Sometimes I wonder about liberals. Why would anyone hope that the terrorist act in Times Square would be committed by a non-Islamic extremist? What difference does it make? Well, maybe I’ll never know the answer to that question. Here’s MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer’s deep thoughts on the arrest of Faisal Shahzad.
CONTESSA BREWER (7:06): I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.
When Brewer says “they” and “outdated” bigotry these are keywords for anyone who votes for non-Democratic candidates. What kind of cruel human being thinks about things like this? It’s disgusting and sadly it’s becoming par for the course for people on MSNBC.
If only the bomber could have been an angry white male tea party member. Then Brewer’s hopes wouldn’t have been dashed.
This is about as "intelligent" as it gets at the Facebook group Intelligent Women and Men Against Sarah Palin. I'll never forget the most important lesson I learned about intelligent debate: If you disagree with someone, just tell them to shut up, or call them names. Works every time!
They say ignorance is bliss, but apparently it becomes more “blissful” the more “intelligent” you are, or say you are. The ever-tolerant left wing is alive and well in its efforts to destroy one human being, in this case Sarah Palin, simply because that person doesn’t buy into their Utopian objectives.
For whatever reason, Sarah Palin is a lightning rod for the self-proclaimed “intelligent” among us, consisting primarily of the hipster dufus crowd that sees every political issue through the prism of the propaganda they were taught in college.
A typical post on the Sarah Palin-hating Facebook group, Intelligent Women and Men Against Sarah Palin, says, “Someone should overturn a rig on her and her damn family and let them see how ‘easy’ it is to ‘recover’ and ‘go on’…….F’ING IDIOT!….get OFF THE STAGE…..YOUR SCENE IS OVER!!!!!!!”
I guess this is what passes for “intelligent” commentary at Intelligent Women and Men Against Sarah Palin. The rest of the writings and rantings are no more illuminating than that one. In fact, that’s about as “intelligent” as it gets.
These are people who never see the other side of an issue and simply spout hateful missives about people and policies they care not to delve into themselves. I believe “shallow” would be the more pertinent word, as in Shallow Women and Men Against Sarah Palin.
Me? I’m neutral about Sarah Palin. I agree with her on most issues, but she hasn’t shown much depth in her ideological reasoning. Ironically, just like the groups aligned against her, her positions don’t appear to be very well thought out, other than “it sounds right.”
Like me, she has taken a stand against increasing government growth and interference. But at the same time I haven’t heard a rational defense of this position other than the fact that she’s against it.
When asked to name her favorite founding father, she said, “All of them.” While that might be true, it shows that maybe she hasn’t really thought all that much about the founders or the founding principles of the nation.
In the same way, the leftists at Intelligent Blah Blah Blah on Facebook provide no reasonable defense of their positions, other than calling anyone who disagrees with them Teabaggers, Baggers, anti-choice, Nazis, F’ing idiots and other vulgar word combinations, as well as original stuff like, “How’s that drill-baby-drill thing working out for you?” It’s like reading Bizarro Palin.
I haven’t written very much about the much publicized Tea Party movement, mostly due to the fact that it’s a rather faceless mob. The Republican establishment isn’t fueling it. In fact, the GOP elite look down their nose at the angry mob. The Democrats consider anyone to the right of Tom Harkin a wingnut. It’s not surprising that centrist Democrats are fleeing into the open arms of the GOP. The Tea Party types are really asking for change.
The Tea Partiers are united by what they opposed. What do they oppose? Well, practically everything, but that’s not the entire story. A growing segment of Americans are sick and tired of lying politicians who are absolutely corrupt. They’re fed up with all the spending. New York Times columnist David Brook believes there’s a rift between the educated class and the public. The educated class is a bit broad, but there’s a healthy dose of skepticism about the ideas of the elite.
Why shouldn’t the public be skeptical? The so-called elites are always of full of ideas born in some abstract backwater far removed from reality, but that doesn’t mean that any of them are any good. Free food for the entire population is a great idea. Well, until you try to figure out how to do it or pay for it. The educated class has been great at coming up with ideas we can’t afford. The American middle class has paid for all these forays into Utopia. Here’s Brook’s take on the Tea Party’s future:
The movement is especially popular among independents. The Rasmussen organization asked independent voters whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican and a tea party candidate. The tea party candidate won, with 33 percent of independents. Undecided came in second with 30 percent. The Democrats came in third with 25 percent and the Republicans fourth with 12 percent.
Over the course of this year, the Tea Party movement will probably be transformed. Right now it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader. If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history.
There a plenty of political scenarios in play here. I’ll play prognosticator. In the short run (2010) Republicans will benefit from the anti-government fever. The Tea Party will remain rather faceless until we move further into the year. I don’t know who will ultimately rise out of the chaos, but someone will try to attach themselves to the movement. 2012 could be a disaster for the GOP. The Democrats will be united behind Obama. If not, they’ll be united behind whoever the party nominates for election. I doubt the GOP embraces the Tea Party. They’re outsiders and the Republican hierarchy will reject it. The Tea Party could be Ross Perot on steroids. Unless there’s some kind of amazing groundswell of support, I can’t see a third-party candidate winning. Ultimately, a strong Tea Party candidate only siphons votes from the GOP.
In the long run the Tea Party movement could mean the end of the GOP as it exists today. It also (despite widespread ridicule from the left) may represent the only chance at real change being offered in politics. The Democrats are for more of the same. The Republicans are opposed to the status quo but are unwilling to do anything. Perhaps this is the answer of the Progressive Era.
Once again, my family and I saddled up Old Blue and headed for Colorado’s state capitol for an old-fashioned protest. Last time, as you may recall, we joined a hastily assembled and relatively small crowd (maybe 500 or so) to protest the so-called Stimulus Bill, which President Obama was signing down the road at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.
This time, we joined a much larger crowd estimated at around 3,000-4,000 as part of a larger grassroots movement and nationwide gathering on Tax Day to protest government spending and the tax policy necessitated by that spending.
They called it a Tea Party, in honor of the original American patriots who protested the British taxation of tea (without representation, which was their main beef) by tossing a bunch of it into Boston Harbor (a.k.a., Bastan Hawbaw). I’m not sure the analogy holds up very well to close scrutiny, but I suppose it’s a brand of sorts that people can identify with.
So, what’s our beef? Why bother? Isn’t the government trying its best to “stimulate” the economy? My reasons for supporting the movement are best encapsulated by James Madison, who wrote in Federalist #62:
“The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood…”
This is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today. These mammoth spending bills, which spend money we don’t have, are both voluminous and incoherent to the point that even those words fail to accurately describe their monstrosity. What we’re seeing is a massive transfer of wealth from the average person to the bottomless pit of political favoritism and cronyism, paid for in part by the current generation, but certain to multiply to future generations.
Any serious and ideologically-blind study of the economic consequences of this type of spending policy, and the term policy is being used very loosely here, shows that it is unsustainable. At the recent G-20 Summit, even socialist Europe balked a bit at America’s latest and seemingly unending spending spree. If America goes down that road, who’s left to support Europe and defend it from the crazies who are feverishly working to develop nuclear weapons so they can spring their version of Utopia on an unsuspecting, welfare-numbed, drug-addled, and American Idolized West?
Moreover, a government that grows outside of the bounds set by the Constitution is certain to infringe on our individual liberties. The state that takes on a parental role supplants the role of the individual and the family. What has made America exceptional is not the government’s ability to provide for every need, but to empower the individual to meet his own needs without governmental interference.
Thus the Declaration of Independence declares, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These unalienable rights are not derived as government handouts. I do not have a right to free medical care (which I’ll be on a waiting list to receive) or anything else from the public weal. Nor do I have an express right to “happiness”. But I do have the right to pursue happiness, unfettered by government dictating to me how I should pursue that happiness.
It’s important to remember that the founders did not dive headlong, willy-nilly into the creation of our unique governmental system. Instead, they wrangled over every jot and tittle. They painstakingly studied the history and form of every government since the dawn of civilization, marking their strengths and weaknesses to derive a form most suited for a free people.
It’s safe to say that the founders’ studious approach is not taken by our current leaders, either Democrat or Republican. The only studies they do are based on maintaining their power and filling the coffers of those who help them maintain their power.
So when a bill comes before Congress that’s piled three feet high in pork and partisan paybacks and sold as stimulus, thinking people begin to think that maybe we’re heading in the wrong direction. The majority of people I met at today’s protest were thinking people; average Joes, if you will, who want our government to exercise self-control and discipline in order to secure our right to pursue happiness. Happiness, as anyone knows, is not found at the DMV or any other government bureaucracy that makes you stand in line for hours and has no concept of customer service, nor does it care.
Another striking thing about the protest was how orderly and well-behaved everyone was. This was in stark contrast to your typical left-wing protest, where profanity, invective, and mean-spiritedness prevail. My hope is that the hard-working, family-oriented American wins the day and wins back our country.
CNN reporter Susan Roesgen must be looking for a job at the White House. Instead of reporting she started handing out talking points to interrupt the protester. I would love to see one example of a reporter the past eight years interrupting a Bush protester with White House talking points.
CNN might as well have sent Paul Begaia out to cover this event. Roesgen says it’s not family friendly? I guess no one was dressed up as a vagina today. This tea party thing is a lot bigger than I expected. I guess I’m a little bit out of the loop but Sarasota had 3,000 protesters today. That’s a staggering number for a town this size and much larger than any political protest that’s happened here in my memory. Who knew there were so many anti-CNN people in the country.
Recent Comments