Stupid Enough Unexplanation

Back to the Front

2011-08-08T12:01:00.002-04:00

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

2011-07-26T10:56:00.002-04:00

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

2011-07-25T13:22:00.002-04:00

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

2011-07-11T08:58:00.004-04:00

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

2011-07-07T12:10:00.002-04:00

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

2011-06-24T08:42:00.002-04:00

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

2011-06-23T09:03:00.004-04:00

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

2011-06-21T09:07:00.003-04:00

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

2011-06-13T09:51:00.004-04:00

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

2011-06-06T11:31:00.004-04:00

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

2011-05-31T09:13:00.004-04:00

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

2011-05-18T12:01:00.002-04:00

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

2011-05-16T11:26:00.003-04:00

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

2011-05-13T12:41:00.003-04:00

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

2011-05-11T14:59:00.000-04:00

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

2011-05-10T08:51:00.002-04:00

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

2011-04-22T10:54:00.002-04:00

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!!!!

2011-04-21T08:56:00.002-04:00

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?

2011-04-05T08:48:00.004-04:00

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

2011-04-04T09:20:00.006-04:00

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

2011-03-30T09:07:00.002-04:00

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!

2011-03-21T11:07:00.003-04:00

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"

2011-03-16T09:07:00.002-04:00

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

2011-03-15T08:31:00.003-04:00

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

2011-03-14T10:09:00.002-04:00

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

2011-03-09T08:30:00.003-05:00

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

2011-03-07T11:30:00.003-05:00

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

2011-02-24T08:47:00.002-05:00

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

2011-02-23T08:43:00.002-05:00

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

2011-02-22T08:41:00.004-05:00

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

2011-02-21T11:23:00.003-05:00

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

2011-02-18T08:30:00.003-05:00

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

2011-02-17T08:43:00.003-05:00

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

2011-02-16T14:48:00.003-05:00

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

2011-02-16T08:36:00.002-05:00

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

2011-02-15T08:35:00.002-05:00

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

2011-02-14T10:28:00.002-05:00

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

2011-02-11T09:29:00.002-05:00

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

2011-02-10T08:46:00.002-05:00

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

2011-02-08T08:33:00.003-05:00

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

2011-02-07T10:35:00.002-05:00

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

2011-02-04T08:42:00.002-05:00

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?

2011-02-03T10:32:00.003-05:00

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

2011-02-02T09:32:00.002-05:00

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.

Liberals vs Conservatives

2011-01-25T08:49:00.002-05:00

It turns out that Conservatives are just better people than Liberals. They are more patriotic, they care about the Constitution, they don't think it's ok to lie about Conservatives, they aren't misogynist, and they are just happier. This according to John Hawkin's latest article.

That's because, as Charles Krauthammer once said, To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

If you think your opponents are evil, you tend to be okay with using tactics that you would describe as "evil" under other circumstances to fight them. If you're up people you compare to Nazis, it’s easy to tell yourself that lying to beat them isn’t so bad. If you're in a dispute with people who you believe are just too stupid to understand what's going on, you feel compelled to try to explain yourself a little better.

Moderately amusing for Hawkins to advance this argument in the middle of an article in which he is argueing that Liberals are, more or less, evil.

The conservative view produces love of country. The other view produces a deep seated dislike of our nation.

. . . Christianity and liberalism have become largely incompatible.

Touching. Hawkins isn't a particularly deep thinker, but even this should stand out to him.

And now let's look at what his readers have to say. I should note that I have decided to go back to looking at Townhall comments after an article from two weeks ago.

If Liberals didn't have hatred to rule and control their lives, they would have nothing to live for.

. . . They are the epitome of Arrogance, Stupidity, and Hypocrisy.. so why should anyone expect anything other than that, from them.. And they are without a doubt, the most vile, repulsive, and despicable, sad and pathetic human beings in American Society, ever..!!!

. . . Conservatives believe in good personal hygiene while liberals are no lovers of soap and water.

Boy we liberals are bastards aren't we? It's almost like we deserve to be hated. But of course Conservatives don't hate us, they just think we are stupid. And apparently smelly.

Render unto Ceaser

2011-01-24T09:06:00.004-05:00

Doug Giles latest article is pretty short. I don't know if it got cut in half by Townhall, but it doesn't look like it. The point is simple enough - early Christians rebelled against the Roman State. This is because they had Faith in God, while all of the other subjects of the Roman Empire had Faith in the State.

The early church, however, made it clear amidst this crapola that their allegiance was to Christ and not the edicts of Caesar — especially when Caesar’s dictates conflicted with the Word of God. Yep, it was the church’s disdain for Caesar’s unrighteous decrees (the decrees that required their obedience at the expense of their convictions) that got them killed.

Get it right, folks: It wasn’t the church’s belief that Jesus is God, or their love of covered dish dinners, or their Christian rock music that got them the ax; it was their holy defiance to the demonic edicts that Caesar attempted to slap them with.

Now he doesn't make clear which edicts he is talking about; nor does he make it clear which Ceaser he is talking about. Possibly he doesn't know or didn't consider it relevant. But it is an interesting reconstruction of that part of history. Rather than being innocent victims, peaceably trying to live the dictates of their new religion, Giles recasts them as rebels, defiantly standing up to the state. Kind of like the tea-partiers I guess.

Let's look at a reader comment from Tea Partier.

I contend we are in the immoral situation with a foreign psuedo POTUS, who is a Communist and a muslim in his heart because the American Church has allowed itself to become intimidated by the IRS.

. . . We need a resugence of the Black Brigade to speak the truth to power regardless of the IRS. If the modern church stopped bowing and scraping to the taxman they would be in stronger positions to challenge the ungodly turn this Republic is taking. And could by their stand, help restore us to our judeo/christian roots.

I'm not sure what the term Black Brigade is intended to refer to. There were Black Brigades in Mussolini's Italy, charged with fighting the Allies as well as Italians who were insufficiently exuberant in supporting Mussolini. There was a Black Brigade made up of African Americans that defended the city of Cincinnati in the Civil War. There was a movie, entitled the Black Brigade, about a bunch of all black troops blowing up a dam in Nazi Germany. So I guess I'm not sure which one Tea Partier is referring to.

Still, he does seem to want a brigade of some sort to stand up to Obama.

Crazy vs politically motivated

2011-01-14T08:30:00.005-05:00

At this point it seems pretty clear that Loughner was simply crazy, not motivated by partisan politics. And, nearly a week after the shooting, the right is just getting warmed up in their lectures to liberals about thinking that they are violent. Case in point, Michelle's latest article, in which she brings up a bunch of incidents in which liberals assumed right wing nefariousness which turned out to be simply crazy people. She brings up things like the windows smashed that turned out to have been a left winger who did it or the census worker with Fed written on him who turned out to have been a suicide.

Actually let's stop there. Census worker found in the cemetary, with the word "Fed" on his chest, and Michelle Malkin chastises us for not thinking that was somehow related to an anti-Government feeling?

She does kind of shoot herself in the foot by bringing up this one, though.

In April 2009, a disgruntled, unemployed loser shot and killed three Pittsburgh police officers in a horrifying bloodbath. The gunman, Richard Poplawski, was a dropout from the Marines who threw a food tray at a drill sergeant and had beaten his girlfriend. Was this deranged shooter who pulled the trigger to blame? Nope. Despite evidence that Poplawski's homicidal, racist tendencies manifested themselves years before Obama took office, lefty publications asserted that the real culprit of the spree was the "heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of the anti-Obama forces" (according to mainstream liberal Atlantic Monthly pundit Andrew Sullivan), along with Fox News and Glenn Beck (according to mainstream liberal journalist Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly online).

No see that guy actually was a right winger who was obsessed with the Government taking away his guns (and in lieu of what he did with them, perhaps he should have had his Guns taken away from him). But I will concede he was crazy (and I'll be returning to this).

But of course that's Malkin's only mistep. She doesn't bring up the other times that violence or threatened violence was directly related back to the right wing. Such as Byron Williams, Beck devotee, who planned to assassinate leaders of both the Tides Foundation and the ACLU (but was stopped thank goodness). Or the assassination of George Tiller while he was at church. Or the various bricks through the windows that weren't thrown by liberal transvestites. Or the brother of a congressman who had his gas line cut (this was an honest mistake; a tea party activist got the wrong address).

But let's go back to crazy Richard Poplowski. Of course he's crazy. And anybody who takes gun in hand to attack imaginary enemies is crazy. I mean, you'd have to be crazy to act that way. That does sort of let our buddies on the right permenantly off the hook, though. As much as they point a world in which evil liberals work to destroy America, only a crazy person would act on that world view.

No Signficant Segment

2011-01-13T08:48:00.002-05:00

From Michael Barone's latest article.

No American politician, no significant segment of any political movement, no statistically identifiable share of the American people wishes the violent death of its political opponents.

Let's check out some comments from Townhall Readers over the years.

Honestly, stop calling this fool "brilliant" and an inspiring speaker - he is neither. We are on the cusp of either a revolution or a complete downfall in this nation. Pick your side.

Homosexuality is a deviant.pathetic desease that should be wiped off the face of the earth. They are infesting our schools,sexually abusing our children,fornicating like sick animals in our public areas and are actively trying to destroy the very fabric of civilization.

Once the fighting starts, everyone will start picking sides; and the fighting will continue.

If all of this sounds familiar, you are correct. It happened in 1775. I am afraid it is about to happen again.

I truly believe that modern liberalism is so dark and deranged that it is unworthy of debate. To debate that form of evil, only gives it credibility.

I view the democratic party as those who would destroy our nation for the sake of power over others' hopes and dreams. They must be destroyed at all costs! This IS a fight to the death....Let's Roll!!!

Well, I think the editors...

... of the New York Treason should be drawn, quartered, hanged, then shot, their carcasses burned, and the ashes scattered to the wind, with their heads stuck on pikes until the crows devour all the flesh.

Stand 'em against a wall and shoot them. It wouldn't take but a couple 'til the rest of these petulent swine started catching on. Perhaps Mssr. Keller should be deported to Iraq and set out on a street corner in the Sunni triangle. Then he could BECOME news as we watched some of his good buddies saw his head off while screaming "Allah AKBAHR!" (in response to New York Times reporting)

One of the convienences of public shootings is that anybody who engages in them must be a nutcase. That sort of exempts Conservatives from their hateful speech. v

A Time for Christianity

2011-01-12T11:55:00.003-05:00

This is hard to believe. Erick Erickson has written that the conversation around this tragedy is focusing on the wrong aspects.

Through it all though, well meaning people on both sides of the ideological and partisan divide are not talking about the one thing that should be talked about — a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Yep. He also points out that Loughner was both of the left and a loon. But the key point is that if you don't pray you might end up insane like Loughner.

I'm not opposed to people turning to faith in times like these; it's a natural response. Nor do I think such responses need to be private. But, and this is a big but, this is far beyond that. And just plain out nasty. Not the least of which because Rep Giffords is jewish.

Got this from Media Matters.

How dare you politicize Loughner's actions! And anyway he was a Liberal!

2011-01-12T09:20:00.003-05:00

Yeah some of the less bright members of the Conservative Pundit core are going down this route, among them Terrence Jeffrey in his latest article.

Would it be fair to at least entertain the hypothesis that Loughner's disdain for religion and admiration for the writings of Marx and Hitler had some connection with his manifest disregard for morality and the sanctity of human life?

Yep. Life means nothing to us Liberals; it's amazing we aren't all out shooting Democratic Politicians.

Those Damned Liberals

2011-01-12T08:42:00.003-05:00

In his latest article, Brent Bozell takes Liberals to task for rushing to attack Conservatives in the wake of the Tuscon Shooting.

I have never witnessed such an immediate rush to tar a majority movement in my life -- without an ounce of evidence.

The star of the media's Smearing Olympics was Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat who rushed to the readily available media microphones to proclaim the shooting was the natural outgrowth of hot "anti-government" talkers, that "the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from the people in the radio business and some people in the TV business" was to blame.

Let's be honest here. I assumed when I heard about this attack that it was a right wing attack. Why would I think that? Because for decades the right wing noise machine has described Liberals and Democrats as the enemies of America, as wanting Americans to be miserable so they can get political power, as being basically evil. Limbaugh conservatives see liberals as their enemy. Or to quote Mr. Limbaugh.

We view liberals as a threat to the founding of this country. We view them as a threat to the future. We view them as a threat to the traditions and institutions that have defined this country's greatness. We view them as people who need to be defeated, not worked with.

Is it surprising that after years of such characterization, I might expect that some day somebody might act on this world view.

Here's the thing. Limbaugh and Palin and Beck and all don't feel powerless. Whatever they pretend, they know that elections come and go, and their ideas will get back in power. That's the way of it. Do their followers share the same mentality? Or is it possible that their followers, after hearing years of Conservatives explaining that the system just doesn't work and that Democratic politicians are evil, might decide that they can't wait for the system to work. That they know where evil is and they know how to deal with it.

Obviously in this case, Loughner turns out to be crazy. And, it must be acknowledged, some of the Reporting on this issue was hasty. I had a gut reaction to this news; but I'm not a reporter. Reporters should wait until they get all the facts.

Your Weekly Rush - Don't Kid Yourself

2011-01-11T08:49:00.002-05:00

Well, I wish I could say this wasn't predictable. Limbaugh is mostly concerned about Liberals blaming Conservatives for the Arizona shooting, but of course he also suggests that Loughner is probably a liberal (although crazed). But mostly he's worried about martial law.

Don't kid yourself. What this was all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it. Criminalizing policy differences, at least when they differ from the Democrat Party agenda. One of the more disturbing things about this incident is that someday the left will finally get their wish. One of these days it's going to happen. This is all setting the table for it.

Of course it wasn't that long ago that Conservatives were calling for sedition trials against Liberals for criticizing President Bush. Possibly this is a bit of projection? Limbaugh would dearly love to see Liberalism dissappear from acceptable political discourse.

Thoughts on the Recent Shooting

2011-01-10T08:28:00.003-05:00

I haven't been around for a bit, what with the holidays and all, but the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords requires a bit of commentary. I went to Salon this morning to review what they had on the issue. As it turns out they have two articles suggesting that the actions of Jarad Lee Loughner were motivated by craziness rather than politics. Laura Miller's "The real message of Loughner's book list" suggests that his books can be seen as anti-authoritarian but don't give much of a message beyond that. Steve Kornacki's "Let's not make this something it isn't" is even more direct.

At best, the connection between Palin’s behavior and Saturday’s tragedy is abstract. If anything, the shooting reinforces a point that James Fallows has made: The motives of political assassins rarely have anything to do with mainstream political debate and rhetoric. For now, at least, this seems to be the case with Loughner. This doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable to criticize Palin and others who push the envelope with their rhetoric. But when liberals use this moment to highlight every provocative statement Palin has made, it’s also not unreasonable if she says that her opponents are trying just a little too hard to make her the villain.

That seems fair. Crazy people like Loughner are unlikely to stop being crazy if we just talk more nicely about our political opponents.

Salon also has an article by Alex Pareene tracking the use of gun and violent imagery from the Right; not hard to do, unfortunately. And while this article starts out from Kornackis point, it quickly deviates right back into blaming conservatives for Loughners actions.

Whether Jared Loughner is a far-left nihilist or a right-wing racist or -- as he most likely is -- some weird politically incoherent amalgamation of extremist beliefs tinged with paranoia, he wasn't driven to murder by angry campaign slogans. Steve Kornacki's right -- Loughner was not a Gadsden Flag-wielding Tea Partier incited to violence by the Twitter messages of Sarah Palin. But he is a product of the culture, and there's a reason he chose to attack a Democratic Congresswoman. There's a reason why his paranoia was directed at an elected official, the closest representative of what he saw as in illegitimate government. The attempted assassination of a member of Congress seems depressingly like the inevitable conclusion of two years of hysterical revolutionary language suffusing every single domestic political debate.

We shouldn't blame Palin et al. for the actions of Loughner, but they did create a cultural context for such actions to make sense. Kind of a backhanded way of blaming Palin.

That said, it's nothing on Rachel Alexander over at Townhall. Her article, "The Left Hypocritically Exploits Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' Shooting," does exactly what it says on the tin. She focuses entirely on Loughner and his reading list and fairly explicitely blames liberalism for his madness.

Did the values pushed by the left of moral relativism, self-indulgence promoting acceptance of his imbibing of illicit drugs, and “tolerance” of hate-filled totalitarian books like The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf while dismissing the teachings of the Bible contribute to Loughner’s delusions? Perhaps.

Loughner is behind bars, so we may find out someday. Meanwhile, as more evidence comes out revealing Loughner has ties to the left, not the right, expect the left to suddenly blame his actions on mental illness.

Subtle. Alexander's only reference to Loughner's victim is in the title, incidentally. Presumably she figures that everybody knows the details.

Tony Blankley is either Lying or Stupid

2010-12-08T09:07:00.002-05:00

In his latest article, Tony Blankley takes Obama to task for failing to be sufficiently Conservative.

. . . low taxes are not sufficient. When they come at the same time that the White House continues to trumpet threatening class warfare sounds, I fear this dreary economy will continue to flounder.

The president needs to think very hard. If he believes the best bet for the economy (and his re-election) is a full Reaganite embrace of free markets and low taxes, then he should switch comprehensively to such policies and rhetoric. He will get GOP support and such policies will become law.

Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom of following the same policies that got us into this mess as a way of getting out of it, the lie comes when Blankley pretends that the GOP will support Obama if he does a full Reagan. The GOP will not support Obama no matter what he does, unless we are attacked, and probably not even then. Their base hates Obama in a primal way, and they cannot support Obama without offending their base. So they won't.

A Flawed Study

2010-12-07T08:57:00.003-05:00

Obviously "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" won't be repealed any time soon. Republican Senators are going to delay any action on it till next year, at which point there will be no chance in a Republican Congress. This despite a Department of Defense study that suggests that the change would cause little problems. Cal Thomas though, after reading a Washington Times Editorial, knows that the study is flawed. Who are you going to trust more, the Department of Defense or the Washington Times Editorial Board?

But not content with denigrating our military (while extoling the real homophobic military), he then moves on to this leap.

Gates and Mullen suggest that the troops can be conditioned into accepting openly gay service members. Would that include chaplains and religious soldiers for whom homosexual behavior is thought to be a sin? Will chaplains be disciplined if they counsel someone who is gay that they can change and be forgiven, just as heterosexuals who engage in sex outside of marriage can also repent and discover a new path? This proposed change in the law has more of a "fundamentalist" tone than fundamentalism. Submit, or else.

Hmmmm. This is interesting. We must continue treating Homosexuals like second class citizens in order to prevent chaplins from being persecuted for explaining their beliefs. I mean a Christian Chaplin who believes Homosexuality is wrong can't minister to homosexual troops. That's why we don't allow Jewish or Islamic or Buddhist troops; I mean a Christian Chaplin would naturally have to tear down their religions faith because there is one and only way back to God.

Wait, it just occured to me that we have had Jewish and Muslim and Buddhist troops; so I guess the military is resilient enough to accomodate different points of view without persecuting poor Christians. Maybe we can assume that Homosexual's will go through the same path.

Professionally Obtuse

2010-12-06T11:00:00.003-05:00

Right now they are debating on extending or failing to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. Republicans want to extend them for everybody, but mostly the wealthy. Democrats want to extend them for the poor and the middle class, but let them expire on the wealthy. Republicans have made it clear that they will filibuster anything and everything until they get those taxcuts for the most wealthy extended. The problem for Republicans is that many Americans might not be impressed by them fighting so very hard for the most privileged among us. So naturally we have seen a string of articles arguing their case, like this effort from David Harsanyi.

Let's all pony up. Together.

After all, it wasn't only the rich who voted for those Republicans who took a budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. And it certainly wasn't only millionaires who voted for those Democrats who took that large debt and placed it on a trajectory that will have us measuring it in the sextillions.

Anyway, if tax cuts do not generate economic activity, as most liberals contend, why limit tax hikes to the rich? Being in the middle class does not guarantee that you're a productive citizen. (I can attest to that personally.) Surely, some in the middle class can afford to pay more.

That last bit is of course obtuse. Tax Cuts for people who already have plenty of disposable income may not help out much. The wealthy are likely to simply save the money, which doesn't grow the economy. Middle Class may save some of it, but are more likely to spend it, and the working poor will definately spend it (they don't have much choice). That's why tax cuts for the rich may not have the desired effect; that of injecting money into the economy, while tax cuts for the working poor and middle class will almost certainly go right back into the economy.

Harsanyi almost certainly understands the argument; but it's better being obtuse and pretending he doesn't.

Your Weekly Rush - Pretending to be Dumb

2010-12-02T08:45:00.004-05:00

Some on the left have suggested that extending unemployment benefits might make economic sense in the current client. Rush Limbaugh disagrees and argues against them in the most idiotic fashion possible.

If "unemployment benefits help drive the economy," we need more of them and an extension here is just not nearly enough. If they help drive the economy, doesn't that say that unemployment drives the economy?

Doesn't it? I mean, you don't have unemployment benefits without unemployment. So unemployment drives the economy.

Hilarious. I hear that wings drive the planes ability to fly. So why don't we see planes with 50 wings on them?

I hear that Aspirin is good for you when you have a headache - so why not down the whole bottle?

. . . no way unemployment benefits create jobs, but this is what the Democrats are saying. (interruption) The unemployed can't hire people, exactly. They... (interruption) No. The unemployed can't hire people, otherwise they'd hire themselves and we wouldn't have any unemployment, but they don't. No, it's just... It is depressingly stupid.

On that point I totally agree. Your feigned ignorance here is depressing. What people mean is that in this specific situation, with unemployment at 10%, extended unemployment benefits gets money in the hands of people who will actually spend it, pretty much immediately. That's the point. They will buy groceries, buy gas, pay their rent, pay their electric bill, and so on. The money takes a very direct path from the government back into the economy, enabling those businesses to benefit.

If you give the money to the wealthy (through tax breaks) as Limbaugh would presumably prefer, you don't know where the money is going to go. They don't have the necessity to spend the money immediately. Some of them may well decide to use that money to hire some new people. But others will spend it on luxuries or simply save it. They have discretionary income already; giving them more, will simply give them more discretion. Unemployment benefits, on the other hand, are not discretionary. The unemployed need money and will spend money. They don't have a choice.

I suspect Limbaugh, despite his feigned stupidity, knows all this. It's just that he knows whose side he is on, and wants to see the wealthy get their money.

More on Wikileaks

2010-12-01T09:07:00.003-05:00

Obviously I don't support assassinating Julian Assange; but that's not to say I don't see some problems with what he has done. James P. Rubin over at the New Republic makes some good points.

The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public. There is no grand conspiracy, no grand hypocrisy to uncover and expose. The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans; they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, namely non-democratic ones.

Yet those on the hard left are usually the loudest critics of America imposing its own values, its own way of doing business, and its own culture on other countries. For better or worse, in many parts of the world there’s a big difference between what government officials are prepared to do publicly and what they’re prepared to say and do privately. We may wish it otherwise, but those are the realities faced by U.S. officials. The hard left, so quick to demand that America accept other countries’ political systems, now seems blind to the fact that other governments want to have the right to say one thing in public and a different thing in private. By respecting that difference, American diplomats are doing their job. Surely the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, would prefer for Arab leaders to be as honest and open and transparent as we are in our country. Until such democratic values come to the Arab world, however, we have to work with what we’ve got. U.S. diplomacy has been damaged, not destroyed; it will recover after a time. But for now, Wikileaks is making diplomacy’s task a whole lot harder.

He's not wrong. From what I can tell, a lot of the embarrasment these leaks reveal is that of our friends in the middle east.

Ruling with an Iron Fist

2010-11-30T09:15:00.002-05:00

Dustin Hawkins has called for the death of Julian Assange. He has called for the CIA to kill the Wikileaks releaser of confidential information.

Killing Julian Assange would send a message: Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him. . . . Legally, we may not be able to do a lot to Assange since he's not an American, but killing him would do more to protect our classified data than any new security system.

I wonder if there would be any consequences to our Government murdering an Australian Citizen. And let's be clear this can't be "an unexpected heart attack" for Hawkin's strategy to work. It has to be clear (if deniable) that we did this.

Also I am continually depressed at how conservatives fail to understand the founding documents. The Declaration of Independence is for all people, not just for Americans. We might not have the power to enforce it throughout the world, but the idas that Americans have rights and foreigners just don't strikes me as mean and unamerican.

Satire

2010-11-29T09:22:00.001-05:00

Conservative love to reveal their plans for America, and then, faced with blowback, pretend they were only joking or being satirical.

When the black alumna called she said she had read my recent column “If I Were President.” She wanted to know whether I was really going to abolish the African American Center. At that point, I already knew we were in for an educational conversation. These days, college graduates are not well-versed in satire. As an art form, it is swiftly becoming extinct.

Things went downhill in our conversation when this college graduate told me that she became upset with my remarks about getting rid of the African American Center after she “saw that I was white”. My seventh Great Grandfather fought in the American Revolution in order to preserve our basic God-given rights. But this college graduate seemed to suggest that the expression of basic human rights is contingent upon race. The African American Center she frequented as an undergraduate did not seem to give her the ability to reflect and remedy her own possible racism.

After hearing her tell me that she “got all amped up” in response to my satire I made a big mistake. I explained that I would get rid of all the centers if I really were running for chancellor.

Interesting. Apparently this foolish student was upset that Adams would get rid of African American centers if he was President. How silly. She doesn't understand satire. Of course Adams really would shut down the African American centers if he were Chancellor. You obviously see the satirical difference.

But then again maybe the studant was more concerned over shutting down the African American center than what title Adams felt he needed to accomplish this goal.

Obama visits a place Ahmadinejad once visited

2010-11-10T08:53:00.003-05:00

Stop the presses. President Barack Obama, during his visit to Indonesia, a predominently Muslim nation, will visit a Mosque and a University where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad previously visited. Not only that, but the somewhat crazy president of Iran said some somewhat crazy things (including bog standard attacks on Israel). And Obama is going to the same places that Ahmadinejad once walked.

I'm not sure what this proves, but it is the theme of Terrence Jeffrey's latest article. He also doesn't exactly explain what the significance of this is, leaving it to his readers to fill in the blanks. Which they are more than capable of doing.

He's (Obama is) in his element, surrounded by Muslims that are interested in the destruction of America, Israel, capitalism, freedom and anything not Muslim. The best thing ever would be to leave him there and not allow his retun.

If Nothing Happens We Win!

2010-11-09T08:57:00.003-05:00

Lot's of articles today on what will happen with the new Republican House and how Obama will deal with them. David Limbaugh's article is a pretty good example; essentially President Obama, being a super liberal egotist won't change his positions to be more moderate because he's not smart enough to to realize he should and not politically skilled enough to make the move.

Let me just comment again at how different the right looks at Obama; they see a guy who is stubbornly unwilling to abandon Far Left positions. And I see a guy who barely tried to uphold liberal positions before caving to industry and conservatives again and again. Did we get a public option in health care? No.

But let's consider what Limbaugh's article implies for Conservatives.

As long as Republicans stand strong for conservative principles -- and that's a very big if -- Obama's toast in 2012.

Well, this may be accurate. If they shut down the government, more or less, with gridlock, than the economy may still be in the toilet. In which case the voters might well take it out on President Obama. Unless of course Obama can make it clear that the gridlock over the last few years ('11 and '12) was the fault of Republicans in Congress, in which case who knows (particularly if they put up Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich).

Of course regardless of who wins in 2012, the cynical strategy of gridlock for the next two years kind of ensures that the losers are the American people.

I'm Tired of People Pretending to be Idiots

2010-11-08T09:16:00.002-05:00

From Doug Gile's latest article; about how liberals are afraid of Sarah Palin.

According to the Progressives, women cannot be “real women” if they don’t fit the Progressives’ script. Yep, if a woman doesn’t march to the Left’s horse dung definition regarding what “they” (whoever the heck “they” are) have determined constitutes a real woman, she is illegitimate.

First of all who has said that Sarah Palin isn't a real woman? You have a citation on that?

Secondly, what people have certainly said is that Sarah Palin doesn't represent the interests of women. I might well say that. I don't think Sarah Palin will represent the interests of most Americans. She's a conservative, so in my opinion the things she wants to do for this country are bad for this country and bad for the people who live in it. What is wrong with saying that? Nothing. Certainly our Conservative buddies have no problem slamming Obama for not really loving this country because he works for programs they disagree with.

Giles also slams liberals women for not looking like Portia de Rossi. Instead they all apparently look like a stereotypical butch lesbian. Giles is kind of despicable.

Your Weekly Rush - Explaining without an Explanation

2010-11-04T09:30:00.003-04:00

Limbaugh is obviously overjoyed at the electoral tsunami that hit America on Tuesday. That said he seems at a loss as to explain how O'Donnel and Angle lost. His narrative is that Conservative Candidates win; moderate candidates lose. Americans want Conservatism. So how to explain the losses of O'Donnel and Angle? It's the moderate influences in the party.

Christine O'Donnell could have won were it not for all the backbiting after her primary victory. Had the party gotten behind her, had Steele had some on-the-ground money for Nevada, who knows how that mighta turned out. We didn't have any money on the ground in Nevada. There was no way we're gonna combat the unions getting behind and the gaming industry getting behind Dingy Harry and who knows what the hell happened to ballot boxes in places, but there was no ground game money in Nevada and very little in Delaware, what the hell was gonna happen?

He strongly insinuates that Reid fixed the run in Nevada, but in both cases the answer is the same; rather than admit that these were weak candidates, he blames the party and party centrists (like Karl Rove?!?) for failing to support these strong Conservative woman.

Of course he goes on to point out how many awful liberals there are that get elected year after year, taking a shot at the late Ted Kennedy in the process. Real class.

New Quote

2010-11-03T11:33:00.003-04:00

I was going to do this quote, also from Monty Python.

We would like to apologize for the way in which politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed, political time-servers who are more concerned with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government. Nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent. Nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby, ulcerous, little self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive. We are sorry if this impression has come across.

Too long, but it does more accurately display my attitude.

This will be a Productive Two Years

2010-11-03T09:23:00.002-04:00

From Michelle Malkin's latest article.

No more compromising deals behind closed doors. No more compromising bailouts in times of manufactured crisis. No more compromising conservative principles for D.C. party elites. No more compromising the American economy for left-wing special interests. No more compromising transparency and ethics for bureaucratic self-preservation.

Let us be clear, in case it hasn't fully sunk into the minds of Obama and the trash-talking Democrats yet: You can take your faux olive branch and shove it. Thank you.

Republicans like to explain that they are the grown ups, but this doesn't sound very grown up does it? But it does follow on from conservative philosophy. There's no real need for conservatives to work liberals to make government work, because conservatives don't believe government can work. If Government can't work anyway, why bother getting up in arms to make it work?

No New Tale to Tell

2010-11-01T10:49:00.004-04:00

Sorry - I was on the road then I was sick, then I didn't care for a few days. But now I'm ready to pounce on the latest Doug Giles article.

Yes, the masturbatory Progressives who deny the existence of God are the self-appointed gods of the post America milieu, and their Church of the New Groove is a DC on ‘roids.

I think his point is that Liberals and Leftists are their own religion (not, as it turns out, an original idea), and that we deny the existence of God and like to masterbate?

Giles' main theme is that we liberals are tyranically silencing conservatives, but since they have God on their side, they don't have to be quiet. It's always nice to assert that people who aren't taking any risk by speaking up are in fact taking huge risks. Makes their lives seem more dramatic. Kind of like when you are a kid running around playing "cops and robbers." Of course you pretend you are in great danger from the finger and/or plastic guns you have. Makes the game more exciting ("Cops and robbers" is way more popular than "run around and point at each other"). Giles is just updating that little thrill of pretend danger for the modern age.

Don't Worry about the Government

2010-10-27T10:11:00.002-04:00

Michael Medved's latest article argues that Character doesn't matter all that much.

These various scandals, embarrassments and imperfections may count as lurid and compelling, but they shouldn't play a major role in swaying voters in the upcoming elections. All the candidates mentioned above have won their party nominations in campaigns for the House and Senate. When the electorate decides their fate in November, the only significant factor involves choosing a direction for Congress and the country.

Interesting. Is this a tacit admission that the Tea Party forced some weak candidates on the Republican party?

Let's Do Some Journalism

2010-10-07T08:27:00.002-04:00

James O'Keefe, who pretended to be a pimp and a journalist, has had his latest scheme fail pretty spectacularly. Actually apparently he only pretended to pretend to be a pimp. Anyway his latest scheme . . . well wasn't that well thought out.

According to MediaMatters.org, Fox News has scarcely mentioned how CNN's Boudreau, cautioned by an O'Keefe aide with a guilty conscience, frustrated his bizarre scheme to lure her aboard a boat tricked out like Hugh Hefner's boudoir for the purpose of sexual humiliation.

"For months," Boudreau explained in recent broadcast, "I had been working on a documentary about the young conservative movement. James had called me about concerns he had regarding an upcoming shoot. He asked me to meet him to talk about the shoot ... When I showed up, there was no office, as promised. Instead, he wanted to get me on a boat, which we later learned, was staged as a 'pleasure palace.' One of his colleagues ... told me he had 'strawberries and champagne' waiting for me on the boat, and that he planned to 'hit on me' the entire time. She said it would all be captured on hidden cameras that had been set up on the boat and in the back yard. She said the sole purpose of the 'punk' was to embarrass me, and to make CNN look bad."

Too bad such a brilliant piece of journalism didn't quite come off. Or, more accurately, this guy's star is falling like a meteor.

Your Weekly Rush: Does Rush Even believe this?

2010-10-06T10:10:00.003-04:00

Barney Frank recently noted that Rush Limbaugh had made homophobic attacks on him. Rush responded, apparently confused and hurt.

I'm trying to figure out what homophobic attack did we launch on him? We've never launched a homophobic attack on anybody. I never launched a "homophobic attack" on anybody!

Limbaugh went on to play Banking Queen, a parody song featuring Frank as the titular Banking Queen and the Barny Frank update theme, something called "My Boy Lollipop." All the while acting like he's amazed that anybody would suspect him of homophobic attacks.

No No No No

2010-10-05T08:53:00.003-04:00

David Limbaugh's latest article drives me nuts.

I realize it's unfair and, according to some, even racist to hold President Obama accountable for his failed economic policies and cynical campaign promises,

No! Who exactly says it's racist to hold Obama accountable? Nobody. But some conservatives in holding Obama accountable have used racist and nasty phrases.

The thinking clearly is that not only did America not have a right to respond aggressively to the unprovoked terrorist attacks on our soil but also doing so has been counterproductive and that reversing the Bush policies would strengthen our position and make us safer.

No! Of course America has the right to respond to terrorists act. The Afghanistan War was suppoted by vast majorities of Congressional democrats. Invading Iraq, on the other hand, is a different matter.

I suppose the left's logic is that though Muslims are very peaceful, you'd better not provoke them or they'll turn into jihadists, which is what gave rise to 9/11.

No! And lord almighty what a stupid thing to say. First of all Liberals don't see Muslims as monolithic group the way dumbass conservatives seem to. Some Muslims are terrorists (a vanishingly small, but very dangerous percentage of Muslims as a whole). A somewhat larger group might be influenced to join them by our invasion of their countries.

Saner minds understand that jihadists are not jihadists because of America's tough interrogation techniques or because we didn't Mirandize them on the battlefield.

No! By saner minds, presumably Limbaugh means his own. I have my doubts. It's very simple. Jihadists won't be swayed to like the United States by anything we can do. But not all Muslims are Jihadists (or even all that many). There are larger groups, people that might join them, and people that might tacitly support them. If we torture and if we kill wantonly, and if we show a lack of respect for their people and their religion, than the arguments of Islamic Radicals make more sense.

Transparency

2010-09-30T09:53:00.002-04:00

Emmett Tyrell's latest article is particularly transparent. He is writing about Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnels opponent in her race. Tyrrel's point is the media lets Coons of the hook while slamming into O'Donnel.

But do you know what was being taught at the Yale Divinity School when Coons was there as a graduate student? Witchcraft! Had Christine been a bit older and presumably sophisticated, she could have attended classes with Chris and been taught witchcraft by scholars. Perhaps she could have earned a Ph.D. in the mysteries of reading chicken entrails.

Along with classes in witchcraft, there were classes in queer worship and feminist/womanist/gendered theologies, and in the Intro to Christian Ethics II, there was black liberation theology, a study Coons first picked up in Africa. Were the "values" taught in these classes among those absorbed by Coons at YDS? We do not know because Coons is not answering Lord's calls for him to release his transcripts.

. . . His promise to apply the values he learned at YDS does not even call into question what those values might be. Queer worship? Feminist/womanist/gendered theology? Black liberation theology? Witchcraft? The press is too busy digging up dirt on O'Donnell.

Apparently if you study at a university that teaches some flakey courses, you must have taken them and you must be a flake. Here's a newsflash - even Brigham Young University (where I attended, a very conservative Mormon college) has flakey courses. Or, to be more accurate, courses with titles that sound flakey. So this is pretty sad.

And of course Christine O'Donnel's more serious transgressions involve the misappropriation of election funds.

Let Your Freak Flag Fly

2010-09-29T10:27:00.003-04:00

Under normal conditions, it's best, politically, to keep your extremist views to yourself. But this political season, with the primary triumphs of so many tea party candidates, I think some Conservatoids have thrown restraint to the win. Case in point, Terry Jeffrey's latest article.

County by county, state by state, Americans should begin functionally abolishing government-run schools and replacing them with a free market in schools. On the federal level, Congress should kill the Department of Education by choking off its funding. The department was not constitutional in the first place.

Say what you will about the merits of this plan, there is no qustion that it is an extreme plan. Eliminating public education would be a far greater change than the mediocre changes to health care that have caused Conservatives to declare that we are now practically a socialist state.

For the record, of course I think this is a horrible plan. Public education is the bedrock of a civilized society, and to eliminate it is to create, purposefully, a caste system far stricter than the one we have today.

Dennis Prager, Historical Blindness, and the Religion of Leftism

2010-09-28T08:31:00.002-04:00

First things first. Dennis Prager's latest article makes this ahistorical comment, that I had to point out.

One of the first books I ever owned -- in high school -- was titled "Danger on the Right." Throughout the world, people are fed the message "Danger on the Right" -- and virtually never "Danger on the Left," despite the left's far bloodier and more totalitarian record.

Allow me to point out a few things - the Red Scares (both the 1920s one and the 1940s/50s one) for one. People were pretty scared of the danger on the left then, weren't they? Let's also comment on the many right wing dictatorships that have imprisoned and executed Leftists and Communists (often with the support of the United States). How do you get away with making such a foolish statement? Perhaps because you assume your readers are fools.

But earlier in the article he makes this fairly common statement.

Liberalism and leftism are religions. While I felt I would be sinning against God when I tasted ham, I was certain I was sinning against both God and man were I to vote Republican.

That is how liberals, not to mention leftists, think: It is a grievous sin to vote Republican (unless the Republican is a liberal). One is abandoning their faith, values, community and very identity.

It is a grevious sin for Liberals to vote for Conservatives. I don't know about the grevious part, but it is a sin, as per this definition "any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle."

If you are a liberal or leftist, it's because you believe that liberalism/leftism is what's best for the nation. Of course it would be a transgression, if you beleive those things, to vote what you believew ould be bad for America.

Muslims are Americans? Who knew?

2010-09-27T08:40:00.003-04:00

Steve Chapman's latest article educates Townhall readers on what American Muslims are like. Turns out they are lot like the rest of us.

Most American Muslims are about as radical as Jay Leno. A 2007 survey by Pew found that only 5 percent have a favorable view of al-Qaida -- a number that drops to 3 percent among foreign-born Muslims. Far from praying daily for the rise of Islamic extremism, 61 percent said they were worried about it.

Unlike the alienated Muslim populations of Europe, American Muslims do not feel estranged from society. "Most say their communities are excellent or good places to live," Pew discovered. Most also believe women are better off in the United States than in Muslim countries.

Their overall satisfaction with the state of the country is no different, according to Pew, from the overall satisfaction of everyone else. They don't sound like a violent cult plotting to impose Taliban-style Shariah law on the infidels who surround them. They sound strangely like ... Americans.

So good on you, Mr. Chapman. But let's see how Townhall Readers have responded to this particular mesasge. 471 comments. That's a lot.

The only good Muslim is the one who apostates to Christianity. Unfortunately, the peaceful Muslims kill him. Therefore, there are no good Muslims.

Chapman is like a bystander on a beach saying it's safe to go in the water when would-be swimmers can see sharks circling patiently.

These so called “Moderate Muslims” in America seem to be facilitating, by their actions and words, the Jihadists creed.

Barak NoBama IS A DAMNED MUSLIM!!!

Stay out of my country Muzzie, it is too good for you and yours..
Anyone that thinks Islam is a legimate religion does not know the Bible or god...
Islam IS radical, period.

In fairness, there were a couple who were supportive of Chapman (although one was clearly a liberal (not that there is anything wrong with that)).

Sometimes the Title Is Enough

2010-09-24T09:19:00.002-04:00

Case in point, the latest article from Dan Gainor. It's entitled "Left Calls in the Cavalry But Forgets They're the Bad Guys." And that really tells you all you need to know about it. Apparently we are desperate to win the 2010 elections, and so are calling on former Presidents and God to help us out, without realizing that God is on the Tea-partiers side.

We're not the bad guys incidentally.

Trashing Goldwater

2010-09-23T08:28:00.002-04:00

Ann Coulter's latest article is interesting because she takes the time to trash an icon of the right, Barry Goldwater. In contrasting him with Reagan, she calls him "abortion-loving Goldwater" and "gay-marriage-loving Goldwater." But that's not all.

Goldwater may have been a thorough-going right-winger on national defense, but -- unless L. Brent Bozell Jr. was writing it for him -- he never would have said this of the Soviets, as President Reagan did: "There is sin and evil in the world and we are enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might."

. . . Goldwater wasn't our guy; Reagan was.

Interesting. Of coures Barry Goldwater wasn't unelectable because he wasn't Christian enough. And Barry Goldwater's campaign pushed this country to the right, essentially setting up Reagan down the road. And certainly Reagan's assessment of Barry Goldwater was pretty positive.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

That was from one of Reagan's most famous pre-presidential speeches (on behalf of Barry Goldwater).

It's all about Obama

2010-09-22T09:12:00.002-04:00

Dick Morriss and Eileen McGann's latest article is intresting, in that they seem to acknowledge the possibility that their candidates may not have universal appeal.

The Democrats are gleeful over the missteps of Christine O'Donnell. Too many leading Republicans do not realize that all of our fates in the midterm election are tied to her. If the Democrats can discredit her, they can discredit all of those like her and raise lasting doubts about dozens of Republican candidates who would otherwise be victorious.

If the grass-roots tea party is foisting unqualified candidates upon us, and if our very own party leaders think this is true, what a weapon we are handing the Democrats. Those critical Republican leaders who would criticize the O'Donnells of our party must realize that she is here to stay, she is one of us now and she deserves all our support. Fortunately, the grass-roots knows this fact and has showered her campaign with donations and support.

Kind of confusing there as Morris seems to recognize that O'Donnel (and others) are weak, but stressing that they must be supported.

The larger point though is that this election needs to be about Obama; it shouldn't matter what kind of candidate we put up, so long as America focuses on how badly Obama has failed.

New Quote

2010-09-21T16:08:00.002-04:00

I used to do a post everytime I did a new quote - since reinvigorating the Quotes page i am updating it more often, but don't feel the urge to highlight it as I once did. At any rate there's a new quote up there at the top.

What if Christine O'Donnel Loses?

2010-09-21T08:34:00.003-04:00

The current mood on the right is interesting; it's a sort of eager triumphalism. Everybody expects 2010 to be very good for Republicans, but one wonders what the takeaway will be if more mainstream republicans win while people like Christin O'Donnel lose.

But what do I know? According to David Limbaugh's latest article, I'm an extremist.

But Christine O'Donnell isn't really the issue here. The more interesting and relevant stories arising out of her primary victory are: 1) the liberals' efforts to paint her -- along with other mainstream conservatives, including the entire tea party movement -- as extreme and, frankly, a bit wacko when the real extremism resides in the Democratic Party . . .

We are back in Clinton territory in a way; Clinton was described as an extremist for his 8 years as well; even though he was pretty moderate all the way around, and sold out the liberal base repeatedly. But going back to my main theme, what happens if O'Donnel loses?

The tea partiers are not splintering or otherwise threatening the Republican Party; they are making it more accountable, more conservative and more effective. It can no longer be said that incumbents in either party are shoo-ins. We're witnessing the healthiest paradigm shift in modern politics, and it is an extremely positive development.

What happens is that Conservatives continue to fool themselves about the Conservative nature of this nation. If O'Donnel loses, Limbaugh et al won't take that as a lesson not to put up extremist and shakey candidates just because they are more strictly conservative. They never do.

War Without End

2010-09-20T16:00:00.002-04:00

Mike S. Adams has parleyed his annoyance at people disagreeing with him into a quite a little career. That said his latest takes it up a notch.

This debate is about more than two people in love. It is about two factions of society, which are sharply divided. One chooses to live in accordance with God’s word and the other chooses to live in rebellion against it.

Because the stakes are so high the debate must be joined by everyone. It cannot be dictated by those who call themselves gay but use anger to silence those who object to the same-sex union. Now more than ever, we must speak now or forever hold our peace.

I do agree that we should have a debate - there are honest disagreements. On the other hand how do you debate "We should follow God's word" vs. "We should live in rebellion to God." I mean if those are the terms, shouldn't everybody on the "We should live in rebellion" side just give up? What kind of debate is that?

If Wishing Made It So

2010-09-20T12:06:00.003-04:00

I got sick last week which is why posting tailed off, but I did want to point out this article from good old Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator. This week Ben has girded up his loins in a silly attempt to be an Ann Coulter like fire breather.

. . . we don't need to be lectured about our intolerance for Islam when we object to radical terror-supporting Muslims building a mosque on the bodies of those murdered by radical terror-supporting Muslims. Our objections to the ground zero mosque aren't based on xenophobic notions about brown people or baseless ideas about the nature of all Muslims. Our objections to the ground zero mosque are simple: We will not submit to a group of people who agree with terrorists in ideology, share funders with terrorists, and seek to use a site of Islamist victory as a site for the worship of an Islamist god.

The key argument here is that Imam Ruaf is a terrorist supporiting radical. He isn't. He clearly isn't. His public statements show him to be the opposite of a terrorist-supporting radical, unless you carefully cherry pick his statements.

I don't know whether Ben knows the truth, but has decided it's more fun to lie, or if he genuinely doesn't know that Imam Ruaf is a moderate.

I'm also amused at that "We will not submit" line, as it does seem to imply that simply complaining about the Mosque isn't going to be enough. This is amusing because plenty of consrvatives have been keen to point out that nobody is saying Muslims can't build a community center there; they just would prefer that they didn't. It's clear that some, young Ben among them, would like to see more stringent opposition that would actually stop the Cordoba center.

The general thrust of the article is about Michael Moore; young Ben really doesn't like Michael Moore.

No True Scotsman

2010-09-20T08:39:00.004-04:00

The popular fallacy seems applicable after reading Doug Giles latest article.

How do I know I’m not a terrorist? Well, you pretty much have to be a Muslim or a progressive to be one, and I’m not Islamic but rather a Christian and a conservative.

Hilarious. You wonder if he has heard about those acts of terrorism committed against doctors who perform abortions. Or violence against Homosexuals. But presumably he either condones that sort of violence or he is willfully blind (let's be charitable and go with the latter).

Drown them in Cliches

2010-09-15T08:38:00.002-04:00

Scott Wheeler's latest article was written with the aid of Buckley Carlson, and it is weak. Just a collection of pithy sayings and non-sensical assertions. For one thing they seem to think that there's nothing wrong with burning the Koran.

There were no Korans burned or mosques opposed before the Islamic terrorists burned nearly three thousand Americans. And yet, we are not supposed to burn the book they say inspired them to do it…or there will be more violence, Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us. Let’s get this straight: not burning the Koran lead to the burning of nearly three thousand Americans. And now, burning the Koran – we are told – will lead to more Americans dying?

What incredible stupidity that statement reveals. First of all, let's dispense with the notion that America was just sitting around minding it's own business when the terrorists involved. We have been involved in the Middle East for decades. At the very least we are staunch allies with Israel. There are valid or at least defendable reasons why we have done these things, but they are at least one source of Islamic Terrorists actions.

Secondly, dumkoffs, the situation is different now because we have stationed troops in the middle east in far greater numbers than ever before. Deciding to take actions, which should be offensive to decent people even if there were no downsides, has greater risks when you think about the troops serving in those parts of the world.

The pair suggest that Rauf threatened violence if he didn't get his way with the Mosque (he didn't). They then suggest that since the Media believes the Tea Party to be violent (they don't), they should follow the pattern established by treating Muslims as American Citizens worthy of respect (which they see as a terrible concession), and give the Tea partiers whatever they want (omg).

Oh and we should dump Obama.

What puts more American lives in danger than burning a Koran in Florida? Answer: having an unqualified, anti-American street punk for a president! So, if you liberals take Obama at his word, then you must call for his immediate resignation with the same enthusiasm that you are now denouncing the kookie Koran-burner.

Street Punk? That's subtle. Except of course that, my dear dunderheads, most Liberals don't see Obama as all that threatening.

Enemies

2010-09-14T08:36:00.002-04:00

Pat Buchannan's latest article is interesting (if sad), particularly set against his previous work. He is essentially an isolationist and nativist; this is well known.

Buchannan's thesis is that we need to be willing to identify Islam as our enemy.

If we are not at war with Islam, why are we fighting the Taliban? They did not attack us. If Islam is a religion of peace, why are Muslims massacring Christians in Nigeria and Sudan? Why did those Afghan mobs also yell, "Death to Christians"? Why are Christian Copts being attacked in Egypt, and Assyrian and Chaldean Christians in Iraq? Did these Christian communities start a holy war against their vastly more numerous Muslim brethren?

What do the terrorists and "state sponsors of terrorism" -- Mohamed Atta, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- have in common, except for Islam?

. . . How do we win a long war when we cannot name the enemy?

I'm not sure how to take this - obviously the disdain for Islam lies right in line with Buchannan's nativism. But underneath that there is a sense that he feels this war is foolish; we don't have the stomach for wiping Islam out and because of that we probably shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.

Earlier in the article Buchannan underlines this.

. . . if we are perceived as at war with Islam, we will lose that war, and Osama bin Laden will have won by having broadened and defined what the war was about.

So we can't win the war without naming the enemy, but once we name the enemy we will lose the war. Kind of a catch 22; the implication being we'd have been better served by not involving ourselves with those filthy foriegners.

"Ground Zero" Mosque Builder Threatens America

2010-09-13T08:41:00.003-04:00

Or so Doug Giles' latest article would have you believe.

Feisal seems to intimate this, going against his own script (and, coincidentally, the MSM’s) by suggesting that if we offend them by not letting them build a Muslim Theme Park at Ground Zero that this will cause Muslims to explode with violence, . . .

He is referring to an interview Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf participated in on the Larry King show with host Soledad O'Brien. Rauf's point was a bit more nuanced than "let us build our Cordoba Center or we'll kill you."

If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned about the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world.

. . . I have a niece who works in the Army and served in Iraq. The concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.

This is essentially the faultline that Giles and other conservatoids aren't going to see. Rauf represents a secular Islam that champions America as a nation that is compatible with Islam's ideals. Our secular and multi-cultural society is what Allah wants. This is Ruaf's view, and he hasn't exactly made a secret of it.

Opposed to that view are those of radical Muslims like al-Qaeda and others who believe that America and American style Democracy are antithetical to Islam, that we intrinsically threaten Islam.

In the middle are the vast majority of Muslims; if they see Imam Rauf's actions as being successful, than his views will likely become more dominant. On the other hand if America essentially says that Muslims don't belong and aren't really Americans, than radicals like al-Qaeda will seem to be more correct.

One thing Imam Rauf doesn't want to say because he is a man of peace is that of course if he moves the Mosque Conservatives in this country will claim it as a victory and the likes of Giles and Hannity and Pamela Geller will paint it as a victory of good honest Americans over evil anti-American Muslims. He doesn't want to say that this controversy has been ginned up by certain people for political ends. He does finally reference the Anti-Islam attitudes in this country, which has been growing all year.

Because in a sense Giles agrees with Osama bin Ladin. Islam and America aren't compatible; they are natural enemies. I personally would rather stand with Imam Rauf than Doug Giles.

Is the Media to Blame for Terry Jones

2010-09-10T08:32:00.003-04:00

This is the Thesis of Mona Charen's latest article.

He became news because he fulfilled a need for the press. They had to have another side to the ground zero mosque story. Why? Because members of the press are total suckers for "both sidesism." There is nothing they like better in a news story than to present two conflicting views and to pronounce that "both sides" are guilty of provocation, mistrust, violence or bad faith. They are confident that truth nearly always lies between two extremes.

. . . They had to turn over rocks in rural Florida to find the handlebar moustache-sporting Quran burner.

But attempting to present "both sides" as having their extremists, their provocateurs, is quite simply absurd in this case.

Yeah I don't buy that, frankly. Partially because of this report from Salon, which indicates that this has been a much bigger story overseas.

Lynch said that the first story in his files on the Quran burning is this July 28 report from the Saudi TV station al-Arabiya. That in turn "generated discussion on jihadist forums and other media outlets way back then," Lynch said.

By that point in July, according to Howard Kurtz's timeline, the story had gotten some play in the U.S. but had not attracted much interest.

Meanwhile, the story was percolating through the media in Muslim-majority countries, where it was often framed as the latest and most egregious example of rising Islamophobia in the United States, according to Gregg Carlstrom, a journalist with Al-Jazeera English who is based in Doha, Qatar. And given the history of angry reaction to real or perceived vandalism of the Quran, there's no doubt the stakes were high. In Afghanistan and Indonesia there have since been protests of the Quran burning.

This was the context in which Petraeus was asked about -- and decided to comment on -- the Quran burning in an interview with a Wall Street Journal reporter on Sunday.

In other words, this was actually a story, not just something pulled out of thin air (or Florida air). This has been a story in the middle east and as such, I think Petraus needed to comment on it. And once he commented on it, well, it naturally became a much bigger story.

This will be our year

2010-09-09T09:08:00.003-04:00

Well maybe not. According to Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, we are pretty well screwed.

The magnitude of the catastrophe facing the Democratic Party in the fall elections is only gradually becoming clear to the leaders of both parties. The Democrats will lose both the Senate and the House. They will lose more House seats in 2010 than the 54 they lost in 1994, and they will lose the Senate, possibly with some seats to spare.

Pretty much all the articles over at Townhall follow a similar theme this week - I guess it's the post labor day period - time to pay attention to the election. And the goal of articles right now is to both convince your voter to fight like hell for victory and to discourage the opposing party to pack it in because they have already lost. So it's hard to put too much stock in these articles.

But it's still depressing to read article after article about how your side is going to lose. So I suppose it's better to be enthusiastic about how foolish these two will look in November.

Every Title Tells a Story

2010-09-08T09:27:00.002-04:00

Sometimes it is fun to respond to a title before reading the article proper. The title of Ben Shapiro's latest article is "Why We Treat Obama Like a Dog."

Nice.

I don't believe in calling every conservative racist, and I am not sure Shapiro is racist - I tend to think he isn't. But a statement like that - did it even occur to him how that would read? I mean there's being a racist and just being stupidly insensitive, and I am pretty sure this article title falls into the later camp.

As for the article itself let's take a peek.

If Obama were a dog, he'd be a bad dog. The kind of dog that routinely drinks from the toilet, and simply will not be taught that drinking from the toilet is bad manners (think Obama on health care). The kind of dog that barks at all hours of the night, just for attention (think Obama's pathetic need for constant adulation). The kind of dog that runs from intruders when danger's in the air (think Obama on Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea, China -- hell, just think about Obama's position on any country that isn't an American ally).

In fairness Shapiro is using the dog metaphor because the President complained that his enemies see him as a dog. That said, it's a bit uncomfortable to read him talking that way about the President.

Religious Liberty

2010-09-03T09:05:00.003-04:00

Good article by Michael Gerson over at Townhall on the Cordoba Center. He makes some salient points. He notes that plenty of those who oppose the Cordoba Center oppose all new Mosques in America, which is something some of those who oppose the Corodoba Center haven't grasped.

Gerson also notes that the Christians who are attacking this and other Islamic buildings, face much the same attacks from the left wing. Perhaps tolerance wouldn't be that un-Christian.

Christianity, as an Abrahamic faith, sets out another vision -- an assertion of human worth and dignity that transcends tribe and nation. Christianity has accommodated this belief in slow, halting, often hypocritical stages -- a history that should leave Christians tolerant of the slow, halting, hypocritical progress of other traditions. The implications of this shift within Christianity, however, are profound. In light of this belief, the purpose of social influence for Christians is not to favor their own faith; it is to serve a view of universal rights and dignity taught by their faith. It is not to advance their own creed; it is to apply that creed in pursuit of the common good. This is what turns religion into a positive social force -- a determination to defend everyone's dignity.

I kind of agree with this (at least in the political sphere), while noting that many Christians would strongly disagree with this theory. Evangelicals do, of course, feel a need to advance their on creed, and many Christians of every faith beleive it an act of charity to explain the one true way to Heaven.

Responses to the article are interesting; there are soem more libertarian Conservatives who are glad to see it, but obviousl there are also comments like these.

Mr. Gerson, you are a dhimmi, a useful shill for Islam.

Is mr. gerson a closet muslim or merely a "fellow traveler" that will sell them the rope by which to hang us??

"Muslims on our side" is a contradiction in terms.

Islam itself IS the enemy. It is the Anti-Christ of religions.

Mr. Gerson, please tell me how you, as a supposed Christian, (or anyone else, for that matter) can corroborate the claims of Muhammad?

And if you cannot, then why do you defend them?

Just a sampling. I particularly hate the one about "Muslims on our side is a contradiction in terms." Just flat out hatred. That last one just baffles me. There are all kinds of religious beliefs I can't corroborate; that doesn't mean I forbid them.

Let's Check in with Ann Coulter

2010-09-02T12:06:00.003-04:00

After all it's been ages since I did one of Ann's columns (almost a year). Lets check out her latest; how bad could it be?

Liberals say conservatives don't believe in civil rights. I say liberals are godless traitors. Why is one statement debatable and the other not?

. . . All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.

Not being acquainted with any actual Christians, they aren't particularly good bluffers.

Oh, now I remember why I don't bother with Ann Coulter. She's insane. She is, if she believes this stuff, certifiable. The larger question is why someone so clearly delusional is a prominent voice in the Conservative movement (although her star has been slipping for some time, she's still up there).

Alternatively she doesn't believe this stuff, but knows what her audience likes to hear. Which I have to admit is at least as likely.

What does a Moderate Muslim look like

2010-08-31T09:58:00.004-04:00

Frank N. Gaffney's latest article is pretty awful, in that it argues that while Obama may not be a Muslim, he clearly supports extremist Muslims like the Muslim Brotherhood.

A better explanation is that more Americans are taking note of the accumulating series of statements and actions by the President that display favoritism, or worse, towards Muslims.

. . .In instance after instance, Mr. Obama has seemingly bent over backwards to accommodate not just Muslim-Americans, but a deeply problematic organization - the Muslim Brotherhood (or Ikhwan) - that purports to represent their interests here.

Among the awful things Obama is doing?

He stated that America was a land of "Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." Putting Muslims before Jews in his little speech is a mark of disrespect towards Jews apparently. One might argue that we aren't that worried about convincing Jews they are equal citizens with the rest of us.

Obama also wants to allow Muslims Zakat, their form of tithing or religious giving, something. Gaffney, frankly isn't clear, although it seems he believes that this initiative would allow American Muslims to support terrorism more easily.

He supported a United Nations Resolution.

In September 2009, the Obama administration co-sponsored a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution eagerly sought by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends. The resolution called on member nations to "prohibit and criminalize" speech that offends Islam and its followers. Such an accommodation would clearly violate the Constitution's First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression.

Yep - I went to the Human Rights Council's website to see if I could track down this offensive document. Let me quote from it, assuming I found the right one.

Recalling also that States should encourage free, responsible and mutually respectful
dialogue,
1. Reaffirms the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference, as well as the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of their choice, and the intrinsically linked rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, peaceful assembly and association and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs;

Wait I guess that may not be it, except that later on it does talk about respecting all points of view, and a line about not letting the war on terror interrupt the free exchange of ideas. The document calls on all states to "To refrain from using counter-terrorism as a pretext to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression in ways that are contrary to their obligations under international law." Unless Gaffney got the date wrong, I really don't know what he is talking about.

Also Obama has argued that allowing AIG to continue underwriting shariah compliant insurance is a breach of the separation of Church and State; this is just silly. AIG sells a number of products and supports a number of different clienteles - to argue that they should simply shut down part of their business to please xenophobes is nonsensical.

Obama supported the "megamosque" near Ground Zero, by which I assume Gaffney means the community center with a mosque in it.

Subsequent efforts to distance himself from that stance, in the face of intense criticism from the public and politicians of both parties, has only put into even sharper focus his pandering to this community.

Hilarious. Obama's immediate abandonment of his support for the Cordoba Center shows how subservient he is to the Muslim Brotherhood, who must be very very easy to please.

Anyway going back to my initial question - how many Muslims of any type would want to see Shariah compliant insurance shut down? How many support the Cordoba Center? More to the point, how many are OK with being seen as second class citizens the way Gaffney seems to want them?

You may already be living under Shariah Law

2010-08-25T11:46:00.004-04:00

At least the Imam behind the Cordoba Project seems to think so. He said that the American political system is "Shariah compliant," according to Media Matters.

The reason why Muslims are fleeing many of their societies to countries like Australia, western Europe, United States and Canada is because the societal mandates of an Islamic society and Islamic State is in fact the kind of structure of society that we see in Western societies - the ability of people to participate in issues of governance, issues of the economic wellbeing and economic pie are fundamental to Islamic principles of governance.

Interesting thought. But of course, those who see Islam as something to be feared and opposed, will naturally be uncomfortable at the idea that our Society is compatable with Islam.

I do strongly suggest checking out that link; puts the lie to some of the fearmongering about this guy.

Seeing Both Sides of the Issue

2010-08-24T08:58:00.003-04:00

Dennis Prager's latest article takes on Liberals for being narrow minded and not seeing both sides of the issue.

A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives' motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left -- and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs -- to say "There are good people on both of sides of this issue." From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case.

. . . This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say "There are good people on both sides of the issue" because we actually believe it.

This is somewhat laughable, not in the least because of Pragers previous statements.

The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America's values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

. . . The issue is that if Democrats want to win, they can do so only if bad things happen to America.

And these are just Pragers words. I haven't even brought up beloved Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who certainly are important in the conservative movement and certainly hate and express hatred of Liberals.

This is related back to the Cordoba Center Controversy; Prager spends the bulk of his article printing intemperate remarks on the issue which suggest that bigotry might explain some of the opposition to the Mosque. Which, of course it does (one need only watch the video of a black man happening through an anti Mosque rally and getting immediately harrassed by the crowd to realize the ugliness of some of those who oppose this Mosque).

However, in the spirit of Pragers criticism, I will concede that while much of the Mosque Opposition is inspired by Anti-Muslim Bigotry, not all of it is. There are good people on both sides of this debate. And a whole lot of bigots on one side of it.

Does She Believe It

2010-08-23T09:35:00.003-04:00

Sometimes when you are reading an article, and they say something particularly non-sensical, you wonder if they believe it themselves. Carol Platt Liebau's latest article provides a case in point.

From the gay marriage case to the Ground Zero mosque debate, the elites don't even offer the courtesy of presenting principled rebuttals of their opponents’ arguments. Instead, they dismiss them scornfully as the product of inferior minds, unworthy of consideration by intelligent people.

Laughable. The truth is that of course Liberals and Populists have expounded on why they support Gay Marriage and support the Cordoba Center ad naseum. How you can read, for example, Mayor Bloombergs defense of the Cordoba Center, and feel like he hasn't presented a principle rebuttal of those who oppose is impossible. And there have been plenty of other well reasoned responses.

Return of the Quotations Page

2010-08-20T15:53:00.002-04:00

Yep - we have the Quotations Page back. Perhaps I will begin to change the Quotations more often, and start updating it.

What Motivates Glenn Beck?

2010-08-20T10:40:00.002-04:00

Or, does Glenn Beck have messianic tendancies?An article by Ben Dimiero at Media Matters suggests that maybe he does.

Earlier the same week, Beck explained that he was promoting "the plan that [God] would have me articulate, I think, to you," against "darkness." While notable on their own merits, Beck's comments were especially striking because they marked what was (at the time) the culmination of Beck's regular portrayal of himself as fighting on behalf of "good" against the forces of "evil" and "darkness."

Since then, Beck has made it abundantly clear that he does not use this sort of language metaphorically -- he quite literally believes he is fighting on the side of God against Satan.

Some of this is excusable. Mormons and many other faiths take comfort in the thought that God has a plan for them, that if they live rightly they are in some way fullfilling the plan that God has for them. This provides some comfort; when you succeed it is God's will, and when things don't go great, perhaps it is God placing you on a different path.

That said, given that Beck apparently sees liberals and progressives as evil and as essentially on the side of Satan (he even compared Obama to Lucifer), well it's not entirely healthy. It's one thing to believe that God loves you; it's another to believe that God hates or condemns someone else.

Mosques and Obvious Lies

2010-08-19T08:23:00.002-04:00

Emmett Tyrell's latest article concerns the Mosque issue, and particularly Obama's decision to speak out on it. It's a common response; Obama is inexperience and stupid and out of touch or he would never have gotten involved in this particular SNAFU. While Tyrell pretty clearly attacks the Cordoba Center, at least he isn't calling Obama a secret Muslim.

Still he does tell a bit of a fib.

It put me in mind of his inability to defuse the controversy over health care. Any sensible president would have relented as opposition to health care reform grew to the majority position. He would have settled for some sort of compromise, but not the community organizer turned president. He wanted it all. He lunged on and created among the electorate a row over national health care that divided the nation and put some of us in mind of a civil war that continues to rage.

What a nasty lie. In fact Obama abandoned single payer immediately, and abandoned the public option not long afterwords. Yes the Health Reform bill improved a few things, but to pretend that the White House was unwilling to compromise is just to deny reality. They compromised enormously, and frankly more than they should have based on how many Republican supported the final bill.

As for the Mosque issue, and Islam in general, check out this post at the Slactivist, and consider who nice it is to be a Christian when it comes to the apology department.

A Non-Mosque Post

2010-08-18T09:03:00.003-04:00

I have to admit I've been hitting the subject of the "Ground Zero" Mosque pretty hard lately (and may return to it later on today), but for a change of pace let's call John Stossel a liar.

Stossel's latest article is about privitizing Social Security; he notes accurately that the public taste for this idea is pertty low. But then he has to lie in order to make his case.

First, there never has been a trust fund! Your FICA tax payments were not saved or invested. Social Security transferred them to current retirees. Second, in return for IOUs, Congress raided Social Security's budget surplus every year and spent like any other tax revenue.

Those IOUs are what most of us call US Treasuries, one of the most secure investments on the planet. It's possible that Stossel doesn't in fact know this; he imagines the Social Security office recieving scribbled IOUs from congress. If he doesn't know this though, that shows a certain amount of stupidity or lack of care. I think he probably does know it, but chooses to fudge the truth anyway.

This 9/11 Mosque Stuff just keeps coming

2010-08-17T10:40:00.002-04:00

In a way I'm tired about blogging about it, and in another, this is something I legitimately feel passionately about. So there you go. And now that Obama has weighed in on it, you can expect another week of articles. Today's article comes from Michael Medved.

No, all Muslims aren’t the same, but all Mosques are the same, in one important sense at least: they all celebrate Islam. They exalt its teachings, traditions, history and adherents.

Yes, American Muslims enjoy a right to celebrate their faith in their mosques.

But it remains wildly inappropriate to celebrate and glorify one particular faith at the scene of one of the most notorious crimes in its history.

Lets take these in reverse order.

1. If someone wanted to build a Christian Church in the exact same spot, Medved would have nothing to say about it.

2. The first bit essentially proclaims that any Mosque is the same as the Mosque that Osama bin Ladin worships at (assuming he gets to go to a Mosque atall). Which is another way of saying that all Islam is responsibile for what Osama bin Ladin did; a point Medved makes clear later on his article.

The insistence on creating such a building on such a place sends a dishonest, disturbing message: that Islam itself bears no special connection to the attacks of 9/11, and that the Mosque’s planners feel no shame over their co-religionists who planned and executed those crimes.

What a poorly constructed paragraph - Medved suggests that the Cordoba Centers funders are putting forward two lies. The first lie is that Islam bears no special connection to the attacks of 9/11; presumably Medved believes this to be a lie.

The second "lie" is that the Mosque's founders feel no shame over their co-religionists attack on 9/11. But presumably Medved actually believes that they don't feel any shame; he probably believes they should, but they don't. All Muslims should feel terribly guilty to be Muslims all the time, and certainly whenever they are in New York City, near Ground Zero.