The embryonic stem cell research question is a difficult one. Far more difficult than abortion. After all, abortion is typically the snuffing out of a well-developed human life for no other purpose than the convenience of a couple of irresponsible adults. It is immoral. And while I do not want it to be made illegal neither do I want the federal government diverting money from research or social security or defense or schools or homeland security to fund it.
In the case of embryonic stem cell research, however, the human life is far from well-developed and its purpose is not just to protect the comfort of, and prevent inconvenience to, irresponsible adults but rather to keep alive people with children and loved ones and to end the profound suffering of those ravaged not by a night of drunken debauchery but by the cruel realities of disease and accident.
But it is undeniable that with these efforts humanity is crossing a line, and to glibly accept it without serious thought, debate and soul-searching is quite frightening to me. I'm just not sure that I want to cross this line into a "brave new world" where assembly lines pump out the materials of human existence -- start the process of human life -- only to then coldly and methodically harvest pieces for profit and personal gain.
And I am disturbed by the people who are for it.
It is frankly stunning to me that the same Democrats who tell us that the real enemies of the world are not the Islamic fascist mass murderers but rather American corporations and the pharmaceutical companies in particular are now so willing to blindly throw billions of dollars at these "little Eichmanns" and put in their hands the stuff of life itself.
I am further disturbed by the left's inability to engage in this discussion -- with its unprecedentedly profound consequences all around -- in any way deeper than to attack those of us who have moral, ethical and practical reservations as "religious zealots." Are the Democrats really so totally devoid of morality that there is nothing in which they see personal gain that they will not run to unquestioningly? It is damning in my eyes that the Democrat who at every turn demands "political correctness" to protect people's "feelings" won't give a moment's thought to moral correctness to preserve the very sanctity of human life.
And, while I am not a big fan of the "slippery slope" argument, as it tends to prevent reasonable compromise, I cannot help but recognize that we have traveled this particular slope before with abortion and it was, indeed, slippery. What began as what many might find an acceptable (if unhappy) compromise -- legal abortion but only in the first trimester of life -- has devolved in the hands of the Democrat into abortion anytime, anywhere for any reason and FREE!!! I can't help asking myself, in the hands of people who have no moral compunction about shoving scissors into the skulls of partially born babies, how long until they are demanding the creation of, and the harvesting of parts from, fully grown humans in the name of their personal convenience?
I must admit that my concerns are only deepened by my experiences with the Democratic Party on other issues of humanity. Many of us have come to recognize that the Democratic Party has become the party of death. There seems to be -- I'll even say is -- an agenda amongst Democrats to cheapen life and to undermine the very sanctity of humanity. The only "constant" I can detect in the Democrats' positions is that, when it comes to the sanctity of human life, they are without exception on the side of degradation.
From their adoration for the world's most murderous regimes to their support and defense of terrorists to PETA's campaign comparing humans to chickens to their support of pornography to their stance on "mercy killings", abortion and crime and punishment one cannot find a single instance where questions of the sanctity of human life arise in which the Democrat does not side with its devaluation.
I am further distrustful of the arguments for embryonic stem cell research in that I have come to recognize the Democrats as a party of liars. It should not be surprising that, to people to whom life means nothing, truth means even less. I simply do not take anything the Democrat says at face value anymore. These are people who give standing ovations to lie-filled anti-American "documentaries", use forged documents in their newscasts, pilfer papers vital to our security and call our soldiers "Nazis" all for effect and the chance to advance their personal agendas, wealth and tastes.
It certainly did little to increase my confidence in the Democrats when the party's most recent standard bearer, John Kerry, sought personal gain by demagoging this very issue, offering false hope to millions by promising a nearly overnight cure to virtually every ailment that has ever befallen mankind if only everyone would help Kerry achieve his lifelong dream of becoming President.
Even today, with no election on the horizon, the Democrats continue to sell lies about the issue, succeeding in convincing millions, for example, that there are no alternatives to this magical therapy and that the President has outlawed embryonic stem cell research. As is typical with the leftist, the truth is exactly the opposite. Research into the use of adult and embilical chord stem cells (neither of which requires the creation, harvesting and then destruction of nascent human life) is extremely promising and George W. Bush was the first President to make embryonic stem cell research legal.
Further, still, I recognize the tactics of the Democrat from their other misinformation and disinformation campaigns where the pro-death and pro-degradation position is hyped and the pro-sanctity of human life position either ignored or falsely portrayed.
This, of course, is exactly the paradigm the Democrats use in their pro-abortion arguments (see my piece Republicans the Pro-Choice Party) where abortion is falsely portrayed as devoid of costs -- emotional, physical or even financial, while the lie that there aren't enough people willing to adopt children has been turned into the "conventional wisdom." This is exactly the paradigm of the self-degradation party in their incessant efforts to portray teenage sex as fun and cool (and those who do not engage in it as "losers") while funding such anti-chastity rallies as NARAL -- Pro-Choice's "Fuck Abstinence" events.
The propriety of manufacturing human life on an assembly line to have the pieces harvested for use by others is clearly a serious moral question. It deserves to be discussed and debated amongst people of good will doing their best to provide fact and accurate information. With Republican Senator Bill Frist having entered the fray perhaps now we'll get some thoughtful and truthful arguments from someone on behalf of federal funding for such practices. Although I must say, the good doctor is in some pretty bad company.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Democrats laughable lunatic
Did I really just hear Chucky Schumer insisting that a deadline -- an exit strategy if you will -- on the Roberts nomination was wrong? So they want one for war against a vicious enemy but can't make one for the constitutional process of consenting on a judge?
These folks think your stupid.
These folks think your stupid.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Liberals Breed Terrorists
Being a rational thinker it is often impossible to get how Democrats can be so stupid.
What exactly do the Democrats think is going to happen when they Balkanize America and invent categories for people so that no one is an American any longer but rather an "African-American" or an "Hispanic-American" or a woman or a homosexual whose allegiance shouldn't be to America but rather to the "cultural heritage" or the unique behavior that "defines" them?
What do the Democrats think is going to happen when English is not the language of everyone but everyone is to speak their own language (even made up slang like "ebonics") so that communities become isolated and antagonistic and incapable of communicating with one another to solve differences and problems?
What do the Democrats think is going to happen when they give standing ovations to anti-American movies they know are filled with outright lies that paint America as evil and take to the Senate floor to denounce America's soldiers as "like the Nazis" knowing at least a part of their constituency is dumb enough to believe them?
What do the Democrats think is going to happen when they hire terrorists to teach at the universities they control and promote those who call the victims of terrorism "little Eichmans" to head-up entire departments?
What's going to happen is exactly what has happened in London where native born children blow the skulls off of their "fellow countrymen." After all, thanks to the Liberals there what did these murderers have in common with the people they destroyed?
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi feels comfortable that with her connections she'll escape the murders. And maybe Ted Kennedy feels assured that he can take a private helicopter to "the Kennedy Compound" to escape the fate of a Theo Van Gogh. It's likely that Dick Durbin believes he can order up some extra security forces should it get bad for here at home.
But the rest of us need to recognize that so long as the Democrats' goal is the division of America into subgroups, the undermining of our common language and the destruction of our unique values the phenomenon of the "native-born" terrorist that the British are new experiencing thanks to Europe's leftism -- folks who feel no kinship with their neighbors and no compunction about blowing off their skulls -- will soon be coming home to roost in America.
What exactly do the Democrats think is going to happen when they Balkanize America and invent categories for people so that no one is an American any longer but rather an "African-American" or an "Hispanic-American" or a woman or a homosexual whose allegiance shouldn't be to America but rather to the "cultural heritage" or the unique behavior that "defines" them?
What do the Democrats think is going to happen when English is not the language of everyone but everyone is to speak their own language (even made up slang like "ebonics") so that communities become isolated and antagonistic and incapable of communicating with one another to solve differences and problems?
What do the Democrats think is going to happen when they give standing ovations to anti-American movies they know are filled with outright lies that paint America as evil and take to the Senate floor to denounce America's soldiers as "like the Nazis" knowing at least a part of their constituency is dumb enough to believe them?
What do the Democrats think is going to happen when they hire terrorists to teach at the universities they control and promote those who call the victims of terrorism "little Eichmans" to head-up entire departments?
What's going to happen is exactly what has happened in London where native born children blow the skulls off of their "fellow countrymen." After all, thanks to the Liberals there what did these murderers have in common with the people they destroyed?
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi feels comfortable that with her connections she'll escape the murders. And maybe Ted Kennedy feels assured that he can take a private helicopter to "the Kennedy Compound" to escape the fate of a Theo Van Gogh. It's likely that Dick Durbin believes he can order up some extra security forces should it get bad for here at home.
But the rest of us need to recognize that so long as the Democrats' goal is the division of America into subgroups, the undermining of our common language and the destruction of our unique values the phenomenon of the "native-born" terrorist that the British are new experiencing thanks to Europe's leftism -- folks who feel no kinship with their neighbors and no compunction about blowing off their skulls -- will soon be coming home to roost in America.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Random Searches Vesus Rational Though
Those of you aware of my writings and my lecture entitled "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals 'Think'" (note that the "think" is in quotation marks) know that the key to understand Democratic Party policy is to recognize that they reject rational thought as an act of bigotry. To paraphrase the brilliant and essential professor Dr. Allan Bloom "in order to eliminate discrimination the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate."
The problem, of course, is that the ability to discriminate -- to "thoughtfully choose the better of the available options" as in "she's a discriminating shopper" -- is the very essence of rational thought. In other words, and again, the Modern Liberal is quite literally what their uncle (Joe Stalin) called them -- "useful idiots." They are "useful"to a Stalin because their policies ALWAYS side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success and "idiots" because the definition of an idiot is someone incapable of applying rational thought to their lives.
One can recognize exactly this dynamic in the left's insistence (foolishly followed by even rational folks in an effort to stave off the leftists attacks of "bigot" and "Hitler") that efforts to protect American citizens from Islamic terrorists be random. Of course another word for random is "indiscriminate" which requires our police and security forces to reject all rational thought -- all fact, evidence and reason -- to search equally the seventy-nine year old Swedish great-grandmother and the twenty-five year old newly arrives from Syria by way of Afghanistan.
This indiscriminateness, of course, works on behalf of the terrorists who are now more likely to get through to massacre scores if not hundreds or even thousands of American civilians as scarce resources and police efforts are wasted on nonsense.
Because of their insistence on the rejection of rational thought Modern Liberals -- and the Democratic Party they now so completely control -- will ALWAYS side with evil over good. ALWAYS.
The problem, of course, is that the ability to discriminate -- to "thoughtfully choose the better of the available options" as in "she's a discriminating shopper" -- is the very essence of rational thought. In other words, and again, the Modern Liberal is quite literally what their uncle (Joe Stalin) called them -- "useful idiots." They are "useful"to a Stalin because their policies ALWAYS side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success and "idiots" because the definition of an idiot is someone incapable of applying rational thought to their lives.
One can recognize exactly this dynamic in the left's insistence (foolishly followed by even rational folks in an effort to stave off the leftists attacks of "bigot" and "Hitler") that efforts to protect American citizens from Islamic terrorists be random. Of course another word for random is "indiscriminate" which requires our police and security forces to reject all rational thought -- all fact, evidence and reason -- to search equally the seventy-nine year old Swedish great-grandmother and the twenty-five year old newly arrives from Syria by way of Afghanistan.
This indiscriminateness, of course, works on behalf of the terrorists who are now more likely to get through to massacre scores if not hundreds or even thousands of American civilians as scarce resources and police efforts are wasted on nonsense.
Because of their insistence on the rejection of rational thought Modern Liberals -- and the Democratic Party they now so completely control -- will ALWAYS side with evil over good. ALWAYS.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Democrats and Islam
Just how blind do you have to be to be a Democrat? Let's take a look at what we know.
The Koran demands that Moslems kill all "infidels" and "apostates."
The leaders of the Islam are either publicly exhorting their "flock" on to acts of murder in the name of Islam and Allah or keeping completely silent about the killings.
Moslems are murdering "infidels" in India, Russia, Israel, Sweden, England, Egypt the Sudan, the Philippines, Iraq and literally scores of other places around the globe.
These "infidels" are not just the "filthy Jews" or the "Crusaders" (I don't remember going on a crusade, lately, do you?) but literally every religion on the planet other than Islamic and even Moslems if they are either "apostates" or just happen to trip on a curb and have their ankles come exposed.
So what does the Democrat conclude when the people who have declared their intentions, who hold up their holy book as proof and murder infidels of all stripes all over the world? It must be America's fault.
The Koran demands that Moslems kill all "infidels" and "apostates."
The leaders of the Islam are either publicly exhorting their "flock" on to acts of murder in the name of Islam and Allah or keeping completely silent about the killings.
Moslems are murdering "infidels" in India, Russia, Israel, Sweden, England, Egypt the Sudan, the Philippines, Iraq and literally scores of other places around the globe.
These "infidels" are not just the "filthy Jews" or the "Crusaders" (I don't remember going on a crusade, lately, do you?) but literally every religion on the planet other than Islamic and even Moslems if they are either "apostates" or just happen to trip on a curb and have their ankles come exposed.
So what does the Democrat conclude when the people who have declared their intentions, who hold up their holy book as proof and murder infidels of all stripes all over the world? It must be America's fault.
Feminists Whining Like Little Girls
To the thinking person the Democrats have become nothing short of laughable. Their arguments border on the moronic and more and more one can understand why their beloved "uncle" Josef Stalin called his "nephews" idiots.
Consider the mutually exclusive nature of so many of their arguments.
George Bush is to be hated because he "had no plan for post-war Iraq" while concurrently he is to be hated because not only did he have a plan for post-war Iraq but he supposedly had it prior to 9/11.
George Bush is to be hatred because he is a godless anti-Christ willing to send thousands of young men and women to their death in order to make Haliburton richer while, at the same time, he is to be hated because he is too religious and seeks God's counsel before taking action.
They argue that the cross must not be seen in any public venue anywhere at any time -- except when it is drenched in urine and covered with animal feces and then it should be in a public museum and funded by the taxpayer.
This all comes to mind with the whining I'm hearing from some that the President picked the best person for the job of associate on the Supreme Court. These feminists are whining like, well, little girls, because it hurts "diversity." But aren't the feminists the same ones whose entire philosophy is predicated on the notion that there is no difference between men and women?
Democrats take mutually exclusive positions -- in fact are all over the map at all times -- because there is nothing they believe in. They are not rooted to the truth the way Republicans are and thus anything they say or do -- no matter how asinine and no matter how clearly lies -- in fact no matter how criminal (e.g. Howard Dean, Michael Moore and Sandy Berger) is perfectly acceptable to them -- even worthy of reward.
Consider the mutually exclusive nature of so many of their arguments.
George Bush is to be hated because he "had no plan for post-war Iraq" while concurrently he is to be hated because not only did he have a plan for post-war Iraq but he supposedly had it prior to 9/11.
George Bush is to be hatred because he is a godless anti-Christ willing to send thousands of young men and women to their death in order to make Haliburton richer while, at the same time, he is to be hated because he is too religious and seeks God's counsel before taking action.
They argue that the cross must not be seen in any public venue anywhere at any time -- except when it is drenched in urine and covered with animal feces and then it should be in a public museum and funded by the taxpayer.
This all comes to mind with the whining I'm hearing from some that the President picked the best person for the job of associate on the Supreme Court. These feminists are whining like, well, little girls, because it hurts "diversity." But aren't the feminists the same ones whose entire philosophy is predicated on the notion that there is no difference between men and women?
Democrats take mutually exclusive positions -- in fact are all over the map at all times -- because there is nothing they believe in. They are not rooted to the truth the way Republicans are and thus anything they say or do -- no matter how asinine and no matter how clearly lies -- in fact no matter how criminal (e.g. Howard Dean, Michael Moore and Sandy Berger) is perfectly acceptable to them -- even worthy of reward.
The Answers To Everything (Except Combination to Safe)
The answers to everything:
The basic differences between the Democrat and the Republican are:
1) The Republican believes that America is uniquely great and the world becomes a better, healthier, more prosperous and more peaceful place the more the world embraces our values such as freedom and democracy. The Democrat believes America is a uniquely evil place and that the world becomes a better, healthier, more prosperous and more peaceful place the more America embraces the values of the rest of the world such as tribal warfare and religious hatreds.
2) The Democrats believe that success is a "zero-sum" game where the success of one must come at the expense of another. For this reason they try to undermine success (taking the "merit" out of the merit scholarship awards for example) at every turn. The Republican believes that "all ships rise with the tide" and thus encourage success to the greatest extent amongst the greatest number of people.
2a) This is another reason that the Democrat hates America and the Republicans love it. Democrats believe that America's unprecedented economic success must come from exploiting those who have failed. Thus their efforts are always on behalf of the most failed (Communism, Islamic Fascism, etc) and always against the most successful (America, Israel). Republicans recognize that America's unprecedented success has created virtually everything that makes the world a better place from the lightbulb to the medicines that cure horrific third-world diseases to the internet that gives the little kid in Istanbul the chance to make his dreams come true and thus appreciates her greatness that much more.
3) Republicans (and all rational people) believe in the "carrot and stick" approach to policy where good is rewarded and bad is punished (if only by the withholding of the reward) be it at home or in international affairs while the Democrat believes in the Orwellian "stick and carrot" approach where bad is rewarded at the expense of the good. This "stick and carrot" approach is behind the Democrats rewarding children who fail the sixth grade with a promotion to the seventh, their building of luxury apartment complexes for the homeless, their incessant efforts to appease terrorists around the globe, their demands that those who fail to live up to the Geneva Convention contracts in any way be rewarded with the full benefits of that agreement, etc.
4) Democrats "imagine" a world in which "all the people live for today." Republicans believe in a world where you build for a better tomorrow.
5) Democrats believe "if it feels good, do it" while Republicans believe "if it IS good, do it." Democrats believe in "self-esteem" while Republicans believe in doing estimable things.
6) Democrats believe that religion is the antithesis of science. Republicans believe that science devoid of ethics and morality is the antithesis of humanity.
7) Democrats believe in being "politically correct." Republicans believe in being factually correct.
8) Democrats believe "the people" are stupid, bigoted and not to be trusted with their own money or the power of the vote preferring elitist centralized government rule and judicial fiat.
Republicans believe that the government is not to be trusted with power and money believing -- as did our Founding Fathers -- in the intelligence of the people.
(Proof positive to the Democrat that the people are stupid, racist and not to be trusted is that they are so gullible as to believe in God and to think that America is a great nation worthy of respect and tribute.)
9) Republicans believe that things like rape, torture and massacre are wrong wherever they occur. Democrats believe them only to be wrong in the Western World but to be quaint, little cultural idiosyncrasies to be preserved amongst the Arab and Moslem world as a means of "respecting their culture." Efforts to end rape, torture and terror outside the Western World is seen by the Democrat as "cultural genocide" and those who try to stop it on par with HITLER!!!
10) Republicans are grownups who live in the real world and seek to make things better through real solutions. Democrats are children who whine "it's not fair, it's not fair, it's not fair" and then seek childish solutions without any thought as to their consequences.
The basic differences between the Democrat and the Republican are:
1) The Republican believes that America is uniquely great and the world becomes a better, healthier, more prosperous and more peaceful place the more the world embraces our values such as freedom and democracy. The Democrat believes America is a uniquely evil place and that the world becomes a better, healthier, more prosperous and more peaceful place the more America embraces the values of the rest of the world such as tribal warfare and religious hatreds.
2) The Democrats believe that success is a "zero-sum" game where the success of one must come at the expense of another. For this reason they try to undermine success (taking the "merit" out of the merit scholarship awards for example) at every turn. The Republican believes that "all ships rise with the tide" and thus encourage success to the greatest extent amongst the greatest number of people.
2a) This is another reason that the Democrat hates America and the Republicans love it. Democrats believe that America's unprecedented economic success must come from exploiting those who have failed. Thus their efforts are always on behalf of the most failed (Communism, Islamic Fascism, etc) and always against the most successful (America, Israel). Republicans recognize that America's unprecedented success has created virtually everything that makes the world a better place from the lightbulb to the medicines that cure horrific third-world diseases to the internet that gives the little kid in Istanbul the chance to make his dreams come true and thus appreciates her greatness that much more.
3) Republicans (and all rational people) believe in the "carrot and stick" approach to policy where good is rewarded and bad is punished (if only by the withholding of the reward) be it at home or in international affairs while the Democrat believes in the Orwellian "stick and carrot" approach where bad is rewarded at the expense of the good. This "stick and carrot" approach is behind the Democrats rewarding children who fail the sixth grade with a promotion to the seventh, their building of luxury apartment complexes for the homeless, their incessant efforts to appease terrorists around the globe, their demands that those who fail to live up to the Geneva Convention contracts in any way be rewarded with the full benefits of that agreement, etc.
4) Democrats "imagine" a world in which "all the people live for today." Republicans believe in a world where you build for a better tomorrow.
5) Democrats believe "if it feels good, do it" while Republicans believe "if it IS good, do it." Democrats believe in "self-esteem" while Republicans believe in doing estimable things.
6) Democrats believe that religion is the antithesis of science. Republicans believe that science devoid of ethics and morality is the antithesis of humanity.
7) Democrats believe in being "politically correct." Republicans believe in being factually correct.
8) Democrats believe "the people" are stupid, bigoted and not to be trusted with their own money or the power of the vote preferring elitist centralized government rule and judicial fiat.
Republicans believe that the government is not to be trusted with power and money believing -- as did our Founding Fathers -- in the intelligence of the people.
(Proof positive to the Democrat that the people are stupid, racist and not to be trusted is that they are so gullible as to believe in God and to think that America is a great nation worthy of respect and tribute.)
9) Republicans believe that things like rape, torture and massacre are wrong wherever they occur. Democrats believe them only to be wrong in the Western World but to be quaint, little cultural idiosyncrasies to be preserved amongst the Arab and Moslem world as a means of "respecting their culture." Efforts to end rape, torture and terror outside the Western World is seen by the Democrat as "cultural genocide" and those who try to stop it on par with HITLER!!!
10) Republicans are grownups who live in the real world and seek to make things better through real solutions. Democrats are children who whine "it's not fair, it's not fair, it's not fair" and then seek childish solutions without any thought as to their consequences.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
If you're in the Los Angeles Area: Evan Sayet's "Right to Laugh" Conservative Comedy show plays a benefit at the world famous "Friars' Club of Beverly Hills"
This show will be GREAT. And it's for a great charity. Anyone and everyone in the LA area should attend and support the kids.
For Immediate Release Contact: (F of BH) Lindsay Landvogt 310-553-0850
July 18, 2005 (Talent) Evan Sayet 818-347-1130
Evan Sayet and the world famous Friars' Club of Beverly Hills are proud to announce an evening of Conservative Comedy to benefit the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund for the children of soldiers slain in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many of you know Evan from his work as the Communications Director for LA for President Bush, his very popular lecture series on "How Liberals 'Think'", his blog -- SayetRight.Blogspot.com -- and, of course, from his years of work in television writing and standup comedy including "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" and “Late Night with David Letterman.”
The event is both the premier of Sayet's "Right to Laugh" national tour of conservative comedians and part of the Friars' Club of Beverly Hills' month-long grand reopening celebration following its multimillion dollar renovation.
For more information about Evan check out his soon to be launched website – http://www.evansayet.com/
Negotiations and logistics are still being worked out at the time of this writing with top-named conservative comedians trying to shuffle their schedule to participate in this historic event. Evan guarantees that the special guests will be of the highest caliber with credits that include appearances on shows like “Late Show with David Letterman”, “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and “Politically Incorrect.”
Doors open at 6:00 for dinner with Show Time at 8:00. Admission is a minimum $10 contribution to the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund. There is ample street parking as well as valet service available.
The Friars' Club of Beverly Hills is located at 9900 Santa Monica Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Reservations are highly recommended as the event is sure to sell out quickly. For reservations call 310-553-0850.
The Friars of Beverly Hills is an organization that is not associated with The Friars National Association, Inc, a/k/a The New York Friars Club, either through membership, reciprocity or ownership.
This show will be GREAT. And it's for a great charity. Anyone and everyone in the LA area should attend and support the kids.
For Immediate Release Contact: (F of BH) Lindsay Landvogt 310-553-0850
July 18, 2005 (Talent) Evan Sayet 818-347-1130
Evan Sayet and the world famous Friars' Club of Beverly Hills are proud to announce an evening of Conservative Comedy to benefit the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund for the children of soldiers slain in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many of you know Evan from his work as the Communications Director for LA for President Bush, his very popular lecture series on "How Liberals 'Think'", his blog -- SayetRight.Blogspot.com -- and, of course, from his years of work in television writing and standup comedy including "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" and “Late Night with David Letterman.”
The event is both the premier of Sayet's "Right to Laugh" national tour of conservative comedians and part of the Friars' Club of Beverly Hills' month-long grand reopening celebration following its multimillion dollar renovation.
For more information about Evan check out his soon to be launched website – http://www.evansayet.com/
Negotiations and logistics are still being worked out at the time of this writing with top-named conservative comedians trying to shuffle their schedule to participate in this historic event. Evan guarantees that the special guests will be of the highest caliber with credits that include appearances on shows like “Late Show with David Letterman”, “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and “Politically Incorrect.”
Doors open at 6:00 for dinner with Show Time at 8:00. Admission is a minimum $10 contribution to the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund. There is ample street parking as well as valet service available.
The Friars' Club of Beverly Hills is located at 9900 Santa Monica Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Reservations are highly recommended as the event is sure to sell out quickly. For reservations call 310-553-0850.
The Friars of Beverly Hills is an organization that is not associated with The Friars National Association, Inc, a/k/a The New York Friars Club, either through membership, reciprocity or ownership.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Democrats are Racists
Democrats are racists. In fact they are in many ways as racist as the Ku Klux Klan and even the Nazis.
What is a racist? It is someone who believes that a human being is defined not by their character, not by their experience, not by their choices, not by their values and not by their circumstances but solely by the color of their skin and their ethnicity.
This is, of course, exactly what the Democrat believes and it is why their policies are based on no other consideration than skin color. Thus, under leftist laws, a person doesn't receive the "benefits" of affirmative action out of an understanding of his financial status -- it makes no difference if the applicant is the son of Michael Jordan or the unwanted offspring of a crack addict. Nor do they receive "affirmative action" advantages because of they're having been unfairly held back by slavery or Jim Crow -- the benefits go just as much to the newly arrived black immigrant whose forefathers are more likely to have been the slave traders than the slave. The benefits do not go any more to the hardest worker or the most intelligent -- neither of these qualifications are considered with regard to receiving affirmative action's extra "points" on university applications. The one and only consideration is the race of the applicant a policy that is, by definition, racist.
It is purely racism that sees the Liberal University hire Ward Churchill because he is -- or, rather lied and claimed to be -- 1/16th Indian. To the non-racist this is beyond asinine it is Nazi-like. Even if Churchill wasn't lying, does it tell us ANYTHING about the man -- much less that he is better qualified to teach "ethnic studies" -- that one of his great-grandparents might have been of Indian descent? Does it speak to his character or to his abilities? Of course not. But to the racist Liberals to whom the entire definition of a human being is their race, even being 1/16th Indian as completely defines you as a human being as did being 1/16th Jewish to the Nazis.
I have a good deal of personal experience dealing with the racists in the Liberal "education" system of America's public schools as I had to fight them repeatedly throughout my son's years in public school. We finally removed him from the racist environment when I learned that his teacher was giving short shrift to one of the two most important scientific theories in human history -- Einstein's theory of relativity -- because the children had "learned enough from white scientists" and teacher needed to make room in her teaching lessons for the works of a black scientist, an Hispanic scientist, an Asian scientist and so on.
Understand, this wasn't art or literature where there is some subjectivity involved. This was my son's science class and the children were being denied the most important scientific information -- the information they will need to compete with children who attend either private schools or schools in other countries not yet infected by the racism that is Modern Liberalism -- because even science to the leftist is a racist endevor.
In addition to being costly to our children -- and society as a whole -- the Liberals' position is downright moronic. Consider your response if I had told you that my son's computer science tecaher had stopped using the Mac and PC halfway through the semester in order to work on the Abacus so that the Arab students in the class could "feel good about themselves."
But more than just being costly and moronic, it is downright racist. It is racism that is at the heart of today's Liberal teaching establishment. Because the Democrat is a racist they suspect
their students are as well and thus a black can't be inspired by fellow human beings -- because to Democrats they are not human beings.
Costly, stupid and at its heart racist. That's today's Democratic Party.
What is a racist? It is someone who believes that a human being is defined not by their character, not by their experience, not by their choices, not by their values and not by their circumstances but solely by the color of their skin and their ethnicity.
This is, of course, exactly what the Democrat believes and it is why their policies are based on no other consideration than skin color. Thus, under leftist laws, a person doesn't receive the "benefits" of affirmative action out of an understanding of his financial status -- it makes no difference if the applicant is the son of Michael Jordan or the unwanted offspring of a crack addict. Nor do they receive "affirmative action" advantages because of they're having been unfairly held back by slavery or Jim Crow -- the benefits go just as much to the newly arrived black immigrant whose forefathers are more likely to have been the slave traders than the slave. The benefits do not go any more to the hardest worker or the most intelligent -- neither of these qualifications are considered with regard to receiving affirmative action's extra "points" on university applications. The one and only consideration is the race of the applicant a policy that is, by definition, racist.
It is purely racism that sees the Liberal University hire Ward Churchill because he is -- or, rather lied and claimed to be -- 1/16th Indian. To the non-racist this is beyond asinine it is Nazi-like. Even if Churchill wasn't lying, does it tell us ANYTHING about the man -- much less that he is better qualified to teach "ethnic studies" -- that one of his great-grandparents might have been of Indian descent? Does it speak to his character or to his abilities? Of course not. But to the racist Liberals to whom the entire definition of a human being is their race, even being 1/16th Indian as completely defines you as a human being as did being 1/16th Jewish to the Nazis.
I have a good deal of personal experience dealing with the racists in the Liberal "education" system of America's public schools as I had to fight them repeatedly throughout my son's years in public school. We finally removed him from the racist environment when I learned that his teacher was giving short shrift to one of the two most important scientific theories in human history -- Einstein's theory of relativity -- because the children had "learned enough from white scientists" and teacher needed to make room in her teaching lessons for the works of a black scientist, an Hispanic scientist, an Asian scientist and so on.
Understand, this wasn't art or literature where there is some subjectivity involved. This was my son's science class and the children were being denied the most important scientific information -- the information they will need to compete with children who attend either private schools or schools in other countries not yet infected by the racism that is Modern Liberalism -- because even science to the leftist is a racist endevor.
In addition to being costly to our children -- and society as a whole -- the Liberals' position is downright moronic. Consider your response if I had told you that my son's computer science tecaher had stopped using the Mac and PC halfway through the semester in order to work on the Abacus so that the Arab students in the class could "feel good about themselves."
But more than just being costly and moronic, it is downright racist. It is racism that is at the heart of today's Liberal teaching establishment. Because the Democrat is a racist they suspect
their students are as well and thus a black can't be inspired by fellow human beings -- because to Democrats they are not human beings.
Costly, stupid and at its heart racist. That's today's Democratic Party.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Why The World Supposedly Hates Us
There is an old "joke" about a man who murders his parents and then pleads with the judge for leniency because he's an orphan. I think of this every time I hear a Democrat ask why the world so hates us.
Could it be because, in places where people will never actually meet an American they can hear Bruce Springsteen, the Kerry flack, testifying over and over again that being "Born in the USA" is a horrible fate where people kick you when you're down and where you "end up like a dog that's been beat too much"?
Could it be because, in places where the only American they'll ever see are in Hollywood movies the leftists on the left coast make virtually every villain an American, an American corporation or an American government agency?
Could it be because when Michael Moore makes a movie that the Democrats know to be a lie-filled, anti-American propaganda flick but those in other places might not the Democratic Party leadership gives the anti-American liar a standing ovation, he is given a seat of honor at the Democrats' convention and in other ways say to the rest of the world "yep, this is an accurate portrayal of the world: Saddam created an "Islamic Paradise" and, once again, evil Americans destroyed it!
Could it be that in countries where only al Jazeera and CNN are broadcast the only Americans they see are Democrats Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy mindlessly slandering Americans and insisting that American servicemen are like the Nazis while leftist hosts like Wolf Blitzer and Aaron Brown spin every story in the most hateful, anti-American way they can imagine?
Could it be because when people who were raised in closed societies where blood libels against the infidels are the norm -- and their indoctrination into this cult of hatred so assured that they can be "trusted" to go abroad to learn how to make bombs in chemistry classes in North Carolina and Colorado -- the Liberal American teachers tell them (and the rest of their class) that their hatred is justified and that the terrorists are doing the world a favor by burning alive three thousand "little Eichmans" in the World Trade Center?
Could it be because when the leftists at the New York Times come across a story of a couple of night guards at a prison for suspected terrorists who put panties on their enemies' heads they run the story on their front page -- as if it were the second coming of the Holocaust -- for 44 straight days while a serach of the Times' website turns up not even a mention of the heroic soldier who fought off an ambush, wounded the attempted killer and then provided him with emergency medical care.
Ask yourself, Democrat, who feigns being dumbfounded at the hatred the world supposedly has for us, how much less would the world hate us if you stopped your anti-American lies, slanders and attacks? How much less would the world hate us if you stood up for America instead of lying to tear it down?
Ask yourself Bruce Springsteen, how many fewer people would want to massacre Americans if you sang about how being born in the USA meant you could go from being a bus driver's son to the rich and pampered multimillionaire father of a steeple chase champion all through hard work and a good song?
How about if instead of lauding the communists of Cuba Robert Redford showed some gratitude to the nation that not only allows him to spew his moronic positions but to get filthy rich in doing so.
Ask yourself, Al Gore, how much less the world might hate us if, in some of your speeches, you called Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat or Kim Jung Il "Nazi Brown Shirts" rather than your fellow Americans.
Ask yourself, Howard Dean, how much less the world would hate us if the very head of one of America's national parties, "reserved judgment" on the Americans you viciously and lyingly slander rather than only "reserving judgment" (your words) on Osama Bin Ladin.
Ask yourself at the New York Times (and the handful of people who still read it) how much less would the world hate us if, instead of running the Abu Gharaib story for 44 straight days you ran it for only 40 straight days and with the extra space mentioned, even once, that over 96 percent of the children in Iraq now have been inoculated against the most dreaded diseases in the world or that 4.3 million children Iraqi children are now enrolled in primary schools.
The problem isn't that Democrats say bad things about America. It's that they never say anything good. It's that their attacks on America are typically outright lies (Springsteen was born in a cute little New Jersey town and ended up far from being like a dog that's been beat too much and their lies aid and abet the enemy. Ask yourself, Americans, you've heard Howard Dean and Al Gore, you've seen Dick Durbin call your fathers and brothers and sons and daughters in the military "Nazis", you know that Ward Churchill teaches your children that the victims of 9/11 were all "Little Eichmans..." but when was the last time you heard a Democrat say ANYTHING good about America?
Yes, the Democrats are just like the man who murders his parents and then demands leniency because he's an orphan. They lie, slander and attack America at every turn and the "wonder" why the rest of the world hates us.
Could it be because, in places where people will never actually meet an American they can hear Bruce Springsteen, the Kerry flack, testifying over and over again that being "Born in the USA" is a horrible fate where people kick you when you're down and where you "end up like a dog that's been beat too much"?
Could it be because, in places where the only American they'll ever see are in Hollywood movies the leftists on the left coast make virtually every villain an American, an American corporation or an American government agency?
Could it be because when Michael Moore makes a movie that the Democrats know to be a lie-filled, anti-American propaganda flick but those in other places might not the Democratic Party leadership gives the anti-American liar a standing ovation, he is given a seat of honor at the Democrats' convention and in other ways say to the rest of the world "yep, this is an accurate portrayal of the world: Saddam created an "Islamic Paradise" and, once again, evil Americans destroyed it!
Could it be that in countries where only al Jazeera and CNN are broadcast the only Americans they see are Democrats Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy mindlessly slandering Americans and insisting that American servicemen are like the Nazis while leftist hosts like Wolf Blitzer and Aaron Brown spin every story in the most hateful, anti-American way they can imagine?
Could it be because when people who were raised in closed societies where blood libels against the infidels are the norm -- and their indoctrination into this cult of hatred so assured that they can be "trusted" to go abroad to learn how to make bombs in chemistry classes in North Carolina and Colorado -- the Liberal American teachers tell them (and the rest of their class) that their hatred is justified and that the terrorists are doing the world a favor by burning alive three thousand "little Eichmans" in the World Trade Center?
Could it be because when the leftists at the New York Times come across a story of a couple of night guards at a prison for suspected terrorists who put panties on their enemies' heads they run the story on their front page -- as if it were the second coming of the Holocaust -- for 44 straight days while a serach of the Times' website turns up not even a mention of the heroic soldier who fought off an ambush, wounded the attempted killer and then provided him with emergency medical care.
Ask yourself, Democrat, who feigns being dumbfounded at the hatred the world supposedly has for us, how much less would the world hate us if you stopped your anti-American lies, slanders and attacks? How much less would the world hate us if you stood up for America instead of lying to tear it down?
Ask yourself Bruce Springsteen, how many fewer people would want to massacre Americans if you sang about how being born in the USA meant you could go from being a bus driver's son to the rich and pampered multimillionaire father of a steeple chase champion all through hard work and a good song?
How about if instead of lauding the communists of Cuba Robert Redford showed some gratitude to the nation that not only allows him to spew his moronic positions but to get filthy rich in doing so.
Ask yourself, Al Gore, how much less the world might hate us if, in some of your speeches, you called Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat or Kim Jung Il "Nazi Brown Shirts" rather than your fellow Americans.
Ask yourself, Howard Dean, how much less the world would hate us if the very head of one of America's national parties, "reserved judgment" on the Americans you viciously and lyingly slander rather than only "reserving judgment" (your words) on Osama Bin Ladin.
Ask yourself at the New York Times (and the handful of people who still read it) how much less would the world hate us if, instead of running the Abu Gharaib story for 44 straight days you ran it for only 40 straight days and with the extra space mentioned, even once, that over 96 percent of the children in Iraq now have been inoculated against the most dreaded diseases in the world or that 4.3 million children Iraqi children are now enrolled in primary schools.
The problem isn't that Democrats say bad things about America. It's that they never say anything good. It's that their attacks on America are typically outright lies (Springsteen was born in a cute little New Jersey town and ended up far from being like a dog that's been beat too much and their lies aid and abet the enemy. Ask yourself, Americans, you've heard Howard Dean and Al Gore, you've seen Dick Durbin call your fathers and brothers and sons and daughters in the military "Nazis", you know that Ward Churchill teaches your children that the victims of 9/11 were all "Little Eichmans..." but when was the last time you heard a Democrat say ANYTHING good about America?
Yes, the Democrats are just like the man who murders his parents and then demands leniency because he's an orphan. They lie, slander and attack America at every turn and the "wonder" why the rest of the world hates us.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Ode To The Odious (Al Franken, Joe Wilson and the "Lying Liars" of the Left
Okay. Here's what I know about the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson story.
Joe Wilson is a Democratic Party hack who has been debunked by the 9/11 commission (featuring such lefties as Richard Ben Viniste) and the Lord Butler Report -- a similar extensive investigation by England's most highly respected overseer.
In fact "those sixteen words" the the Democrats tried to use to prove it is George Bush who is a liar and Saddam Hussein who is a wonderful statesman are, even to the moronic (read: Democrats) undeniably true.
Bush said in his State of the Union address that British intelligence believed there is evidence that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa. Not only is this absolutely true -- British intelligence did then -- and after extensive review, does still --- believe it but the President went out of his way not to be a Clintonian liar.
The President easily could have said that "intelligence sources" now believe... and given his argument greater power by implying that those sources were the CIA and the FBI. Instead he made it abundantly clear that the CIA and FBI could not or did not confirm the beliefs of the fabulous MI-6 -- home of the legendary James Bond. Bush could have pulled a Clinton if caught and said "well I never SAID the CIA." He didn't.
So the greatest "lie" of the Republican was an out and out truth -- one the President went out of his way to be clear about. Such is the way the liars of the left.
Meanwhile to help "prove" that the truth was a lie the liars sent a liar to lie about Africa. All the better to help a liar named John Kerry -- so much a liar that 254 American heroes from across the political spectrum risked their names and reputations to -- for the first time ever -- offer first hand, eye witness testimony so that the American people would know the truth about a man who began his career by lying about his band of brothers.
So Joe Wilson, the only person specifically identified as a liar by the bipartisan 9/11 commission was sent not by the Vice President as the liar lyingly lied but on the pressure of his wife at the CIA. Wilson then came home, wrote an article for the New York Times (home of the liars Howell Raines and Jayson Blair) in which he lied.
While the liar was lying in an outlet run by liars to the attempted benefit of a liar, Karl Rove told the truth. For when the writer from Newsweek (home of the bogus Koran story recently) asked Rove about the liar Rove told the truth and said he was lying.
Since the investigation -- of which Rove isn't even a target -- Rove has been utterly above board. He quickly singed a waiver granting anyone and everyone he talked with to turn over the notes from the conversations when Rove told the truth about the liar and, in fact, he signed the waiver written by the prosecutor without a single change.
Meanwhile, the liars in the leftist media have already convicted Rove and, as if in lockstep with the Democrats (because they are), are portraying Plame as an undercover agent when this is far from established, Rove as the "leak" even though no leak has been establish and despite the fact that the prosecutor himself says that even IF a crime was committed Rove is not the target of the investigation.
Meanwhile Judith Miller -- an employee of the liars at the New York Times -- languishes in jail because she refuses to identify HER sources which simply couldn't be Rove because Rove gave her (and everyone else) permission to talk about him.
So the Democrats are demanding that Rove be "frog marched" out of the White House in handcuffs for something they don't know is even a crime and don't know who committed it if it was knowing only that the person who knows best says it ain't Rove and Rove himself, unlike his accusers, has been completely honest and above board the whole time.
Joe Wilson is a Democratic Party hack who has been debunked by the 9/11 commission (featuring such lefties as Richard Ben Viniste) and the Lord Butler Report -- a similar extensive investigation by England's most highly respected overseer.
In fact "those sixteen words" the the Democrats tried to use to prove it is George Bush who is a liar and Saddam Hussein who is a wonderful statesman are, even to the moronic (read: Democrats) undeniably true.
Bush said in his State of the Union address that British intelligence believed there is evidence that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa. Not only is this absolutely true -- British intelligence did then -- and after extensive review, does still --- believe it but the President went out of his way not to be a Clintonian liar.
The President easily could have said that "intelligence sources" now believe... and given his argument greater power by implying that those sources were the CIA and the FBI. Instead he made it abundantly clear that the CIA and FBI could not or did not confirm the beliefs of the fabulous MI-6 -- home of the legendary James Bond. Bush could have pulled a Clinton if caught and said "well I never SAID the CIA." He didn't.
So the greatest "lie" of the Republican was an out and out truth -- one the President went out of his way to be clear about. Such is the way the liars of the left.
Meanwhile to help "prove" that the truth was a lie the liars sent a liar to lie about Africa. All the better to help a liar named John Kerry -- so much a liar that 254 American heroes from across the political spectrum risked their names and reputations to -- for the first time ever -- offer first hand, eye witness testimony so that the American people would know the truth about a man who began his career by lying about his band of brothers.
So Joe Wilson, the only person specifically identified as a liar by the bipartisan 9/11 commission was sent not by the Vice President as the liar lyingly lied but on the pressure of his wife at the CIA. Wilson then came home, wrote an article for the New York Times (home of the liars Howell Raines and Jayson Blair) in which he lied.
While the liar was lying in an outlet run by liars to the attempted benefit of a liar, Karl Rove told the truth. For when the writer from Newsweek (home of the bogus Koran story recently) asked Rove about the liar Rove told the truth and said he was lying.
Since the investigation -- of which Rove isn't even a target -- Rove has been utterly above board. He quickly singed a waiver granting anyone and everyone he talked with to turn over the notes from the conversations when Rove told the truth about the liar and, in fact, he signed the waiver written by the prosecutor without a single change.
Meanwhile, the liars in the leftist media have already convicted Rove and, as if in lockstep with the Democrats (because they are), are portraying Plame as an undercover agent when this is far from established, Rove as the "leak" even though no leak has been establish and despite the fact that the prosecutor himself says that even IF a crime was committed Rove is not the target of the investigation.
Meanwhile Judith Miller -- an employee of the liars at the New York Times -- languishes in jail because she refuses to identify HER sources which simply couldn't be Rove because Rove gave her (and everyone else) permission to talk about him.
So the Democrats are demanding that Rove be "frog marched" out of the White House in handcuffs for something they don't know is even a crime and don't know who committed it if it was knowing only that the person who knows best says it ain't Rove and Rove himself, unlike his accusers, has been completely honest and above board the whole time.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Rove, Scandal and Why Democrats Attack
As if in lockstep (because they are) the leftist media and the looney Democrats are demanding that the President first pillory and then fire Karl Rove.
But the Special Prosecutor says Rove is not a target of his investigation and the media's own lawyers -- detailed beautifully by the always solid Neal Bortz -- have made a powerful case in their "friend of the court" briefings that no crime has even been committed.
So Rove isn't a target of a crime the media itself admits wasn't committed and yet the leftists are screaming and yelling and engaging in the kind of slander they usually reserve for American soldiers even as Howard Dean presumably is still "reserving judgment" on Osama Bin Ladin.
You see the Democrats can't wait for a crime to be committed -- nor to find out who might actually have done it -- because this administration has been so stunningly above board and so stunning honest (probably because the President is a Christian and because his policies are predicated on doing what is good and right for the country not on trying to seduce -- or rape -- women) that the Democrats have to invent scandals such as the one at Abu Gharaib or by simply vomiting out the word "Enron" repeatedly, even though it was during the Clinton years that Enron committed their crimes and in the Bush years they were investigated, prosecuted and convicted.
And scandal, as Victor Davis Hanson recently pointed out, is the Democrats ONLY hope as they recognize they have nothing positive to offer the American people. Does anyone know their policy regarding Iraq? Terrorism? Social Security? Education? Crime? Drugs or Illegal Immigration? Does anyone know the Democrats' position on ANYTHING???
The Democrats offer no positions not because they don't have them -- they do. It's called "socialism" and the American people reject it. The problem is, though, if the Democrats put forth reasonable policy based on capitalism, freedom and the American way they will lose the support of the people who now control their party -- radical socialists and communists who have no need whatsoever for a "reasonable" Democrat.
These are people like the billionaire George Soros and the American hater Michael Moore and the insane Howard "Yee-ha" Dean to whom the likes of Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt or anyone who isn't a radical leftist ready to implement their socialist takeover is little different than a Republican.
Thus if the Democrat puts forth policy that is reasonable he loses in the primaries where Soros' money, Michael Moore and the rest of Hollywood's power and influence and Howard Dean's insider manipulations hold all the cards. If they put forth policy that satisfies that radical socialists, though, they lose in the general election where people who love America but might have reasonable policy disagreements make the difference.
This leaves the Democrat with no other alternative but to seek election and reelection simply by working to undermine America's prosperity so they can claim it's the Republican's fault, undermine our war against Islamic terror in the hopes we'll be bombed again and they can say "see" and invent scandals to drive down the "positives" of the other side because they have no way of driving up their own.
But the Special Prosecutor says Rove is not a target of his investigation and the media's own lawyers -- detailed beautifully by the always solid Neal Bortz -- have made a powerful case in their "friend of the court" briefings that no crime has even been committed.
So Rove isn't a target of a crime the media itself admits wasn't committed and yet the leftists are screaming and yelling and engaging in the kind of slander they usually reserve for American soldiers even as Howard Dean presumably is still "reserving judgment" on Osama Bin Ladin.
You see the Democrats can't wait for a crime to be committed -- nor to find out who might actually have done it -- because this administration has been so stunningly above board and so stunning honest (probably because the President is a Christian and because his policies are predicated on doing what is good and right for the country not on trying to seduce -- or rape -- women) that the Democrats have to invent scandals such as the one at Abu Gharaib or by simply vomiting out the word "Enron" repeatedly, even though it was during the Clinton years that Enron committed their crimes and in the Bush years they were investigated, prosecuted and convicted.
And scandal, as Victor Davis Hanson recently pointed out, is the Democrats ONLY hope as they recognize they have nothing positive to offer the American people. Does anyone know their policy regarding Iraq? Terrorism? Social Security? Education? Crime? Drugs or Illegal Immigration? Does anyone know the Democrats' position on ANYTHING???
The Democrats offer no positions not because they don't have them -- they do. It's called "socialism" and the American people reject it. The problem is, though, if the Democrats put forth reasonable policy based on capitalism, freedom and the American way they will lose the support of the people who now control their party -- radical socialists and communists who have no need whatsoever for a "reasonable" Democrat.
These are people like the billionaire George Soros and the American hater Michael Moore and the insane Howard "Yee-ha" Dean to whom the likes of Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt or anyone who isn't a radical leftist ready to implement their socialist takeover is little different than a Republican.
Thus if the Democrat puts forth policy that is reasonable he loses in the primaries where Soros' money, Michael Moore and the rest of Hollywood's power and influence and Howard Dean's insider manipulations hold all the cards. If they put forth policy that satisfies that radical socialists, though, they lose in the general election where people who love America but might have reasonable policy disagreements make the difference.
This leaves the Democrat with no other alternative but to seek election and reelection simply by working to undermine America's prosperity so they can claim it's the Republican's fault, undermine our war against Islamic terror in the hopes we'll be bombed again and they can say "see" and invent scandals to drive down the "positives" of the other side because they have no way of driving up their own.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
What It Takes To Be A Liberal
As some of you may know from my writings or from having attended one or more of my lectures, my central thesis -- my complete understanding -- of the way Modern Liberals "think", is that they don't.
Modern Liberal philosophy -- the dominant force within today's Democratic Party and the socialist nations of Europe -- is predicated on the rejection of rational thought. The Modern Liberal sees rational thought as too "tainted" by cultural influences to be of any value in coming to the truth about things. They believe that, no matter how carefully one examines the facts and evidence, one's own biases are such that any conclusion whatsoever -- any belief or value -- is worse than worthless, it is nothing short of an act of bigotry.
Anyone who disagrees with the Liberal -- that is anyone who is anything but utterly indiscriminate -- is not just "wrong" in their conclusions but to be hated for having made the effort. In order to overcome what they see as the entrenched bigotry, and justified in their own minds that their efforts are for the "greater good," there is no lie, smear or slander the Liberal won't engage in to convince the dolts and racists that the only reason they believe America superior to, say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, is not because of America's freedoms and unique cultural heritage but only because they have been duped.
The objective of Modern Liberal discourse and education, then, isn't to collect the facts and evidence in order to come to the best possible conclusion for that conclusion is, to them, worthless. Instead the Modern Liberal starts with their conclusion -- that all things are the same and any difference is merely the result of cultural pressures (e.g. boys playing with guns and girls playing with dolls) -- and then works backwards to cherry-pick, spin and invent whatever is necessary to "prove" their preordained conclusion.
To uphold their preordained conclusion the leftist must employ the most twisted and tortured of conspiracy theories, the most fractured of "logic" and the degree of slander, hyperbole and distortion recognizable in Democrat Dick Durbin's comparisons of American soldiers to the Nazis, Liberal college professor Ward Churchill's smearing of the victims of 9/11 as all being "little Eichmans" and the downright lunacy found in an article in the Guardian by Gary Younge.
In the article Younge writes in defense of the terrorists. This should be no surprise. The Modern Liberal will ALWAYS work on behalf of the most evil and attack the most good in order to prove their written in stone creed that all things are the same.
From Younge's article:
"We know what took place (in London). A group of people, with no regard for law, order or our way of life, came to our city and trashed it. With scant regard for human life or political consequences, employing violence as their sole instrument of persuasion, they slaughtered innocent people indiscriminately. They left us feeling unified in our pain and resolute in our convictions, effectively creating a community where one previously did not exist. With the killers probably still at large there is no civil liberty so vital that some would not surrender it in pursuit of them and no punishment too harsh that some might not sanction if we found them.
The trouble is there is nothing in the last paragraph that could not just as easily be said from Falluja as it could from London."
It is hard to imagine that Younge is really this stupid. Surely he is not as he can put together several sentences in a row. The problem isn't stupidity it is the unwillingness and/or inability to discriminate between truth and fiction. The ONLY truth that matters to the leftist is that all things are the same. Anything that supports that "truth," no matter how clearly a lie, becomes the truth.
Anyone to whom fact and evidence are the cornerstones of intelligent conclusions easily sees through the literally insanity of the Liberal argument. Sadly the leftists have had such complete control of our education system and the mass media that they have succeeded in indoctrinating into their cult of indiscriminateness millions who are literally incapable -- in fact utterly disinterested -- in considering the merits of Mr. Younge's points as even the effort to do so would be an act of bigotry.
Let's take Younge's statement a point at a time.
>>>We know what took place. A group of people, with no regard for law, order or our way of life, came to our city and trashed it.>>>
"No regard for law"? The coalition forces have so much regard for law that in two years of war the best those who hack off people's heads (and their allies in the Democratic Party) can come up with for "law-breaking" is that four out of a million soliders put panties on terrorists' heads (and even then they were punished!) and that the air condition unit in an interrogation cell for those sworn to murder all infidels -- and caught on the battlefield trying to do so -- wasn't on full blast.
Is Mr. Younge truly so incapable of making thoughtful comparisons (and/or does he expect his readers to be) that he sees an exact parallel between those whose very leaders lop off the heads of innocent civilians and proudly display it on the internet and a couple of night guards putting panties on the heads of terrorists?
"(no regard for) our way of life"? Moslems themselves were hiding out in their own Mosques knowing that Americans had so much regard for their "way of life" that the coalition forces wouldn't fight them there.
Funny how even the terrorist enemy recognizes America's "regard for their way of life" but Liberals and Democrats do not.
"(they) came to our city and trashed it..."? Is it possible that Mr. Younge is not only unaware of the care and discretion used in the military campaigns of the coalition forces but that America and others are spending billions, risking their lives and succeeding in building an Iraq not only back to its pre-war levels but to a degree comparable to the West?
Does Younge really believe that after blowing up the subways in London the terrorists plan to write a check to have us rebuild it? Does he think "the check is in the mail" from the Islamics to rebuild the World Trade Center?
>>>>With scant regard for human life..."
Despite America's ability to quite literally wipe Iraq off the face of the Earth the death toll is miniscule by all historic comparisons, Americans repeatedly put themselves at risk rather than endanger civilians while American resources such as army hospitals were often used to nurse even the bad guys back to health.
Does Mr. Younge really find a comparison between this and the wanton mass murder of innocents that is the standard operating procedure of the Islamic fascists he so desperately seeks to defend and protect?
(In the same vain, does Dick Durbin really find a comparison between our soldiers and the Nazis?)
"...employing violence as their sole instrument of persuasion..."
Is Mr. Younge really so ignorant of recent history that he has forgotten the 18 United Nations resolutions, the negotiations with al Sadr and the free elections that were just held in Iraq?
"...they slaughtered innocent people indiscriminately..."
"Slaughtered"? "Indiscriminately"? With just a little critical thinking one would recognize that the "indiscriminate slaughter" is exactly what America stopped by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and that, if the Iraqi people, who know the realities best, agreed with these slanders the terrorists wouldn't be losing the war and wouldn't have to import their killers from Syria, Iran and elsewhere. The Iraqi people support America's efforts but the Democrat and the Liberal seek to undermine them.
"...They left us feeling unified in our pain and resolute in our convictions..."
This is true. But the "pain" they were feeling "unified" in was in finding the scores of mass graves with their sons and brothers and children in them that were created by Saddam Hussein and would still be being filled if the Democrats and the leftists had had their way.
The Iraqis ARE resolute in their convictions -- convictions that favor freedom and appreciate America and coalition efforts -- so resolute, in fact, that they took to the streets in numbers (percentage) higher than even Americans to vote for an American-inspired democracy even as these same leftists were falsely reporting that the streets were "too chaotic" to allow an election to be held at all.
"...effectively creating a community where one previously did not exist..."
Could this leftist really be arguing that Islamic terrorism didn't exist prior to last week's bombings in London or September 11th? Does he really not know that the Imams have been preaching violent Jihad in London for decades?
"...With the killers probably still at large there is no civil liberty so vital that some would not surrender it in pursuit of them and no punishment too harsh that some might not sanction if we found them."
"Some." It's the leftists' favorite word. By finding two people (after all, that's "some") who do something the leftist is able to demand that everyone be punished for it. Of course, in a population the size of America's or Great Britains you can find "some" who believe just about anything.
Is the problem that the British (and Americans) have been too tough on the terrorists or that we have been so ludicrously the opposite of Younge's "some" that the terrorists told us what they were going to do -- seek the mass murder of all infidels -- went about doing it and still the Democrat and the Liberal seeks to attack those who demand simply that our citizens be protected and the evil murderers be stopped.
"...The trouble is there is nothing in the last paragraph that could not just as easily be said from Falluja as it could from London."
This is why the Democrat and the Liberal are so dangerous. They literally cannot tell the difference between tyranny and freedom, terrorists and heroes, murder and liberation that puts an end to genocide.
With this insanity as the basis of their policies the Democrat and the Liberal -- from Dick Durbin to Gary Younge -- side always with evil over good and wrong over right and do so by employing the most twisted of logic, the most dishonest of arguments and the most hateful of slanders against America, our allies and the Western World in general.
Modern Liberal philosophy -- the dominant force within today's Democratic Party and the socialist nations of Europe -- is predicated on the rejection of rational thought. The Modern Liberal sees rational thought as too "tainted" by cultural influences to be of any value in coming to the truth about things. They believe that, no matter how carefully one examines the facts and evidence, one's own biases are such that any conclusion whatsoever -- any belief or value -- is worse than worthless, it is nothing short of an act of bigotry.
Anyone who disagrees with the Liberal -- that is anyone who is anything but utterly indiscriminate -- is not just "wrong" in their conclusions but to be hated for having made the effort. In order to overcome what they see as the entrenched bigotry, and justified in their own minds that their efforts are for the "greater good," there is no lie, smear or slander the Liberal won't engage in to convince the dolts and racists that the only reason they believe America superior to, say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, is not because of America's freedoms and unique cultural heritage but only because they have been duped.
The objective of Modern Liberal discourse and education, then, isn't to collect the facts and evidence in order to come to the best possible conclusion for that conclusion is, to them, worthless. Instead the Modern Liberal starts with their conclusion -- that all things are the same and any difference is merely the result of cultural pressures (e.g. boys playing with guns and girls playing with dolls) -- and then works backwards to cherry-pick, spin and invent whatever is necessary to "prove" their preordained conclusion.
To uphold their preordained conclusion the leftist must employ the most twisted and tortured of conspiracy theories, the most fractured of "logic" and the degree of slander, hyperbole and distortion recognizable in Democrat Dick Durbin's comparisons of American soldiers to the Nazis, Liberal college professor Ward Churchill's smearing of the victims of 9/11 as all being "little Eichmans" and the downright lunacy found in an article in the Guardian by Gary Younge.
In the article Younge writes in defense of the terrorists. This should be no surprise. The Modern Liberal will ALWAYS work on behalf of the most evil and attack the most good in order to prove their written in stone creed that all things are the same.
From Younge's article:
"We know what took place (in London). A group of people, with no regard for law, order or our way of life, came to our city and trashed it. With scant regard for human life or political consequences, employing violence as their sole instrument of persuasion, they slaughtered innocent people indiscriminately. They left us feeling unified in our pain and resolute in our convictions, effectively creating a community where one previously did not exist. With the killers probably still at large there is no civil liberty so vital that some would not surrender it in pursuit of them and no punishment too harsh that some might not sanction if we found them.
The trouble is there is nothing in the last paragraph that could not just as easily be said from Falluja as it could from London."
It is hard to imagine that Younge is really this stupid. Surely he is not as he can put together several sentences in a row. The problem isn't stupidity it is the unwillingness and/or inability to discriminate between truth and fiction. The ONLY truth that matters to the leftist is that all things are the same. Anything that supports that "truth," no matter how clearly a lie, becomes the truth.
Anyone to whom fact and evidence are the cornerstones of intelligent conclusions easily sees through the literally insanity of the Liberal argument. Sadly the leftists have had such complete control of our education system and the mass media that they have succeeded in indoctrinating into their cult of indiscriminateness millions who are literally incapable -- in fact utterly disinterested -- in considering the merits of Mr. Younge's points as even the effort to do so would be an act of bigotry.
Let's take Younge's statement a point at a time.
>>>We know what took place. A group of people, with no regard for law, order or our way of life, came to our city and trashed it.>>>
"No regard for law"? The coalition forces have so much regard for law that in two years of war the best those who hack off people's heads (and their allies in the Democratic Party) can come up with for "law-breaking" is that four out of a million soliders put panties on terrorists' heads (and even then they were punished!) and that the air condition unit in an interrogation cell for those sworn to murder all infidels -- and caught on the battlefield trying to do so -- wasn't on full blast.
Is Mr. Younge truly so incapable of making thoughtful comparisons (and/or does he expect his readers to be) that he sees an exact parallel between those whose very leaders lop off the heads of innocent civilians and proudly display it on the internet and a couple of night guards putting panties on the heads of terrorists?
"(no regard for) our way of life"? Moslems themselves were hiding out in their own Mosques knowing that Americans had so much regard for their "way of life" that the coalition forces wouldn't fight them there.
Funny how even the terrorist enemy recognizes America's "regard for their way of life" but Liberals and Democrats do not.
"(they) came to our city and trashed it..."? Is it possible that Mr. Younge is not only unaware of the care and discretion used in the military campaigns of the coalition forces but that America and others are spending billions, risking their lives and succeeding in building an Iraq not only back to its pre-war levels but to a degree comparable to the West?
Does Younge really believe that after blowing up the subways in London the terrorists plan to write a check to have us rebuild it? Does he think "the check is in the mail" from the Islamics to rebuild the World Trade Center?
>>>>With scant regard for human life..."
Despite America's ability to quite literally wipe Iraq off the face of the Earth the death toll is miniscule by all historic comparisons, Americans repeatedly put themselves at risk rather than endanger civilians while American resources such as army hospitals were often used to nurse even the bad guys back to health.
Does Mr. Younge really find a comparison between this and the wanton mass murder of innocents that is the standard operating procedure of the Islamic fascists he so desperately seeks to defend and protect?
(In the same vain, does Dick Durbin really find a comparison between our soldiers and the Nazis?)
"...employing violence as their sole instrument of persuasion..."
Is Mr. Younge really so ignorant of recent history that he has forgotten the 18 United Nations resolutions, the negotiations with al Sadr and the free elections that were just held in Iraq?
"...they slaughtered innocent people indiscriminately..."
"Slaughtered"? "Indiscriminately"? With just a little critical thinking one would recognize that the "indiscriminate slaughter" is exactly what America stopped by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and that, if the Iraqi people, who know the realities best, agreed with these slanders the terrorists wouldn't be losing the war and wouldn't have to import their killers from Syria, Iran and elsewhere. The Iraqi people support America's efforts but the Democrat and the Liberal seek to undermine them.
"...They left us feeling unified in our pain and resolute in our convictions..."
This is true. But the "pain" they were feeling "unified" in was in finding the scores of mass graves with their sons and brothers and children in them that were created by Saddam Hussein and would still be being filled if the Democrats and the leftists had had their way.
The Iraqis ARE resolute in their convictions -- convictions that favor freedom and appreciate America and coalition efforts -- so resolute, in fact, that they took to the streets in numbers (percentage) higher than even Americans to vote for an American-inspired democracy even as these same leftists were falsely reporting that the streets were "too chaotic" to allow an election to be held at all.
"...effectively creating a community where one previously did not exist..."
Could this leftist really be arguing that Islamic terrorism didn't exist prior to last week's bombings in London or September 11th? Does he really not know that the Imams have been preaching violent Jihad in London for decades?
"...With the killers probably still at large there is no civil liberty so vital that some would not surrender it in pursuit of them and no punishment too harsh that some might not sanction if we found them."
"Some." It's the leftists' favorite word. By finding two people (after all, that's "some") who do something the leftist is able to demand that everyone be punished for it. Of course, in a population the size of America's or Great Britains you can find "some" who believe just about anything.
Is the problem that the British (and Americans) have been too tough on the terrorists or that we have been so ludicrously the opposite of Younge's "some" that the terrorists told us what they were going to do -- seek the mass murder of all infidels -- went about doing it and still the Democrat and the Liberal seeks to attack those who demand simply that our citizens be protected and the evil murderers be stopped.
"...The trouble is there is nothing in the last paragraph that could not just as easily be said from Falluja as it could from London."
This is why the Democrat and the Liberal are so dangerous. They literally cannot tell the difference between tyranny and freedom, terrorists and heroes, murder and liberation that puts an end to genocide.
With this insanity as the basis of their policies the Democrat and the Liberal -- from Dick Durbin to Gary Younge -- side always with evil over good and wrong over right and do so by employing the most twisted of logic, the most dishonest of arguments and the most hateful of slanders against America, our allies and the Western World in general.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Random Thoughts
Just another couple of thoughts...
If "racial profiling" is so horrific that we must not even do it when the race or ethnicity of the enemy is as obvious as is the Islamic terrorists and the stakes are the very survival of the nation but the Democrats INSIST that we MUST racially profile when it comes to "affirmative action"?
(The answer, btw, is that it has nothing to do with racial profiling and everything to do with Democrats supporting any and all policies that undermine America. Protecting the terrorists helps the terrorists to win and affirmative action keeps American businesses from having the best pool of applicants with which to compete in the global economy.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats remind me of a corrupt boxing referee. They know "their" guy is head-butting, and gouging at the eyes of his opponent, they know he is biting off the ears and kneeing him in the crotch. They even know he has a razor in his boxing glove and yet he will not call a single infraction against "his" guy. But as soon as his guy's opponent hits anywhere near the belt the referee tries to stop the fight for the "most horrible infraction of the rules in boxing history!!!"
This is the Democrat. He knows that the Islamic, fascist terrorists are committing the most horrific of evils -- hacking off people's heads, bombing innocent civilians, etc. And yet they'll never say a harsh word against them. But let an American even approach the line and leave the air conditioning off in the interrogation cells of "their guys" (the terrorists) and Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and Joe Biden all scream bloody murder and try to get America to forfeit the fight by closing down Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, the Democrats are like corrupt referees doing everything in their power to help "their guys" -- the terrorists -- win.
If "racial profiling" is so horrific that we must not even do it when the race or ethnicity of the enemy is as obvious as is the Islamic terrorists and the stakes are the very survival of the nation but the Democrats INSIST that we MUST racially profile when it comes to "affirmative action"?
(The answer, btw, is that it has nothing to do with racial profiling and everything to do with Democrats supporting any and all policies that undermine America. Protecting the terrorists helps the terrorists to win and affirmative action keeps American businesses from having the best pool of applicants with which to compete in the global economy.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats remind me of a corrupt boxing referee. They know "their" guy is head-butting, and gouging at the eyes of his opponent, they know he is biting off the ears and kneeing him in the crotch. They even know he has a razor in his boxing glove and yet he will not call a single infraction against "his" guy. But as soon as his guy's opponent hits anywhere near the belt the referee tries to stop the fight for the "most horrible infraction of the rules in boxing history!!!"
This is the Democrat. He knows that the Islamic, fascist terrorists are committing the most horrific of evils -- hacking off people's heads, bombing innocent civilians, etc. And yet they'll never say a harsh word against them. But let an American even approach the line and leave the air conditioning off in the interrogation cells of "their guys" (the terrorists) and Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and Joe Biden all scream bloody murder and try to get America to forfeit the fight by closing down Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, the Democrats are like corrupt referees doing everything in their power to help "their guys" -- the terrorists -- win.
Move America Forward
My next blog submission and article on why the Democrats' policies of "compassion" inevitably not only fail but actually prolong and spread the misery will be up tomorrow. Please return for that.
In the meantime I wanted to post a link to Move America Forward's TV commercial regarding Dick Durbin's vicious slander of America's troops where he compared our friends, neighbors and fellow countrymen to "Nazis."
Rather than apologize for his statements Durbin is trying to prevent the American people from hearing what he read into the Congressional Record. Towards this end Durbin has intimidated television stations in his home state, threatened to sic the IRS on those who use their right to free speech to counter Durbin's slanders and more.
I am attaching a link here for everyone to see Move America Forward's ad and for you to link it on your sites and send it to your friends so that Durbin doesn't win either with his anti-American lies or by undermining our freedoms.
If you have friends in Durbin's home state of Illinois please send it to them. Even if you don't, please link to it and recommend to your fans and readers that they do the same.
Thanks.
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/Video/MAFO-7449-HI.wmv
In the meantime I wanted to post a link to Move America Forward's TV commercial regarding Dick Durbin's vicious slander of America's troops where he compared our friends, neighbors and fellow countrymen to "Nazis."
Rather than apologize for his statements Durbin is trying to prevent the American people from hearing what he read into the Congressional Record. Towards this end Durbin has intimidated television stations in his home state, threatened to sic the IRS on those who use their right to free speech to counter Durbin's slanders and more.
I am attaching a link here for everyone to see Move America Forward's ad and for you to link it on your sites and send it to your friends so that Durbin doesn't win either with his anti-American lies or by undermining our freedoms.
If you have friends in Durbin's home state of Illinois please send it to them. Even if you don't, please link to it and recommend to your fans and readers that they do the same.
Thanks.
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/Video/MAFO-7449-HI.wmv
London Attacks Proof We're Winning
There are two ways to look at the bombings in London -- just as there are two ways to look at the misdeeds at Abu Gharaib last year and the attacks on our soldiers at Guantanamo Bay.
To the Democrats who seek America's defeat in the war against Islamic fascist terror they are to be seen as tools to be used to bludgeon America and Americans into submission. To me they are only further proof of how great America is and how obvious it is that we are winning the war against the evil murderers.
When I see the likes of the bloated Ted Kennedy -- recognizing, of course, that more people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than at Guantanamo Bay -- attacking America because a handful of night guards at a prison for the most vicious and vile of human scum put panties on the terrorists' heads I recognize that if this is all he can point to to try and undermine America's will to defend itself then the nearly one million American and coalition forces that have rotated in and out of Iraq over the past two years must be so unbelievably exemplary that my affection for America only grows.
If the worst that Dick Durbin can find in his efforts to paint Americans as Nazis is that the air conditioning wasn't turned up in an interrogation cell for suspected terrorists caught trying to kill Americans then our treatment of the terrorists must be spectacular.
And if the best the terrorists can do is pull off a couple of bombings on a subway four years after 9/11 then obviously we're doing something right. After all, remember that during the Clinton years the terrorists were massacring people all the time. They murder Americans in the World Trade Center in 1993 and in the Khobar Towers and they massacred Americans (and others including Moslems) in two embassies in Africa and they nearly sunk the USS Cole and this doesn't even count the atrocities in Israel and against the democracy of India.
Four years after 9/11 the Islamic fascists haven't succeeded in attacking America -- or a single American interest -- anywhere in the world!
To those who wish to use anything to attack America (I mean the Democrats in this case, not the terrorists) the bombings in London are "proof" of our defeat -- a claim exactly as accurate as the Democratic Party's number two in command, Senator Dick Durbin's claim that Americans are Nazis.
To the Democrats who seek America's defeat in the war against Islamic fascist terror they are to be seen as tools to be used to bludgeon America and Americans into submission. To me they are only further proof of how great America is and how obvious it is that we are winning the war against the evil murderers.
When I see the likes of the bloated Ted Kennedy -- recognizing, of course, that more people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than at Guantanamo Bay -- attacking America because a handful of night guards at a prison for the most vicious and vile of human scum put panties on the terrorists' heads I recognize that if this is all he can point to to try and undermine America's will to defend itself then the nearly one million American and coalition forces that have rotated in and out of Iraq over the past two years must be so unbelievably exemplary that my affection for America only grows.
If the worst that Dick Durbin can find in his efforts to paint Americans as Nazis is that the air conditioning wasn't turned up in an interrogation cell for suspected terrorists caught trying to kill Americans then our treatment of the terrorists must be spectacular.
And if the best the terrorists can do is pull off a couple of bombings on a subway four years after 9/11 then obviously we're doing something right. After all, remember that during the Clinton years the terrorists were massacring people all the time. They murder Americans in the World Trade Center in 1993 and in the Khobar Towers and they massacred Americans (and others including Moslems) in two embassies in Africa and they nearly sunk the USS Cole and this doesn't even count the atrocities in Israel and against the democracy of India.
Four years after 9/11 the Islamic fascists haven't succeeded in attacking America -- or a single American interest -- anywhere in the world!
To those who wish to use anything to attack America (I mean the Democrats in this case, not the terrorists) the bombings in London are "proof" of our defeat -- a claim exactly as accurate as the Democratic Party's number two in command, Senator Dick Durbin's claim that Americans are Nazis.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Random Thoughts About Yesterday's Islamic Mass Murders
To all those Democrats who whine and cry because the government has added "terrorist" to the long list of crimes they had always been allowed to investigate through such means as looking at the books they'd recently taken out of the PUBLIC library: More innocent people lost ALL of their civil rights yesterday in Great Britain thanks to the terrorists you protect than had lost even the most minute of protections by all of the provisions of the Patriot Act combined over the last nearly-half-decade.
So much for the lie that the Democrats' are "compassionate."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone (I didn't catch his name) appearing on the Sean Hannity radio program yesterday suggested that the right thing for Tony Blair to do is announce that he is immediately doubling the number of British forces now in Iraq and Afghanistan. What a brave measure that would be -- and a signal to the terrorists that their murderous ways will be met with firm determination...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...unfortunately, because of the leftists in his society who work always to protect evil and quite revel in the massacre of Westerners -- just as do our Liberals here -- this is unlikely to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To those still foolish enough to listen to the Democrats who keep claiming that Al Qaida is not being defeated, notice that the attacks were low tech, took over a year to get through -- four years since 9/11 -- wasn't even one percent as "effective" in murdering innocents as was 9/11 and, of course, couldn't be pulled off against "the Great Satan".
Do you really believe we should return to the Democrats' policies of appeasing the terrorists where, in the course of the Clinton administration the WTC was attacked in '93, two of our embassies bombed, the USS Cole almost sunk, our people massacred in the Kobar Towers and more?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God bless the British.
So much for the lie that the Democrats' are "compassionate."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone (I didn't catch his name) appearing on the Sean Hannity radio program yesterday suggested that the right thing for Tony Blair to do is announce that he is immediately doubling the number of British forces now in Iraq and Afghanistan. What a brave measure that would be -- and a signal to the terrorists that their murderous ways will be met with firm determination...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...unfortunately, because of the leftists in his society who work always to protect evil and quite revel in the massacre of Westerners -- just as do our Liberals here -- this is unlikely to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To those still foolish enough to listen to the Democrats who keep claiming that Al Qaida is not being defeated, notice that the attacks were low tech, took over a year to get through -- four years since 9/11 -- wasn't even one percent as "effective" in murdering innocents as was 9/11 and, of course, couldn't be pulled off against "the Great Satan".
Do you really believe we should return to the Democrats' policies of appeasing the terrorists where, in the course of the Clinton administration the WTC was attacked in '93, two of our embassies bombed, the USS Cole almost sunk, our people massacred in the Kobar Towers and more?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God bless the British.
Monday, July 04, 2005
In an article so moronic that it could only have been written by a college professor Richard A. Kaye (associate professor of English at the ultra-Liberal Hunter college in New York) writes about patriotism. He offers a rather sick and distorted definition of patriotism claiming that today "being patriotic require(s) not so much a commitment to positive ideals and actions but, rather, to gestures that encourage an atmosphere of fearful watchfulness, xenophobia and the surrender of our freedoms."
Of course there is no one who believes that to be the definition of patriotism but the loony leftist likes to make up their own definitions for words (unilateral is defined by the Democrats not by its dictionary meaning but rather as "thirty-five nations but not France," for example.) It's not surprising that a Democrat doesn't know what the definition of patriotism is -- after all, it was only a few years ago the last Democratic Party President swore in a court of law he didn't even know what the definition of "is" is.
So, allow me to offer Professor Kaye and the rest of the folks on the left, a simple definition of patriotism. It is "love and devotion to one's country." And those who question the Democrats patriotism -- myself included -- have every reason to do so.
Here, then, is a very simple test of your patriotism, Professor:
When you heard about the massacre of American citizens on September 11th did you mourn the death of these innocents or did you cheer it and call the victims "little Eichmans" like your fellow Professor at the University of Colorado?
When you hear about Gitmo do you marvel at the unprecedenteldy humane treatment these suspected killers are getting or do you look for any excuse to call Americans Nazis like your fellow Democrat Dick Durbin?
If you were to make a movie about America would it show love and respect for this country or would it be a lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda film like your fellow leftist Michael Moore?
If you were to write a poem about what it's like to have been "Born in the USA" would it include a single positive image about the blessings of having had the good fortune to have been birthed in the greatest nation in human history or would you scream at the top of your lungs how evil America is as did John Kerry flack Bruce Springsteen?
If you were the editor of a newspaper would you make the lead article on the front page of the Fourth of July opinion section something about America's greatness or would you take up half the page with a warped desecration of the flag and a sophomoric attack on America as did the Los Angeles Times?
You see, Professor, Patriotism is love of country. Giving money to an AIDS hospital is a lovely thing. Signing people up to vote is terrific. They're very nice humanitarian acts. But neither has anything whatsoever to do with patriotism.
People who behave the way Democrats do are not patriotic. In fact, the argument can be made (and I have made it) that Democrats hate America. I doubt anyone would believe you loved you children if you wrote poems and songs about how evil they are, made movies where you lied about them, and took the opportunity of their birthday to offer up twisted attacks upon them.
--------------------------------
One of the fundamental differences between the left and the right is that the left cares about what you think and the right cares about what you do. Tammy Bruce, the former feminist leader who now rails against the tactics and agenda of the left, considered this so ingrained in the Democrats' "thinking" she actually named her first book "The New Thought Police."
One will notice that the Democrat rarely debates actual occurrences and instead will attack the "motivations" of those who disagree with them. So it is that it is meaningless to the Democrat that America has recently liberated twenty-five million human beings from rape, torture and genocide because (in their twisted worlds) the REASON we did it -- to steal Iraq's oil -- is wrong.
The Patriot Act shouldn't be considered for the fact that it has kept Americans safe for the past four years while infringing on not a single person's rights for fact and truth means nothing to the left. Instead it must be attacked as being "designed to" take away your rights.
Notice in the Professor's tripe that he offers as a "given" that Americans have "surrendered their rights" but cannot name any that have actually been taken away. This is, of course, because none have. Contrary to the misinformation from the Old Media and the demagoguery of the Democrats, the government could always check on the books one had taken out of the PUBLIC library if one was suspected of a variety of crimes. All the Patriot Act did was add "terrorism" -- something our predecessors didn't have to worry about -- to a list that included child molesters, Mafiosi and killers.
---------
Kaye does offer us terrific insight into the insanity of today's leftist "intellectuals," however.
I have of late come to define "intellectualism" as the use of pretty sounding words to explain why wrong is actually right.
Follow the insane contortions Kaye must put himself through in order to try and make his basic
point:
Here's the sentence again:
"Since when does being patriotic require not so much a commitment to positive ideals and actions but, rather, to gestures that encourage an atmosphere of fearful watchfulness, xenophobia and the surrender of our freedoms?"
As noted earlier the entire piece is premised on a lie. There's nobody who believes patriotism is defined as "gestures that encourage an atmosphere of fearful watchfulness, xenophobia and the surrender of our freedoms." Most people know the definition of patriotism as love and devotion to one's country.
But here the piece gets funny. Or sad. Depending on how much sympathy you have for the poor students who have to listen to this idiot's drivel (and the parents who have to pay for it).
Notice how many sick turns the "intellectual" has to take to even try to make his case. Kaye first talks not about actions but "gestures." But even these supposed "gestures" don't lead to any concrete action, rather they "encourage" something. And what they "encourage" are not any actions but rather an "atmosphere". And this "atmosphere" doesn't lead to any actions but only to EMOTIONS (fearful watching and xenophobia) and only then do they lead to "action" the PASSIVE "surrendering of rights" (unnamed, of course).
----------------
Of note, here, is that it is not the "watchfulness" that is wrong but rather the "cause" or "motivation" of the watchfulness the leftist attacks. It's is the FEELINGS and not the facts that the leftist despises. And notice, once again, that it isn't the Islamic fascist mass murderers who have succeeded in taking down our largest buildings, nearly sinking our warships, taking down our blackhawk helicopters, hack off the heads of innocent people in Iraq and blow the brains out of children in the democracy of Israel who are the bad guys. In fact in this anti-American diatribe timed specifically for America's birthday celebration Kaye doesn't even mention the terrorists -- as if they, and not the rights we've "surrendered" are the figment of our imaginations.
As always with the Democrat it is those who have concerns and keep an eye out to protect their country and their families who are, if not "little Eichmans" this time, certainly racist "xenophobes."
Of course there is no one who believes that to be the definition of patriotism but the loony leftist likes to make up their own definitions for words (unilateral is defined by the Democrats not by its dictionary meaning but rather as "thirty-five nations but not France," for example.) It's not surprising that a Democrat doesn't know what the definition of patriotism is -- after all, it was only a few years ago the last Democratic Party President swore in a court of law he didn't even know what the definition of "is" is.
So, allow me to offer Professor Kaye and the rest of the folks on the left, a simple definition of patriotism. It is "love and devotion to one's country." And those who question the Democrats patriotism -- myself included -- have every reason to do so.
Here, then, is a very simple test of your patriotism, Professor:
When you heard about the massacre of American citizens on September 11th did you mourn the death of these innocents or did you cheer it and call the victims "little Eichmans" like your fellow Professor at the University of Colorado?
When you hear about Gitmo do you marvel at the unprecedenteldy humane treatment these suspected killers are getting or do you look for any excuse to call Americans Nazis like your fellow Democrat Dick Durbin?
If you were to make a movie about America would it show love and respect for this country or would it be a lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda film like your fellow leftist Michael Moore?
If you were to write a poem about what it's like to have been "Born in the USA" would it include a single positive image about the blessings of having had the good fortune to have been birthed in the greatest nation in human history or would you scream at the top of your lungs how evil America is as did John Kerry flack Bruce Springsteen?
If you were the editor of a newspaper would you make the lead article on the front page of the Fourth of July opinion section something about America's greatness or would you take up half the page with a warped desecration of the flag and a sophomoric attack on America as did the Los Angeles Times?
You see, Professor, Patriotism is love of country. Giving money to an AIDS hospital is a lovely thing. Signing people up to vote is terrific. They're very nice humanitarian acts. But neither has anything whatsoever to do with patriotism.
People who behave the way Democrats do are not patriotic. In fact, the argument can be made (and I have made it) that Democrats hate America. I doubt anyone would believe you loved you children if you wrote poems and songs about how evil they are, made movies where you lied about them, and took the opportunity of their birthday to offer up twisted attacks upon them.
--------------------------------
One of the fundamental differences between the left and the right is that the left cares about what you think and the right cares about what you do. Tammy Bruce, the former feminist leader who now rails against the tactics and agenda of the left, considered this so ingrained in the Democrats' "thinking" she actually named her first book "The New Thought Police."
One will notice that the Democrat rarely debates actual occurrences and instead will attack the "motivations" of those who disagree with them. So it is that it is meaningless to the Democrat that America has recently liberated twenty-five million human beings from rape, torture and genocide because (in their twisted worlds) the REASON we did it -- to steal Iraq's oil -- is wrong.
The Patriot Act shouldn't be considered for the fact that it has kept Americans safe for the past four years while infringing on not a single person's rights for fact and truth means nothing to the left. Instead it must be attacked as being "designed to" take away your rights.
Notice in the Professor's tripe that he offers as a "given" that Americans have "surrendered their rights" but cannot name any that have actually been taken away. This is, of course, because none have. Contrary to the misinformation from the Old Media and the demagoguery of the Democrats, the government could always check on the books one had taken out of the PUBLIC library if one was suspected of a variety of crimes. All the Patriot Act did was add "terrorism" -- something our predecessors didn't have to worry about -- to a list that included child molesters, Mafiosi and killers.
---------
Kaye does offer us terrific insight into the insanity of today's leftist "intellectuals," however.
I have of late come to define "intellectualism" as the use of pretty sounding words to explain why wrong is actually right.
Follow the insane contortions Kaye must put himself through in order to try and make his basic
point:
Here's the sentence again:
"Since when does being patriotic require not so much a commitment to positive ideals and actions but, rather, to gestures that encourage an atmosphere of fearful watchfulness, xenophobia and the surrender of our freedoms?"
As noted earlier the entire piece is premised on a lie. There's nobody who believes patriotism is defined as "gestures that encourage an atmosphere of fearful watchfulness, xenophobia and the surrender of our freedoms." Most people know the definition of patriotism as love and devotion to one's country.
But here the piece gets funny. Or sad. Depending on how much sympathy you have for the poor students who have to listen to this idiot's drivel (and the parents who have to pay for it).
Notice how many sick turns the "intellectual" has to take to even try to make his case. Kaye first talks not about actions but "gestures." But even these supposed "gestures" don't lead to any concrete action, rather they "encourage" something. And what they "encourage" are not any actions but rather an "atmosphere". And this "atmosphere" doesn't lead to any actions but only to EMOTIONS (fearful watching and xenophobia) and only then do they lead to "action" the PASSIVE "surrendering of rights" (unnamed, of course).
----------------
Of note, here, is that it is not the "watchfulness" that is wrong but rather the "cause" or "motivation" of the watchfulness the leftist attacks. It's is the FEELINGS and not the facts that the leftist despises. And notice, once again, that it isn't the Islamic fascist mass murderers who have succeeded in taking down our largest buildings, nearly sinking our warships, taking down our blackhawk helicopters, hack off the heads of innocent people in Iraq and blow the brains out of children in the democracy of Israel who are the bad guys. In fact in this anti-American diatribe timed specifically for America's birthday celebration Kaye doesn't even mention the terrorists -- as if they, and not the rights we've "surrendered" are the figment of our imaginations.
As always with the Democrat it is those who have concerns and keep an eye out to protect their country and their families who are, if not "little Eichmans" this time, certainly racist "xenophobes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)