This is a spectacular paragraph. Just had to copy it down. Read the whole post in context here.
==========================================
THE PLAIN FACT IS THAT THE HARD LEFT has always had a fascination with fascism. They don't want diversity -- they want conservatives to SHUT UP! Whether they were making excuses for Lenin or Stalin and their brutish successors, went sweet on Cuba's Castro, Nicaragua's Ortega or now Venezuela's Chavez, they are irresistibly attracted to those opposing freedom. Why do you think they want talk radio to be "balanced" (i.e.: turned off) with the Fairness Doctrine? Because in their heart of hearts they think they know better than anyone else. They want to do what they want to do in the public sphere without being questioned. Period. American liberalism is awash in this sentiment, which makes having rational discussions about national issues difficult if not impossible.
==========================================
I've got to find something to balance out the rather one sided nature of my recent postings. I wish someone on the left would say or do something positive so I could try to get back to a little more "common ground".
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Madmen and the madmen who love them
Can someone please explain the love affair between actors and Hugo Chaves?
I'm frankly surprised that I haven't seen images of Hollywood actors kissing up to this guy. Perhaps its because somewhere in their ego-addled brains they realize that if it weren't for the might of the U.S. military they hate so much their freedom to bite the hand that feeds them would come to a rather abrupt end and they'd probably be left, quite literally, hanging out to dry.
I'm frankly surprised that I haven't seen images of Hollywood actors kissing up to this guy. Perhaps its because somewhere in their ego-addled brains they realize that if it weren't for the might of the U.S. military they hate so much their freedom to bite the hand that feeds them would come to a rather abrupt end and they'd probably be left, quite literally, hanging out to dry.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
How the mighty have fallen
Hillary in '68
Isn't it sad how idealism and positive activism are eclipsed by pride and a lust for power.
I know this story was supposed to be a love-fest, and truly it was compelling in that regard, but ultimately it can't hide the ugly truth. Already the cravings for fame and power were becoming visible.
Isn't it sad how idealism and positive activism are eclipsed by pride and a lust for power.
I know this story was supposed to be a love-fest, and truly it was compelling in that regard, but ultimately it can't hide the ugly truth. Already the cravings for fame and power were becoming visible.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Why won't we see this story in the NYT?
For the answer simply read the story.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2121006.ece
There are many in the United States, I'm sorry to say, who are so intent upon seeing Bush humiliated that they are more closely allied with Al-Qaeda in Iraq then they are with the decent people of Iraq. Oh, I know they wouldn't want to put it that way, I know they aren't actually in favor of the atrocities being committed by the Jihadists, but truth be told they need Al-Qaeda to keep committing those atrocities.
If the insurgents are defeated that means that Bush will have been victorious, that he will be seen as a winner. That is something the left simply cannot tolerate. The left is deeply, deeply invested in the United States failing in Iraq. Iraq is their Vietnam, their holy grail. It is their chance, as they see it, to regain the power and influence they had directly following their victory (our loss) in Vietnam.
I honestly don't know if Bush did the right thing by going into Iraq. I have privately struggled for years with that issue. I can certainly say that I have disagreed with Bush about many things, most especially his stance on Illegal Immigration. But something had to be done, and many things still must be done, in our struggle against radicalized Islam and Terrorism. This was laid on our doorstep, we did not ask for it.
Have we made mistakes in the past? Yes. Will we make mistakes in the future? Yes. Do we just roll over and give up because things are hard? No! We deserve better, this world deserves better, than to be led by the weak into the jaws of the lion. One thing Bush and Blair will never have to worry about is being called weak. At least when it comes to their leadership in the fight against Terrorism.
The war being waged by the radical Islamists is a fight to the death. That much anyone who looks honestly at the situation can see. It doesn't much matter what we do or say, they have vowed to destroy us and our way of life. Pretending the danger doesn't exist won't make it go away. Trying to appease those who hate our very existence won't make any difference. We either fight them now, in Iraq, or we fight them somewhere else. War has been waged against us. Our options have been taken away. Peace, as much as we desire it, is not in the cards for quite some time.
Now is the time for the land of the free and the home of the brave to defend its freedom and prove its bravery. Yes, we've been sissified by years of feminism and other liberal dreck, but we haven't been completely emasculated. Not yet anyway.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2121006.ece
There are many in the United States, I'm sorry to say, who are so intent upon seeing Bush humiliated that they are more closely allied with Al-Qaeda in Iraq then they are with the decent people of Iraq. Oh, I know they wouldn't want to put it that way, I know they aren't actually in favor of the atrocities being committed by the Jihadists, but truth be told they need Al-Qaeda to keep committing those atrocities.
If the insurgents are defeated that means that Bush will have been victorious, that he will be seen as a winner. That is something the left simply cannot tolerate. The left is deeply, deeply invested in the United States failing in Iraq. Iraq is their Vietnam, their holy grail. It is their chance, as they see it, to regain the power and influence they had directly following their victory (our loss) in Vietnam.
I honestly don't know if Bush did the right thing by going into Iraq. I have privately struggled for years with that issue. I can certainly say that I have disagreed with Bush about many things, most especially his stance on Illegal Immigration. But something had to be done, and many things still must be done, in our struggle against radicalized Islam and Terrorism. This was laid on our doorstep, we did not ask for it.
Have we made mistakes in the past? Yes. Will we make mistakes in the future? Yes. Do we just roll over and give up because things are hard? No! We deserve better, this world deserves better, than to be led by the weak into the jaws of the lion. One thing Bush and Blair will never have to worry about is being called weak. At least when it comes to their leadership in the fight against Terrorism.
The war being waged by the radical Islamists is a fight to the death. That much anyone who looks honestly at the situation can see. It doesn't much matter what we do or say, they have vowed to destroy us and our way of life. Pretending the danger doesn't exist won't make it go away. Trying to appease those who hate our very existence won't make any difference. We either fight them now, in Iraq, or we fight them somewhere else. War has been waged against us. Our options have been taken away. Peace, as much as we desire it, is not in the cards for quite some time.
Now is the time for the land of the free and the home of the brave to defend its freedom and prove its bravery. Yes, we've been sissified by years of feminism and other liberal dreck, but we haven't been completely emasculated. Not yet anyway.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
John Edwards - how did we survive without him?
I took the following directly from John Edwards web site at: http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/
"Every day, 37 million Americans wake in poverty. Our response to that reality says everything about the character of America. John Edwards has called for a national goal of eliminating poverty within 30 years, with policies rooted in the core American values of opportunity for everyone and responsibility from everyone. We can reach that goal by creating and rewarding work, strengthening families, helping workers save and get ahead, transforming our schools, expanding access to college, breaking up areas of concentrated poverty, reaching overlooked rural areas, and expecting people to help themselves by working whenever they are able."
Now correct me if I am wrong, but does this not sound extremely conservative? Surely these can't be the words of one of the most liberal of presidential candidates. John Edwards apparently understands and approves of the traditional economic values that have made this country great. So, why is it that even though he makes such sensible and logical suggestions I have this feeling that his actions, should be become president, would be in direct opposition to these ideals?
I suppose we need look no further for the answer to that question then to some other words of John Edwards. We can find these words on the same web site where John Edwards gives his solutions to poverty: http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/poverty/
Create 1 Million Stepping Stone Jobs for Workers Who Take Responsibility.
2 points about this. First, who foots the bill for these jobs? The government of course. Second, if it is necessary to have illegal immigrants in order to fill the countless menial jobs in this nation why on earth to we need to create additional menial jobs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the jobs done by illegal immigrants stepping stone jobs? I can assure you they were for me and many others that I know as we made our own way out of poverty.
Raise the Minimum Wage to at Least $7.50.
The only jobs that pay minimum wage are the "stepping stone jobs" mentioned earlier. I won't engage in the minimum wage debate here, you can find that debate in spades elsewhere. Suffice it to say that raising the minimum wage is nothing more than a "feel good" opportunity for politicians to make them think they've done something worthwhile.
When I got tired of working for minimum wage I did what I had to do to work my way up the pay scale. It wasn't easy, but I did it completely on my own with no help from anyone, least of all the government. I can assure you that many minimum wage jobs would simply cease to exist if they were forced to pay higher wages. This is not because the business owner is greedy, but because they can barely afford to provide the job as it is due to the myriads of other hurdles placed in their way by well meaning politicians such as John Edwards.
Strengthen Labor Laws
By this John Edwards means strengthening and encouraging labor unions. I shouldn't even have to say anything more about this idea.
Create Second-Chance Schools for High School Dropouts
This is one of my favorites. Last time I checked, anyone who wants it has a second chance to get their diploma. But, I suppose John Edwards thinks we need a new government program, at tremendous tax payer expense, to provide a service that already exists.
So, if you think about it what John Edwards is saying is that we should encourage people to work, we should reward them for working (I think that's called a paycheck), and we should allow them to get a high school diploma. Well, that's just brilliant isn't it? I am positively stunned by the ability of John Edwards to get to the heart of the matter and find such insightful solutions. I say run, don't walk, to cast your vote for John Edwards.
"Every day, 37 million Americans wake in poverty. Our response to that reality says everything about the character of America. John Edwards has called for a national goal of eliminating poverty within 30 years, with policies rooted in the core American values of opportunity for everyone and responsibility from everyone. We can reach that goal by creating and rewarding work, strengthening families, helping workers save and get ahead, transforming our schools, expanding access to college, breaking up areas of concentrated poverty, reaching overlooked rural areas, and expecting people to help themselves by working whenever they are able."
Now correct me if I am wrong, but does this not sound extremely conservative? Surely these can't be the words of one of the most liberal of presidential candidates. John Edwards apparently understands and approves of the traditional economic values that have made this country great. So, why is it that even though he makes such sensible and logical suggestions I have this feeling that his actions, should be become president, would be in direct opposition to these ideals?
I suppose we need look no further for the answer to that question then to some other words of John Edwards. We can find these words on the same web site where John Edwards gives his solutions to poverty: http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/poverty/
Create 1 Million Stepping Stone Jobs for Workers Who Take Responsibility.
2 points about this. First, who foots the bill for these jobs? The government of course. Second, if it is necessary to have illegal immigrants in order to fill the countless menial jobs in this nation why on earth to we need to create additional menial jobs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the jobs done by illegal immigrants stepping stone jobs? I can assure you they were for me and many others that I know as we made our own way out of poverty.
Raise the Minimum Wage to at Least $7.50.
The only jobs that pay minimum wage are the "stepping stone jobs" mentioned earlier. I won't engage in the minimum wage debate here, you can find that debate in spades elsewhere. Suffice it to say that raising the minimum wage is nothing more than a "feel good" opportunity for politicians to make them think they've done something worthwhile.
When I got tired of working for minimum wage I did what I had to do to work my way up the pay scale. It wasn't easy, but I did it completely on my own with no help from anyone, least of all the government. I can assure you that many minimum wage jobs would simply cease to exist if they were forced to pay higher wages. This is not because the business owner is greedy, but because they can barely afford to provide the job as it is due to the myriads of other hurdles placed in their way by well meaning politicians such as John Edwards.
Strengthen Labor Laws
By this John Edwards means strengthening and encouraging labor unions. I shouldn't even have to say anything more about this idea.
Create Second-Chance Schools for High School Dropouts
This is one of my favorites. Last time I checked, anyone who wants it has a second chance to get their diploma. But, I suppose John Edwards thinks we need a new government program, at tremendous tax payer expense, to provide a service that already exists.
So, if you think about it what John Edwards is saying is that we should encourage people to work, we should reward them for working (I think that's called a paycheck), and we should allow them to get a high school diploma. Well, that's just brilliant isn't it? I am positively stunned by the ability of John Edwards to get to the heart of the matter and find such insightful solutions. I say run, don't walk, to cast your vote for John Edwards.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Such a common sentiment.
I read a quote today. It is such a common sentiment. It just doesn't make sense. I mean think about it for awhile.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Wise words
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
