February 19, 2006

Liberals Don’t Know It, And Don’t Wanna Hear It

Liberals, so-called tolerant intellectual types, are forever saying they are open to debate, yet in my experience on the web, their debating style seems to be constant repetition of the same bumper sticker dreck. A prime example of this would be a lengthy debate I had here in my comments section a few months ago with a pacifist who claimed we could have removed Saddam Hussein from power through peaceful means, yet throughout our discourse over a period of several days, he never once provided a “how” to his statement. Why? Because there was no “how”.

To him, there had to be, though he apparently had no clue as to what it was, because he lived(and probably still does) in the Utopian land of the liberal, where “in a perfect world” ideals trump reality.

When you get into face-to-face arguments with liberals, you learn where their real debating skills come into play. Their technique is almost uniform: They shout you down or, if they are more civilized, simply interrupt you three words into every sentence so they don’t have to hear your point of view. This is because they actually don’t have any real world ammunition to fuel their sides of the respective debates, only the usual repetitive diatribes and anti-Bush/anti-God/anti-America/anti-conservative rhetoric. Naturally, despite all the verbal evidence to the contrary, they’ll be the first to deny that they’re anything other than sterling, Constitution-respecting, believing-in-God American patriots of the highest order.

Right. Sure. Yeah.

I got to watch a good sampling when I tried getting through Bill Maher’s show a little while ago, the first time I’d watched him since his Politically Incorrect days and probably the last.

The guests were liberal wingnut columnist Helen Thomas, liberal actor/comedian(not necessarily in that order) Eddie Griffin and former Bush Administration spokesman Daniel Senor.

The topic of discussion was, of course, the eighteen hours that elapsed between Cheney’s accidental shooting of Whittington and his making a statement about it to the media.

Senor tried several times to point out that the MSM, during a press conference, had asked nearly two hundred questions about the incident and only four in reference to the ongoing and profoundly more momentous issues of Iran’s enriched uranium/ nuclear weapons program and Bush’s meeting with Annan on Dharfur; and while Senor listened respectfully to the liberal participants when they registered their opinions, his responses were continuously stomped on by the lefties with statements to the effect that the priority issue was that the Vice President had shot someone, as though he had done so maliciously, with the intent to commit murder.

Griffin actually said that he believed Iran should have nuclear weapons, his stated opinion being that a country needs to have “the bomb” in order to participate with any credibility in global commerce. Helen Thomas agreed with him wholeheartedly, commenting on his “great” logic.

This kind of hogwash is what dominates the entire liberal-dominated Democratic Party political spectrum. They are so far “out there” that this is the best they have to offer America, and this in lieu of any realistic contributions to the governing of the United States or to U.S. foreign policy.

The fact that there are Americans, or facsimiles thereof who have access to our polling places who actually take the far out blatherings of the left seriously leads me to only one possible recommendation:

Let us pray…

by @ 11:01 pm. Filed under Liberals(spit!)

February 18, 2006

Superb Commentary On The Mainstream Media

Marianne Jennings has an accurately definitive column up on today’s MSM.

To exerpt,

The problem with the mainstream media is that they lack the collective wisdom of the red states. Those in the red states know the difference between stupidity and rights. They know that fault cannot always be assigned. They look at the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of media teeth on how Mr. Bush’s ties to Halliburton caused Hurricane Katrina and realize that the press may not be parring the hole on insight, intelligence, or analysis.

The indignation over the release of information on the Veep’s quail hunting accident is something beyond the usual and well documented media bias. The mainstream media have become unhinged. So great is their dislike of Mr. Bush and so strong their desire to have a Watergate office-removal scandal that they cannot distinguish between relevant and irrelevant, material and immaterial. Blinding rage is destructive.

Talk about a well hammered nail!

by @ 9:49 am. Filed under Great Commentary

Another Great Book

The last several days I’ve been fighting a highly aggressive edition of influenza that did, indeed, influence things — I found it pretty impossible to stay focused enough to finish any posts or get some other needed work done at this website, but did get in some reading, finishing another book I definitely recommend for anyone who would like to learn of the vast difference between the infinitely more civilized way we conservatives conduct the business of politics and the often violent, vandalous and aggressively slanderous methods employed by the left.

The book is Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, by conservative columnist and superblogger Michelle Malkin.

Get it. Read it. By myriad references and examples, learn how totally intolerant, insanely extremist and profoundly out-of-touch with reality liberals really are.

by @ 8:32 am. Filed under Recommended

The Effect Of Liberal Academics On American History Education

Yet another example of how the so-called intellectual, obfuscating, Marxist, propagandizing, anti-American, lying, Machiavellan, treasonous, shit eating liberals’ domination of the American educational system has transformed many of today’s college students into history challenged, left leaning stooges for this country’s enemies within is well told by John Fund(scrolling down the page)here.

‘Pappy’ Shot Down by Campus Ignoramuses

It’s well known that college students today aren’t as educated in our nation’s history as they should be, but it’s still hard to grasp the mind-bending political correctness just displayed by the University of Washington’s student senate at its campus in Seattle.

The issue before the Senate this month was a proposed memorial to World War II combat pilot Gregory “Pappy” Boyington, a 1933 engineering graduate of the university, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service commanding the famed “Black Sheep” squadron in the Pacific. The student senate rejected the memorial because “a Marine” is not “an example of the sort of person UW wants to produce.”

Digging themselves in deeper, the student opponents of the memorial indicated: “We don’t need to honor any more rich white males.” Other opponents compared Boyington’s actions during World War II with murder.

“I am absolutely bewildered that the Student Senate voted down the resolution,” Brent Ludeman, the president of the UW College Republicans, told me. He noted that despite the deficiencies of the UW History Department, the complete ignorance of Boyington’s history and reputation by the student body was hard to fathom. After all, “Black Sheep Squadron,” a 1970s television show portraying Colonel Boyington’s heroism as a pilot and Japanese prisoner of war, still airs frequently on the History Channel. Apparently, though, it’s an unusual UW student who’d be willing to learn any U.S. history even if it’s spoonfed to him by TV.

As for the sin of honoring a rich white male, Mr. Ludeman points out that Boyington (who died in 1988) was neither rich nor white. He happened to be a Sioux Indian, who wound up raising his three children as a single parent. “Colonel Boyington is luckily not around to see how ignorant students at his alma mater can be today,” says Kirby Wilbur, a morning talk show host at Seattle’s KVI Radio. Perhaps the trustees and alumni of the school will now help educate them.

Coincidentally, I’m about done reading a highly enlightening book that I can already assure you is a must-read for today’s students on every educational level if they are of a mind to discern the difference between what the liberals want them to “learn” and what actually transpired in American History.

The book, authored by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., PhD, is The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History.

One of the first things Stalin, Hitler, Mao and other totalitarians did was rewrite the histories of their nations, remaking the past to foster their control of the present. The American Left has done the same thing in our country: most American history books — both for students and adults — are riddled with PC nonsense that makes the Founding Fathers over into racist slaveholders, the settlers of the West into genocidal land-stealers, and the welfare state into as the harbinger of the ultimate triumph of liberalism.

But now at last conservatives and patriotic Americans have an antidote: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History is a handy one-volume guide to our nation’s glorious past that has one key advantage over today’s dozens of dreary PC history books: this one tells you what really happened — not what liberals wish had happened.

Not only does Thomas Woods tell readers the truth, he also provides references to books that the “intellectual” liberals do not want today’s students(or anyone else, for that matter) to read as they, too, reveal the truth.

From my reading thus far, I highly recommend this book for anyone who prefers to know the truth rather than absorbing the PC revisionist malarkey being pushed on our youth for leftist political reasons.

by @ 7:39 am. Filed under General Purpose Morons

February 10, 2006

Images Of Mohammed, Religious Humor Not Forbidden

In a Wall Street Journal article a couple of days ago, Amir Taheri pointed out that claims by those organizers of Islamic mega-vandals over the Danish cartoon episode that depictions of Mohammed and jokes about Islam are banned by Koranic principles are a politically motivated fabrication.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan–who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary–can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.
There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued “fatwas” against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments–which include a ban on depicting God–as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is “an absolute principle of Islam” is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers.

The reasons for the recent violence by mindless animals was, therefore, just another excuse to do what they do best: Destroy property and injure innocent people, protected by the safety of numbers provided by fellow scum in their cowardly mobs.

This is an excellent piece, Read on.

by @ 3:55 am. Filed under Islamofascism

February 6, 2006

Iran Emboldened

The “diplomacy at any cost” policies and track record for useless censuring and impotent “sanctions” by the U.N. and its Euro-buddies is bearing its particular brand of bitter fruit among the Iranian leadership.

Iran told the International Atomic Energy Agency to remove surveillance cameras and agency seals from sites and nuclear equipment by the end of next week, the U.N. watchdog agency said Monday.

Iran’s demands came two days after the IAEA reported Tehran to the Security Council over its disputed atomic program. The council has the power to impose economic and political sanctions.

In a confidential report to the IAEA’s 35-member board, agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran also announced a sharp reduction in the number and kind of inspections IAEA experts will be allowed, effective immediately.

As I posted here and here, I don’t for a minute see this situation being resolved peacefully.

Iran has to be prevented, one way or another, from developing a nuclear arsenal and they will not stop their nuke development program as a result of any political or other sanctions nor any other venues that are either threatened or imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The only way to address this situation, hopefully before a large chunk of Israel becomes the proverbial glass parking lot, will prove to involve aggressive military applications of some sort.

by @ 12:06 pm. Filed under Nuclear Threats

More From The Religion Of Peace

Yesterday in Beirut, a bunch of Muslims demonstrated yet again how they are able to function, collectively and tolerantly, like reasonable human beings.

A mob burned and ransacked the Danish Consulate in Beirut yesterday in anger over newspaper cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, prompting the interior minister to resign over his inability to prevent the violence.
The rioters, many of them Syrians, also attacked a Maronite church and scuffled with security forces, burning police and army vehicles. The State Department held the Syrian government responsible for similar actions a day earlier in Damascus.
Muslims worldwide are enraged at a series of cartoons that a Danish newspaper ran in September, depicting Muhammad in the company of veiled women and as a terrorist with a bomblike turban. Islam forbids any portrayal of its prophet as idolatry.
Many of yesterday’s protesters arrived in Beirut in buses and carrying flags. They engaged Lebanese security forces in running street fights with rocks and sticks, burning or capturing police and emergency vehicles before storming the Danish Consulate in the majority-Christian neighborhood of Ashrafiyah.
“There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his messenger,” the rioters chanted, smashing their way into the 10-story commercial building and lighting fires that quickly engulfed the structure.

Lovely.

This stuff keeps on happening{in this case, the violence erupted over items published in a Danish newspaper about five months ago} in various countries, then terror supporting organizations such as CAIR react with indignance and wrath when anyone even dares suggest that there might be some violent people in the global Islamic community.

Go figure.

Mark Steyn provides some great related commentary here.

by @ 11:23 am. Filed under Islamofascism

February 2, 2006

State Of The Democratic Party

The Washington Times’ Tony Blankley’s latest column presents a good analysis of the Democratic Party as it now stands, citing the relationships between some of George Bush’s statements in Tuesday evening’s SOTU address and the folks on the left side of the aisle.

During an election campaign, political operatives are fond of seeking to induce in their opponent a negative “defining moment.” That is to say a highly publicized moment when their opponent portrays everything that is wrong with him. In 2004 John Kerry provided that moment when he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it.
Surely, at the State of the Union address the Democratic Party provided such a moment when, as has already been well commented on by others, they wildly applauded President Bush’s statement that Congress failed to pass Social Security reform last year.
As the party of reactionary inertia — as the party that not only doesn’t have any solutions to today’s dangers and problems, but denies that such problems exist — the Democrats on the floor of the House Tuesday night demonstrated a flawless, intuitive sense of its new, disfunctional self.
The Democrats’ wild applause on behalf of doing nothing was more than a merely tactical political blunder. It displayed a deeper truth about them.

It sure did. It seems like ever since Bush beat Gore in 2000, the Democrats have put all other issues, in fact their very minds on the back burner in order to prosecute their War On Bush.

If one recalls, last year the official position of the Democratic Party was not only that they opposed President Bush’s Social Security reform. They also argued there was no crisis — no major problem that required rectification.
(In fact Social Security has four trillion dollars of unfunded liability, and if major changes are not made quickly, will only be able to pay the retired baby boomers about 70 cents for each dollar of promised benefits.)
Social Security is the single most iconic Democratic Party issue of the past hundred years — the Democrats created Social Security in 1935 and have won countless elections since then by beating up Republicans for allegedly not supporting it. It was the Democratic Party’s sacred virgin. They would lie for it, die for it, steal for it, demagogue for it — but never cheer its demise or harm, even sarcastically.
Their collective decision to cheer the failure of the body politic to provide for sufficient revenues to pay the benefits was an act of historic shame for the Democratic Party.
Worse than that for the Democrats, it shows how severely degraded their political instincts have become. Tip O’Neill’s Democratic Party of 20 years ago would never have cheered the failure of Social Security — even to try to make a small political point. To be sure, they would demagogue the issue ruthlessly, but never be seen to be walking away from the sacred program.
Until George Bush became president the Democrats, for better and for worse, were a liberal party. Deformed by hatred of the current president, the Democrats have become a nihilist party.

Yeah, well, thanks to alternative media and the Democrats’ own obvious lack of either unity or direction, their uselessness as a political entity is costing them more and more public support, despite the misleading reports to the contrary by the liberal mainstream media.

The Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress and we have a strong conservative in the Oval Office, and the numbers can only increase on the right as the nation realizes long before this November that the left hasn’t a clue about anything, they’re standing at a $25.00 minimum table with four $5.00 chips.

by @ 2:20 pm. Filed under Great Commentary

February 1, 2006

State Of The Union Address 2006

For those who, for whatever reason, didn’t catch the President’s SOTU address yesterday, the full transcript can be found here.

The Wall Street Journal has published a number of key excerpts from the speech, which are here.

by @ 10:43 am. Filed under The President