Back to the Front

Today's article comes from Bruce Bialosky in which he goes over the lessons learned from the debt ceiling. Among others, Conservatives are too nice.

Example: Senator John Thune (R-SD), a wonderful man, recently appeared on Meet the Press with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO). When Ms. McCaskill accused Republicans of “giving taxpayer checks to Big Oil,” Thune should have asked her what checks she was talking about.

Perhaps Thune didn't respond incredulously because earlier in the year we had a huge debate on Oil and Gas Subsidies, a debate Bialosky has apparently forgotten.

Later on Bialosky brings up the rating agencies.

The potential downgrading of America’s creditworthiness has little to do with the debt ceiling and everything to do with the gargantuan spending plans proposed by the Obama Administration.

Pity that S&P was pretty clear in it's downgrade that it is the political atmosphere that makes compromise unlikely that created the problem. Republicans are not going to allow revenue increases, they are only going to allow draconian cuts in spending. There will be no compromise, unless it is on the Liberal side of the fence(where Obama shows himself more than willing to give in). The forthcoming Committee will recommend some structural changes in Medicare and Social Security, and some more discretionary cuts; this bill will fail. The balanced budget amendment will fail. Leaving us with the plan of across the board cuts. There will be a compromise to exempt the military from these cuts, and there you go.

I could be wrong; perhaps as the weeks go on we will see the house Republicans scared by the downgrade into softening their approach a bit. But I doubt it.

Pat Buchannan Condemns and then Agrees with Breivik

That's basically the story. Breivek, the guy who killed all those people in Norway, is just evil; his ideology doesn't matter. And it's reprehensible for the European media to note that he does seem to have been a fan of many Conservatives warning about the dangers of Islam. Because of course reading about and enjoying anti-Muslim rhetoric has nothing to do with his actual act of violence, even if he said that the two were connected.

But as it turns out, Breivak was, apparently, largely correct in his analysis of the problem.

As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.

in fairness to Buchannan he is an isolationist and a nativist; he prefers a strategy of keeping the Muslims in their own land and not interfering with them. Which is frustrating in a way; he's clearly an anti-Islam bigot, but he often opposes military engagement with them.

Still this article is engaging for the way in which it condemns people like me for pointing out that conservative basically agree with Breivak, and then basically agrees with Breivak (on the problem, if not the solution).

Put forward a Plan

Not posting a lot right now; I am pretty worked up about this raising the debt ceiling debate. But there was a comment Speaker of the House Boehner made on the Rush Limbaugh Program on Thursday.

It would have been nice if the President would have put a plan to the table months ago, but the President has refused to put any plan on the table. It's obviously been driving me right up a wall.

Well Republicans put forward a plan. And it didn't go so great for them. The Ryan plan has proved to be pretty unpopular, with it's plan to replace Medicare with a voucher system. So naturally, having shot themselves in the foot, Republicans think it would be only sporting for Democrats to follow suit.

It's Madness

Katie Kieffer's latest article is about Elizabeth Warren. Warren has been tapped to be the head of the Consumer Financial Protection bureau and is unacceptable to Conservatives because she wants to protect Consumers. And anyway, according to Kieffer, they don't need protection.

Does Warren want financial companies to write contracts at a second-grade level because she assumes consumers are too dumb or lazy to read the fine print? She tells Time Magazine that consumers shopping for loans, “… drown in a sea of words that are theoretically disclosures, but they scream, ‘Don’t read me.’”

Mortgage brokers do not go to bed at night dreaming up confusing fine print clauses. Financial companies write lengthy contracts partly to comply with existing regulations and to protect themselves from consumer lawsuits. And Warren wants more bureaucracy?

I think this wouldn't stand out as much if I weren't in the middle of studying the Mortgage crash of 2008. In recent history we have examples of Mortgage fraud on a massive scale, and Kieffer, in so far as she is aware of it, blames Government Regulation for the avarice and predatory lending practices of this industry.

There is a story, quoted in the movie "Inside Job," and the book "All the Devils are Here, The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis," in which 15 or so of Mortgage options offered by Countrywide were placed before Greenspan. He commented that someone with an advanced degree in Mathematics still wouldn't be able to determine which of them was the best deal. And this is the system that Kieffer and other Conservatives are fighting to preserve; they want predatory lenders to have impunity.

Sometimes I believe there is truth in the theory that Conservatives can't tell the difference between money earned and money stolen.

Ann Coulter sez Single Moms are Evil

Ann Coulter's latest article is in praise of adoption, which I am also keen on, having been adopted. I do think adoption is a good solution to an unwanted pregnancy. But while half of it is nice stuff about how Adoption is good, the remaining half is about how bad single mothers are, culminating in this masterpiece of nastiness.

The plague of single motherhood isn't an inevitable decay brought on by stupid choices of the underclass. Destroying the family is the active social policy of liberals.

So much to unpack. This is why I don't read Ann Coulter anymore; it's exhausting.

First of all, note the mention of the "underclass." I wonder who Ann Coulter considers part of this "underclass?"

But more importantly is the idea that liberals want to destroy the family. I know this is orthodoxy in Ann Coulter's world; but if you believe it how can you stand to be around liberals in any sense of the word. I mean if the stuff Ann Coulter says is true, and it isn't, we Liberals deserve to be hated, scorned, and cast out. Possibly worse.

Capitulation and Compromise are not Synonyms

Limbaugh's latest article is intended to paint a happy alternate universe in which it is Democrats unwillingness to completely cave to Republicans that is causing the problem.

I'll quit accusing Democrats of obstructing spending and entitlement reform when they quit obstructing spending and entitlement reform.

In other words Democrats need to give Republicans whatever they want; that's bipartisan. For the moment Democrats are firm in their assertion that reform needs to include both increasing revenue (i.e. taxes) and spending cuts. They also aren't keen about doing entitlement "reform" in the middle of a crisis. In response to this suggestion of compromise, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor walked out of talks. Basically Cantor seems to require Democrats to surrender completely before he's willing to discus "compromise."

Capitulation and compromise are not synonyms.

Ben Shapiro attacks Jon Stewart

Not much of a fight. The crux of Shapiro's argument, from his latest article, is that Stewart criticizes Fox for being Conservatively biased while not admitting that the mainstream media and himself are liberally based. Of course Stewart has responded to these charges by saying that the media isn't liberally biased as much as it is biased towards sensationalism and laziness, and saying that he has a majority comedic bias while leaning left.

This is apparently lying, because Jon Stewart is, according to Shapiro, more of a leftist than a comedian.

He uses his comedy to propagandize. That's not against the law and not immoral, but it is a betrayal of his self-proclaimed primary motivating force: to be funny. True comedy attacks the targets at hand. It does not pick and choose based on political affiliation. Stewart does, and that's why the quality of his comedy has declined dramatically since Bush's re-election.

I'd disagree with that last statement; Stewart continues to be hilarious. I'd also argue that he does attack Liberals pretty regularly. Just recently he unloaded on Wiener who was not just a liberal but a personal friend.

I pretty much agree with Stewart's Fox Analysis; there is a difference between having a small "b" bias and an agenda. Stewart has a liberal bias. The media has a liberal bias. FOX has a conservative agenda. It drives what they do; and it's clear. Wallace himself gave the game away when he noted that the mainstream networks give one side of the story and FOX gives the other.

But what Shapiro is accusing the media and Stewart of having is an agenda; their news and their comedy are beholden to their agenda. If something contradicts their agenda, they toss it out. There's sufficient evidence in both cases to suggest that this isn't true; but I don't think you can convince either Shapiro or his readers of that.

To Stewart and his ilk, there is no religion other than "goobermint." There is no god other than "goobermint."
All Dem/Prog/Libs have no individuality. For the good of the "hive" they must be subsumed into the omnipotent, "goobermint." They can't stand individual thought or action, it frightens them too much. The "utopia" can only be obtained when all become one.

All must become slaves of the Goobermint! Sorry that doesn't have much to do with FOX, just made me laugh. I suggest this person should go out and meet some actual liberals before spouting off like a moron.

What I want to know is just what 'gives' with all of those marxists Jewish types? Huh?????

Jewish types? Oy. There are actually a number of posts complaining that Stewart is hiding his jewishness by using the name Jon Stewart. He certainly doesn't go out of his way to hide his Jewishness on his show; it's pretty much front and center so not sure what the problem is.

It's comical and farcical that the liberal propagandist Jon nitwit Leibowitz actually considers himself to be a comedian!

Not sure how it's farcical, but being a comedian, assuming you are funny (which Stewart is), is kind of funny.

Herman Cain and the Muslims

Herman Cain has stated that he will not have Muslims in his administration. He then said he might have Muslims in his administration but they would go through some more rigorous review before being approved for Government Service. Well Michael Gerson, who's article was printed at Townhall, has taken issue with this approach, and frankly, makes some very good points. He compares Cain to George Soros who was uncomfortable with President George W. Bush's religious fervor.

There are, of course, theological expressions of Islam and conservative Christianity that are inconsistent with pluralism -- either Wahhabi Saudi Arabia or John Calvin's Geneva. There are also traditions consistent with pluralism. Sharia law may be interpreted as the replication of seventh-century Medina. It may also be viewed as a moral norm or conception of justice that is variously applied in systems of human law.

The Cain/Soros view rests on the assertion that the most radical expression of a religion is also the most authentic. . . .

The Constitution addresses this matter directly. Article VI requires legislative, judicial and executive officials to take a loyalty oath to the Constitution. It continues: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Good points, reasonably well made. But, as you might expect, not very satisfying for the Townhall readers.

And now, we are being ever so softly, that islam is a religion of individual choice, to be offered the same protections as Christianity and Judaism. I have rattlesnakes on my property but Idon’t bring them into my house.

Put all the muslims, korans, arabs, and PC were it belongs: IN The Toilet and flush many times!
If they do not like the way they are treated Send Them Back in Body Bags!
I love everyone; but not these Killers!

Another Townhall reader suggests that "ISLAM presents one of the greatest threats to the world since the OTTOMAN empire." Which seems odd since we've had both Hitler and Stalin since the Ottoman empire. But I guess Hitler and Stalin weren't Muslims.

Fixed Dollars

Mike Needham's latest article takes on American Pessimism pointing out how much government support for a dependent person has grown since 1962.

Between 1962 and 2009, government support for a dependent person grew from just over $7,000 to nearly $32,000. They’re policies, like Obamacare, will only accelerate the trend we’ve seen over the past forty years.

That's pretty interesting. Of course, due to inflation, dollars are not constantly the same value. A 1962 dollar is worth $7.10 2009 dollars. Which means $7,000 in 1962 actually translates out to $42,727.30 in 2009 dollars.

Of course it's possible he's accounted for constant dollars. Impossible to say really.

Why I don't post so much

Partially it's because my position and duties have increased. But partly it's because of articles like John Ransom's "The Left Hates Sarah Palin and Paul Revere." No, seriously. That's the title. The left, by which he means TV reporters, hates Paul Revere (I'd concede the Sarah Palin part, although in fairness she hates us right back). Specifically there was one unflattering report of Sarah Palin's comments and a follow up report. They were as follows.

“Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there - that, ‘Hey, you’re not goin' to succeed. You’re not goin' to take American arms. You are not goin' to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have,’" Palin said. “He did warn the British.”

In fairness, these were off the cuff remarks she made while apparently standing in line in a cafeteria. So Palin makes some comments about Paul Revere and the right to bear arms, New York Magazine makes fun of them then explains in their second post that she's historically correct.

And from this little non-story John Ransom determines that we Liberals hate Paul Revere, and all real patriots (who are, all coincidentally, conservatives).

. . . at least those bitter patriots who cling to their religion and their guns, named Palin, Revere, Bachman, Cain, Romney, Paul, Pawlenty, etc, etc, amen.

Yep. We liberals hate conservative politicians (or at least disagree with them.

Now to make sure I spend the rest of the day depressed, lets look at the comments.

all the male liberals bash Sarah because, well, lets face it, there neanderthal wives scream at them to do so, in there heart they like Sarah but with there 400 pound gorilla staring down at there weak spine, they voice rejection to Sarah, while on the other hand, the females are just horrible looking.......who could blame them to hating Sarah......they are all daydreaming back in their high school days.........so yes , Sarah the prom Queen......

Yes, this reflects a healthy attitude towards women. I am not married by the way, nor do I have a Girlfriend forcing me to make fun of Sarah Palin. I make fun of her, when I do, because it amuses me to do so.

All the commiweasel males who hate Palin must be homos who envy her her looks, particularly her shapely legs. Politics aside, what normal male would so vehemently despise and viciously attack an attractive and charming woman, who also happens to be a mother? Further proof that liberals are not very manly, even those who consider themselves heterosexual.

Well, Sarah Palin does have very shapely legs. But really it's the fact that she's kind of an idiot that I make fun of.

But wait let's get really ugly.

I'm about sick of the commie/progressive/socialist scum that have infested this nation. Its time to round them all up and ship them off to Cuba, Russia, Iran or any commie third world country of their choice.

Its time to let them know they are not welcome in America to send them packing!

As for you stankin, flea bitten, camel sucking, religion of hate muzzies - You're not welcome here either! Go back to your own God forsaken third world hovel! We don't want you in America!

During times of war, the President has the authority to detain and hold enemy aliens. This should be taking place now.

Yep Liberals and Muslims aren't welcome in America. Pretty goddamn depressing.

The Liberal Plan for Women

Kevin McCullough's latest article takes Liberals to courting the woman vote, doing things like allowing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to assume control of the DNC.

They intend to win the votes of women, and they will lie, confuse, and mislead if necessary to do so.

Yep we're just awful. He lists a number of prominent Conservative woman politicians to prove that Conservatives just care about women more, and then says this.

. . . a simple question for Rep. Schultz, "Where is your proof that the GOP is at war with these ladies?" Because while I'm not 100% certain, I'm fairly sure none of them embrace your ideas of equality for women--a world without men, where butchery of your own children is praised, immoral liberties are encouraged, and the idea of nurturing one's children is the equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb.

A world without men? This in an article where he admits that admits that Schultz is married and has children (and even concedes that she might be a pretty good mother). It then turns around and ascribes to Schultz all of these cliches.

Presumably McCullough really does believe that we liberals, particularly liberal woman, want a world with no men and praise the butchery of our own children. Either he believes that is what sort of people we are or he is simply a deceitful propagandist.

The comments seem to contain multiple posts by a guy who believes that Liberalism is wanting to turn Heterosexual males into Diaper Dads.

UNTIL 50% of men in office are repalced by women.. that's their whoopi-agenda.

(now you know...) .. DIAPER DADS WE ARE TO MADE...

This includes School Boards, local, County and State government (in which to warm up) along with the Federal Government. To be 'included' are Judges all the way up to and 'including' SCOTUS. Add to this.. corporations plus Government departments and agencies.

YOUR SONS.. 50%.. ARE TO BECOME DIAPER DADS

.. while mommy legislates, adjudicates, governs or runs a corporation.

That should probably be "DIAPER DADS WE ARE TO BE MADE." Still kind of awkward.

Surveying the Field

Jonah Goldberg's latest article is in praise of a field of electable Republicans, people like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and Mitch Daniels. Both Romney and Gingrich have shown that they can reach the middle ground (Romney with his Romneycare defense, Gingrich with his mockery of Ryans Medicare phase-out).

For those paying attention, these should be fascinating developments given the perennial claims that the GOP base is too right wing, extremist and closed-minded to tolerate such philosophical diversity. (And with the exception of Gingrich and Paul, there are no Southerner candidates in a party allegedly captured by the South.)

. . . It also suggests that the front-runners -- a group that includes former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- might be ahead of the rank and file of the GOP.

Now that's an interesting tack to take; suggesting these moderate candidates are more intelligent than the base. Of course Gingrich did have to walk back his comments on phasing out Medicare (and has also stated that anybody who replays clips of that appearance is lying), and Romneys defense of Romneycare was in the middle of an attack on Obamacare. So maybe the base still has a few cards. And let's see what the base has to say.

Would anyone in their right mind vote for Ron Paul?! He's odd, weird, and did I mention odd? Strange choice.

Romney has flipped flopped more than my beach sandles. Newt does a commercial with Pelosi on climate change and wants health care mandates?

NO WAY is Romney electable! We all ready know that. I heard him described yesterday as a cardboard person. Very descript.

Bomb thrower Newt needs to get out also...he might just be trying to sell books.

Michele Bachman is another limited appeal bomb thrower.

Still there are some things that unite them.

EVEN IF YOU THINK THE CHOICE ISN'T CLEAR , ..IT IS !!!!!!!...... YOU CAN VOTE FOR A COMMUNIST,SOCIALIST,MARXIST,MUSLIM OR .....AN AMERICAN, ITS VERY SIMPLE AND ANY RED BLOODED AMERICAN SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM MAKING THIS DECISION..................
BHO = AMERICAS PUBLIC ENEMY MUSLIM TERRORIST NUMBER ONE

So I'm sure they'll pull it together when the election actually comes around. Or not.

Fear the Muslim and his Money Donating Ways

John Ransom's latest article is about an South Florida Imam and some of his family members who donated to the "Muslim Taliban," who were going to use that money to overthrow the Pakistani Government and maybe kill Americans in the process. Of course this leads to a fairly blanket if sarcastic condemnation of American Muslims.

Oh, those poor Muslims in America. Cue the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other unindicted co-conspirators to give us one of their stock racism lectures.

Unindicted co-conspirators are always feeling the backlash in the U.S. of the actions of just a few very prominent heroes in their community. Those heroes, we’re assured, always seemed harmless as they were plotting to murder and maim.

The presumed “backlash” probably has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims tolerate such people in their midst. The spokesmen for the mosques always seem SO shocked that such people are their leaders. Their ignorance is reassuring to me.

Actually Muslim Leaders are waiting for the rule of law to proceed, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Ba-Yunus said the mosque has suspended Mr. Khan indefinitely and has been in regular contact with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI.

If the accusations against the imam are true, "we unconditionally condemn" his actions, said Mr. Ba-Yunus. But he emphasized that "these are the alleged acts of a few people and one family" and not representative of the broader Muslim community.

That's probably not good enough for the likes of Ransom and his readers; they should be condemning him unconditionally even before the evidence is in. Of course his readers have pretty strong opinions on Islam.

Time to round them all up and ship them back to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran or wherever it is these vermin migrate from.

There is no peaceful muzzie and they all need to be deported right out of this Christian nation.

I wonder what he wants to do to the ones who were born here.

All muslims are soldiers in the Army of Islam. Be he shopkeeper, book keeper, imam or terrorist, all are soldiers.
Some train in far off bases to commit acts of terror.
Some emigrate to foreign countries where they become an intelligence network, a disbursing corps and a supply corps. They set up safe houses and underground railroads for the terrorist arm. The terrorists are but the Special Forces of the Army of Islam. They are the spearhead of military action.
The "moderate" muslims are the regular soldiers and everywhere they settle they awari the call to take up arms and follow their Special Forces in conquest for Islam.
We are at war. We are at war with a religion. We are at war with a religion that is also an army.
And that army is over ONE BILLION strong.

Now that's grim and apocalyptic. But why focus just on our Muslim Enemies, when there are also liberal bedwetters out there?

Liberal bed wetters - Their keyword is racist or racism. What a tired bunch of morons!

And if wanting a bunch of smelly, nasty, dirty swine deported out of America is racist, well so be it!

As for the libtards - I want you deported as well. You do nothing but lie, steal and destroy everything you touch. You serve no purpose other then to suck at the public teet. Time for the law of the fittest to take over and allow you to expire as should have occurred by natural selection at some point in your despicable little lives. You are good for nothing!

I actually do hold down a regular job, but it is tangentially related to the Government so I suppose I am despicable.

Thoughts on Thor

Relayed from AlternativeRight by Bleeding Cool. The reviewer saw it as a multi cultural mess, but it was defended by commentators.

The movie works fine from a White racial perspective - I see the addition of a Black Heimdal as a minor concession to get the film produced and marketed in 2011 America. And this Black Heimdal has a really bad job - being a Black doorman/gate keeper who must work 24/7/365 far, far away from the fun of the White gods in Asgard.

Thor is perfectly cast - the little Nordic White boy actor of young Thor is also very good, so is the presentation of Loki - a sinister, alien looking being who was taken at birth from a foreign race and raised to be a son of Odin, even though he isn't. NS folks should notice a nice parallel to alien Semitic races who have lived amongst us, but are always, somehow not quite right.

The Thor - Jane Fonda chemistry is excellent, a really solid White god/mortal romance. Jane isn't some pushy feminist , she's certainly smart, but she lets her man do all the fighting and goes for the Elizabethan strong Nordic guy with the long golden locks.

There are no - ZERO promotions of race mixing, multi culturalism, anti racism, cultural marxism etc.

I actually really liked Thor on the level of dumb comic book entertainment. But after reading this guy, maybe I was missing something.

That said, while I find this moderately amusing, it's silly to pretend this tiny website is somehow representative of America Conservatism. These are a small subcategory of open racists, as witnessed by their low comment count; an article at Townhall (where I cull plenty of comments) might have up to 500 comments; the longest comment count I see here is maybe a tenth of that. So, amusing but irrelevant.

Someone is Paying John Hawkins to write Articles

Possibly. His articles are reprinted at Townhall, at any rate, and one presumes they aren't reprinted for free. It looks like he runs a number of websites, so possibly that's where his money come. His latest article is lazy as hell. It starts out with the observation that many liberals seem proud of America in the wake of our killing of Osama Bin Ladin.

Not that there aren't patriotic liberals. They certainly exist, much in the same manner that albino alligators exist. You see one every once in awhile in captivity, but if you ever run across one in the wild, you'll be genuinely surprised.

The rest of his column is a list of hateful things "liberals" have said. Not even recent comments. But oldy moldies from such liberal champions as Ward Churchill and Jeremiah Wright. In the wake of killing Osama bin Ladin it wouldn't be too hard to troll Liberal columnists and bloggers to find a few not joining in on the glee of Osama's death. But that would be too much work for the lazy Hawkins.

I wonder if he genuinely believes his quotes reflect mainstream liberalism; probably. I don't grant him enough wit to know how full of crap he is. His readers also genuinely believe Liberals to be hateful.

Liberals only seek to fundamentally change America, weaken her, overcome her and rule over her, and if they can't have theri way with her then destroy her.

Get the h*ll out of my country if you think it's so bad.

That last one is a common charge; which is fascinating when you think about it. The truth is that for many of these far right tea party guys, America is far closer to my vision than it is to theirs. They are going to have to overturn a century of progress to get us back to the Laissez Faire small Government Ideal. So why don't we ever offer to let them move to a third world strongman state? I guess because Liberals recognize a kinship with conservatives; we are all part of the same nation.

Equivalence

This is from Dennis Prager's latest article, in which he chides Robert Klitzman for writing an article critical of his country, when he lost his sister in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Asking what America did to elicit the hatred of Muslim terrorists is morally equivalent to asking what Jews did to arouse Nazi hatred, what blacks did to cause whites to lynch them, what Ukrainians did to arouse Stalin's hatred or what Tibetans did to incite China's hateful treatment of them.

It's a little different Prager because you have to take into account power and previous actions. Blacks in the South and Jews in Germany had no power. America has been, since the end of WW2 and possibly before, the most powerful nation on the planet.

Secondly we have actually done some lousy things in the middle east, even if we aren't going to talk about Israel and the Palestinians. We help prop up friendly dictatorships and have been since the days of the Shah.

Prager seems to belong to the "America is the bestest nation on all the earth" belief system; in which criticism of American actions abroad shows hatred of America somehow. His readers pretty much agree.

Hate America First!

It's written in stone. And it's the law of the liberal, progressive, far left.

It's sad how Conservatives look at things sometimes; they seem genuinely unable to understand how one can be critical of something that one loves.

Gerson Vs. Rand

Michael Gerson's latest article takes on Ayn Rand and the recent movie (first part of a trilogy) of her Seminal Work "Atlas Shrugged." He is not a fan.

If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others

Gerson points out that she saw average Americans as looters and parasites and that she wasn't a fan of Christianity. He says that her philosophy, with it's laser like focus on freedom of the individual, doesn't work.

But both libertarians and Objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea -- a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness. This unbalanced emphasis on one element of political theory -- at the expense of other public goals such as justice and equal opportunity -- is the evidence of a rigid ideology. Socialists take a similar path, embracing equality as an absolute value. Both ideologies have led good people into supporting policies with serious human costs.

Conservatives have been generally suspicious of all ideologies, preferring long practice and moral tradition to utopian schemes of left or right. And Rand is nothing if not utopian.

So a good take down. But, there are other points of view, such as those of Gerson's readers.

i am not sure why gerson does this hit piece. it may be that he is simply a pawn of the overlords who recognize that freedom for the individual is the greatest threat to their desire to be complete rulers of the masses. consequently, knowing the overlord's wishes, gerson seeks to discredit the movie before more and more people tune in to the socialism that is creeping surreptitiously into the american gestalt.

I just checked the list of pawns and Gerson's name isn't on it. Oh and there are no overlords. And I am certainly not an overlord.

Thank God for the movie. It was released just when we have the most totalitarian government ever in power in the USA. Ayn, we miss you. You would see instantly the parallels between the Obama Administration and Stalin's USSR. Your old nemesis is right here, right now, in Washington, D.C. And the clueless observers like Gerson don't even recognize it!

We live in the most totalitarian government in power? Why doesn't overlord Obama just get rid of those annoying Tea Partiers than? Send them off to Alaska (America's Siberia).

Gerson's writing is that of a disgusting blue-blood republican that may even be more dispicable than Obama. Gerson wants the rest of us to go back to the slimy days when Republicans cut deals with democrats to sell out the public in favor of the elite (to whom if you ever watched him or read him he considers himself one of). . . . Gerson you disgust me truly.

Funny that Ayn Rand, who was pretty elitist, is being held up as a champion of the little guy.

Trump! Trump! TRUMP!!!!

Several articles about Trump today. Cal Thomas wrote about how Trumps connection to Christianity may not be all that sincere.

He [Trump] did say he goes to church "as much as I can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there's a major occasion." Christians know a lot of people who attend church only on Christmas and Easter and special occasions. They are usually not serious about their faith. Not to judge, but if Trump intends to use faith to win votes from people of faith, then those people have a right to determine whether he is sincere or simply trying to manipulate them.

I pretty well agree with Thomas here; if he is playing to get Conservative Christian votes by pretending to be one of them, well, they have a right to ask how committed he actually is.

That said, Conservative Christians generally don't actually care about the faith of their candidates, so long as they vote the right way. Trouble is Trump has shown himself to be all over the map on that score.

Thomas does carefully exclude Trumps biggest selling point to the Right, i.e. his willingness to take Birtherism seriously. I suppose that makes sense, no sense bringing up embarrassing aspects about your base.

Larry Elder has no such compunction though, and dedicates his article to the proposition that Trump is asking questions that the media won't.

But are the "birther" folks wackier than the majority of Democrats who believe George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 or are unsure that he did?

Are the "birther" folks wackier than the majority of Democrats who believe that "Bush Lied, People Died" our way into the Iraq War or are unsure that he did?

Are they wackier than the majority of Democrats who, in 2008, held Bush responsible when gas prices hit $4 a gallon?

What's the point? When people are unhappy with a politician and/or his policies, they sometimes see the worst -- whether or not there is a factual basis. But the media do not even have a name for the Democratic equivalent of "birthers," despite these vicious, unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of Bush.

Poor Elder. Not a very strong section. But lets go through it.

First of all, 9/11 "Truthers" have never been taken seriously by any major Liberal pol. Liberal website Salon went out of their way to take the mickey out of the Truthers. In contrast there are several Republican pols who are taking this seriously, from state legislators putting up bills that require Presidential candidates to put up Birth Certificates to Presidential Candidates and Congresspeople giving a wink and a nod to Birthers.

Second and three are just said. People think that Bush lied us into Iraq because what he told us about Iraq turned out not to be true. We didn't find weapons of mass destruction. There is strong evidence that Bush and his advisors were determined to invade Iraq regardless of the evidence. Did they genuinely believe we needed to invade Iraq? Probably. Did they present all the evidence to the American people so they could make up their minds with all the facts? It does not seem so.

And of course our invasion of Iraq had something to do with Gas Prices going up.

Finally, yes, the media do have a name for people who think that Bush allowed or caused 9/11 to happen. It's Truthers as mentioned above.

Elder does more than wink at the Birthers, but makes it clear that he thinks they have some good points. Which is nice, since he's Black. This is helpful for Birthers, who are regularly accused of being racist for questioning whether or not President Obama is legally qualified to be President. This is because some of them are clearly racist, and others seem concerned that Obama isn't a real America like the rest of us. So Elder does provide a valuable service to the Birthers here.

Still, even with Elder, you can't get around some of the ugliness in their comments.

I am not so concerned about the so-called "birther issue as the "What are we going to do to Obama when his birth issue proves to be correct. I always have the image of his grandmother stating that "li'l Barry was born in Kenya," in front of me.

There has to be some kind of splendiferous punishment for the con - death by firing squad seems too little in view of the level of the fraud.

When you tell a 224 year old Christian nation that we are not a Christian nation any more and you are going to change the foundation that made us great, then people are going to have questions.

Barack Obama is a limp-wristed-panty-waist, who does not like getting his own hands dirty, instead he surrounds himself with those who are willing to do whatever criminal act or illegal operation Barack Obama has in his bag-of-community-organizing-tricks.

Interesting mix. The top one speaks for itself. The middle one plays off of the belief of many on the right that Liberals just aren't very good Americans. And the bottom one is homophobic crap, which I guess is slightly better than being racist.

Who Loves America?

Michael Medved's latest article takes on that old conundrum, why are liberals and conservatives so different. Turns out conservatives see America as a great place and liberals aren't as keen on it.

The right views America as exceptionally blessed and righteous — chosen by God (or fate, if you prefer) to inspire humanity with distinctive ideals of liberty, self rule and free markets. The left, on the other hand, expresses an intensifying tendency to see the U.S. as exceptionally guilty (for slavery, "genocide" against Native Americans and arrogant imperialism) and exceptionally backward when it comes to "social justice." Progressives never tire of reminding us that the United States lacks the welfare state guarantees that characterize other wealthy nations, and that it tolerates a vast gap between rich and poor.

Or to put it another way, Progressives want an America that works for all Americans, not just the wealthy.

Medved is pretty transperant here; this is the simplistic way Conservatives beleive that Liberals look at America. We don't like it, and want it to be more like Europe. Conservatives love America and are content having a small powerless Government with a strong military, because they believe in the American people.

Putting Troops First

Mike Needham's latest article is intended to put pressure on Congressional Democrats to cave and pass the Republican Budget.

President Obama and Senator Harry Reid have an obligation to explain to our military why they have refused to come to the table and either pass H.R. 1 through the Senate or pass an alternative.

Needham does let on that he'd be satisfied if they just passed the military section of the resolution; and I'm more or less with him on that. We are fighting a couple of wars, no reason to stop paying our troops. That said, this is a pretty big bargaining chip for either side to play around with.

Of course Needham doesn't mention some of the controversial riders attached by Republicans, such as defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR, limiting the EPA and defunding the Consumer Protection Complaints database. It is possible that the American people would see some of those as Republicans settling scores on the backs of our troops.

Not many comments, but one notable one.

These pathetic, excremental democrats will hold out paying our troops in order to blame Republicans.

Die democrats, die!

Nice.

I'm Using Technology

Apparently Robert Knight feels that with all this talk about Japan and Libya, we are losing sight of what is really important; making sure the Gays stay second class citizens.

Now there’s a scenario for building respect for the military among the nation’s youngsters. Boy: “Look, mom, those men in uniforms are, uh, making out right there in the food court! I’m not sure I want to be a soldier after all.” Liberal mom: “Well, that’s a relief. I didn’t want you to be in the military anyway. All those guns give me the creeps. But why do you find this odd? Are you some kind of religious bigot? Honestly, we’re going to have to call your school and ask them to step up the tolerance training. You won’t even wear that nice polka dot dress and pumps I bought you.”

"All those guns give me thec creeps?" Anyway it's sad drivel, of the sort you expect from a town hall third tier columnist trying to build his profile by being extra hateful. Fortunately his readers enjoy hating Homosexuals.

Homosexuals are about trashing this country and Christianity. Look at every program advanced by the Leftists, it is at it's root, anti-Christian. No open homosexuals should not be allowed in the miltary since the lack the discipine to be good sailors, Marines, ect.

So there you go.

America is the Bestest Nation Ever!

This is American Exceptionalism. Basically idea that America is better than all the other nations intellectually, morally, and militarily. And this is the theme of Lurita Doan's latest article. She comments on liberal reactions to the Gulf oil spill, the coal mining tragedy, and the nuclear situation in Japn, and how Liberals seem to think these accidents prove that we should move away from oil, coal and nuclear power.

In each of these cases, the defeatists seemed to be saying is that America was no longer capable of inventing better solutions to solve these and other challenges--better to just give up after any setback.

This may be the silliest American Exceptionalism article I've read. First of all, if you want to talk about not beliving in our ability to innovate, go read articles on solar or wind power by your fellow conservatives. You will see some real defeatism there.

Secondly, it's not American ingenuity that is being tested in some of these cases. It's American corpratism. It's not that we can't make safe coal mines or protect against oil spills; it's that it is unprofitable to do so (not to mention that we are eventually going to start running out of oil and probably coal).

Doan is down on Obama too, as you would expect.

Americans deserve a president who believes that we are an exceptional nation, capable of achieving everything that is good and great.

Everything that is good and great. You know what I believe America is capable of achieving everything that is good and great. I suspect many of my fellow liberals agree with me. It's just that our definition of what is good and great probably differs from your own.

But her readers are very supportive.

Democrats and other liberals are losers who project their own inability to succeed onto the rest of us.

As for humility, there's nothing un-humble about knowing that our system is best, because the evidence for that FACT is all there for anyone to see.

And then this gem.

Any problems with nuclear, oil, coal or other energy source can be overcome if we only just lined up all the regulators from the EPA and other alphabet soup agencies that constantly get in the way, and just shoot them.

That's just hilarious. After 8 years of Bush gutting the regulatory industries, we just need to shoot anybody with the temerity to work there? Do people really think that corporations are going to do spend the money to do things safely if they aren't required to? Apparently they do.

"The most evil population on the face of the planet"

Ben Shapiro's latest article is about the Israeli Palestine conflict. In particular he writes about a particularly brutal murder of Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

And the Arab Palestinian populace, which by and large constitutes the most evil population on the face of the planet, celebrated.

So that is Shapiro's opinion of the Palestinians. But he's particularly upset about a movie shown at the United Nations.

It was a premiere screening of "Miral," a film by Julian Schnabel, a self-hating Jew and world-famous director; it's based on a book by his Arab Palestinian girlfriend, Rula Jebreal. "Miral" is a virulently anti-Israel movie casting the state of Israel in the worst possible light. Every Israeli soldier is a brutal murderer; every Palestinian is a wounded innocent; Jews are usurpers of Arab Palestinian property rights. Every anti-Israel trope is employed. "These settlers living here are our real cancer," says one Arab Palestinian character.

A few interesting points to make, but let's start with the key one. Moments after writing Palestinians off as the most evil population on the face of the planet, Shapiro excoriates Schnabel for not showing both sides in the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Presumably, in Shapiro's mind, a fair representation of the Arab Israeli conflict would show the Arabs to be the monsters they are, and would completely exonerate the Israelis.

Unfortunately for Shapiro the events portrayed in Miral are historically accurate; they did happen. By all accounts (and the movie hasn't made it's way to the US yet), the movie is disjointed and ungainly, but has some good performances (although reviewers are torn about the performance of the actress in the title role). But the history is essentially correct, even if presented from one specific point of view.

At any rate, the choice for the United Nations to screen this movie, and to allow the attendance of Hollywierdos like Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn proves the immorality of the United Nations.

His readers certainly agree.

Yes, our departure from the UN should be immediate for a thousand reasons. It is corrupt from top to bottom.

I'll say it again: GET THE U. S. OUT OF THE U. N. AND THE U. N. OUT OF THE U. S.

there should be a new united nations for CIVILIZED nations only! no muslim nations need apply. agree 100% this UN should be shut down.

So nice to see some unity; although crapping on the United Nations is always popular over there at Townhall.

Caricatures are Reality

John Hawkin's latest article is written from the point of view of a liberal. Not a real liberal mind you, but a pleasing caricature of a liberal. Which is why his version of a liberal basically thinks America Sucks.

The problem with you Teabaggers is that, unlike liberals, you have such an unrealistic view of America. Liberals have a balanced view of America, which is why they understand that America is the source of all evil in the world. Hello, slavery! Like any other nations ever did that? And we brought slaves to a country that shouldn't even be ours in the first place. It should belong to the Indians, Mexicans and buffalo. Then there were all the people we've killed in our wars of aggression against the Nazis, the Soviets, and Al-Qaeda, all of whom hated us for perfectly valid reasons. Maybe if you Teabaggers stopped waving your flags and chewing your chaw for 5 seconds, you'd realize the world might be better off if "Murica" were broke, poor, and humbled.

Part of me thinks there is no point to responding to this kind of tripe. But the problem is that Hawkins probably thinks this is a fair representation of what people like me think. They really think we don't like America. It's telling that he brings up slavery, our taking of the land from the indians, and our wars (although he botches all three's description particularly the war one. Yes America has aggressively interfered in other nations affairs, but the three enemies he mentions aren't the ones that we feel ashamed about opposing). Hawkins has correctly identified our nations great sins. But in traditional Conservatoid fashion the solution isn't to be an adult, admit our mistakes while also being proud of our successes. Instead, even bringing up slavery and our treatment of Native Americans makes one not love America. Either America is perfect or it is evil, apparently.

The Big A

Mike S. Adams has taken a break from complaining about how hard it is being a Conservative University Professer to write a confusing article on Abortion. Short answer is that he is against it. He thinks that people who are pro-choice are hypocritical or confused, and he proves this by asking leading questions that don't make any sense. The overall thrust seems to beas follows.

You pro-choice people seem to believe in a right and wrong.

11. My opposition to those who bomb abortion clinics is rooted in my religious views. Should I impose those views on others by supporting laws against bombing abortion clinics?

Ideas about right and wrong come from God, who definitely exists.

12. If the universe’s expansion had been too slow or too fast the result would have been elements either too light or too heavy to sustain life. Do you think there is a God who intended for life to be sustained on this planet?

Abortion kills a baby.

8. Is ultrasound technology helping people converge upon certain undeniable truths about the complexity and origins of life?

. . . 13. Do you consider the fetus to be a life? If not, would you concede that it is at least intended to be a life?

. . . 19. Do human beings have a right to commit murder in a safe way?

That last one is interesting in light of his comments on bombing abortion clinics. He doesn't reference Dr. Tiller here, but if you see Abortion as Murder doesn't it follow the executing those who perform abortions is the correct action (assuming you favor the death penalty I suppose). He lends further credence to this argument in another pair of questions.

16. Imagine that a woman is headed to the hospital to have an abortion. Her car is hit by a man who ran a stop light in his car. Her offspring is killed. In most states, he can be charged with homicide. Does that make sense to you?

17. In the previous example, I forgot to add that the man who hit the woman headed to the hospital just happened to be her doctor – the one scheduled to perform the abortion. In most states, he can still be charged with homicide. Does that still make sense?

Of course pro-choice people generally don't think it should be homicide. But leave that aside, isn't this a clear argument that Doctors who kill babies should be charged with homicide? And isn't homocide a capital crime? So what is wrong with executing abortion doctors (if you follow this chain of thought)?

There is also this gem.

18. In 1961, there were 210,000 abortions performed in America. Within seven years of Roe v. Wade, there were 1.2 million abortions in America. Have we succeeded in making abortions safe, legal and, rare?

OK - let's unpack this. In 1961 there were 210,000 abortions. In the seven years following Roe V Wade, which I take to be 1973 to 1979 (Roe was decided January 1973, so it could also be 1974 to 1980), there were 1.2 million abortions. That works out to be an average of 171,428 million abortions annually, which is fewer abortions than previous. However in those years, I don't think the goal was to make Abortion "safe legal and rare" as that particular terminology was coined by President Clinton in the 1990s. Or to put it another way, I don't know what the hell Adams is talking about here. He probably meant to put in an "annually" there.

Abortions, incidentally, peaked in the 80s and declined through the 90s.

Some interesting bits in the comments.

I told you that on Wednesday, my dad bought a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.

Well, on Friday, he took it shooting for the very first time, with his retired policeman neighbor.

The neighbor was actually fairly impressed with my dad's aplomb with the gun, considering he had never been a gun owner before in his life and the last time he probably even FIRED a gun would have to be at least over 40 years ago.

So if some libcreeps try breaking into my parents' home at night with the thought of "aborting" my parents, the libcreeps are likely to be "aborted" first!

You don't really abort adults, do you? But lets get on to what Townhall readers should be done about abortion.

If abortion is murder then it is to be dealt with as every other murder.

Christians can use this column to stiffen up their backbone and follow Jesus Christ of Nazareth in educating American that ACCORDING TO GOD, abortion is MURDER.

“Don’t like Abortion? Don’t Have One?" Don’t like murder? Don’t commit any. Don't allow any to be committed, either.

i beleive abortion is murder and anyone supporting it has blood on their hands ,,, and they know it and a only denie it when it when the light of truth shines on em

Yeah they really think abortion is murder; and at least a few of them have thought through the implications of believing that.

2012

Jonah Goldberg's latest article is a reaction to George Will's latest article, in which he talks about who the likely candidate for the GOP will be in 2012. Will suggests it will be one of the more centrist possibilities (Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, or Pawlenty), writing off Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and Mike Huckabee.

Ultimately the election will largely be a referendum on Obama and the economy. The desire to order off-menu will abate over time. And Republicans will surely stomach the nominee, if for no other reason than they're ravenous to make Obama a one-termer. And, as the Irish say, hunger is the best sauce.

I hope Goldberg's wrong, but I have to admit, Steve Kornacki over at Salon has an article largely arguing the same thing, giving the nomination to Romney.

Meanwhile, Romney, for all his flaws, starts with a significant base of support -- or at least potential support. The elites still see him as an acceptable, maybe even preferable, option for the nomination and plenty of Republican voters are still open to supporting him. If you assume that Huckabee and Palin won't run (or that Palin, if she does, will be marginalized), then Romney still begins this campaign as the closest thing there is to a default choice for Republicans.

I don't want to see Romney as the candidate for a number of reasons. He's patently phoney, he changes his opinions with the political winds, and he's Mormon (which I am as well).

I think though, a lot can happen between now and then. The base may or may not be as hungry as they should be to settle for a Romney (as exemplified by the comments to Goldberg's column).

I will NOT vote for Romney or Huckabee. Romney is deeply flawed and I don't even consider him to be a republican.

If any of the old RINO "retreads" run, THEY WILL LOSE. Yes, this includes, romney, huckabee, gingrich and any of the "old guard".

I will not vote for Romney whom I consider to be a closet socialist . . .

I certainly don't want Romney, whoever he is THIS week.

In fairness there are plenty of posts that assert they will vote for whoever runs against Obama.

I have a Legal Right to be an Asshole and I'm Determined to Exercise It

Apparently Doug Giles feels this way in his latest article in which he gleefully smokes a cigar despite annoying a nearby lesbian.

Yes, I don’t believe in being bullied to put out my legal smoke just because she finds it offensive. I’ll put out my smoke when she gets a new doo and quits lip locking Melissa Etheridge in public. Maybe.

It's not clear that he is defending his right to be an asshole or his right to be an asshole to lesbians. If a nice clean-cut heterosexual mom had come up to him, what would he have done? But apparently his point is that oral sex is more dangerous than cigars. Therefore even though he seems like a total asshole, he really has a point.

It's hard to see past his mountain of assholery to see his point, though.

Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator, auditions to be Mini-Beck

Shapiro's latest article essentially regurgitates Beck's theories that the Union Protests in Wisconsin and the protests in Egypt and Libya are part of the same movement designed to destroy everything that is good.

Why now, after 9/11 and after the fall of the Soviet Union, is the socialist-Islamist axis of ideological evil rising once again? Because the president of the United States stands at the center of that axis, bridging the gap.

President Obama is a committed socialist with a history of warmth toward Islamism. His father was a communist and a Muslim; his grandfather and mother were communists; his stepfather was a Muslim.

American Unions and Muslims are also apparently united in their hatred of jews. This is proved by a lot of international unions taking the palestinian side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Apparently American unions do this too, although poor Ben is unable to find any actual examples of the part of American Unions. It's kind of pathetic really.

And sad that Ben doesn't get a lot of comments on his article; only ten. A really popular article can get hundreds. Still they is a gem or two.

An enemy is an enemy and will spill your blood the same no matter what you label them as.

Unless, presumably, you spill their blood first.

Just to Make it Clear

This is from Jonah Goldberg's latest article.

Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they've acceded to many of their governor's specific demands -- that workers contribute to their pensions and health-care costs, for example. But they don't want to lose the right to collective bargaining.

But that is exactly what they need to lose.

So there it is; despite what others pretend, this has nothing to do with balancing Wisconsin's budget. The unions have acceeded to the budgetary demands of Governor Walker. It is about smashing unions; taking away their tools and reason for existance.

And his readers seem to be on the same page.

All those teachers need to be fired and not wait. There is no way that you can justify that they were sick and it is one camera anyway. Get new teachers, they are willing to work and not allow them to ambush the people who pay their jobs.

I will be happy when every cockroach infested public sector union is exterminated.

They will not give up their power willingly or through legitimate political means and unless the Right begins to recognize what's behind these things and girds up its loins for a long and bloody battle, it really is over

And I mean "bloody" in the literal meaning of the word.

Grim. A long and bloody battle between liberals and conservatives.

Filthy Liars

John Hawkin's loves his lists. This week's article is a list of 5 political catchphrases you shouldn't believe. Most of them are kind of silly (and the sorts of things politicians don't actually say. For example, "It's for the children." Well, when you are talking about cutting school lunch programs or funding for after school activities, well, yes, liberals do think it's good to think of the children at those times. But then he brings up Social Security.

It’ll be paid for with the Social Security trust fund: When people think of a "trust fund," they think of a big pile of cash sitting around somewhere, waiting to eventually be used by the beneficiaries. We don't have that with Social Security because we've already spent ALL of the money. So, what exactly is in the "trust fund?" It’s a bunch of special bonds that the government can refuse to honor at any time. Put another way, it's an IOU that future generations of Americans will have to pay off.

This is a filthy lie, one so transparent that most Republicans have abandoned it. But not John Hawkins apparently. The trust fund is invested in United States Treasury securities; some of the most stable investments on the planet. The are not worthless IOUs, and should they become that, well, our entire civilization will have collapsed. To pretend like there is no Trust Fund is simply deceitful. It's possible that Hawkins doesn't know any better.

He also takes issue with the believe that Liberals want Abortions to be safe, legal, and rare. Apparently we are lying when we say that; we really love abortion (the way Michael Jackson loved little boys (and isn't that a nasty thing to bring up considering Jackson is dead)).

You never had it so good

Carol Platt Liebau's latest article diagnosis an issue in America.

According to the Department of Labor, when it comes to hourly wages, the average in the private sector is $19.68 per hour; for workers in state and local government, it’s $26.25. While 74% of private-industry workers receive paid sick leave and 8 paid holidays per year, 98% of state and local government workers have paid sick leave, along with 11 paid holidays yearly. And 99% of government workers have retirement benefits (with the same percentage enjoying medical benefits), compared to 74% and 86% respectively of private sector employees. Finally, in the private sector, an average of 20% of medical premiums are paid by employees, while state and local government workers pay only 11% on average. By almost any measure, it pays to work for the government – subsidized by taxpayer money and unconstrained by the economic discipline imposed on the private sector by the need to compete -- rather than as a taxpaying employee in a private enterprise.

It wouldn't suit her point to talk about the history, but the truth is back in the day both private and public sector jobs had many of these advantages. But as unions dwindled, businesses moved to the south and to other nations, the standard of living in the private sector has steadily decreased relative to the public sector. The solution for Republicans isn't that American workers have it to hard and should be improved; how could they think that? Rather, in their quest to support big business, they find the one class of workers that have closer to decent wages and benefits and attempt to strip those away.

Townhall readers are varied on this issue. Some are pro-business and therefore want to see the union smashed. Others were very down on the governor, comparing him to Mubarak. And some are just envious and want to tear public sector employees down.

But why is the hussein, who wanted to be elected as president for all the people, chopoing to stand with a ghreedy minority of parasites, more concerned about their over generous slariies and benifits that many working in the private sector will never enjoy through their jobs.

Seems rather selfish that well paid public sector union parasites, have no qualms about those with lower paying jobs be asked to pay higher taxes just to enrich these union slugs

it's long past time tyo end the public unions and have them pay the same proportions of their incomers for retirement and health benefits like the rest of us.

The use of the name hussein to refer to President Obama is of course intended to remind us he's not really an American.

More on Multiculturism

Boy the right really does hate Muslims. Well some do anyway. Rick Santorum, recently departed from Congress, has a new article on the scourge of Multiculturalism, and how it ruined the war on terror.

When the previous administration pitched our war as a “war against terrorism,” I implored President Bush to define our enemy by name, not by tactic. When we don’t tell the truth about who the enemy is in the hope of pacifying those who might be offended, it becomes ever more difficult for the American people to rally, support, and sacrifice to win.

In other words when Bush said we weren't at war with Islam, Santorum was dissappointed. Possibly Santorum would prefer that Bush say we are at war with radical Islam, but, tellingly, he doesn't clarify. And in fairness, most of his readers probably know what he means.

Radical Islam is the problem and until we make the price too high for them to pay it will not stop. Islam teaches at all levels that everyone on earth must be either converted to Islam or killed. Until we get it and vow to put an end to it, the trouble will continue.

One cannot serve two masters, the muslims do what their book tells them to do and that book is diametrically opposite to the constitution.

The list of atrocities perpetrated in the name of that 'religion" is appallingly long and you know it, it has NO place in this country whatsoever IMO, should be declared a cult and given no weight whatsoever.

Yeah, I think they picked up on it. A little later in the article, Santorum says this.

In the last year Western European leaders have had to face up to the devastation caused by socialism and multiculturalism. Yet our president continues to champion these policies.

I've said this before; the most frusterating thing about guys like Obama and Clinton before is defending him against the ridiculous charge that he's a socialist while watching him sell out the base at every occasion. Obama is working for Wall Street, plain and simple. He is more liberal than McCain or Bush; but he's no socialist.

You Make the Best of What's Still Around

Emmett Tyrell's latest article is about how multiculturalism has failed. He argues that we are to tolerant in the west (particularly Europe) of people who don't like us, and that we teach history wrong.

I think it started with the way they teach their history. Militarism, colonialism and racism are all prominent ingredients of European history books, particularly British history. For that matter, American history stresses these ingredients also. I have been reading American college history texts, and they present an alarmingly ugly view of the Western past.

By presenting the West as repugnant and the other civilizations as our prey, particularly during colonial days but also in modern times, we encourage such social pathologies as jihadism.

I'm curious as to how you teach colonalism without talking about how Western nations preyed on native cultures. My guess is you simply skip over it. Tyrell would probably prefer the "let us now praise great men" version of history where we talk about the founders for half the term, and then blow through the rest of history, with stops at Abraham Lincoln (maybe), denouncing FDR, and wrapping up with the glory of Reagan.

Still this particular nonsense isn't a patch on what you find in the comments section.

Keep in mind that Jeb Bush is married to a woman of Hispanic heritage, another reason why we should never elect another Bush to the presidency. Compassion for the inheritors of failed cultures is not a rational ruling principle for a nation that used to assimilate immigrants in a generation or two but thanks to liberals' smarrny multi-cultural idiocies is not working any more.

european leaders have suddenly discovered that inviting huge numbers of hostile muslims to conquer their countries was not a good idea. brilliant. the obvious can be sooooooooo difficult to see. now they must decide what to do about it. there is only one reasonable answer, and that is the one answer the "leaders" will never ever suggest. lets see. we invited muslims who are breeding like rats, become increasingly murderous with each generation, and are demographically certain to overrun the continent in a few years. what to do............what to do..........lets see. in a decade there will be so many that we will not be able to get rid of them. lets wait 10 years. yes, thats it. lets continue to import muslims until it is too late to do anything but surrender. then we surrender!!!!!!!!!!!!! the cathedral of notre dame will make such a nice mosque. the sistine chapel will be a nice place for the sultan to molest little christian boys. nice plan, "leaders"

The answer is kill them all before they kill us.

Sending them back or putting them in ghettos are terrible ideas. No, extermination would be much more feasible, practical and makes much more sense. After all, sending members of a murderous cult to another part of the world does not negate them as threats. Six feet of dirt, however, does.

Pretty nasty stuff, from some Conservatives. Of course there are other conservatives who would disagree with these posters.

Into the Depths

In July of last year, Andrew Brietbart posted a heavily edited video claiming that Shirley Sherrod was a racist who didn't want to help white people. Sherrod was subsequently denounced by the NAACP and let go by the Obama Administration. Then the full video was released, which revealed that actually she was willing to help white people. The story was essentially that she was hesitant to, but then did, and learned a valuable lesson about helping all people.

Brietbart, naturally enough, largely admits to no wrongdoing. Instead he constructed an alternative timeline in which the fact that Sherrod got some money in the Pigford settlement lead to her being fired. For those who don't know, Pigford was a class action suit against the USDA, which alleged that Civil Rights discrimination complaints went ignored. This was because they went ignored; Reagan had shut down the branch of the USDA that would have responded to them. Sherrod got part of this settlement. For a longer look at this subject, see here.

Days after being embarrassed by the appearance of the full video, Brietbart hit upon this as a new way to justify his attacks. And he's been hammering her all year, culminating in his appearance at CPAC over the weekend. Apparently Sherrod has had enough, because she has opened a lawsuit against him for disparaging her character.

Fortunately Brietbart has allies like Ben Shapiro, who uses his latest article to defend Brietbart. Let's check it out.

Sherrod, you may remember, was a ranking Department of Agriculture official in Georgia. Breitbart released a video of Sherrod speaking to the NAACP, where she told a story about discriminating against a white farmer before realizing that such discrimination was wrong.

OK this is at best a half truth. The video actually shows Sherrod considering discrimination but deciding that she was there to serve everybody. Thoughts of discrimination aren't actually the same as discrimination.

The purpose of releasing the video, as Breitbart clearly stated, was to demonstrate that the same NAACP that labeled the tea party racist tolerated racism within its own ranks. The video accomplished that purpose -- members of the NAACP cheer and laugh as Sherrod describes her past racism in the video.

This is not entirely true either. They cheer her speech, but not specifically that she didn't help a white person. Shapiro is either lying or deceived. Or possibly stupid.

No matter what you think of the original Sherrod incident, Breitbart's commentary falls squarely within the protections of the First Amendment.

No it doesn't; lying to defame someone isn't allowed even against famous people. Now it's hard to prove, but if you are frankly lying, there's probably a case. And Brietbart's edited video is deceptive at best.

Shapiro paints this as a poor Internet journalist who is unfairly sued by Sherrod and the sinister forces backing her for telling the truth (despite the fact that, well, he didn't exactly tell the truth. Some of his readers are even more forthright, with a spirited defense of taking things out of context.

Yeah, man...it's OK for the left to take things out of context, but not for the right...yeah...keep flappin' yer yap...you folks are far more guilty of perpetrating that BS...daily...

Sherrod is a walking example of reparations. A worthless hack feeding off the public. She and thousands of other public employees who think they warrant special consideration and are belligerent towards those generous taxpayers who fund their payroll and benefits.
Obviously Sherrod the toad is the quintessential example of Black O's diet efforts.
I am past the point of caring about these worthless pond scum government employees.

Sherrod is a pawn? She sounds more like a black queen. She is clearly one of the biggest race-hustlers afoot. Her personal wealth is built on it. She sounds like she could rival Jackson, Wright & Sharpton in ill-gotten gains.

Why she is now or ever has been on the federal payroll is testament to the racist panderings of the federal government. Time to end it. Good luck, Andrew!

It's hard to know what to say about Race in this matter; it's at the heart of it. Pigford was a lawsuit about racial injustice and Brietbart, essentially, edited the video to accuse Sherrod of racism. This is basically where Limbaugh Conservatives come down on the issue; there is no relevant white on black racism, and black on white racism is endemic. Blacks accuse whites or racism because they are racist and/or hucksters trying to get a buck. That's the template. That's the way Limbaugh Republicans look at the world.

Seasteading

John Stossel's latest article is about Seasteading, which is the theory that wealthy libertarians can create their own countries at sea.

Friedman is convinced that only competition can produce the way to extricate us from the mess the politicians have created. "Seasteaders believe that government shouldn't be like the cell phone carrier industry, with few choices and high customer lock-in. Instead, we envision a vibrant startup sector for government, with many small groups experimenting with innovative ideas as they compete to serve their citizens. ... The world needs a place where those who wish to experiment with building new societies can go to test out their ideas. All land is already claimed -- which makes the oceans humanity's next frontier."

Kind of silly. First of all such seasteading societies will self select for sympathetic souls (say that 5 times fast). In other words; no bums. Even the working class who can afford to go to a seasteading community will be motivated to see it work. Secondly, these communities will be small as well as homogeneous. It's unlikely that the sorts of solutions that will work in these small communities will also work on a nation the size of the United States.

There's not a lot in the comments for something this intellectual; many do seem to believe that some form of this idea is a good one.

Why not invade a small county the same way Mexico is invading us.... just move there. Costa Rica is an inviting place. Move there and become the voting majority. Let the looters have this place. They will destroy it soon enough and maybe there will be an opportunity to return.

I wonder if I count as a looter? Probably not; mostly likely he means Hispanic immigrants.

Pat Buchannan Praises Bigotry

Or it sure reads that way, in his latest article.

"It is a matter of culture," said Sarrazin, and "Islam is the culture." This is why Muslim immigrants are "socially, culturally and intellectually inferior to most everyone else." Yet Sarrazin did use the phrase a "genetic minus" to describe migrants from the Middle East.

Were these the ravings of a neo-fascist intellectual and closet admirer of the late Fuhrer? Not at all. Sarrazin was a proud member of the Social Democratic Party of Willy Brandt and a board member of the Bundesbank.

With Merkel and the German establishment howling for his head, Thilo resigned, unrepentant. Two-thirds of Germans said he had a right to speak his mind, a third said they agreed with him, and "Germany Abolishes Itself" has sold over a million copies.

A genetic minus. Socially, culturally and intellectually inferior. Yeah that doesn't sound good. But better than having darkies running things, apparently.

This is what James Burnham meant when he wrote that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

Yeah, Buchannan is a bit of a bigot.

Let's see what his readers say.

It's called ethnic cleansing. If Germany feels German culture is being killed; they need to identify those killing it (who will mostly be those minorities mentioned in the article) and deport them. If they fight deportation then Germany should resurrect that bad-axed Army it used to have and deport their souls.

France and Britain should do the same thing. But again, the west as villified ethnic cleansing and therefore will not use it. And because of that, in a few decades nobody will even know what a real German or Frenchman is.

HOMOCIDE LIBERALS, POLITICAL TRAITORS, AND WALL STREET CROOKS VERSUS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Liberals are naturally angst-ridden and suicidal.

. . . Look at all the laws we have against the destruction of the United States, and NONE OF THEM ARE ENFORCED! How can we survive when these TRAITORS are allowed to get away with this? ARE THESE RATS TOO BIG TO JAIL?!

Christ was an exclusionist.. not inclusionist. He avoided members of certain groups prevalent in the middle east during His time. Now.. what did He know that if questioned on this fact elicited a response from Him.. 'there are things for man to know and things for God to know". Such an answer might.. just might.. cause a reasonable person to conclude that since Lucifer was and presumably remains nearly as powerful as God.. then this beast could create duplicate beings, soulless while also human in appearance only, that God then took the wise time to separate from His true creation. Who or what comprises this diverse group of ungodly and religio-deviant 'believer-duplicates'?

What a sewer. And in case you missed that last guys point; Muslims aren't actually human. They were created by the devil without souls to be pure evil.

Oxymoronic

Star Parker's latest article argues that you cannot be Gay and Conservative.

The only dividing line I saw was between right and wrong, good and evil.

The idea of “gay conservative” is an oxymoron.

“Gay” is everything that “conservative” is not.

The foundation of the world view that so-called “gay conservatives” embrace has far more in common with liberalism than with conservatism.

This in reaction to the Conservative Poltical Action Conference, which just wrapped up. Apparently they invited a Gay Conservative Group and so Star Parker refused to participate. So there you have it - no such thing as a Gay Conservative. At least according to Star Parker.

Townhall Commentators run the gamut; from libertarians who are upset at Parker for kicking at Gays to more moderates saying that this shouldn't be an issue in the face of Obama. And of course there are some other views.

The word "faggot" is censored on TownHall. The "PC" liberals rule even this forum.

They should start a new party called the gayanddruggie party. People might actually think it is a party.

We don't want your fu_cking tolerance.

Tolerance is back of the bus; tolerance is being excluded. Tolerance is second citizen position.

The word is equality. It means just as good as you. We will accept that, even though we know we are better than you, socially, morally and intellectually.

Touching. The defense of intolerance is always interesting because it makes so little sense. The basic problem seems to be that while they don't need to be tolerent of gays, gays are hypocrites because they are intolerent of their intolerence. It's almost like "Look I hate them, but they hate me for hating them, so they are worse." Huh?

The Tea-Partiers will save us all

Or such seems to be the theme of Limbaugh's latest article. Essentially there is a bit of interparty squabbling over the GOP claiming they were going to cut $100 billion from the budget and then making net cuts of only $35 billion. Some of the new Tea Party legislators are not happy about this and are raising hell.

This is a welcome turn of events. Infighting over greater cuts can only be regarded as positive and a reflection of the influence of the tea party and the conservative congressmen it helped elect.

This episode, which is far from over, illustrates that all congressmen are subject to strict vigilance.

Well we can only hope so. I think that once we start talking about cuts to specific programs, some of the nastiness that animates the Tea Party candidates will also be revealed.

Kind of like this poster.

News Flash to Libs: You are the only one's who care about the Bush years. We are Christian Conservatives who believe in the original intent of the Constitution to limit the powers of the Federal Government. Not the same old corrupt politicans and judiciary. Do you even have the slightest clue as to the intent of Islam and Sharia, the Chinese and our economy, the Communist organizations like Lulac, LaRaza and our Southern border in Chaos. We are broke and that makes us weak. Obama and company have us in the throngs of a Third World Country by printing Tillions of Dollars to prop up Unions and Wall Street. Very soon you are really going to have something to complain about and nowhere to get it. Islam doe not like Liberals. They are viewed as weak, corrupt and godless. They don't like Bush the Clintons, Carter, Regan or Obama. The same goes for the Chinese as they insulted Obama to the delight of their fellow countrymen. More ego than brains.

Wheter you like me or not the real enemy may soon be at your doorstep but hunger will be there first. Then you will surely know that Jesus Christ is Lord. Our time is temporary. How you spend it is your choice.

We will have to see how this all shakes out.

Interesting History

Larry Elder's latest article is about Ronald Reagan's record on race. Essentially, Reagan was great for black people. I particularly like the bit where Elder, a black man, talks about the Southern Strategy.

Then came the modern civil rights movement, followed by the civil rights acts of the '60s. Southern whites knew their world had forever changed. Racism -- legally, politically and morally -- was in full retreat. With segregation as a dying issue, Southerners turned their attention to other matter: low taxes, smaller government and support for the Vietnam War and a strong national defense. The Republican Party fit their political views and cultural values more than did the Democratic Party. How could the GOP serve as a refuge for bigots when the party's House and Senate members voted for the civil rights acts, by percentage, more than did their Democratic counterparts?

Just sad. I know that Republicans have to pretend; even at thte time they pretended that what was clearly happening wasn't happening. But come on. Southern Conservatives were in the Democratic party and fought civil rights as long as they could. Once it became clear that the Democratic Party wasn't going to continue supporting segregation, they migrated to the Republican party, which, under Nixon, made it clear that they would be welcome, and that they shared many of the same concerns. Rather than attacking black people, Republicans would attack poor people, and trust southern Conservatives to pick up on the cues. Which they did.

But let's look at some Townhall Comments.

The constant hammering on race - race - race has polarized the country when simple common sense should be uniting it. Why this polarization? For one simple reason: to speed up the demise of our once proud, strong, solvent nation and the conversion of it into a disgusting Shariah Ruled province of the World Caliphate or just another third rate socialist banana republic.

Let's get serious about the charge of 'racism.' It only applies if uttered against Whites. It is, therefore, an anti-White credo. People who chant it publicly are, at bottom, jealous of the achievements of the White race, who, afterall, built this civilization, maintain it, and move it forward... even in the arena of civil rights.

So that's pretty clear isn't it? White people are just sort of better and the rest of us should get out of their way?

Heartwarming Article from David Limbaugh

The article is entitled Potential GOP Fissures and it's about areas where the GOP might split. Specifically he references split between politicians and the tea party, social conservatives and libertarians, and Bill Kristol and Glenn Beck. He doesn't use names for that last one, but it's pretty clear who he is talking about.

Finally, there is conflict between strict neoconservatives and other conservatives over foreign policy, which has bubbled up over some neocons accusing other conservatives, skeptical about the allegedly democratic movement in Egypt, of hysteria and conspiracy mania. These conservatives have returned fire, charging that the neocons are so ideologically wedded to the idea of democratic movements and nation building that they're naive about the real possibility that the protest movement in Egypt is not in fact "democratic" and could produce a government hostile to America and Israel.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that refers to the split between Glenn Beck's paranoid fantasies and Bill Kristols somewhat more realistic if wrongheaded worldview.

Limbaugh's larger point is that Conservatives need to stay together. An important sub-theme is how unpopular Obama and his policies should be. It's interesting how those ideas somewhat conflict; why is it so desperately important to hang together if Obama's policies are so terribly unpopular?

But let's see what Limbaugh's reader's think.

The left hates freedom. Hates God. Hates America. Hates the founders. Hates family.
We have no more time for the left.

We have no more time for OBAMA.

Short of Osama bin Ladin taking over the White House, I cannot think of anything worse that could happen to us that 4 more years of this Muslim Marxist.

Limbaugh's article is a plea for Conservatives to remember the real enemy; it seems like his readers agree. That said, ther are digs at both Sarah Palin (for being unelectable) and Mitt Romney (for being kind of a sellout). That leaves Huckabee, but even his supporter seems to acknowledge that the party leadership hasn't warmed to him.

Doug Giles on Egypt

Well Liberals are girly and niave. But that goes without saying in a Doug Giles article. Apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood is bad news and Giles says that tehy are going to take over in Egypt if we don't support the current dictator.

I’m sure many who are stuck in Egypt want true freedom. And when I say freedom, I mean from all forms of oppression, including the worst form of subjugation: Sharia law. However, I fear those who really want freedom from Mubarak’s dictatorship are going to quickly become slaves of Sharia, via the Muslim Brotherhood, whether they like it or not. Call me judgmental, but I smell Sharia all over this thing, and I believe life is really going to begin to suck for secular Egyptians, Israel, America and the rest of the world that wants nothing to do with Islamic enslavement.

What's interesting is his potshots aside, I have seen many mainstream and liberal commentators expressing concern about the Muslim Brotherhood gaining influence in a new Government. I've also seen that they have a slightly different take on how influential the Muslim Brotherhood actually is in these protests (and I'll guess that Giles has read the same story since while he insinuates they are running these rebellions, he doesn't come out and say it).

I've been on a kick reading townhall comments, and these are certainly murderous towards Muslims. But I am looking for murderous towards domestic political enemies. Helpfully there are a few.

C'mon, the Left ardently embraced Soviet Russia, Stalin and the spread of Marxism (vs. USA and capitalism) for decades--and still do. . . . Now they have radical Islam to embrace. Love the MB and Abudinijad but hate Sarah Palin.

Some of these require explanation, this doesn't.

You are a typical leftist who would happily see America destroyed

of course any terrorist group that hates America is something admired by idiots like you

. . . I continue to wonder why haters of Amerioca like you continue to live here

And what has this country ever done to you that causes people of your ilk to cause you to hate this country.

You are truly a pathetic pos who would ghappily help any group ion their efforts to attack America

This is in regards to someone who apparently questioned Giles wisdom. I guess I'm atypical leftist because I don't want to see America destroyed. And I have never done anything in a ghappily manner.

OOOW ! OOOW ! DA BLACK EYED PEEES ! DAT BE ENTA TAIN MINT

This is in the comments for this article, but appears to be a reaction to the Superbowl Halftime Show. Still, I do feel like I'm on safe ground commenting that some conservatoids are racist.