Well worth a read!
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE, WHO NEEDS KEITH OLBERMANN?
by Ann Coulter
July 28, 2010
While engaging in astonishing viciousness, vulgarity and violence toward Republicans, liberals accuse cheerful, law-abiding Tea Party activists of being violent racists.
Responding to these vile charges, conservative television pundits think it's a great comeback to say: "There is the fringe on both sides."
Both sides? Really? How about: "That's a despicable lie"? Did that occur to you simpering morons as a possible reply to the slanderous claim that conservatives are fiery racists?
All the accusations of "racism" at anti-Obama rallies so far have turned out to be completely false. The most notorious was the allegation that one black congressman was spat on and another called the N-word 15 times at an anti-ObamaCare rally on Capitol Hill last March.
The particularly sensitive Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., perhaps walking too closely to a protester chanting "Kill the Bill," was hit with some spittle -- and briefly thought he was a Freedom Rider! When observers contested Cleaver's account -- with massive video evidence -- he walked back his claim of being spat upon.
The slanderous claim that a protester called the civil rights hero John Lewis the N-word 15 times was an outrageous lie -- never made by Lewis himself -- but promoted endlessly by teary-eyed reporters, most of whom cannot count to 15.
The media never retracted it, even after the N-word allegation was proved false with a still-uncollected $100,000 reward for two seconds of video proof taken from a protest crawling with video cameras and reporters hungry for an act of racism.
When St. Louis Tea Party co-founder Dana Loesch did make the point on CNN that no one spat on any black congressmen at the anti-ObamaCare rally, a liberal on the panel, Nancy Giles, told her to "shut your mouth," while alleged "comedian" Stephanie Miller repeatedly called Tea Party activists "tea baggers."
It's like watching Hitler hysterically denounce Poland for being mean to Nazi Germany while Polish TV commentators defend Poland by saying, "There are mistakes on both sides."
Meanwhile, we do have video proof of the New Black Panthers standing outside a polling station in Philadelphia in 2008 with billy clubs threatening white voters who tried to vote. And there is video footage of Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice as well as a slew of conservative college speakers being assaulted by crazed liberals.
We also have evidence of liberals' proclivity for violence in the form of mountains of arrest records. Liberal protesters at the 2008 Republican National Convention were arrested for smashing police cars, slashing tires, breaking store windows, and for possessing Molotov cocktails, napalm bombs and assorted firearms. (If only they could muster up that kind of fighting spirit on foreign battlefields.)
There were no arrests of conservatives at the Democratic National Convention.
Over the past couple of election cycles, Bush and McCain election headquarters around the country have been repeatedly vandalized, ransacked, burglarized and shot at (by staunch gun-control advocates, no doubt); Bush and McCain campaign signs have been torched; and Republican campaign volunteers have been physically attacked.
It was a good day when George Bush was merely burned in effigy, compared to Hitler or, most innocuously, compared to a monkey.
In the fall of 2008, Obama supporters Mace'd elderly volunteers in a McCain campaign office in Galax, Va. In separate attacks, a half-dozen liberals threw Molotov cocktails at McCain signs on families' front yards in and around Portland, Ore. One Obama supporter broke a McCain sign being held by a small middle-aged woman in midtown Manhattan before hitting her in the face with the stick. These are just a few acts of violence from the left too numerous to catalog.
There were arrests in all these cases. There was, however, absolutely no national coverage of the attacks by Obama supporters.
Obama is in danger from the Tea Partiers! The Poles are mobilizing on the border!
Since Obama became president, the only recorded violence at Tea Parties or Town Halls has been committed by liberals. Last fall, a conservative had his finger bitten off by a man from a MoveOn.org crowd in Thousand Oaks, Calif. Two Service Employees International Union thugs have been charged with beating up an African-American selling anti-Obama bumper stickers at a St. Louis Tea Party in August 2009.
Respected elder statesmen of the Democratic Party have referred to Obama's "Negro dialect" (Harry Reid), said he would be getting them coffee a few years ago (Bill Clinton), and called him "clean" (Joe Biden). And that's not including the former Ku Klux Klan Democratic senator, the late Bob Byrd.
So I'm thinking that maybe when conservatives are called racists on TV, instead of saying, "There are fringe elements on both sides," conservative commentators might want to think about saying, "That is a complete lie."
Liberals explode in rage when we accuse them of being unpatriotic based on 50 years of treasonous behavior. They have zero examples of conservative racism, but the best our spokesmen can think to say when accused of racism is: "Man is imperfect."
Conservatives who prefer to come across on TV as wonderfully moderate than to speak the truth should find another line of work and stop defaming conservatives with their "both sides" pabulum.
I hear BP is looking for a new spokesman.
COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
A Perspective Posting
Some goods friends joked this weekend with me that I see so much of the world through a political lens. Honestly, I try to avoid vocalizing my opinions too much because they are usually politically charged, which many people are turned off by. But what is politics anyways. Politics is everywhere, although some people don't want to struggle with it as often as others do.
But the main reason I so often default to discussing the politics of things is because of how desperate things are right now, with an ever-increasing role of government in our lives. Government is involved in every aspect of our lives and it was never meant to be this way. The government should have a limited role in our lives. When the government is involved in things, their choices ends up picking winners and losers. Instead of the winners and losers being chosen by an open and fair market place (which is all that the government should truly be guaranteeing----guarantee of equal opportunity, not of equal results) based on ones' abilities, work ethic, and God's blessing
"...Happiness on earth, ain't just for high achievers."
People should be paid for the value they create. It is not a judgment on them as a person, but is simply one's ability to do a task at a given time. Like students taking tests, the grade at the end of the semester represents the student's ability to take X test. Is it always accurate? No. Many scoring systems, like pay structures in business, are very poor and not good measurements of value created. But at least in the free market you can chose a different job (many schools you are stuck) which will send the message to companies losing people that change is needed. Is value creation a reflection on a person's value as an individual in life? No. We know who determines ones true value, as it has already been written.
But if pay isn't attached to the results, then it'd be like teaching students and giving them all As (see Harvard's grade-less system). It removes all incentive to work hard and achieve great results, leading to a stagnant, unproductive group.
There will never be equal results in anything in life, but we do know that a rising tide lifts all ships, as we've seen within the US over the past 50 years, and around the world as countries are developing so rapidly. With the growing role of government in our lives, the relationship between the governing and the governed is becoming abusive. This is similar to taking from those who worked harder, were blessed with more talents, were luckier, were helped more, etc.: It is equivalent to theft itself and removes all possible good from giving to the less fortunate (as we are all called to do).
Wilkow's podcast from last Friday actually covered a similar theme in his first 10 minutes: Wilkow Majority
Giving is only true giving when it is done out of the goodness of our hearts, not under government compulsion.
So in the end, I say that yes, politics is a major part of my life, and everyone's lives whether or not they realize it, particularly right now. I think that politics should be a larger part of everyone's lives as the attack by those who want to use government to their end grows fiercer. But I'll end this posting with a great excerpt from The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. This excerpt is written from the point of view of Screwtape, an older demon, who gives advice to his newphew Wormwood on how to best prepare the souls of mankind for damnation:
"Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose. The good work which our philological experts have already done in the corruption of human language makes it unnecessary to warn you that they should never be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won't. It will never occur to them that Democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting, and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behaviour" means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same.
You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal. Especially the man you are working on. As a result you can use the word Democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided.
The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I'm as good as you.
The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the centre of his life a good, solid, resounding lie. I don't mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself. No man who says I'm as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.
And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority. No one must be different from himself in voice, clothes, manners, recreations, choice of food: "Here is someone who speaks English rather more clearly and euphoniously than I -- it must be a vile, upstage, la-di-da affectation. Here's a fellow who says he doesn't like hot dogs -- thinks himself too good for them, no doubt. Here's a man who hasn't turned on the jukebox -- he's one of those goddamn highbrows and is doing it to show off. If they were the right sort of chaps they'd be like me. They've no business to be different. It's undemocratic."
Now this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under the name of Envy it has been known to the humans for thousands of years. But hitherto they always regarded it as the most odious, and also the most comical, of vices. Those who were aware of feeling it felt it with shame; those who were not gave it no quarter in others. The delightful novelty of the present situation is that you can sanction it - make it respectable and even laudable - by the incantatory use of the word democratic.
In that promising land the spirit of I’m as good as you has already begun something more than a generally social influence. It begins to work itself into their educational system. How far its operations there have gone at the present moment, I should not like to say with certainty. Nor does it matter. Once you have grasped the tendency, you can easily predict its future developments; especially as we ourselves will play our part in the developing. The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be “undemocratic.” These differences between pupils – for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences – must be disguised. This can be done on various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing things that children used to do in their spare time. Let them, for example, make mud pies and call it modelling. But all the time there must be no faintest hint that they are inferior to the children who are at work. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have – I believe the English already use the phrase – “parity of esteem.” An even more drastic scheme is not impossible. Children who are fit to proceed to a higher class may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma -- Beelzebub, what a useful word! – by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coaeval’s attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON THE MAT.
In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will vanish. The few who might want to learn will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I say, nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves will do it for us.
Put simply, this is a very good assessment of how I see the world. It serves both as motivation for me to live up to my potential and attempt to be a better person, and a constant reminder that "equal opportunity for everyone" does not, and should not, mean "everyone is equal.""
But the main reason I so often default to discussing the politics of things is because of how desperate things are right now, with an ever-increasing role of government in our lives. Government is involved in every aspect of our lives and it was never meant to be this way. The government should have a limited role in our lives. When the government is involved in things, their choices ends up picking winners and losers. Instead of the winners and losers being chosen by an open and fair market place (which is all that the government should truly be guaranteeing----guarantee of equal opportunity, not of equal results) based on ones' abilities, work ethic, and God's blessing
"...Happiness on earth, ain't just for high achievers."
People should be paid for the value they create. It is not a judgment on them as a person, but is simply one's ability to do a task at a given time. Like students taking tests, the grade at the end of the semester represents the student's ability to take X test. Is it always accurate? No. Many scoring systems, like pay structures in business, are very poor and not good measurements of value created. But at least in the free market you can chose a different job (many schools you are stuck) which will send the message to companies losing people that change is needed. Is value creation a reflection on a person's value as an individual in life? No. We know who determines ones true value, as it has already been written.
But if pay isn't attached to the results, then it'd be like teaching students and giving them all As (see Harvard's grade-less system). It removes all incentive to work hard and achieve great results, leading to a stagnant, unproductive group.
There will never be equal results in anything in life, but we do know that a rising tide lifts all ships, as we've seen within the US over the past 50 years, and around the world as countries are developing so rapidly. With the growing role of government in our lives, the relationship between the governing and the governed is becoming abusive. This is similar to taking from those who worked harder, were blessed with more talents, were luckier, were helped more, etc.: It is equivalent to theft itself and removes all possible good from giving to the less fortunate (as we are all called to do).
Wilkow's podcast from last Friday actually covered a similar theme in his first 10 minutes: Wilkow Majority
Giving is only true giving when it is done out of the goodness of our hearts, not under government compulsion.
So in the end, I say that yes, politics is a major part of my life, and everyone's lives whether or not they realize it, particularly right now. I think that politics should be a larger part of everyone's lives as the attack by those who want to use government to their end grows fiercer. But I'll end this posting with a great excerpt from The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. This excerpt is written from the point of view of Screwtape, an older demon, who gives advice to his newphew Wormwood on how to best prepare the souls of mankind for damnation:
"Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose. The good work which our philological experts have already done in the corruption of human language makes it unnecessary to warn you that they should never be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won't. It will never occur to them that Democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting, and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behaviour" means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same.
You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal. Especially the man you are working on. As a result you can use the word Democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided.
The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I'm as good as you.
The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the centre of his life a good, solid, resounding lie. I don't mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself. No man who says I'm as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.
And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority. No one must be different from himself in voice, clothes, manners, recreations, choice of food: "Here is someone who speaks English rather more clearly and euphoniously than I -- it must be a vile, upstage, la-di-da affectation. Here's a fellow who says he doesn't like hot dogs -- thinks himself too good for them, no doubt. Here's a man who hasn't turned on the jukebox -- he's one of those goddamn highbrows and is doing it to show off. If they were the right sort of chaps they'd be like me. They've no business to be different. It's undemocratic."
Now this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under the name of Envy it has been known to the humans for thousands of years. But hitherto they always regarded it as the most odious, and also the most comical, of vices. Those who were aware of feeling it felt it with shame; those who were not gave it no quarter in others. The delightful novelty of the present situation is that you can sanction it - make it respectable and even laudable - by the incantatory use of the word democratic.
In that promising land the spirit of I’m as good as you has already begun something more than a generally social influence. It begins to work itself into their educational system. How far its operations there have gone at the present moment, I should not like to say with certainty. Nor does it matter. Once you have grasped the tendency, you can easily predict its future developments; especially as we ourselves will play our part in the developing. The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be “undemocratic.” These differences between pupils – for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences – must be disguised. This can be done on various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing things that children used to do in their spare time. Let them, for example, make mud pies and call it modelling. But all the time there must be no faintest hint that they are inferior to the children who are at work. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have – I believe the English already use the phrase – “parity of esteem.” An even more drastic scheme is not impossible. Children who are fit to proceed to a higher class may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma -- Beelzebub, what a useful word! – by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coaeval’s attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON THE MAT.
In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will vanish. The few who might want to learn will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I say, nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves will do it for us.
Put simply, this is a very good assessment of how I see the world. It serves both as motivation for me to live up to my potential and attempt to be a better person, and a constant reminder that "equal opportunity for everyone" does not, and should not, mean "everyone is equal.""
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Mosque in Manhattan
I see a difference between the 9-11 terrorists and other practicing Muslims. The difference is not always clear to see between individuals until many times it is too late. But I believe that Islam can be practiced peacefully and that we must respect a faith that is not inherently dangerous to others (although we don't have to endorse it for being something it isn't, namely, the Truth).
The mosque that is planned for construction at ground zero of the 9-11 attacks has caused quite a bit of animosity towards Islam (land paid for in cash, with sources of the funding unknown). Ground Zero Mosque Project Fuels Heated Debate Without getting into how right or wrong placed this bitterness is, I find it pretty interesting that one of the two groups that is heading up the building of the mosque, The Cordoba Initiative, claims on its website to be a group that "is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture." Basing the new Muslim center on "Islamic values in their truest form -- compassion, generosity and respect for all."
How is building a place of worship of the same faith that the terrorists claimed to be, having respect for the families of those killed on 9-11? How is building a mosque near ground zero, which they MUST have figured would cause a firestorm, promoting tolerance of anything? Wouldn't the tolerant thing have been to not build near ground zero, despite the opportunity being available, to avoid possibly offending people?
Even if you believe, as I do, that there are peaceful practicing Muslims that deserve the right to practice their faith, wouldn't you avoid building a mosque next to the site where people who claimed to be part of your faith murdered thousands of your countrymen?
I don't trust the whole mosque building plan. Here is some info about the men involved in the process: The Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Muslim Brotherhood Roots, Radical Dreams
The mosque that is planned for construction at ground zero of the 9-11 attacks has caused quite a bit of animosity towards Islam (land paid for in cash, with sources of the funding unknown). Ground Zero Mosque Project Fuels Heated Debate Without getting into how right or wrong placed this bitterness is, I find it pretty interesting that one of the two groups that is heading up the building of the mosque, The Cordoba Initiative, claims on its website to be a group that "is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture." Basing the new Muslim center on "Islamic values in their truest form -- compassion, generosity and respect for all."
How is building a place of worship of the same faith that the terrorists claimed to be, having respect for the families of those killed on 9-11? How is building a mosque near ground zero, which they MUST have figured would cause a firestorm, promoting tolerance of anything? Wouldn't the tolerant thing have been to not build near ground zero, despite the opportunity being available, to avoid possibly offending people?
Even if you believe, as I do, that there are peaceful practicing Muslims that deserve the right to practice their faith, wouldn't you avoid building a mosque next to the site where people who claimed to be part of your faith murdered thousands of your countrymen?
I don't trust the whole mosque building plan. Here is some info about the men involved in the process: The Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Muslim Brotherhood Roots, Radical Dreams
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Oil Spill Timeline
Here's a pretty good timeline of the oil spill and the terrible response by the Obama administration.
Now I am a Jimmy Buffet fan. I think his music is pretty good and just fun to listen to. But I think Buffet sums up a big part of the problem out there: following politicians blindly and lately, following Obama blindly. Buffet said that the oil spill was somehow Bush's fault!? Was this a joke----actually, it wasn't. But he must have had a slip of the tongue because he later changed his opinion, saying that is was BP's fault. But how could anyone say anything so absurd?
What about Obama's pathetic handling of it? What about the environmentalists that forced drilling so far off shore that it proved near impossible to plug the hole? And now other holes are appearing, which are claimed to be unrelated. But whatever the case is, the point still stands that blindly following Obama is putting our nation in grave danger---not just economically, now ever environmentally.
Now I am a Jimmy Buffet fan. I think his music is pretty good and just fun to listen to. But I think Buffet sums up a big part of the problem out there: following politicians blindly and lately, following Obama blindly. Buffet said that the oil spill was somehow Bush's fault!? Was this a joke----actually, it wasn't. But he must have had a slip of the tongue because he later changed his opinion, saying that is was BP's fault. But how could anyone say anything so absurd?
What about Obama's pathetic handling of it? What about the environmentalists that forced drilling so far off shore that it proved near impossible to plug the hole? And now other holes are appearing, which are claimed to be unrelated. But whatever the case is, the point still stands that blindly following Obama is putting our nation in grave danger---not just economically, now ever environmentally.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Steve Bridges as Barak H Obama
Pretty good impersonator. Voice could use a little work, but he sure has his look and mannerisms down!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)