It's been a while since I've blogged about the incessant parade of backward, hypocritical, liberal lunacy, so this update is loaded. Enjoy!
I bet you didn't realize (or, if you're a regular reader of this blog, maybe you did) that there are any number of things that liberals like but that hurt the environment:
When liberals aren't whining about the environment, they're Abu Ghraib-ifying our schools. Rather than address behavioral problems with actual punishment such as paddling ***gasp!*** the liberal Left instead goes ballistic on the horrendous child abuse being visited upon these innocent youth by vicious, beating-happy teachers. Never mind the fact that teachers often suffer the brunt of real attacks and violence at the hands of students...we can't possibly dream of getting stern on misbehavior, can we?
What happens when the entitlement mentality comes to health care? Doctors quit. More and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicaid/Medicare or leave medical practice entirely because the government's strong-arming of the industry coupled with insurance's stranglehold on pricing is making it unprofitable. Just think what would happen if we get the universal health care that the Obamessiah wants to implement...absolute disaster.
And, in our parade of liberal insanity, don't forget those judges! They provide some of the best examples of liberal idiocy. Take, for example, this court in Oregon, which single-handedly over-rode the votes of millions of Oregon citizens who wanted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman (and Oregon is no conservative state!). I can't recall the number of states where this has happened, but you can bet that as long as agenda-driven activist judges are appointed to the bench by liberal Democrat Presidents, this sort of insanity will continue. Elections matter, and this is one BIG reason why!
Aside from the actual specifics of his tax plan, how should we characterize the Obamessiah's general attitude toward taxing the American people? Suffice it to say that he finds merit in 'taxing the heck out of' us. Yeah, that'll help the economy. But that's not all. The Washington Times posted a story about the obvious hypocrisy of Barack the Obamessiah when it comes to economic class differences. He believes we should use our wealth to help the global poor, right? That's what his entire Global Poverty Act is all about, after all. So, we recently learned that one of his half-brothers, George Hussein Onyango Obama, lives in a hut in abject poverty in Kenya, surviving on a piddly $12 per year. Surely, if helping the global poor were that important to the Obamessiah, he would lift his own kin out of the mud and at least into some decent housing, right? Nope. Though they've met twice, the Obamessiah -- who is a multi-millionaire himself, remember -- has yet to send his brother a lousy $20 bill, which would effectively double his yearly income. Remember: there are two sets of rules for liberals, one for them and one for the rest of us. Do as the Obamessiah says, not as he does.
But that's not the only stunning hypocrisy we can find in the Obamessiah. His wife, Michelle, was a highly-paid VP (making over $300,000/year) at a prestigious Chicago hospital until the current run for President. Once again, you would think that she could use her influence and position to help a great number of poor people who needed medical help, right? Once again, you'd be wrong. Instead, it appears that she actually helped funnel the great masses of wounded and sick poor away from the hospital and toward smaller private clinics in an effort to keep the hospital from going bankrupt. Not only did she help create the program to do this, but she and her pals at the hospital (including the Obamessiah's head speech writer, David Axelrod) created a PR campaign to sell the program!
Do as they say, not as they do...
And yet, have you heard of this shameful activity before reading it here? Doubtful, unless you're really plugged in. The MSM provides cover for the Obamessiah in every way imaginable. Hillary Clinton supporter Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania was right: the coverage of Obama was (and continues to be) embarrassingly biased.
Another aspect of the Obamessiah that causes some people concern is his religion. While I personally believe him when he says he was never a practicing Muslim (I would vote black liberation theology, myself), the question is a legitimate one to ask of someone with the middle name of Hussein. So, how does the Muslim world view him? The short version: he's a Muslim. I'll skip a summary of the theological issues involved, but the point is that if Muslims view him as one of them, this surely has ramifications for the War on Terror, doesn't it? So why are we not allowed to discuss those ramifications, nor his middle name? For liberals, dissent needs to be silenced rather than addressed.
Perhaps the American people is getting to know the Obamessiah and not liking what they see. For whatever reason, the Obamessiah is having a hard time meeting his fundraising goals. Don't worry, I'm sure that Soros, the Palestianian brothers, and that bunch of rich Hollywood types will make sure he keeps up. He's their guy, you know.
But let's move on to some other liberals. Nancy Pelosi, for example. Something else that Liberals are good at is speaking authoritatively when they don't have a clue. In defense of the Obamessiah's indefensible position on when life begins, Pelosi (a practicing Catholic) said that the moment when life begins has long been debated in the Catholic church, and that we really just don't know (thus, abortion should be allowed without a conflict). This is blatantly wrong. In response, the Archbishop of New York ripped her for being clueless. So did the Archbishop of Washington. The Archbishop of Denver suggested Biden (who agrees with Pelosi) not even attempt to take communion while in town for the DNC. Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Doctrine, also issued a statement correcting Pelosi. Hugh Hewitt has more information on the (lack of) theological debate here, here, and here. The point is that these liberals will say anything to achieve their aims, even if they don't have a clue what they're talking about. The best way to illustrate the wrongness of liberalism is to let liberals talk about themselves.
Speaking of Pelosi, she recently had some choice words for protesters who wanted progress on energy production. She apparently thought it was too bad that she couldn't drill their brains. You see, the problem here is that these protesters weren't partially-born babies. Then it would be okay to drill their brains - that's what partial birth abortion is, and that's what these liberals want as a 'right' for women to possess.
So what about lobbyists? The eeeeevil Republican party is the one normally associated with lobbyists, but how does the Democrat party fare? From ABC:
But of course, McCain is the one who is in bed with lobbyists, you know.
Finally, let us look at what liberalism has done to the illegal immigration debate. I'm certain you've heard the phrase, 'doing the jobs Americans won't do', right? Well, it's simply not true, and only a minimal amount of thought is necessary to show that. Common sense: if illegal immigrants make up 25% of a certain work force, who makes up the other 75%? Americans. One of the big arguments that open-borders liberals throw around is that if illegal immigrants are sent home (or arrested and sent to jail), we'll have massive failures of agriculture, with crops rotting on the vine and so on. Well, guess what? That's not true, either:
Once again, we see numerous examples of the hypocrisy, backwardness, and damage done by liberalism in all its flavors. The goal of this blog (and so many others linked on the right side of this page) is to educate normal, intelligent, every day people of the effects of liberalism, and to persuade those people that the solution to the problems we face is, in fact, anything but more liberalism.
There's my two cents.
I bet you didn't realize (or, if you're a regular reader of this blog, maybe you did) that there are any number of things that liberals like but that hurt the environment:
It's a well established pattern everybody gripes about SUV's; nobody gripes about pickup trucks even though they get about the same lousy gas mileage. I think it's because environitwits know instinctively that pickup drivers are immune to their green guilt, whereas suburban SUV-drivers might be more susceptible to it.
Likewise, smoking marijuana. Besides carbon dioxide, it releases all sorts of carcinogens.
Likewise, smoking marijuana. Besides carbon dioxide, it releases all sorts of carcinogens.
Protest marching also is dangerous to the environment. Signs are made with paper, which kills trees. Transportation to the site also releases carbon dioxide.
There's actually much more on drugs and the environment: I'm already there on the marijuana, deforestation. But how about Ecstasy, favorite of of the club scene? Pop a tab, kill a tree. Cocaine? Decimating the rain forests. Opium? Same thing. Meth Labs? Don't get me started.
However, I'm sure that all of these illicit drug manufacturers are buying carbon credits to offset their horrendous environmental damage. If not, conscientious liberals will no doubt abstain from using controlled substances until they clean up their act.
An excellent point, don't you think?When liberals aren't whining about the environment, they're Abu Ghraib-ifying our schools. Rather than address behavioral problems with actual punishment such as paddling ***gasp!*** the liberal Left instead goes ballistic on the horrendous child abuse being visited upon these innocent youth by vicious, beating-happy teachers. Never mind the fact that teachers often suffer the brunt of real attacks and violence at the hands of students...we can't possibly dream of getting stern on misbehavior, can we?
What happens when the entitlement mentality comes to health care? Doctors quit. More and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicaid/Medicare or leave medical practice entirely because the government's strong-arming of the industry coupled with insurance's stranglehold on pricing is making it unprofitable. Just think what would happen if we get the universal health care that the Obamessiah wants to implement...absolute disaster.
And, in our parade of liberal insanity, don't forget those judges! They provide some of the best examples of liberal idiocy. Take, for example, this court in Oregon, which single-handedly over-rode the votes of millions of Oregon citizens who wanted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman (and Oregon is no conservative state!). I can't recall the number of states where this has happened, but you can bet that as long as agenda-driven activist judges are appointed to the bench by liberal Democrat Presidents, this sort of insanity will continue. Elections matter, and this is one BIG reason why!
Aside from the actual specifics of his tax plan, how should we characterize the Obamessiah's general attitude toward taxing the American people? Suffice it to say that he finds merit in 'taxing the heck out of' us. Yeah, that'll help the economy. But that's not all. The Washington Times posted a story about the obvious hypocrisy of Barack the Obamessiah when it comes to economic class differences. He believes we should use our wealth to help the global poor, right? That's what his entire Global Poverty Act is all about, after all. So, we recently learned that one of his half-brothers, George Hussein Onyango Obama, lives in a hut in abject poverty in Kenya, surviving on a piddly $12 per year. Surely, if helping the global poor were that important to the Obamessiah, he would lift his own kin out of the mud and at least into some decent housing, right? Nope. Though they've met twice, the Obamessiah -- who is a multi-millionaire himself, remember -- has yet to send his brother a lousy $20 bill, which would effectively double his yearly income. Remember: there are two sets of rules for liberals, one for them and one for the rest of us. Do as the Obamessiah says, not as he does.
But that's not the only stunning hypocrisy we can find in the Obamessiah. His wife, Michelle, was a highly-paid VP (making over $300,000/year) at a prestigious Chicago hospital until the current run for President. Once again, you would think that she could use her influence and position to help a great number of poor people who needed medical help, right? Once again, you'd be wrong. Instead, it appears that she actually helped funnel the great masses of wounded and sick poor away from the hospital and toward smaller private clinics in an effort to keep the hospital from going bankrupt. Not only did she help create the program to do this, but she and her pals at the hospital (including the Obamessiah's head speech writer, David Axelrod) created a PR campaign to sell the program!
Do as they say, not as they do...
And yet, have you heard of this shameful activity before reading it here? Doubtful, unless you're really plugged in. The MSM provides cover for the Obamessiah in every way imaginable. Hillary Clinton supporter Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania was right: the coverage of Obama was (and continues to be) embarrassingly biased.
Another aspect of the Obamessiah that causes some people concern is his religion. While I personally believe him when he says he was never a practicing Muslim (I would vote black liberation theology, myself), the question is a legitimate one to ask of someone with the middle name of Hussein. So, how does the Muslim world view him? The short version: he's a Muslim. I'll skip a summary of the theological issues involved, but the point is that if Muslims view him as one of them, this surely has ramifications for the War on Terror, doesn't it? So why are we not allowed to discuss those ramifications, nor his middle name? For liberals, dissent needs to be silenced rather than addressed.
Perhaps the American people is getting to know the Obamessiah and not liking what they see. For whatever reason, the Obamessiah is having a hard time meeting his fundraising goals. Don't worry, I'm sure that Soros, the Palestianian brothers, and that bunch of rich Hollywood types will make sure he keeps up. He's their guy, you know.
But let's move on to some other liberals. Nancy Pelosi, for example. Something else that Liberals are good at is speaking authoritatively when they don't have a clue. In defense of the Obamessiah's indefensible position on when life begins, Pelosi (a practicing Catholic) said that the moment when life begins has long been debated in the Catholic church, and that we really just don't know (thus, abortion should be allowed without a conflict). This is blatantly wrong. In response, the Archbishop of New York ripped her for being clueless. So did the Archbishop of Washington. The Archbishop of Denver suggested Biden (who agrees with Pelosi) not even attempt to take communion while in town for the DNC. Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Doctrine, also issued a statement correcting Pelosi. Hugh Hewitt has more information on the (lack of) theological debate here, here, and here. The point is that these liberals will say anything to achieve their aims, even if they don't have a clue what they're talking about. The best way to illustrate the wrongness of liberalism is to let liberals talk about themselves.
Speaking of Pelosi, she recently had some choice words for protesters who wanted progress on energy production. She apparently thought it was too bad that she couldn't drill their brains. You see, the problem here is that these protesters weren't partially-born babies. Then it would be okay to drill their brains - that's what partial birth abortion is, and that's what these liberals want as a 'right' for women to possess.
So what about lobbyists? The eeeeevil Republican party is the one normally associated with lobbyists, but how does the Democrat party fare? From ABC:
Despite a campaign that attacked corporate and special interest lobbyists as evil and banned their money and participation, Sen. Barack Obama has done little, if anything, about their pervasive, free-spending presence at the Democratic convention in Denver.
But of course, McCain is the one who is in bed with lobbyists, you know.
Finally, let us look at what liberalism has done to the illegal immigration debate. I'm certain you've heard the phrase, 'doing the jobs Americans won't do', right? Well, it's simply not true, and only a minimal amount of thought is necessary to show that. Common sense: if illegal immigrants make up 25% of a certain work force, who makes up the other 75%? Americans. One of the big arguments that open-borders liberals throw around is that if illegal immigrants are sent home (or arrested and sent to jail), we'll have massive failures of agriculture, with crops rotting on the vine and so on. Well, guess what? That's not true, either:
Rather than doing the jobs Americans won't do, illegal immigrants are stealing jobs from willing Americans! How's that for backwards liberal idiocy?Howard Industries found itself at the center of activity again Tuesday.
Hundreds of job applicants lined up, eager to take advantage of the sudden job openings at the plant located in Jones County, where the unemployment rate is 6.3 percent.
ICE agents on Monday seized 595 plant workers suspected of being in the country illegally. Several workers, who did not identify themselves, said Tuesday they were working and trying to keep the plant operational in the wake of the sudden loss of co-workers.
They said it was common knowledge many of their co-workers were suspected to be illegal.
It's an idea that maddens Samantha Stevens, 18, of Heidelberg, who was among those who pulled up to Avenue A across from the plant's entrance throughout the day. She said she has been unable to find a job since she graduated from Heidelberg High School in the spring and blames, in part, the willingness of companies to hire illegal workers.
"We were here first. It's not fair for them to have a job," she explained.
Others welcomed the vacancies left by the detained workers.
Gwendolyn Watkins, 40, of Stonewall said she drove 40 miles to Laurel to fill out an application with the electronics maker. She worked at Tower Automotive in Meridian as a production worker for eight months before job cuts in June left her unemployed.
She now hopes to get on at Howard, and said that, while "everyone needs a job," she believes that legal workers should be the priority.
Once again, we see numerous examples of the hypocrisy, backwardness, and damage done by liberalism in all its flavors. The goal of this blog (and so many others linked on the right side of this page) is to educate normal, intelligent, every day people of the effects of liberalism, and to persuade those people that the solution to the problems we face is, in fact, anything but more liberalism.
There's my two cents.
4 comments:
Given the choice to better the world- you choose the alternative?
Facts vs. Opinion
http://www.stophitting.com/disatschool/fact-vs-opinion-school-corporal-punishment.php
Couldn't disagree with you more.
Do you know any Muslims yourself? Are they telling you directly that they consider Obama one of them?
Amazingly, there are still oodles of ignorant sots who read wacky email forwards detailing Obama's supposed terrorist connections.
My birth name: Kathleen Sharon McDowell. Doesn't mean I'm associated with the IRA.
Cite, please, your source for the Michelle Obama hospital story. I'd be very interested in reading the original.
***
On Ann Coulter (Dang, I can't seem to get this vitriolic witch out of my head!): According to Lee Salem, an important enchilada at the Kansas City-based publishing company that prints her hate tomes, Ann is actually a liberal who is satirizing the ultra-conservative right-wing nut of the GOP. Any thoughts? Also, have you ever wondered if Ann Coulter might have started out as Andrew Coulter?
***
What do you think about McCain's Veep pick?
I'm not sure I follow your question exactly, but I'll take a stab at it. First, your link is interesting, but hardly an unbiased source of information. Even granting your numbers, however, I would still point out a couple things. Though there are lots of charts on there that show trends that seem connected, I don't see anything that is a provably causal relationship. That's key, and potentially undermines all of that data.
Also, please don't misunderstand - I'm not saying we need to start whacking kids around in schools! What I am suggesting is that if schools were a little more concerned with discipline, all students would have a better education. Our schools (primarily the administration) have gone soft on any number of things. For example, when I read about games like tag or dodgeball being taken away at recess because the competition is too stressful for children to handle, I wonder what we've come to. When I read about our children learning a curriculum that doesn't have correct/incorrect answers because getting something wrong might embarrass a child, I wonder how in the world we expect our children to learn. When I read about our schools spending more time on social subjects like tolerance or social engineering rather than math and reading, I start to get angry.
If this is how our schools are run, it's no wonder they can't teach our kids effectively - they're so worried about coddling the feelings of these kids that they aren't accomplishing any real teaching! The same wishy-washy mindset applied to discipline results in no discipline at all.
School shootings are completely another story. If a crazy/disturbed student wants to go to school and shoot other students, I really don't think spanking or not spanking has anything to do with that. It is simply a crazy/disturbed child that needs some serious help.
The bottom line is that discipline begins with respect. Once that respect is established, the behavior falls in line very nicely. But, that respect must be earned rather than simply demanded. There must be consequences for misbehavior, or the misbehavior will never stop. There are some inner city charter schools that are run like a very tight ship (including strict discipline), and those students (many of whom are minorities that would be low achievers at public schools) that achieve great things. I believe that discipline is at least one part of their success.
Hopefully that helps explain my position a bit better.
Thanks for your comments!
Kate - I have met a few, but don't know any that I would consider friends. But, the statement that Obama is a Muslim isn't mine...I felt I was pretty clear that I don't consider him a Muslim at all.
The suggestion that he's a Muslim was made by Lee Smith at the Hudson Institute, in an interview with the Jerusalem Post. Smith, in turn, makes this statement based on his understanding of the Koran, which is quite clear that being at any point a part of the Islamic faith (which is pretty obvious given Obama's childhood records) or simply being born to an Islamic man means that he is a Muslim. He may reject Islam, but Muslims consider him among their ranks. Read the article - the link is right there in the text, but here it is again: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=SimpleSite/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1219572122800.
Also of note - the scenario of Obama not considering himself a Muslim may actually pose more danger for us as a nation than if he did consider himself a Muslim, at least if you understand the Muslim perspective. That's why I brought it up - either way he goes, there are serious considerations that are legitimate issues to be discussed. Unfortunately, Obama himself has declared both his religion and his name off-limits. That's my problem with it!
Sadly, you're correct that there are a lot of idiots out there who believe the nasty rumors that he's a Muslim. I wish those people wouldn't vote (even though in this case their vote against Obama would agree with me) - I think that one of the biggest dangers we face today is the astounding ignorance and un-educatedness of people in this country, and this is a prime example of it. My opinion is that if people don't know the people and the issues, they shouldn't vote.
Regarding Michelle's hospital controversy, the link is there in the text: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article
I've never heard that theory of Ann Coulter, but wouldn't that be a head-fake to end all head-fakes?? I find it a bit suspicious in a conspiracy theory sort of way, though, since she's maintained this position (check Wikipedia here) ever since she came onto the national scene. If she was faking it, that's a very long, consistent fake! I suppose anything's possible, but this seems very, very unlikely to me.
I'm planning a full post about Palin soon, but my general impression is that she's a great pick. She crosses a lot of lines that McCain needs to cross, and she throws all kinds of wrenches into the Obama campaign's gears. She has some definite downsides, but overall she should be a very positive addition to the ticket. If she can survive (or even thrive) through the next couple weeks of intense scrutiny, she could be the glue that puts McCain's support back together for a real shot at victory in November.
It will be an interesting race! :)
Thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment