WASHINGTON, March 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after the public announcement that formerly pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak (D-MI) will cast a "yes" vote for the Senate health care bill today in the House:
"It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion."
"Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."
"Barack Obama has lined every existing federal agency with the most dedicated pro-abortion ideologues, and we know that he will continue this pattern of pro-abortion appointments when it comes time for him to fill the over-100 bureaucracies created to administer his socialized health care program."
"Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a 'Yes' vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade."
"Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."
"This vote will expose the myth of the 'pro-life Democrat.' With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same."
True enough. I also remember when John Dingle resigned from the board of directors of the NRA when party loyalty made him vote for the Brady Bill, proving that you can't be a Democrat and be pro-Second Amendment.
But hasn't it been clear for years that you can't be anything that any decent, moral, civilized human being would want to be and be a Democrat?
In terms of foreign policy and national security what does the Democrat party represent other than weakness and cowardice as our worthless know-nothing, done-nothing Marxist man-child president hastens around the world to bow and scrape before every socialist Third-World tyrant - while going out of his way to insult every reliable ally we have ever had?
On the domestic front who does that party represent other than parasites who believe that it is their neighbors' place to pay their doctor bill and alien criminals and their enablers who think that the nation owes them not only legal residence but citizenship and a guaranteed living?
The Democrat party has degenerated to the point where even the jackass is no longer a fitting symbol for them. The trouble is what do we replace it with; a tapeworm, an ostrich with its head in the sand, a cockroach running from the kitchen light?
This bears some thinking about.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The myth of the [anything good] Democrat
Saturday, February 06, 2010
One down, how many to go?
Rick Moran writes about some good news from across the pond:
There may be no other country where the religion of global warming inundated society so thoroughly as in Great Britain. All major political parties endorsed it and the solutions to climate 
The media played right along, led by the venerable BBC who not only promoted global warming doctrine, but savaged any skeptics that dared disagree with the dominant theology.
Now, after a couple of months of
From the BBC:
The number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising, a poll for BBC News suggests.The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, a rise of 8% since a similar poll was conducted in November.
The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month.
And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and "now established as largely man-made".
The findings are based on interviews carried out on 3-4 February.
In November 2009, a similar poll by Populus - commissioned by the Times newspaper - showed that 41% agreed that climate change was happening and it was largely the result of human activities.
Despite active measures by the BBC and the liberal Guardian newspaper to suppress climategate revelations, other media outlets like the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, and the TimesOnline have picked up the slack and have run story after story about the fraud, the bad science, and the shameful actions of scientists in trying to suppress opposing viewpoints.
It shows that when people get all the information, they can make up their own minds.
Some of it appears to be getting through.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
I have noted that the hobgoblin of man-made global warming was the best boogieman the left had ever invented to frighten the general population into surrendering their liberty and their wealth to an all powerful government
I have also noted that the left would never let go of man-caused global warming until another hobgoblin of equal or greater potential was already fabricated and waiting int he wings to make his debut on center stage.
What I didn't take into account is that some brave insider would provide the key to bringing down the entire global warming house of cards in the form of purloined e-mail archives.
Of course any number of whistle blowers would not have been able to shine the light of truth on this monstrous hoax without the existence of the alternate media.
With the old media and the government both complicit in the creation and maintenance of the hoax, and both unwilling to see the fraud unravel, they would have combined to cause any embarrassing revelations about "hiding the decline" vanish down Orwell's memory hole as recently as 20 years ago.
But today the internet transmits the news around the globe at light-speed and talk radio carries discussion of the issues into the homes, cars and offices of millions and it is no longer possible for the cabal of government, academia and the media to restrict the flow of information to the average citizen.
The nation of India has already officially jumped off the global warming bandwagon. Expect China to do so in the near future. Old Europe will follow after that.
This will leave the United States as the last holdout of the major industrialized nations. We will be left standing amid a collection of Third World despotisms who regard global warming as nothing more than a lever with which to pry open the wallets of the American taxpayer.
America will hold out longer than any other major nation because the left in the US is stronger than it is anywhere else.
In Old Europe the voice of what Americans call conservatism is almost silent and has been so for decades. The European left is not used to having to fight to have its policy ideas accepted and enacted into law. This leaves them ill equipped to resist on those rare occasions when the general public wakes up and demands a serious change.
In America the left has to fight the conservative movement for every inch of territory it gains and it does not win nearly every battle. This constant combat makes our left far more resilient than their European counterparts and equips them to hold out against the truth for far longer.
However the global warming edifice will fall in the US as it is in Europe. As the song says "you can twist perceptions but reality won't budge".
The fact that the left doesn't have a convenient replacement hobgoblin for global warming will be a problem for them so we can expect them to be hard at work prepping a new boogieman even now.
What will it be? Global cooling fell flat as did ozone depletion. The millions of people murdered by the left's ban on DDT are thrusting their way into the mainstream awareness as are the millions of children blinded by the left's hysterical rejection of genetically modified foods. So I would imagine that the tool of environmentalism has just about lost its usefulness as a means of gaining control.
The secular "state as god" movement of Marxism has lost its appeal due to the spectacular failures of the Soviet Union and communist China as they shed an ocean of blood and achieved only poverty and despair to show for it.
In the early days of the 20th century the left found a home in the Christian religion. The original "progressive" movement embraced a post-millennial eschatology that let them believe that enlightened (that is progressive) government would bring about the prophesied Golden Age.
That view did not survive the trenches and poison gas of WWI and the gas chambers of the Holocaust.
So if the left is denied a hiding place in religion, environmentalism, economics and politics what segment of our culture will the infest and subvert next.
Your guess is as good as mine.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Another America hating Euro loon.
It is a sad thing when someone you've admired and even considered a genius based on his comedic performances proves himself to be an abject fool.
First off Cleese's embrace of the myth of the stolen election. Need I remind anyone that after the inauguration of George W Bush that a coalition of left-wing newspapers, led by the New York Times, went to Florida and examined every ballot using the standards that the Gore campaign wanted applied and found that Bush actually did get more votes?
It is important that conservatives and Republicans correct this error whenever they encounter it, even if doing so becomes tedious. Myth can have a powerful hold on the human imagination and can exercise a profound influence upon behavior. Remember how the myth of the "stab in the back" poisoned the German mindset and helped pave the way for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.
Then came his denigration of Sarah Palin as stupid. A point he attempted to prove by comparing her to JOE BIDEN!
[I wall pause here to let the laughter subside]
Joe Biden is a man who has been wrong on virtually every position he has taken during his entire political career.
Biden, you will remember, in an attempt to present himself as the best educated man in the room at a town hall meeting invented an educational background for himself which his own office had to admit to reporters contained very little truth.
What we have to remember about Cleese is that he is an Englishman and to an Englishman one's accent reveals everything you need to know about that person. Britin has the most class conscious society in the world and in Britain class is something you are born into not something you can aspire to.
When the Cambridge educated Cleese hears Palin's rural Alaskan speech patterns he is incapable of thinking of her as anything but a low class peasant bumpkin who has no business intruding into the affairs of her betters. When Palin actually manages to win her debate with Biden well then it must be because she learned her lines like a good parrot.
Which brings us to Fox News. Yes Fox has shows like Hannity and Glen Beck which deal in the opinions of their hosts. This is no different than a newspaper having an editorial page in which columnists and guests express their opinions on the issues of the day. However unlike the other cable news channels and the broadcast network news programs Fox makes a sincere (and usually successful) attempt to be balanced and fair in its presentation of straight news programming.
The fact that Chris Wallace and Britt Hume will ask the same kind of hard questions, with hard follow-ups, of liberals and Democrats as they will of conservatives and Republicans makes them appear "right-wing" only when compared to characters like Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Charles Gibson (we won't even mention Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow).
What was George W Bush's great sin in the eyes of the world?
Well for some snobs like Cleese it was that Mr. Bush didn't talk like the Ivy League educated man that he in fact was. But for far more of both the elite and the teeming masses of Old Europe it was what George W Bush represented.
You see Old Europe is dying from a profound lack of faith.
They lack faith in God, they lack faith in their culture and they lack faith in themselves. This is why their birthrate is falling and for some time has been below the replacement level. This is why they have allowed their various military services to fall far below the level actually needed to defend their nations from any serious threat. This is why they are unable to develop any effective response to fact that their nations will soon be majority Muslim - unassimilated fundamentalist Muslims desiring sharia law.
For people who have essentially given up and decided to lay down and die the presence of living, vibrant growing and self-confidant America is intolerable.
To dying Old Europe George W Bush's certitude that Western culture was good and worth defending and that the terrorist enemy was evil and worth defeating, that it was both possible and positive to liberate the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq - and that those people would want to be liberated - was the bitterest and most stinging kind of rebuke.
To dying Old Europe Barack Obama offered a vision of America much less wealthy, much less powerful and not at all self confident. Barack Obama would never send the American military into another nation to free its enslaved population. To the contrary he would meekly bow before the dictators and tyrants of the world and apologize for America and beg their forgiveness.
And all this while reading a teleprompter more beautifully than any other man alive.
Americans should take a lesson from this. Letting people who think the world would be better off if we weren't in it pick our leaders is a very bad idea.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The culture of poverty, and those who need it
I saw this story referenced on a blog post yesterday:
Angry Haitians block roads with corpses: witness
PORT-AU-PRINCE (Reuters) - Angry Haitians set up roadblocks with corpses in Port-au-Prince to protest at the delay in emergency aid reaching them after a devastating earthquake, an eyewitness said,
Shaul Schwarz, a photographer for TIME magazine, said he saw at least two downtown roadblocks formed with bodies of earthquake victims and rocks.
"They are starting to block the roads with bodies, it's getting ugly out there, people are fed up with getting no help," he told Reuters.
The other blogger asked if it might not be more productive to clear the roads if the problem is aid not arriving fast enough.
That sentiment is echoed, only more strongly, by this comment on the Reuters site:
Makes perfect sense to me. Supplies are not being delivered fast enough, just block the roads?
The Underlying Tragedy
On Oct. 17, 1989, a major earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 struck the Bay Area in Northern California. Sixty-three people were killed. This week, a major earthquake, also measuring a magnitude of 7.0, struck near Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The Red Cross estimates that between 45,000 and 50,000 people have died.
This is not a natural disaster story. This is a poverty story. It’s a story about poorly constructed buildings, bad infrastructure and terrible public services. On Thursday, President Obama told the people of Haiti: “You will not be forsaken; you will not be forgotten.” If he is going to remain faithful to that vow then he is going to have to use this tragedy as an occasion to rethink our approach to global poverty. He’s going to have to acknowledge a few difficult truths.
The first of those truths is that we don’t know how to use aid to reduce poverty. Over the past few decades, the world has spent trillions of dollars to generate growth in the developing world. The countries that have not received much aid, like China, have seen tremendous growth and tremendous poverty reductions. The countries that have received aid, like Haiti, have not.
In the recent anthology “What Works in Development?,” a group of economists try to sort out what we’ve learned. The picture is grim. There are no policy levers that consistently correlate to increased growth. There is nearly zero correlation between how a developing economy does one decade and how it does the next. There is no consistently proven way to reduce corruption. Even improving governing institutions doesn’t seem to produce the expected results.
The chastened tone of these essays is captured by the economist Abhijit Banerjee: “It is not clear to us that the best way to get growth is to do growth policy of any form. Perhaps making growth happen is ultimately beyond our control.”
The second hard truth is that micro-aid is vital but insufficient. Given the failures of macrodevelopment, aid organizations often focus on microprojects. More than 10,000 organizations perform missions of this sort in Haiti. By some estimates, Haiti has more nongovernmental organizations per capita than any other place on earth. They are doing the Lord’s work, especially these days, but even a blizzard of these efforts does not seem to add up to comprehensive change.
Third, it is time to put the thorny issue of culture at the center of efforts to tackle global poverty. Why is Haiti so poor? Well, it has a history of oppression, slavery and colonialism. But so does Barbados, and Barbados is doing pretty well. Haiti has endured ruthless dictators, corruption and foreign invasions. But so has the Dominican Republic, and the D.R. is in much better shape. Haiti and the Dominican Republic share the same island and the same basic environment, yet the border between the two societies offers one of the starkest contrasts on earth — with trees and progress on one side, and deforestation and poverty and early death on the other.
[The same is true for Israel and the Arab/Muslim nations which surround it. The "Green Line" got its name from the fact that on the Arab side of the border you have desert and on the Israeli side you have thriving agriculture. - LC]As Lawrence E. Harrison explained in his book “The Central Liberal Truth,” Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.
We’re all supposed to politely respect each other’s cultures. But some cultures are more progress-resistant than others, and a horrible tragedy was just exacerbated by one of them.
Fourth, it’s time to promote locally led paternalism. In this country, we first tried to tackle poverty by throwing money at it, just as we did abroad. Then we tried microcommunity efforts, just as we did abroad. But the programs that really work involve intrusive paternalism.
These programs, like the Harlem Children’s Zone and the No Excuses schools, are led by people who figure they don’t understand all the factors that have contributed to poverty, but they don’t care. They are going to replace parts of the local culture with a highly demanding, highly intensive culture of achievement — involving everything from new child-rearing practices to stricter schools to better job performance.
It’s time to take that approach abroad, too. It’s time to find self-confident local leaders who will create No Excuses countercultures in places like Haiti, surrounding people — maybe just in a neighborhood or a school — with middle-class assumptions, an achievement ethos and tough, measurable demands.
The late political scientist Samuel P. Huntington used to acknowledge that cultural change is hard, but cultures do change after major traumas. This earthquake is certainly a trauma. The only question is whether the outside world continues with the same old, same old.
The problem is that the Obama administration will never allow anything but more of the "same old, same old".Obama and the people around him would never allow a new paradigm of foreign aid focused on transforming the culture of Haiti. Not because they fear that it would fail but because they are terrified that it would succeed.
Remember the old saying "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"?
The left-liberal (Like Obama and his closest friends and advisers) hears that and wonders, "if he knows that he won't starve to death unless he gets a fish from me every day then how will I control him?". To the left charity is never about simply helping people. Charity is about creating dependence. Dependence which is then forged into chains of slavery.
You may now be wondering if I am saying that Obama wants to enslave the Haitian people by making them dependent on American handouts.
The answer is no. Or at least not anytime soon. It's just that if a "tough love" approach to ending poverty were to be demonstrated to work in Haiti (when literally everything else has failed) it would be impossible to resist calls to begin applying it across the board in America.
What would happen to the Democrat party if the black population began to see themselves as free and self sufficient individuals rather than as members of an endangered minority group surrounded on all sides by hostile forces and depending completely on big government handouts and protection for its very survival?
The answer is that if blacks stopped voting in a 90% block for Democrats that party would never win a presidential election and would hold fewer than 40 seats in the Senate and would never manage to control the House of Representatives - at least not as long as it remained a party of the left.
This, by the way, is why the Democrats are so keen to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and create a legal means for virtually limitless numbers of Mexicans to enter the US legally. They want to increase their margin of victory by importing another minority group which can be wrapped in chains of dependency and turned into a reliable left-wing voting block.
Of course the Democrat party would not cease to exist if blacks were to be elevated out of poverty and dependence but that party would not continue to be a party of the left. The left would no longer have a significant voice in mainstream American politics and would have to retreat further into the margins.
The leftists who control the Democrat party at the national level understand that a sufficient number of Americans have to be kept poor, ignorant and dependent. To further that end they will oppose every poverty fighting philosophy or program which threatens to actually work. Whether in Africa, Haiti or anywhere else on the globe in order to keep that philosophy or program from ever taking root in America.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
An angry squeak from the elite
Stuart Schwartz has a bit of fun with the mincing little pseudo-conservative David Brooks.
David Brooks is upset.
And when the New York Times columnist, this Obama-designated conservative intellectual, the National Public Radio/MS-NBC-anointed voice for America's conservative masses, is upset, he does what comes naturally to those who regard themselves as born and educated to lead the rest of us.
He screams. A trendy, effeminate, New York Times scream. A spotlight-hugging, power-seeking, northeast corridor scream. The high-pitched kind that bounces off the glass-paneled bar at Le Cirque and shakes the Wedgewood water goblets. It's not fair, whines Brooks -- we "should have the power to implement programs to solve the country's problems" by virtue of "intellect" and "expertise."
"We" are "big government, big business, big media, and the affluent professionals" who comprise the "educated class." Obama and his Ivy League appointees, The New York Times and legacy media elites, the newly progressive Democratic Party -- a regular Intellectuals
Я Us.
Brooks rages at the "fringe" Americans who are so stupid as to deny the wonder of a nation run by its elite, "educated" betters. "Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year," he laments, tears dripping onto his University of Chicago diploma.
Educated? Does that mean that Sarah Palin, with her University of Idaho degree and best-selling book, is a member of the "educated class"? Or the millions of Tea Party sympathizers who can count to twenty without using their toes? No, Brooks says, Sarah Palin is "a joke," a "fatal cancer," and the Tea Party movement is simply an ugly fourth for the Three Stooges: Moe, Larry, Curly...and Adolf.
Brooks views Palin and Americans opposed to the Obama remake of "Government Gone Wild" as "crude, sloganeering, lemming-like, heartland Bible-Beltists who don't understand policy or David Brooks' subtleties." This is the way one New York University professor puts it for the Daily Beast. He makes this point: Brooks's "educated class" is more of an aesthetic expression, a way to describe those who are...well, better than others.
And so David Brooks is upset. And he screams the view from Manhattan, from expense-account Georgetown and 90210, the White House and Harvard Square, from the New York Times, and from General Electric Headquarters in Connecticut's "Gold Coast."
How dare they? These bozos, these ingrates, these rabble whose only job is to allow themselves to be governed by an "educated class"...and they can't even accomplish that, choosing instead to do something so inane as think for themselves. Brooks's comrade-in-brains, HBO's Bill Maher -- with the soaring, insightful rhetoric one expects from Brooks's "educated class" -- agrees: America is a " stupid country".
Oh, the shame. It's enough to make you weep -- which Brooks does regularly on behalf of The New York Times and political elites. For Brooks and brethren, the "educated class" is the repository of wisdom, the purveyor of all the thinking that America needs...or should want.
How dare they reject draconian taxes on energy consumption, taxpayer-subsidized abortions on demand, gun control, and surrendering sovereignty to the United Nations? Don't these people understand that the "educated class" knows what's best for them? That our knowledge comes from a superior ability to think, to empathize, and be jes' folks when we need to?
Jes' folks. Brooks prides himself on his New York Times-like understanding of ordinary life. Why, only last week he moderated a symposium on global warming sponsored, in part, by the National Hockey League. Hockey -- you can't get any more common than that! He looked around him and was "infected by their passion."
The hockey players' passion? Uh, no -- the "academics, business leaders[, and] activists" on the panel. He didn't actually go to a game or meet any players; that's something Sarah Palin does, after all. But he did have a piercing "educated class" insight for Times readers: "Hockey players like ice."
He understands jes' folks. Just this Sunday, Brooks congratulated himself, saying that "I feel a frisson of pleasure" when unexpectedly feeling empathy for the average American who is pushing back. It was one of those "aha" moments that sometimes intrudes upon the pages of the newspaper of record for Manhattan's Upper West Side and inside-the-beltway Washington: The non-educated class is restless.
But "frisson"? "Frisson"?! Now, outside the Times building and congressional corridors, rare is the American who freely feels a frisson of anything -- or anyone, outside of a committed relationship. All that messy middle-class morality, you know.
But Brooks's "educated class" is another matter: Witness Harvard graduate Barney Frank (D-MA)'s affair with a male prostitute, or Brooks's frisson of affection for President Obama's pant leg ("I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant and I'm thinking...he'll be a very good president."), or the vast array of scandals resulting from the pursuit of frissons by our ruling class.
So Brooks starts the New Year with anger, upset that Americans are digging in their heels -- that the ruled class does "not have faith" in its superiors, "the political class generally." And when he's upset, he gets analytical. His insight for Times readers: You have all these "fringe" people, those not belonging to the "educated class" "from states like Indiana who feel that they are fighting against a bunch of rich toffs ..."
"Toffs"? "Frissons"? "Toffs"?!
In Brooksworld, in Timesworld, in a world where "hockey players like ice" is a Pulitzer-worthy insight, people may refer to "toffs," which is British for a member of the wealthy elite. But in "mediocre" -- his word -- America, very few jokes start with "a rabbi, a priest, and a toff walked into a bar..."
Brooks is upset, and when he is upset, he talks "toff." The "educated class" must stop these very average Americans who are pulling the nation in an "angry direction." Otherwise, they may throw out the most educated and enlightened leadership the nation has ever had.
Brooks asks, in a mixture of anger and wonder, What is happening to our "educated class"?
And we the people answer: Simple -- you're in for some toff times.
So hands off our frissons.
You know a serious question is raised by all of this.
Look at the leftists who run the government at present. Then look at the leftists who run television news (other than FOX). Then look at the leftists who inhabit most of the dead-tree media like the New York Times and Washington Post.
Nancy Pelosi. . . Katie Couric. . . Harry Reid. . . Keith Olbermann. . . Jimmy Carter. . . Mary Landreiu. . . Al Sharpton. . . Barny Frank. . . John Kerry. . . I could go on, and on, and on, and on. But you get the point.
And let's not forget the emptiest of all empty suits - Barrack Hussein Obama. A man of absolutely no accomplishment - other than being a light skinned negro who could talk like a white man when he wanted to (that's what Reid actually meant).
A bigger collection of idiots you could not ask for.
Transparently stupid people.
The question is how did such a confederacy of dunces get so much power? How did people who are such obvious morons come to dominate the mainstream media, the educational establishment - including the most elite universities, and the United States government?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Why is POTUS at war with US
James Lewis wrote this piece for American Thinker a few days ago. It adds to the body of work out there which attempts to explain the very strange behavior of Barack Obama. Strange that is if we assume that his goals are to keep the nation safe, free and prosperous.
That is, after all, the goal that every other president has pursued. Even the extraordinarily bad ones like Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter were at least trying to keep the nation safe, free and prosperous.
But not Obama. Only someone with the limited knowledge base and lack of sophistication of a relatively young child could actually believe that things like closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and bringing the dangerous terrorists being held there into the US prison system is a good idea. Or believe that trying the 9/11 mastermind in a civilian criminal court in New York City is a better idea than trying him before a military tribunal.
Only someone like the above mentioned credulous child could believe that the government could take over auto companies and manage them better than the free market - despite the disastrous examples of the government run auto industries in East Germany, the Soviet Union and even the United Kingdom.
Or that a bloodthirsty enemy whose minds are in the grip of a 7th century religious ideology which tells them that we must die both as individuals and as a culture because we have emancipated our women and refuse to stone homosexuals and behead those who criticize Allah, his prophet or his book will experience a change of heart because our leader travels the world apologizing for our past acts of malfeasance in which we actually had the gall to stand up and defend our vital interests and our allies.
No, the sane adult mind finds Barack Obama's actions since taking office to be extraordinarily difficult to understand if we start from the position that Obama is a patriotic American, however misguided. So the minds of political observers have began to think what would have before been unthinkable. That perhaps the president isn't screwing up the country by accident.
Which brings us back to James Lewis and his essay, Obama the Red Avenger.
The French called Hitler a revanchiste -- a Kaiser soldier of World War I aching to avenge his old defeat. Hitler made no secret of his desire for revenge. He made it a Nazi slogan. Well, you can have ideological revanchisme as well -- for instance, a Marxist determination to take revenge for America's victory against worldwide Communism in the Cold War.
It's not Obama's blackness that's at issue. It's his redness.
When the facts are laid out like that it becomes all but impossible to dispute them.
Barack Obama was born into a bubble universe of profound leftism in which the United States occupied the role of evil empire. The USA was the malignant force threatening human civilization which had to be defeated if there was to be any hope of a true and lasting peace or genuine social justice for the peoples of the world.
Barack Obama never heard this worldview seriously challenged from his parents or grandparents or their friends. He never heard it challenged in school right on through his Ivy League education. He never heard it challenged by anyone in his circle of friends and associates in Chicago - men and women like Bill Ayers and his wife, both unrepentant communist terrorist bombers. He never heard it being anything but reinforced during the nearly 20 years he sat in Jeremiah Wright's church. He never heard it challenged in the daily newspapers he read or on the nightly network news broadcasts he watched or on taxpayer financed public television or radio.
And he never heard that anti-US mindset seriously challenged by any person of significance in the Democrat party.
The only serious challenge to the worldview that the United States sits like a giant poisonous spider in the center of a web of evil which reaches around the world raping, pillaging and polluting everything it touches that might have ever made it over the high walls of the Marxist compound in which Barack Obama's mind has been stewing since birth might have come from talk radio or Fox News. Two sources which Obama's ideological training would have taught him to instantly label as part of the right-wing hate machine and discount - without consideration.
Barack Obama is what he is and if the United States wishes to remain what it has been (a free and prosperous nation kept safe in a dangerous world by our willingness to defend ourselves and our allies) then we must resist with every legal means almost every action of this president.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
High-Tech Rape?
Robin of Berkley has an excellent piece up on American Thinker today which shins the spotlight on one of the nastier aspects of the continuing plague of Palin Derangement Syndrome which is gripping the Left, especially its propaganda organs - otherwise known as the mainstream media. Robin's point here reminded me of Clarance Thomas' characterization of the attempt to sabotage his Supreme Court appointment with baseless charges of sexual misconduct as a "high-tech lynching".
The Wilding of Sarah Palin
By Robin of Berkeley
In these dark times, with spiritually bankrupt people at the helm, thank God we have bright lights like Sarah Palin to illuminate the darkness.Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.
Conservatives have long remarked on the hypocrisy of the left which supposedly champions women's rights yet can't think of any way to express disagreement with Michelle Malkin's political views other than to call her an "Asian whore".
I think that Robin is spot on in her analysis. As hysterical as the left could get in it's attacks on George W Bush there never was a sexual component in them. Yet with Gov. Palin they have enormous trouble coming off the sexual component of their attacks. And left-wing women seem just as eager to participate in this high-tech rape as left-wing men.
I looked at the comments to this on AT since I was curious to see how leftists would respond (and there are always leftists lurking on AT and other conservative sites) yet no one had the guts to weigh in on this issue.
It seems that Robin shined the light on a truth so ugly that even the most delusionaly committed leftist wackjob can't bring him/herself to engage with it directly.
However I did see this comment by someone identified as Mabelee:
You are right in saying that "rape" is aimed at men, too, to terrorize them by making them watch. Look at the number of prominent conservative men who have announced that Palin is not a serious contender for the presidency simply because of the bashing she's taken from the left. They see her as "spoiled goods". Wow! This is all making sense now. Sarah isn't letting the left define who she is and I won't let them define who she is either.This is an excellent observation. The Republican establishment hates Sarah Palin because she is not one of them. Their ideal Republican is someone like John McCain or Bob Dole. They hate Gov. Palin for the same reason they hated (and in their hearts continue to hate) Ronald Reagan.
But there are many more Republicans who distance themselves from Mrs. Palin because they figure that she has been so damaged by the attacks that she cannot recover politically or because they don't want to get a dose of what the left is dishing out against Sarah by publicly identifying with her.
To that first group I point out that Sarah Palin's poll numbers are moving up not just among Republicans but among Independents and even Democrats. As the people have more opportunities to get to know her they are finding out how wrong the media caricatures were. Eventually you are going to be in the embarrassing position of having to run along behind the Palin bandwagon shouting "me too, me too!".
To that second group of Republican "men" who are simply too gutless to come out in support of someone who is currently being slimed by the left and it's attack-dog media I have only this to say. You are utterly and absolutely beneath contempt. You are nothing but a worthless pack of geldings who should be stripped naked and whipped through the streets of your home towns then be clothed in burkas and sent to Somalia where you can live out your worthless lives as junior "wives" of Islamic warlords or pirates.
To the left I have this to say. What you say about Sarah Palin or anything else does not bother me in the least. It has been more than a decade since I have recognized any common humanity with you. Your words have no more power than the barking of a flea-bitten mange covered stray mongrel dog rooting around in the city dump. At best you can occasionally rise to the level of a pack of monkeys screaming and throwing feces at something that frightens them.
But under no circumstances do I consider any thought or opinion you might now or ever have to be of the slightest interest or import. Nothing you might ever have to say about anything can be of the slightest consequence to any civilized participant in the human race. The only reason that you can not be hunted down and exterminated like the malignant vermin you are is the unhappy fact that you possess DNA which identifies you as biologically "human" and so entitles you to ghe same protections under law which real people enjoy.
Conservatives, and other actual human beings, should take the left's hysterics about Palin as a sign that she is the best person to undo their evil, since if she really were nothing but a stupid c--t they would largely ignore her - after all when was the last time you heard a leftist rant against Peggy Noonan?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The parable of the scorpion
Once upon a time there was a fox preparing to swim across a river when he was approached by a scorpion who said that he also needed to cross the river and asked if he might ride on the fox's back.
The fox refused, saying that if the scorpion stung him while he was in the water that he would become paralyzed and drown. The scorpion replied that he would do no such thing because if the fox drowned then he would drown along with him.
The fox considered this and agreed to allow the scorpion to ride on his back across the river.
Halfway across the river, where the water was at its deepest, the scorpion stung the fox.
The fox asked the scorpion why he had done this, since now they would both die.
The scorpion answered, "Because I'm a scorpion".
The lesson of the parable is that a thing will always act in accordance with its true nature. A snake is a snake, a spider is a spider, a scorpion is a scorpion and a Democrat is a Democrat.
That principle was placed on full view last night when the United States Senate passed a socialized medicine plan on a party line vote in which the supposed "conservative Democrat" holdouts like Mary Landrieu sold their votes (and sold out their nation) and actually bragged about how much swag they were able to take home.
Another "holdout" who wound up supporting the bill was "Independent" Senator Joe Lieberman who one time in his political career actually did show true independence and political courage by supporting the Bush administration in its war on terror and then endorsing John McCain for the same reason.
However when it came to a threat which will certainly do more long-term damage to the nation from within than al Qaeda could ever do from without Lieberman reverted to his true Democrat nature and cast a vote which sets the nation on the path to a full blown Marxist takeover of the health care industry with all the disastrous consequences that will follow.
Let me pause here to say I FRAKING TOLD YOU SO!
Back in 2006 when everyone was all pissed off at Bush and the Republicans in congress because they were spending money like Ted Kennedy at happy hour I told you that while the GOP absolutely did not deserve to win back control of the legislature that the nation absolutely did not deserve what would happen to it if they did not.
NOW do you believe me?
I understand that once upon a time the political landscape in this nation was different.
I know that there was once a time when the Democrat party's leadership and its most important core constituent groups did not reflexively hate America. I know that the first thing that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn did after being exiled from the Soviet Union was address a joint session of congress (controlled by Democrats) and the next thing he did was address the annual meeting of the AFL-CIO (the nations largest labor union at the time).
I know that there were once Democrats like Henry "Scoop" Jackson who were strong supporters of liberal causes like civil rights but were also true patriots and strong supporters of things like defeating our enemies, supporting our allies and promoting our values overseas.
But the Democrat party of men like Henry Jackson, Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy is dead.
It died in the chaos and nihilism of the late Sixties and early Seventies when men who were the leaders of a radical Marxist "New Left" (men who are Barack Obama's heroes and role models) infiltrated the Democrat party, changed the way it nominates candidates and transformed it into the kind of party which chooses people like Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Barack Obama to lead it.
Today the Democrat party is the party of Big Government worship and nothing else.
The modern Democrat party is nothing more than a secular version of radical Islam.
Just as the very word Islam means submission (to the will of Allah) the modern Democrat party is based on the concept of submission to an all-powerful central State.
In Islam Allah is called "merciful" and "benevolent" and held to be the source of every good thing while ordering his followers to spread the faith through jihad and offer "infidels" the choice of death, slavery or conversion.
The Democrat party believes that the government is, or should be, the source of every good thing - like health care, retirement income, housing and, give them time, food and clothing. All the while demonizing anyone who dissents. And we are seeing more and more that the Democrats are not content to simply demonize those who disagree but wish to criminalize them as well. We see this in everything from the Obama Justice Department's willingness to investigate CIA interrogators for using "torture" to the jail terms in the House health care legislation for those who refuse to participate in PelosiCare.
Islam requires that society be reordered so that the distinction between the religious and secular are abolished and the religious demands of the Koran (sharia law) are legally enforced by the State.
The Democrat party demands that the government impose it's faith based doctrines like Global Warming upon the nation by force.
Islam demands that government power be used to silence anyone who criticizes Islam or who would promote another religion.
The Democrat party is exploring ways (like bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" or local ownership rules) to silence conservative talk radio. The Obama administration has been running a campaign to isolate and delegitimize Fox News.
I could go on with the comparison, but you get the point.
The United States of America is fighting two wars. Both are against radical religious extremists who wish to impose a tyrannical theocracy upon this nation.
One enemy is external (except for home-grown jihadists like Maj. Hasan) and one is internal.
At the end of the day it is the internal threat which is the deadliest.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
None so blind as those who will not see
Here are details that have emerged about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and his shooting rampage at Ft. Hood.
Hasan is a lifelong Muslim. At the mosque in Maryland where he worshiped he listed his nationality as "Palestinian" even though he was a natural born citizen of the United States.
Hasan was an opponent of the United States' warn in Iraq and Afghanistan and frequently argued with other soldiers who supported the war. Hasan had been heard to make the statement that Muslims had the right to rise up and attack the US military in those nations.
Apparently Hasan had posted comments on the Internet praising Muslim suicide bombers.
Hasan stated that America's war on terror was actually a war against Islam.
Hasan was due to be deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan and was unwilling to go. Perhaps he did not wish to be part of the "occupation forces" in a Muslim country.
Witnesses to Hasan's attack on his fellow soldiers report that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "God is great") before opening fire.
There is only one reason why someone whose behavior sent up as many red flags as Maj. Hasan's was allowed to remain in the Army.
The fact that he was a Muslim of Middle Eastern descent.
Only the politically correct desire not to appear "racist" or "anti-Muslim" caused Hasan's superiors to turn a blind eye to his statements and the underlying beliefs they exposed.
No where is it more clear than in this case that the entire complex of ideas and attitudes, and the thought processes which generate those ideas and attitudes, of the political left are nothing more than an expression of self-loathing hatred of the Western Culture.
Listen to the official statements of the Pentagon and the White House and read the coverage of this incident in the mainstream media. The self-imposed ideological blinders required by adherence to the principles of political correctness and multiculturalism force the liberal political establishment and the press which serves as its propaganda organ to willfully ignore the breathtakingly obvious fact that Hasan acted out of a belief that his Islamic religious faith required him to do what he did.
To choose to ignore this fact and to absolutely refuse to change our behavior toward Islam and those who adhere to it, except to possibly become more "open" and "inclusive" toward them, can come only from a strong internal desire to commit cultural suicide.
In fact the whole structure of political correctness and multiculturalism are nothing more than a form of slow motion cultural suicide. They are like alcohol to a man who is drinking himself to death.
Why the left despises the culture that made them safe and prosperous and has given the world as much as the West has is a mystery which I doubt will ever be solved. Much like the child of wealthy parents who is born into security and comfort with a bright future laid out before him and responds not with gratitude but bitter resentment, the leftist spits on what he should fall to his knees and thank God for.
It is long past time for the sane adults in this nation to stop indulging the spoiled brats on the left. We must rise up and take control of this nation and this culture from the simpering "elites" who currently dominate and restore sanity - while we still have a nation and a culture to rescue.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Miss Ann is talking
That means that YOU are listening!
by Ann Coulter
October 21, 2009
The Obama administration has attacked Fox News in order to prevent government corruption stories broken on Fox from bleeding into the other media, which are all-consumed with daily updates on Levi Johnston's Playgirl spread and Carrie Prejean's breast implants.
That's understandable. But I think the administration should have picked someone other than David Axelrod to deliver the claim that Fox News is "not really news," inasmuch as Axelrod was behind the leak of scurrilous allegations in Jack Ryan's sealed divorce papers when he was running for a Senate seat against Obama. Talk about vicious personal gossip.
Now that Fox has been branded an untouchable, the teacher's-pet media are jubilant.
In Newsweek, Jacob Weisberg wrote a column saying liberals should refuse to appear on Fox News, pointedly concluding, "And no, I don't want to come on 'The O'Reilly Factor' to discuss it." Considering that Weisberg is a 107-pound weasel with a speech impediment, this is on the order of Weisberg's announcing that he's not interested in appearing in the next "Ocean's Eleven" movie with George Clooney.
The strangest thing about all the invective against Fox is that it is happening in a world that contains MSNBC. At least Fox News primetime hosts, and many of their guests, know something about politics. MSNBC's primetime lineup presents an array of people who sound like earnest college kids who just walked up to a Common Cause table, and the sum-total of what they know about politics is what they read in the brochures.
In the past week, both Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann have rolled out the Willie Horton ad, claiming that it marked the beginning of vicious personal attacks in politics, as opposed to what it was: The most devastatingly relevant campaign commercial in all of American history.
You can always astonish college kids by telling them the true story of Willie Horton. Among the jaw-dropping facts are:
-- In the '80s, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a prison furlough policy had to be extended to convicted murderers, who were ineligible for parole.
-- Even the Massachusetts Legislature, which contained about three Republicans, realized this was insane, and quickly passed a bill excluding first-degree murderers from the weekend furlough program. But in a desperate bid for the ACLU's Brain-Dead Liberal of the Year Award, Gov. Michael Dukakis vetoed the bill.
-- Horton, who was later released under this program, was in prison for carving up a teenager at a gas station and then stuffing his body into a garbage can. (He had already been convicted of attempted murder in South Carolina -- through no fault of his own, the victim survived.)
-- Even after Horton used his Dukakis-granted furlough to rape and torture a Maryland couple in their home for 12 straight hours, the Greek homunculus issued a statement reaffirming his strong support for furloughing murderers.
-- The Bush campaign commercial about Dukakis' furlough program never showed a picture of Horton. In fact, the actors playing "criminals" passing through a revolving door in the ad were all white.
-- Voters considered it relevant that a candidate for president was so beholden to the ACLU that he backed an idiotic furlough program that released first-degree murderers.
Every informed student of the 1988 campaign knows that the Bush ad didn't show Horton's picture. And yet in Keith's discussion of Bush's allegedly vile, racist use of Willie Horton, he used a phony version of the ad, doctored to include a photo of Horton.
I don't blame Keith personally for this blatant distortion: He gets all his research material from Markos Moulitsas and other left-wing bloggers, so he can't be held responsible for the content of his show. Keith's principal contribution to the program is his nightly display of self-congratulation and pompous douche-baggery.
Remember, Keith, like his MSNBC colleague Contessa Brewer, majored in "communications" in college, not a research-related field, such as political science. In his coursework, he learned such skills as: Dramatically Turning to Camera, Hysterical Self-Righteousness, Pausing Portentously and Gravely Demanding Apologies/Resignations From Various Public Figures.
Given this background, it's understandable that Keith will make errors. As viewers witnessed recently, he can't even pronounce the name of prominent American economist and philosopher, Thomas Sowell. (Although he did spend three weeks at a Berlitz course in Arabic honing his pronunciation of "Abu Ghraib" to razor-sharp prissiness.)
The bloggers and Keith bring different skill sets to the game. They provide the tendentious half-truths, phony opinion polls and spurious social science, while Keith provides his booming baritone, gigantic "Guys and Dolls" suits and gift for ridiculous, fustian grandiloquence. Keith is far better equipped than, say, the pint-sized, girly-voiced, Frito Bandito-accented Markos Moulitsas to deliver the party line.
But here's the fly in the ointment: Keith has once again been victimized by left-wing blogs into thinking that the 1988 Bush ad showed Willie Horton's picture, when in fact, Horton's race was deliberately scrubbed from the ad.
Again, in fairness to Keith, he's never been a "content guy." He was a communications major. (The agriculture school Keith attended offered a degree in this field.) He lifts the material for his show from liberal blogs, overwrites it, and throws in his trademark smirking and snorts. But that's all he does because, again, he was a communications major.
I got busy this past few days and missed posting Miss Ann's column in a timely fashion, but decided to go ahead and put it up late because it is one of her better efforts.
You can always tell what Democrats are afraid of because that is what they shriek with the most outraged fury over.
It is also what they tell the most outrageous lies about.
As the Left's paroxysms of foaming madness over the Willie Horton ad proves.
You can also see this in candidate debates when the Republican accuses his Democrat opponent of being "liberal".
At this point the liberal candidate will become huffy and lament the fact that politics has "degenerated" to the point where we must always attach labels.
Here's a comeback for the next Republican candidate who gets scolded for "labeling" his opponent. Ask his opponent if he supports putting warnings on packs of cigarettes. Then while the liberal is still sputtering ask the audience why it is proper to attach a warning label to one dangerous product, tobacco, but not another, political liberalism.
There is a lesson in here for the GOP, if it wishes to regain control of the legislature and the White House. Look at which Republican the Left is spewing the most hatred and derision at.
That is the person they fear the most. That is the person they believe can beat their little tin messiah in the next presidential election.
Do I need to say her name?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
At least somebody is telling the truth
WASHINGTON (CNN) – A leading fiscal mind on Capitol Hill and a one-time Obama Cabinet pick sounded the alarm Sunday over the projected long-term financial challenges the country faces.
“This deficit is driven by us,” New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg candidly said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union when asked about the federal government’s projected $1.42 trillion operating deficit for the 2009 fiscal year.
“You talk about systemic risk. The systemic risk today is the Congress of the United States,“ the Ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, “that we’re creating these massive debts which we’re passing on to our children. We’re going to undermine fundamentally the quality of life for our children by doing this.”
“Now you can’t blame that on [former President] George [W.] Bush,” Greg said, noting that using the Obama administration’s projections the budget deficit for the next ten years is $1 trillion per year. And Gregg said that during the same ten-year period, public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product would increase from 40 percent - which Gregg called “tolerable but still too high” - up to 80 percent.
The figures, Gregg told King, “mean we’re basically on the path to a banana-republic-type of financial situation in this country. And you just can’t do that. You can’t keep running these [federal] programs out [into the future] and not paying for them. And you can’t keep throwing debt on top of debt.”
“Standards of living will drop if we keep this up,” Gregg also said.
After repeated promises from the White House that the final health care reform bill will be deficit neutral, Gregg said a Democratic plan to avoid otherwise automatic Medicare cuts without having a funding source for the projected expense of $250 billion over the next decade was “gamesmanship.”
Asked about criticism leveled Sunday by former Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania that Republicans were being obstructionist in the health care reform debate, Gregg replied, “Well, I suppose he has to call us something now that he’s left the party.”
Responding to the Democratic charge that the GOP is “the party of ‘no,’” Gregg pointed to Republican health care reform proposals including his own and another co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Tom Coburn and Sen. Richard Burr, as well as a bipartisan proposal put forward by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Robert Bennett (R-UT).”
Gregg said the versions of health care reform voted out of the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would amount to “a huge expansion of government.”
“You’re talking about taking the government and increasing it by $1-$2 trillion over the next ten years,” Gregg said. He added that he thought growing government at that rate would have a “very debilitating effect” on the overall economy and the ability of Americans to get health care in the future.
At one point earlier this year, Gregg, who is not seeking re-election to his Senate seat in 2010, was President Obama’s choice to head the Commerce Department. But the fiscal hawk removed himself from consideration because of differences with the new administration on several policy issues.
I do not believe that it is any longer possible to deny that what Obama and the congressional leadership are doing to the nation is deliberate.
This is nothing less than an attempt to destroy the United States of America so that they can rebuild a new nation (United Socialist States of America) from the rubble.
If the American people were truly awake to what is going on and were it is heading they would flood Washington DC and pack the Capitol with their bodies to the point were congress could not physically meet and form a quorum to enact any of the administration's legislative agenda.
They would keep this up until the 2010 election.
But this will not happen. The vast majority of the people, even conservatives, are not aware of how dire the situation is. The fact is that we are a hair's breadth away from losing the nation.
It is possible for a nation to go so far down the path of socialism that it cannot turn back without an abject collapse, as in the case of the USSR and Eastern Europe, or a violent revolution.
If Obama and his allies in congress are not stopped soon the US will reach that point.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
A dream denied
ST. LOUIS (AP) - Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been dropped from a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams. Limbaugh was to be a limited partner in a bid led by St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts, but Checketts said in a statement Wednesday that Limbaugh's participation had complicated the effort. The group will move forward without him. Checketts said he will have no further comment on the bid process. Limbaugh did not immediately respond to an e-mail sent late Wednesday seeking comment on Checketts' decision. Limbaugh said on his radio show earlier Wednesday that he had been inundated with e-mails from listeners who supported him in the bid. "This is not about the NFL, it's not about the St. Louis Rams, it's not about me," Limbaugh said. "This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative. "Therefore, this is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have." Limbaugh's bid ran into opposition from within the image-conscious NFL on Tuesday when Colts owner Jim Irsay said he would vote against the radio personality. Commissioner Roger Goodell said the commentator's "divisive" comments would not be tolerated from any NFL insider. The league tries to avoid getting snared in controversial issues outside sports, which has caused Limbaugh trouble in the past. In 2003, he was forced to resign from ESPN's Sunday night football broadcast after saying of Philadelphia's Donovan McNabb: "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." The Rams had no comment, reissuing a statement from Oct. 5 in which owner Chip Rosenbloom said a review of the team's ownership was under way and the club will make an announcement when it's over. Checketts, the chairman of SCP Worldwide, announced that Limbaugh had been dumped toward the end of a news release. "It has become clear that his involvement in our group has become a complication and a distraction to our intentions; endangering our bid to keep the team in St. Louis," Checketts said. "As such, we have decided to move forward without him and hope it will eventually lead us to a successful conclusion." The move was hailed by the Rev. Al Sharpton, one of the most vocal critics of Limbaugh's bid. "It is a moral victory for all Americans—especially the players that have been unfairly castigated by Rush Limbaugh," Sharpton said in a statement. "This decision will also uphold the unifying standards of major sports." Sharpton added in a telephone interview that major sports leagues shouldn't welcome owners who are "divisive and incendiary." Every major pro sports franchise has dealings with its community, he said. "It's unfair for taxpayers to be underwriting people who denigrate them," he said. Checketts said Limbaugh would have not had any say in the direction of the franchise "or in any decisions regarding personnel or operations." Before getting dropped, Limbaugh said he had no intention of backing out. "I'm not even thinking of caving," he said. "I am not a caver. Pioneers take the arrows. We are pioneers. It's a sad thing that our country, over 200 years old now, needs pioneers all over again, but we do." First of all, Al Sharpton. For my thoughts on that miserable ball of slime go here. That a lying, hate-filled sack of feces like Sharpton - a man who is covered in innocent blood - is taken seriously enough to be consulted on absolutely any issue whatsoever is something that we should all be deeply ashamed of. Now on to Rush Limbaugh and the NFL. I am sorry that Rush is going to be denied his life-long dream of being an owner (if only of a very small share) of a professional football team. It is outrageous that members of the US legislature would rise on the floor of the house to denounce a private citizen and attempt to interfere with his lawful business activities. It is even more outrageous that members of the mainstream media would attack any person with fabricated quotes in order to create the false impression that he is a racist. That there was absolutely no effort made to fact check any of the supposed Limbaugh quotes demonstrates that there was no desire to find the truth because it might get in the way of their hatchet job. This tells us all we need to know about why "old media' is dying. However I can't feel all that sorry for Rush. After all he is still fabulously wealthy. His radio program is still number 1 in the entire nation and he still has millions of devoted fans. If not being able to own a tiny percentage of a football team is the worst price he has to pay he is a lucky man indeed. After listening to him on the radio today talking about how much he loved the NFL and how he put the league and the players "on a pedestal" I have to wonder if he has since had an epiphany. I mean he obviously learned nothing from the ESPN incident so is he awake now? Does he now truly understand that the league that he has wasted so many hours of his life worshiping wants no part of him? Like it or not the NFL is effectively run by left-liberals and a man like Rush Limbaugh shouldn't be willing to piss in its face if its nose was on fire. I would say that I'll never watch football again, but I don't watch football now. My take on the NFL is that if they want me to watch they need to give the players swords. Now that would be a show!
Explore Christian Blogosphere
This might some insight into the mindset of why haiti is such a properous and self sustaining nation.
We have conditioned them to stand with their hands out instead of being self sufficient(work).
Now the natives riot because we do not respond quickly enough with more handouts.