelins' hirt. His two Americas will become known as one when justice has its day. But I'll wait.