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.

Mona Charen and Jimmy Carter Disagree on the Israeli/Palestine Conflict

This apparently means that Jimmy Carter is a liar, but, helpfully, he shouldn't be sued. Her latest article covers the news that Carter amd his publisher is being sued by six people in New York for "deceptive acts in the conduct of business, trade, or commerce." She seems to think that Carter deserves this, but that they shouldn't do it.

There's more. Carter's distaste not just for Israel but also for Jews is reflected in some of his anecdotes, as is his inexplicable attraction to autocrats and thugs in positions of power.

But a lawsuit is not the way to deal with this. The First Amendment trumps all. The courts cannot police books for accuracy -- not in America.

She gives a long list of "lies," most of which are disputed. But, I guess if you are writing an article, you get to declare your side the winner, and the opposing side liars.

Still I have to give Charen credit for deciding to simply disagree with Carter and call him a liar. Some of her readers go a bit further.

Generally taritors and acts of sedition meet a rope and a railroad trestle. SoSic semper tyrannis.And Carter.

So things could be worse.

Lizards or Monkeys?

Michael Barone's latest article is about Obamacare and how Liberals and Conservatives approach issues. First this great metaphor.

To me, the conservative always has appeared to be some form of mammal. The liberal is reptilian. I could be wrong.

I am shedding my skin as it turns out. But I'm not actually a reptile. And I am not sure dehumanizing language like that is all that beneficial, particularly with V back in the public eye. One of Barone's leaders has his own definition of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Conservative: "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins."
Liberal: "Do as I say, the way I say it, or I'll kill you."

I must say he's got me pegged. I'm always going around threatening to kill people for failing to do things the right way. It's so effective.

Turning back to Barone, his main point is to contrast Obama, who forced Healthcare reform down our collective throats and Reagen, who didn't force his views on abortion on the nation. Except that the only real difference is capability. Obama had the votes, and Reagan didn't. It's as simple as that. If Reagan had been able to outlaw Abortion, as he wished to, he would have.

Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

Conquer the World

Michael Medved's latest article is about Egypt, naturally. He feels that the troubles in Egypt prove that we should't bother with financial aid or treaties.

Nevertheless, the current turmoil demonstrates that the benefits of big aid budgets and much-heralded international treaties may prove ephemeral and limited. Those who believe that permanent or even long-term benefits can result from bribes or negotiations with shady, authoritarian regimes will repeat the same miscalculations that have too frequently warped American policy in the past.

Long term, by the way, means longer than 30 years. He acknowledges that the peace accord between Egypt and Isreal has lasted 30 years, and agrees that this is probably a good thing. But since it may end with the new government, that proves that treaties are worthless and financial aid to foreign countries is a waste of money.

There are a number of possible responses to this. Scriptoral, for example.

2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is bvanity.

3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

Ecclesiastes 1:2-3. What profit indeed? Why do anything? For surely we will all die someday. If Egypt can't stay completely loyal and subservient to our will forever, we may as well treat them as the enemy that they are.

I don't think Medved actually thinks that; rather I think he sees our relationship Egypt as largely successful. He just can't say so because it is Carter's legacy and because Conservatoids generally don't believe in diplomacy of any sort.

But let's see what his readers think.

5.) Revolutions always start with the overthrow of a monarchy, progress to masonic republics and end in dictatorship. America just has't made it to the final stage yet. Eventually, the growing third worldunderclass will emplace a Chavez like figure here as well.
5.) 90 MILLION muslims in Europe by the end of the century. UNACCEPTABLE. There will be a major civil war in Europe within a few decades. We cannot, as Christians or Jews, coexist them islam.

coexist them islam. That's another great name for a band or surrealist manifesto. Very edgy. Still kind of depressing, isn't it? I guess we would be a lot better off if we hadn't overthrown our King.

lesson #1. islam has been at war with the world since the 7th century. it has been at war with the united states since its inception, in the 18th century. the only ways to end a war with islam is submit, which means slavery, or to win it, and the only way to win it is to kill every one of them.
lesson #2. do not bargain with, treaty with, fight for, pander to, bribe, or bow to islamists. it just encourages them to wage their war against us.
lesson #3. do not allow even one muslim to infiltrate your own country, and send home any that already have. they bring their war with them. see #1.

let me know when the fools in our government, or the liberals that control the media, have learned any of these lessons. religion of peace. tell that to the hundreds of millions of infidels who have been murdered or enslaved by peaceful muslims.

I don't think this counts as hateful murderous rhetoric because it's directed at Muslims. I mean I admit it sounds hateful. It sounds murderous. It even sounds genocidal. You know I can't continue this pretending; this is hateful, murderous, and genocidal. But par for the course when you read Townhall Comments dealing with Islam.