Crooked in Canada II

What would subversives like UK MP George Galloway and Barack Obama’s former buddy William Ayers do without technology when it comes to spreading their propaganda in institutes of higher learning in the U.S. and Canada?

Seriously, how much money does anybody think they would make spewing their garbage if technology didn’t exist?

When a provider of material support to a terrorist organization like Galloway is prevented from entering a country , and home grown terrorist William Ayers is being denied entry onto a university’s campus grounds, you just know how much they must appreciate technology when it comes to cashing in on the lecture circuit.

Wouldn’t you agree that if these kind of troubles continue to dog Galloway and Ayers, and technology wasn’t advanced as it is, the lecture fees they collect to supplement their main incomes, and afford them life’s little luxuries, would be all but non-existent? I do.

Fortunately for Galloway and Ayers, the problems they are currently are experiencing haven’t mushroomed into something bigger, but that day is coming, and when it does satellite feeds will the only way they will be able to reap the financial rewards of “doing” the lecture circuit.

For now the world’s democratic, more rational students and countries are just beginning to see what these two men are all about and well, I don’t see much of future for them.

They are becoming fossils, relics of activism as far as I’m concerned, and the sooner they are put out to pasture, the better. They aren’t the future, they represent what the past is going to be when leaders of tomorrow evolve into better leaders than we have today.

Out with the “old school,” and in with the new, that’s what I say, and it can’t happen soon enough.

Trust me, there is a use by on fossilized activists and wannabe do-gooders like William Ayers and George Galloway, who if it wasn’t for their gift of the gab, and the drama they use to deliver their lectures in, they would be unemployed tomorrow. They tell the same story over and over and over again, and they haven’t been doing for decades between them. They have changed nothing with the influence they think they have, and today they are more of nuisance than anything else. But hey, what do I know?

As time goes by, and signs are showing now, their lectures are going to become less palatable to directors of institutes of higher learning, and democratic governments.

Tolerance will no longer be their friend, and eventually neither one of them will be invited to set foot on university campuses, or in places like Canada to give their lectures.

Travel visas yes, but there is no way they will be issued with work related visas if they don’t soften their tone, and change up and modernize their message when it comes to the countries they are lecturing in.

They do that, and they just might be able to prolong their “careers.”

I’m not talking about curbing or preventing their freedom of speech. For me it’s about them respecting the country where they are delivering their lectures, and coming up with some new material to work with.

Let’s face it, neither man is showing much respect for the U.S. and Canada at the moment, and their message is outdated and boring, not to mention that they have effected little change.

It’s not what they have to say that makes me wonder, it’s how they say it, and the lack of decorum and respect in the way they try to influence others into seeing things their way.

It’s not the message, but the content of the message they are trying to send. It’s just old man.

I don’t have a problem with them delivering a message to our leaders of tomorrow, but how they deliver it to them, the tone in which they deliver it is condescending, arrogant, and at times downright nasty.

The firebrand attitude they carry with them during their lectures, though cleverly disguised in soft voice, is unnecessary and it fuels civil disobedience, sometimes to the extreme.

Then there is Ward Churchill , the former University of Colorado professor who found himself biting off more than he could chew when he referred to the victims of 9/11 as “Little Eichmanns” in  “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens .”

Churchill is perhaps the most dangerous of all when it comes to our leaders of tomorrow, the future.

In my opinion, he wouldn’t think twice about resorting to the use of violence to get his message across, or inciting violence for that matter.

The man carries himself with an air of arrogance and evil I have only seen in people like David Koresh , and Jim Jones . He isn’t all there, and dare I say a psychiatrist’s conundrum. Lobotomy, the only way to shut the wannabe native American Indian down.

What more can I say about him, other then I think he would fit right in, and comfortably I might add, with the radical element that currently exists in Iran, and parts of the Middle East and Asia. It’s hard me to put my head around the fact that this guy is actually American.

Galloway, Ayers, and Churchill are not “the cure” to what ails the world today, they are the antagonists of those who are trying to fix the problems of the world today, and therefore they are a part of the problem.

The sooner leaders of the future, our kids, stop listening to these clowns, the quicker they will be on the right path to creating a better world for themselves. What path that is is anybody’s guess, but it is definitely not the path that Galloway, Ayers and Churchill are on.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS