« March 2007 | Main | July 2007 »
The most idiotic statement of the Democratic debates I have heard:
"We have killed more Americans than was done on the 11th of September," Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel said. "More Americans died because of their decision. That disqualifies them for president."
Talk about not understanding the issue. This disqualifies you to be President.
Is Newsweek magazine biased? Take a look at their cover story for their June 11, 2007 issue. "After Bush: How To Restore America's Place In The World." When I saw that headline at the newsstand, I was dismayed. First of all, it takes as a starting point that our place in the world needs restoring. Of course, any liberal will tell you that our place in the world does need restoring, that the years of the "Bush regime" have taken a toll on our friendships with other nations and the respect they show for us. But if you are like me, I believe that our place in the world needed restoring before Bush, and that he has taken steps to do that.
Should we go back to the pre-Bush mentality of keeping our collective head in the sand? Should we return to being the "paper tiger" that Osama bin laden mistakenly asumed us to be? Is that what they want? Should we go back to policies of appeasement, and of endless diplomacy that solves nothing, such as was practiced for years in the Israel-Palestinian conflict? Is it more important for us to be everybody's friend than actively defend ourselves by projecting power outward? Of course I did not buy the issue, as I was not going to subsidize such a biased publication, so I returned to my office and read the article online for free.
What did I find in this article? Pretty much what the headline suggests: a long detailed article bemoaning that by defending ourselves in the manner we have, many of our friends no longer like us, and by focusing on the very real dangers that we face, we are going down the wrong path. "We have become a nation consumed by fear," the article states, and "the Bush administration has contributed mightily to this state of affairs..." Yet in the decades before Bush took office, terrorists have been bombing us and taking our citizens hostage, and this article suggests we should go back to largely ignoring these attacks. It is precisely this ignorance and refusal to allow a bit of fear to strengthen our resolve and keep us on our toes that has allowed this world-wide terrorist threat to grow unchecked for lo these many years.
In addition, our "friends" that no longer respect us are the same people who made secret deals with Saddam Hussein, who have undermined the safety and security of the world for profit. They are the same people who act unilaterally when their interests are threatened, but according to Newseek, we should not do the same. Newsweek and the liberals who buy into this mentality subscribe to the idea that if we were just "nicer," we wouldn't be attacked. They are so concerned with being popular that they admonish us all to put our security at risk.
Newsweek, you are a mockery of journalism.
Dennis Miller was on FOX News over the weekend, and he did a great job skewering Harry Reid. And he's right, there are many of us who feel this way.
Way to go Dennis.
Hot Air has the video, click here to view.
I was sitting having lunch when I happened to overhear the woman at the next table say "that area of the state used to be nice, but now it's full of right wing conservative assholes." Now, I don't make a habit on eavesdropping on people, but this woman had already interjected herself into our conversation, making it obvious she was eavesdropping on us. Our discourse was non-political, but she overheard our conversation and started adding her comments and engaging us on what we were saying. We were merely talking about the service in the restaurant we were in, but it was interesting that she suddenly became a part of our conversation, and started commenting to us on what we were saying.
I happen to live in a very blue community in a very blue state, and I have learned that it's best to keep your politics to yourself in day to day activities, because where I live, everyone assumes you are liberal. Even further, it is interesting to note that it is taken as a matter of course that of course you are a liberal, because if you are successful and project an aura of afflunece, you must be a liberal if you happen to live in this community.
It is also interesting to note that, in case you may not know this, I spent many years as a dedicated left-wing liberal. My background includes playing in left-wing punk bands and spouting talking points from the liberal hand-book. It wasn't until recently that I started examining the actual arguments I was espousing and realized that I could not defend many, if not any, of these liberal viewpoints that I was spreading like so much propaganda. The upshot of this is that my circle of friends, many whom I have known for years, if not decades, are overwhelmingly liberal in their political views. I don't hold it against them, as they are my friends, and as the saying goes, "friends should not talk religion or politics." Even further, I don't make value judgements about them, as they are my friends, and I believe they are sincere, even if I think they are misguided. They have a right to their opinions, even if I don't agree.
This puts me in a unique position, in that I don't make my views known to those who are my friends, at the risk of offending them or affecting our friendship, and I end up overhearing some pretty interesting statements. One of the most common statements that I have gleaned from liberal conversation is that "all Republicans are selfish." Now, I'm sure I may have said similar things in my many years of liberalism before I came out into the light, but hearing others say it, and realizing that if they only knew that they would be talking about me, was particularly telling. My friends know that I am not selfish, or at least they have said as much on many occasions. But a particular friend I was in band with, who did not know that I was conservative, made this statement about all Republicans and/or conservatives, and when I said "that's nonsense because I am a conservative who on many occasions votes Republican," it was an awkward moment. Of course this person did not realize that she may be talking about me, but it was said, and it was meant when it was said. Perhaps it wouldn't be said now, I don't know.
The point of this is that the liberal base, of which I was a member for many years, is subtly engaging in a hypocrisy of the worst form. In a liberal enclave, where everyone is speaking to their base, it is understood that all conservatives are "assholes," or "selfish." I have no doubt that in a conservative enclave, the same may be happening, but the conservatives don't necessarily to claim to hold a higher ground on this issue. The liberals, after all, are those who, by virtue of their emotional and elitist attitudes, are the ones who are right by virtue of their moralty. They claim to be the unselfish, the compassionate, the ones who are willing to turn the other cheek and help those who are less fortunate. After all, isn't that what being a liberal is all about? Affirmative Action, equal opportunity for all, a level playing field, etc.? Unless of course you happen to be conservative - then you are a "selfish asshole."
The irony of it all is that those who claim to be against bigotry, who claim to believe in equal opportunity, and who claim to disdain any type of favoritism, speak against those whom they do not agree with in such bigoted, elitist rhetoric. I, as a conservative, feel they are misguided, but unless they speak out against the country on foreign soil like Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore, I still call them my friends, because many of them are, and I love them even though I may not agree with them. It's a pity that many liberals who wear such an elitist crown are so quick to pass judgement, so far that they would use such a derogatory term as "asshole" for someone whom they merely disagree with.
If there is one thing that many are guilty of, it's writing history while it is happening, when we all know that 10 or 20, or even 100 years later we'll have a better understanding of what actually occured. Harry Reid is doing it now, and so is the Daily Kos.
Iraq was a war that didn't have to be. Now its going to take a massive effort to avoid another war at home.That is a Kos poster named "Devilstower," referring to a statement by someone who should know better, Christopher Fettweis, a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. Here's a bit from Fettweis:
The American people seem to understand, however -- and historians will certainly agree (emph. added) -- that the war itself was a catastrophic mistake. It was a faulty grand strategy, not poor implementation.If they claim to think they are so intelligent, how come they can't grasp this simple fact that history can never be fully understood until it is actually in the past? Isn't their whole argument that they are the intelligent ones and we are all the red state idiots? If that is so, how come they keep trying to sum up the history of a situation before it is played out? They want to be the writers of history, but history is written by the victors, and the lame half-assed bloggers at the Daily Kos will never know what being a victor is, because they advocate defeat before the game is over. They do not seem as as smart as they would have you believe.
Snapped Shot is having a little fun with the images of the infamous "Islamic Rage Boy." This is a fellow who seems to appear at protests all over the place, leading Michelle Malkin to label him "the professional jihad poster child." Here's my contribution:
I caught Tommy Chong's appearance on Fox's "Your World" with Neil Cavuto this week, and took note as he called President Bush a "moron." In addition to calling Bush a moron, he then called former president Clinton a "genius." In his drug-addled world, I guess he thinks anyone who can pull off getting a blow job in the White House is smart. It is indicative of how liberals think anyone who talks smooth and is well-liked is smart, regardless of their actions. And it also shows how pot can magnify your feelings on an issue, so that Clinton is no longer (in his mind) just smarter than Bush, he is a genius to Bush's moron.
This is especially ironic coming from someone who contributed less than a third of the total talent to the comedy duo known as Cheech and Chong. We wouldn't even be listening to him on this program had he not ridden to fame by hitching his wagon to Cheech Marin's much more talented horse. Let's see, what have they done since? Cheech - a top-rated TV show, a Children's book, and several well received Hollywood movies. Chong - sold bongs, got himself arrested, and now is on TV calling Bush a moron.
I guess it takes one to know one.
