Which is more deadly: Atomic bombs or progressive policies?

Blogger "Vermont Woodchuck" at New England Republican is on fire. You really need to go see this: a comparison of a couple of Japanese cities in 1945 and last year.

He then posted pics of another city devastated by warfare. But this time it wasn't atomic bombs that inflicted the damage. Or house-to-house fighting by heavily armed men.

Instead the city was...Detroit. And the warfare was the type unleashed when liberals or so-called "progressives" use their socio-atomic weapons on an unsuspecting populace. Those weapons are every bit as devastating as atomic bombs, turning everything in range into useless, decaying junk in just a few years.

And then the parasites re-group, leave the stripped corpse and turn their attentions to some other unsuspecting city.

Whatever the citizens there are doing successfully, they'll insist that the thing be done a different way.

Their way.

And they'll throw millions of dollars of taxpayer money at it, just like that crappy Chicago Annenberg Challenge project that Obamao chaired. That little socio-atomic bomb burned up $150 million in six years and produced exactly...no positive results in terms of education.

But it did one hell of a fine job for the folks running the show, though. That would be one Barrack Hussein Obama.