I recently saw a movie called “The Invention of Lying” with Ricky Gervais. The movie took place in a mythical society where there was no concept of lying. I wondered what a speech by Barack Obama would look like if he had lived in this mythical society and had to tell the truth as he saw it. The speech might go something like this…
Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans: Two years ago I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Now let me be clear, I would have never been elected if everything was running smoothly in the country. I was elected because I promised that I would change and improve these things. I offered hope.
It’s been two years and while we are still at war, while our unemployment has skyrocketed up to almost 10%, and while our debt has grown to unsustainable levels, I am amazed that I can still get away with blaming the previous administration.
America elected me because we decided to move forward as one nation and one people. But some of you have decided you do not want to be one nation. Selfish people who watch FOX news and listen to talk radio -- unpatriotic people who have formed tea parties are trying to misrepresent and ruin the change I have proposed. If we are truly to become one nation and one people, then those of you who have ideas that are different than mine need to shut up and stop standing in the way.
People need to understand that I, as President of the United States, know better than you about what is good for the country. We need to get away from our colonial, imperialistic and nationalistic way of thinking about our country and about the world. We need to understand that we are world citizens, not just citizens of one country. We cannot afford the arrogance that has marred this country in the past. We are just one country out of many and we need to have relationships with other countries based on mutual trust and mutual respect.
As to the economy, we cannot afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from last decade – what some call the "lost decade”. I don’t personally know anyone who actually called it the “lost decade” but after this speech, there will be people who will start to use the term “the lost decade” and it will seem as if that phrase has been around for a while. It’s a little trick that I and my speech writers use to fool people. We create a new term and make it seem as if others have been saying it all along.
The economic expansion of the last decade was built on a housing bubble that was unsustainable. I have said in the past that the bursting of the housing bubble was caused by Wall Street greed and unregulated financial speculation. What I haven’t said, but what is no less true, is that by forcing banks to give loans to people who had bad credit and little assets, was that we were creating a situation whereby if the housing bubble burst, a lot of innocent people would be left holding the bag. As an advisor to ACORN, I personally played a big role in seeing that this policy of bad loans continued. This, of course, was done with the best of intentions.
In fact, many of my close associates have also played a part in the forcing of banks to give bad loans with the goal that home ownership is a right, rather than a privilege. These include Barney Frank, Andrew Cuomo, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines and many others. The reasons for the financial collapse are very complicated and I rely on most of you to not take the initiative to look into what actually caused the crisis.
I know that most of you are tired if the partisanship, the shouting, and the pettiness in Washington. So in order to have a more civil and bi-partisan tone, people need to believe in me. I ask for your trust. My opponents on the other side of the aisle try to bring up facts to confuse people. We will have a much more civil and democratic society if my opponents would stop trying to throw their opinions into the political debate. This only serves to create a partisan tone in Washington. It would be much more beneficial to the country if you would simply accept that the financial crisis was caused by Wall Street greed and leave it at that.
We all hated to have to bail out the banks. It was about as popular as a root canal but it needed to be done. So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. I know that I bring up the previous administration quite a lot. There are two reasons for this. Number one: When I do something unpopular or reckless, it is beneficial to me if the previous administration has also done something unpopular or reckless. Number two: If the unpopular and reckless thing I have done doesn’t work out, I get to blame the previous administration but if it does work out, I get to take credit for it.
We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy. From this point forward, I will see to it that only government will be allowed to take risks that threaten the whole economy.
In fact, many companies have now paid back their loans so it has been a complete success in staving off financial disaster. Therefore, tonight I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. Because I’ll be dammed if I’m just going to take that money and give it back to its rightful owners – you the people.
As to international issues, as most of you probably know, I was against the Iraq war right from the beginning. What many of you may not realize is that I was just as firmly against the surge strategy in Iraq that brought us the ultimate victory there. Nevertheless, I have ended the conflict in Iraq and see no reason to give credit to anyone other than myself (well maybe the soldiers deserve a little credit as well). The war, after all, did end on my watch.
Illegal immigration is looked at by some as a problem. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. We need to get more immigrants to come to the US, to offer their hard labor, to pay taxes, to fill jobs that Americans won’t do, and to register as democrats.
As to my healthcare plan, if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. I will listen to your ideas before I dismiss them completely. I will then point out that elections have consequences and that I am the president. If you continue to make noise challenging that my healthcare plan will do all that I say it will do, I will make sure that you are portrayed as an out of touch troglodyte who doesn’t care about average working people.
Now I will be the first to admit that my administration has had some political setbacks and some of them were deserved. My administration should have done a better job of communicating how bad things were. In short, we didn’t take enough advantage of the economic and international crises both at home and abroad.
I did not come here to do what was easy and I did not say that change would happen overnight. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high or we can do what's best for the next generation. Or we can create a crisis that we can use to our political advantage. We can spend so much money that we dig a hole so deep it is impossible to get out of and when we’re done spending us into insolvency we can blame it all on George Bush.
Thank you. God Bless You. And God Bless the United States of America.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Anti-Americanism --- The Radical Religion Of The Left
In Poker, the hierarchy goes something like this:
Two Pairs beats a pair. 3 of a kind beats 2 Pairs. A Straight beats 3 of a kind. A Flush beats a Straight. A Full House beats a Flush. 4 of a Kind beats a Full House. A Straight Flush beats 4 of a Kind. Finally, a Royal Flush beats a Straight Flush.
In the liberal world view, the hierarchy goes something like this:
Free speech beats Religious rights. General Feminist rights (not including abortion) beats Free speech. Gay rights beats General Feminist rights (not including abortion). Environmentalism beats Gay rights. Union rights beats Environmentalism. Abortion rights beats Union rights. Racial Equality or preferences beats Abortion rights. Finally, Anti-Americanism beats Racial Equality or preferences.
Seems ridiculous you say? Tammy Bruce, who was the head of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization of Women (NOW), wrote about how she thought that the OJ Simpson case was a prime example of violence against women, and how the OJ case should have been publicized by feminists to generate an understanding of the issue of spousal abuse.
Here was OJ, a man in power, systematically beating his wife and getting away with it. Eventually, of course, his wife wound up dead. The powers that be at NOW, however, didn’t want to use this case as an example of domestic violence. The reason? -- It conflicted with the racial aspect. In fact, Patricia Ireland publicly censured Tammy Bruce by name for damaging “political alliances”.
Tammy Bruce also wrote about how rap music routinely objectifies and promotes violence against women. Again, this was not acceptable at NOW. Though the mission of NOW is to promote women’s issues, there is a bigger issue that trumps the main mission of NOW. Hence racial sensitivity, in both the OJ case and in rap music, prevents bringing up and dealing with the very circumstances that NOW is supposedly in existence to deal with! Incidentally, Tammy Bruce, after seeing this hypocrisy, became a conservative.
And who can forget the feminist reaction to Bill Clinton? Clinton was accused of not just having an affair, as with Jennifer Flowers, not just accused of inappropriate behavior and possible abuse of power, as with Monica Lewinsky, but of sexual assault and worse! These accusations came long before anyone ever heard of Ken Starr. Juanita Broaddrick, Eileen Wellstone, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Regina Hopper Blakely, Kathleen Willey, Sandra Allen James, Kathy Bradshaw, Cristy Zercher, Paula Jones, and Carolyn Moffet were some of the women that came forward with assault or harassment accusations. It would be difficult to imagine that each of these women made up these incidents. We’ll never get to the truth behind these accusations because there wasn’t enough of a demand to find out what the truth was.
Time contributor and White House correspondent Nina Burleigh said
"I would be happy to give him [Clinton] a [crude word for oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs."
So Nina Burleigh seems to accept the fact that Clinton abuses women and is even willing to participate in that abuse because it furthers a bigger cause – Abortion. Hence, in the liberal Hierarchy of Needs, feminism without abortion is separated from abortion as a separate issue and Abortion as a separate issue trumps all other feminist issues.
The “Holy Grail” of the liberal Hierarchy, to be treated with reverence and never questioned, is anti-Americanism. It is the Royal Flush of the left. It is important to define anti-Americanism because people on the left will say that they only want to improve the country; that we are an imperfect people and should always strive to get better. Who would argue with that?
But anti-Americanism, as it has come to be practiced and perfected by the left, is not about improving America, it is about re-making it in a new image. Barack Obama has said himself, on more than one occasion that he wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” If the United States is a good country, does it need to be transformed? – Fundamentally no less?
The anti-Americanism which is at the top of the liberal food chain is rooted in hatred of the history, the morals, the religion, and the very people who created the unique idea of the United States as a country. The most important of these rights is the idea that freedom and liberty are not passed to people from the government but that freedom and liberty are “inalienable” rights. The most unique and beautiful part of the US Constitution is that it doesn’t say what government can do; it says what government can NOT do.
Barack Obama spoke about the idea that there are restrictions on what government can do, and he called it “negative liberty”. But as Bruce Walker said in an article in American Thinker, “How can liberty be anything other than negative? Liberty is the absence of external control.” Obama said that sometimes government needs to do things in order to improve the lot of ordinary people. The problem is where does that idea end? And what should government do and what should it not do? Once you accept government as the solution to problems, then you open the door to tyranny because in order for government to deal with problems for one group of people, it inevitably has to invade the rights of a different group of people.
In a recent survey, about 20% of Americans said they were unsure of Barack Obama’s religion or thought he might be Muslim. Personally, I don’t think Obama is Muslim or that he is a religious man in any traditional sense. His religion is the ideology of his pastor Jeremiah Wright, not that of any actual religious teachings such as the Bible or even the Koran. It is an ideology that says Supreme Court justices can bypass the legislative process. It is an ideology that says the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can act without the input of congress. It is an ideology that forces citizens to buy a product they may not want. In short, it is an anti-religious ideology practiced with fanatical religious zeal that has no respect for the traditions of the United States and no understanding of how the country came to generate such unprecedented wealth and freedom.
Perhaps people think Obama is Muslim because he has criticized the New and Old testaments in a way that he has never criticized the Muslim religion. He criticized Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the Sermon on the Mount by saying that a civilized country can’t be based on such ideas. No religious text has as many violent passages as the Koran but Obama has had nothing but praise for the Muslim religion – why?
In countries that practice strict Muslim law (Sharia law), every doctrine that liberals supposedly hold dear is trampled upon. There is no free speech or freedom of or from religion. A woman is considered at fault if SHE is raped and can be stoned to death if caught committing adultery. Women have their genitals mutilated so that it will be difficult for them to have sex. This way they can fulfill their one real purpose – having babies. Men have the legal right to beat their wives. Women do not even have the right to file grievances in court except under very stringent circumstances. But enough of the wonderful lives women have in these countries, what about gays? At Columbia University, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said there are no gays in Iran. He’s probably right – they’ve all either disappeared or kept very silent. In countries that have Sharia law, the rich live in castles, the poor live in tents.
You could go on and on with this but the question is why do Barack Obama and the left feel so at ease criticizing Judeo-Christian values and feel so uncomfortable criticizing the religion of Islam? The answer is anti-Americanism. The United States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The left does not like the United States as it is. In a chicken or the egg scenario, it’s difficult to determine if their dislike of Judeo-Christian values is due to hatred of America or if their hatred of America causes them to have hatred of Judeo-Christian values.
The Muslim religion has constantly criticized the west and America – to the point where many Muslims consider themselves to be at war with the west. Every doctrine held dear by the left is trampled upon by Muslim countries (even moderate ones). Yet the left continues to defend Muslims and blame America. The left seems to share the same anti-Americanism as radical Muslims and that anti-Americanism trumps everything else that they claim to stand for as supposed liberals.
Two Pairs beats a pair. 3 of a kind beats 2 Pairs. A Straight beats 3 of a kind. A Flush beats a Straight. A Full House beats a Flush. 4 of a Kind beats a Full House. A Straight Flush beats 4 of a Kind. Finally, a Royal Flush beats a Straight Flush.
In the liberal world view, the hierarchy goes something like this:
Free speech beats Religious rights. General Feminist rights (not including abortion) beats Free speech. Gay rights beats General Feminist rights (not including abortion). Environmentalism beats Gay rights. Union rights beats Environmentalism. Abortion rights beats Union rights. Racial Equality or preferences beats Abortion rights. Finally, Anti-Americanism beats Racial Equality or preferences.
Seems ridiculous you say? Tammy Bruce, who was the head of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization of Women (NOW), wrote about how she thought that the OJ Simpson case was a prime example of violence against women, and how the OJ case should have been publicized by feminists to generate an understanding of the issue of spousal abuse.
Here was OJ, a man in power, systematically beating his wife and getting away with it. Eventually, of course, his wife wound up dead. The powers that be at NOW, however, didn’t want to use this case as an example of domestic violence. The reason? -- It conflicted with the racial aspect. In fact, Patricia Ireland publicly censured Tammy Bruce by name for damaging “political alliances”.
Tammy Bruce also wrote about how rap music routinely objectifies and promotes violence against women. Again, this was not acceptable at NOW. Though the mission of NOW is to promote women’s issues, there is a bigger issue that trumps the main mission of NOW. Hence racial sensitivity, in both the OJ case and in rap music, prevents bringing up and dealing with the very circumstances that NOW is supposedly in existence to deal with! Incidentally, Tammy Bruce, after seeing this hypocrisy, became a conservative.
And who can forget the feminist reaction to Bill Clinton? Clinton was accused of not just having an affair, as with Jennifer Flowers, not just accused of inappropriate behavior and possible abuse of power, as with Monica Lewinsky, but of sexual assault and worse! These accusations came long before anyone ever heard of Ken Starr. Juanita Broaddrick, Eileen Wellstone, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Regina Hopper Blakely, Kathleen Willey, Sandra Allen James, Kathy Bradshaw, Cristy Zercher, Paula Jones, and Carolyn Moffet were some of the women that came forward with assault or harassment accusations. It would be difficult to imagine that each of these women made up these incidents. We’ll never get to the truth behind these accusations because there wasn’t enough of a demand to find out what the truth was.
Time contributor and White House correspondent Nina Burleigh said
"I would be happy to give him [Clinton] a [crude word for oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs."
So Nina Burleigh seems to accept the fact that Clinton abuses women and is even willing to participate in that abuse because it furthers a bigger cause – Abortion. Hence, in the liberal Hierarchy of Needs, feminism without abortion is separated from abortion as a separate issue and Abortion as a separate issue trumps all other feminist issues.
The “Holy Grail” of the liberal Hierarchy, to be treated with reverence and never questioned, is anti-Americanism. It is the Royal Flush of the left. It is important to define anti-Americanism because people on the left will say that they only want to improve the country; that we are an imperfect people and should always strive to get better. Who would argue with that?
But anti-Americanism, as it has come to be practiced and perfected by the left, is not about improving America, it is about re-making it in a new image. Barack Obama has said himself, on more than one occasion that he wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” If the United States is a good country, does it need to be transformed? – Fundamentally no less?
The anti-Americanism which is at the top of the liberal food chain is rooted in hatred of the history, the morals, the religion, and the very people who created the unique idea of the United States as a country. The most important of these rights is the idea that freedom and liberty are not passed to people from the government but that freedom and liberty are “inalienable” rights. The most unique and beautiful part of the US Constitution is that it doesn’t say what government can do; it says what government can NOT do.
Barack Obama spoke about the idea that there are restrictions on what government can do, and he called it “negative liberty”. But as Bruce Walker said in an article in American Thinker, “How can liberty be anything other than negative? Liberty is the absence of external control.” Obama said that sometimes government needs to do things in order to improve the lot of ordinary people. The problem is where does that idea end? And what should government do and what should it not do? Once you accept government as the solution to problems, then you open the door to tyranny because in order for government to deal with problems for one group of people, it inevitably has to invade the rights of a different group of people.
In a recent survey, about 20% of Americans said they were unsure of Barack Obama’s religion or thought he might be Muslim. Personally, I don’t think Obama is Muslim or that he is a religious man in any traditional sense. His religion is the ideology of his pastor Jeremiah Wright, not that of any actual religious teachings such as the Bible or even the Koran. It is an ideology that says Supreme Court justices can bypass the legislative process. It is an ideology that says the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can act without the input of congress. It is an ideology that forces citizens to buy a product they may not want. In short, it is an anti-religious ideology practiced with fanatical religious zeal that has no respect for the traditions of the United States and no understanding of how the country came to generate such unprecedented wealth and freedom.
Perhaps people think Obama is Muslim because he has criticized the New and Old testaments in a way that he has never criticized the Muslim religion. He criticized Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the Sermon on the Mount by saying that a civilized country can’t be based on such ideas. No religious text has as many violent passages as the Koran but Obama has had nothing but praise for the Muslim religion – why?
In countries that practice strict Muslim law (Sharia law), every doctrine that liberals supposedly hold dear is trampled upon. There is no free speech or freedom of or from religion. A woman is considered at fault if SHE is raped and can be stoned to death if caught committing adultery. Women have their genitals mutilated so that it will be difficult for them to have sex. This way they can fulfill their one real purpose – having babies. Men have the legal right to beat their wives. Women do not even have the right to file grievances in court except under very stringent circumstances. But enough of the wonderful lives women have in these countries, what about gays? At Columbia University, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said there are no gays in Iran. He’s probably right – they’ve all either disappeared or kept very silent. In countries that have Sharia law, the rich live in castles, the poor live in tents.
You could go on and on with this but the question is why do Barack Obama and the left feel so at ease criticizing Judeo-Christian values and feel so uncomfortable criticizing the religion of Islam? The answer is anti-Americanism. The United States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The left does not like the United States as it is. In a chicken or the egg scenario, it’s difficult to determine if their dislike of Judeo-Christian values is due to hatred of America or if their hatred of America causes them to have hatred of Judeo-Christian values.
The Muslim religion has constantly criticized the west and America – to the point where many Muslims consider themselves to be at war with the west. Every doctrine held dear by the left is trampled upon by Muslim countries (even moderate ones). Yet the left continues to defend Muslims and blame America. The left seems to share the same anti-Americanism as radical Muslims and that anti-Americanism trumps everything else that they claim to stand for as supposed liberals.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Tolerance For Intolerance Is Not a Virtue
A phobia is an irrational fear. When people use words such as “Islamaphobe” or “homophobe”, they are implying an irrational fear of Muslim or gay people. The “phobia” implication is misleading. If a person disagrees with policies (say gay marriage), that does not mean that the person fears gay people, yet he is likely to be hit with the “Homophobe” slander for that opinion.
Recently, with the Islamic “Cultural Center” being proposed near the World Trade Center, people have had to ask some poignant questions about why it shouldn’t be built. Is there an irrational fear of the Muslim religion and are people who want to prevent this Cultural Center/Mosque from being built truly “Islamaphobes”? Are they judging the Islamic religion in a different way than they would judge other religions and if so, is that justified?
Both George Bush and Barack Obama made the point that Islam is a religion of peace that has been co-opted and used by those who want to pervert the religion. But if the people who have co-opted the religion are the ones in charge of the religion, and if the people who have co-opted the religion are the ones who are making the rules, then the religion, itself, is not a religion of peace. If the people who practice the religion are afraid of those who have co-opted it, and have no power to change it, then why pretend that the religion is something that it clearly is not?
In a book titled “The Trouble With Islam”, the author Irshad Manji brings up a term that should be better known and understood, yet it is rarely mentioned. The term is “ijtihad”. According to Manji:
“Not jihad, but ijtihad…the Islamic tradition of independent reasoning…allowed every Muslim…to update his or her religious practice in light of contemporary circumstances.”
Unfortunately, the radical ayatollahs and imams have crushed the idea of ijtihad.
Every religion is filled with some contradiction and, to some extent, has to grapple with interpretations of religious texts as times change. People have always struggled trying to maintain their faith and meaning in a constantly changing world. For true believers of a religion, science and changing times don’t change the intent of religious texts. They can interpret their religion to the changing times while maintaining the faith, the meaning and the good of what the religion stands for.
Unfortunately when radical imams took control of Islam and took it upon themselves to determine the meaning of that faith, they created a religious dictatorship. In getting rid of “ijtihad” they put themselves in a position where they couldn’t be questioned or contradicted. In so doing they didn’t take the best of the Muslim religion, they took the worst of it and institutionalized it so that theirs was the only interpretation possible.
There are passages in the Koran and in the hadith that speak of Jews and Christians in praiseworthy ways as “People of the Book”. In other passages, Jews and Christians are described as inferior and sometimes, even subhuman. This is where a rational and sane interpretation would be needed but that is exactly what the people who are in control of the religion are NOT doing.
Even outright lying in negotiations and breaking signed treaties has been deemed acceptable if it furthers Muslim goals. This goes back to an interpretation of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. This treaty was signed in 628 AD and declared a truce between the Meccan tribe of Quraish and the Muslim community in Medina. It was a 10 year treaty but was broken when Muhammad invaded Mecca and forced the people there to convert to Islam.
The imams who make the rules for Islam constantly refer to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya when they negotiate with those whom they consider to be their enemies such as Israel. How can any sane person or country negotiate with people who say right up front that they have the right to break a treaty any time it is convenient for them to do so? Their word is worth nothing and that is their official stated policy!
In every country where Islam has become part of official government policies, there is cruelty and intolerance, even in the so called moderate ones. Those who write books critical of Islam such as The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, get contracts put out on their lives. A simple cartoon critical of the religion causes riots and death threats. A film maker, Theo Van Gogh, who made a film that was critical of the way women are treated in Muslim countries, is murdered for daring to tell the truth. Van Gogh’s film was based on actual facts of the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who writes in her book “Infidel” about how she was genitally mutilated and about how women are told to bear the treatment of being beaten by their husbands because that is what the religion demands of them.
The Muslim religion has become a cruel, cultish nightmare for those who are forced to live in countries where the religion works its way into government policies. Terrorism is just a natural byproduct of a religion where a few “privileged” people get to rationalize any behavior, no matter how cruel or immoral, if it is deemed to advance the cause if the Islamic religion.
Countries, in general, and the U.N., in particular seem very selective in how they condemn the actions of different nations. They rightly condemned South Africa for practicing apartheid but where is their condemnation to Muslim countries that routinely discriminate against non-Muslims? Non Muslims living in Muslim countries live in Dhimmi status which means they are officially second class citizens and have inferior rights to Muslims. Why won’t the U.N. condemn the concept of “Dhimmi” status as the discriminatory policy that it is?
The sad reality is that the U.N. and many nations are afraid of the Muslim religion. Perhaps, even though they may disagree with the cruel treatment of women and non-Muslims, they have a common enemy with them in their hatred of America, Israel and, in some cases, the west in general. It’s been said that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” so many excuse the behavior of crazy Jihadists in the name of some perceived greater good and end up rationalizing and excusing the behavior of these crazy imams and Ayatollahs.
They are doing no one a favor by turning a blind eye to this radicalism. The people who live under these religious dictatorships, those who want to raise a family and make a better life for themselves and their children, are not helped by this pandering to the crazy imams. The people of Iran tried their best to let the world know they wanted freedom but the world, to its everlasting shame, did nothing. By doing nothing they sided with the bad guys.
George Bush had it right and hopefully history will correct the record on his Presidency. Help the people who want freedom, give them reliable support and the Muslim religion can get rid of the crazy imams and ayatollahs that are making these people (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) live in misery. When the people of Iran saw what happened in Iraq they were inspired. They wanted their chance at freedom. Unfortunately, things have gone back in the other direction. The people in these Islamic dictatorships know that they can’t count on reliable help from the US and from the west, in general, and therefore are forced, out of fear, to submit to the crazy imams.
So now the crazy imams want to build a 13 story “cultural center” near the site of the World Trade Center. People who have tried to bury Jewish history by building mosques on top of Jewish shrines and temples, people who have taken over the city of Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus Christ, and created an atmosphere where Christians are afraid to be in their holiest site, people who have destroyed ancient Buddhist statues and artifacts that could never be reproduced now have the unmitigated gall to talk about tolerance?
Muslims need to clean their own house before lecturing others on tolerance. It is not for the US to show that it is tolerant of the Muslim religion. The burden of proof is on the Muslim religion to show that it is tolerant of others. Perhaps one day when “ijtihad” returns and Muslims can be allowed to interpret their religion in a way that is not so cruel, then there can be a “cultural center” near the WTC. In the meantime, the one being proposed is nothing more than a tribute to the worst, not the best, of the Muslim faith. It is a tribute to the very imams that have taken this religion back to the seventh century and it should not even be considered to be built at the holy site of the WTC.
Recently, with the Islamic “Cultural Center” being proposed near the World Trade Center, people have had to ask some poignant questions about why it shouldn’t be built. Is there an irrational fear of the Muslim religion and are people who want to prevent this Cultural Center/Mosque from being built truly “Islamaphobes”? Are they judging the Islamic religion in a different way than they would judge other religions and if so, is that justified?
Both George Bush and Barack Obama made the point that Islam is a religion of peace that has been co-opted and used by those who want to pervert the religion. But if the people who have co-opted the religion are the ones in charge of the religion, and if the people who have co-opted the religion are the ones who are making the rules, then the religion, itself, is not a religion of peace. If the people who practice the religion are afraid of those who have co-opted it, and have no power to change it, then why pretend that the religion is something that it clearly is not?
In a book titled “The Trouble With Islam”, the author Irshad Manji brings up a term that should be better known and understood, yet it is rarely mentioned. The term is “ijtihad”. According to Manji:
“Not jihad, but ijtihad…the Islamic tradition of independent reasoning…allowed every Muslim…to update his or her religious practice in light of contemporary circumstances.”
Unfortunately, the radical ayatollahs and imams have crushed the idea of ijtihad.
Every religion is filled with some contradiction and, to some extent, has to grapple with interpretations of religious texts as times change. People have always struggled trying to maintain their faith and meaning in a constantly changing world. For true believers of a religion, science and changing times don’t change the intent of religious texts. They can interpret their religion to the changing times while maintaining the faith, the meaning and the good of what the religion stands for.
Unfortunately when radical imams took control of Islam and took it upon themselves to determine the meaning of that faith, they created a religious dictatorship. In getting rid of “ijtihad” they put themselves in a position where they couldn’t be questioned or contradicted. In so doing they didn’t take the best of the Muslim religion, they took the worst of it and institutionalized it so that theirs was the only interpretation possible.
There are passages in the Koran and in the hadith that speak of Jews and Christians in praiseworthy ways as “People of the Book”. In other passages, Jews and Christians are described as inferior and sometimes, even subhuman. This is where a rational and sane interpretation would be needed but that is exactly what the people who are in control of the religion are NOT doing.
Even outright lying in negotiations and breaking signed treaties has been deemed acceptable if it furthers Muslim goals. This goes back to an interpretation of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. This treaty was signed in 628 AD and declared a truce between the Meccan tribe of Quraish and the Muslim community in Medina. It was a 10 year treaty but was broken when Muhammad invaded Mecca and forced the people there to convert to Islam.
The imams who make the rules for Islam constantly refer to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya when they negotiate with those whom they consider to be their enemies such as Israel. How can any sane person or country negotiate with people who say right up front that they have the right to break a treaty any time it is convenient for them to do so? Their word is worth nothing and that is their official stated policy!
In every country where Islam has become part of official government policies, there is cruelty and intolerance, even in the so called moderate ones. Those who write books critical of Islam such as The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, get contracts put out on their lives. A simple cartoon critical of the religion causes riots and death threats. A film maker, Theo Van Gogh, who made a film that was critical of the way women are treated in Muslim countries, is murdered for daring to tell the truth. Van Gogh’s film was based on actual facts of the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who writes in her book “Infidel” about how she was genitally mutilated and about how women are told to bear the treatment of being beaten by their husbands because that is what the religion demands of them.
The Muslim religion has become a cruel, cultish nightmare for those who are forced to live in countries where the religion works its way into government policies. Terrorism is just a natural byproduct of a religion where a few “privileged” people get to rationalize any behavior, no matter how cruel or immoral, if it is deemed to advance the cause if the Islamic religion.
Countries, in general, and the U.N., in particular seem very selective in how they condemn the actions of different nations. They rightly condemned South Africa for practicing apartheid but where is their condemnation to Muslim countries that routinely discriminate against non-Muslims? Non Muslims living in Muslim countries live in Dhimmi status which means they are officially second class citizens and have inferior rights to Muslims. Why won’t the U.N. condemn the concept of “Dhimmi” status as the discriminatory policy that it is?
The sad reality is that the U.N. and many nations are afraid of the Muslim religion. Perhaps, even though they may disagree with the cruel treatment of women and non-Muslims, they have a common enemy with them in their hatred of America, Israel and, in some cases, the west in general. It’s been said that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” so many excuse the behavior of crazy Jihadists in the name of some perceived greater good and end up rationalizing and excusing the behavior of these crazy imams and Ayatollahs.
They are doing no one a favor by turning a blind eye to this radicalism. The people who live under these religious dictatorships, those who want to raise a family and make a better life for themselves and their children, are not helped by this pandering to the crazy imams. The people of Iran tried their best to let the world know they wanted freedom but the world, to its everlasting shame, did nothing. By doing nothing they sided with the bad guys.
George Bush had it right and hopefully history will correct the record on his Presidency. Help the people who want freedom, give them reliable support and the Muslim religion can get rid of the crazy imams and ayatollahs that are making these people (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) live in misery. When the people of Iran saw what happened in Iraq they were inspired. They wanted their chance at freedom. Unfortunately, things have gone back in the other direction. The people in these Islamic dictatorships know that they can’t count on reliable help from the US and from the west, in general, and therefore are forced, out of fear, to submit to the crazy imams.
So now the crazy imams want to build a 13 story “cultural center” near the site of the World Trade Center. People who have tried to bury Jewish history by building mosques on top of Jewish shrines and temples, people who have taken over the city of Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus Christ, and created an atmosphere where Christians are afraid to be in their holiest site, people who have destroyed ancient Buddhist statues and artifacts that could never be reproduced now have the unmitigated gall to talk about tolerance?
Muslims need to clean their own house before lecturing others on tolerance. It is not for the US to show that it is tolerant of the Muslim religion. The burden of proof is on the Muslim religion to show that it is tolerant of others. Perhaps one day when “ijtihad” returns and Muslims can be allowed to interpret their religion in a way that is not so cruel, then there can be a “cultural center” near the WTC. In the meantime, the one being proposed is nothing more than a tribute to the worst, not the best, of the Muslim faith. It is a tribute to the very imams that have taken this religion back to the seventh century and it should not even be considered to be built at the holy site of the WTC.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
President Obama’s Long Lost Ancestor From The 17th Century
There has been controversy surrounding the ancestry of Barack Obama. A top research team has looked into this matter and traced Obama’s family tree back to the 1600s, where Obama’s ancestor Barack Shakespeare Obama was a great leader and community organizer in Oxfordshire, England.
A parchment was discovered that documented a speech given by this ancestor of Obama’s. The parchment was in bad shape but was taken to parchment restoration experts where a process called infilling was used to fill in missing areas. The parchment was cleaned and tears were carefully mended using goldbeater’s skin, which is the outer membrane of a calf’s intestine. Even with the best efforts of top restoration experts, there are some parts of the speech that were unrecoverable. Nevertheless, with the best of intentions and with hopes that any missing sentences have been filled in true to the original intent of the document, here is the speech given by Barack Shakespeare Obama, probably at some point in the 1660s.
Madame Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, friends, Romans and Countrymen, I come here today to praise our great nation. Almost two years ago, I took office amid religious wars such as that between the Catholics and the Huguenots, and that between the Muslims and the Hindus. There were wars breaking out all over the world. There was the Polish-Ottoman War, the Franco-Dutch War, Russo-Turkish Wars, and the Nine Years War in Ulster. The Spanish Armada was invading England. The English Armada was invading Spain. The Bubonic Plague had killed hundreds of thousands of people. Weapons of mass devastation such as high powered cannons and flintlock muskets became all too common and threatened the safety of law abiding citizens. We were in a period of unprecedented inflation as greedy speculators in London and Paris had drawn wealth away from the rest of the world, while devastating the environment in the New World by mining silver and gold.
In short, I inherited a mess. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a catastrophe. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And two years later, the worst of the storm has passed. The storm is receding and the skies are brightening but problems remain. Many people are still out of work. Those who lost loved ones to the Bubonic plague, which my Health Department now refers to as the U1C1 Virus, can attest to the need for a national health insurance plan. Religious wars and wars of aggression are still raging all over the world.
O, a woman has lost consciousness! What dastardly deed is this? Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here for my smile was too much for this poor woman to bear!
At this point, Barack Shakespeare Obama, for some unexplained reason stopped his speech and turned to the side of the stage as if speaking to an invisible person, and said the following:
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose to remake civilization.
I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself.
Perchance I should consider the desires of the people.
But that would be giving in to conscience.
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly.
They don’t see my greatness or they fear it.
Be not afraid of my greatness!
Lord, what fools these mortals be.
O, what more favour can I do to thee,
To sunder his that was thine enemy?
Though we have seen better days,
It is not me who is to blame for the mess.
The way of mine enemies is wrong.
That way madness lies.
I will thrive for I am a wolf ready to strike though
He's mad that trusts in the tameness of a wolf.
My strength is my words and while
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
The people in the audience were confused by this sudden stream of consciousness but one person in the crowd was heard shouting:
One may smile, and smile, and be a villain!
Obama replied “That’s alright, that’s OK…”, as the person who shouted was removed by Knights and Centurions.
BS Obama then continued his speech:
I believe we have to talk to our enemies in order to understand them better. Strong leaders talk to their adversaries, and we will do so, no matter what anyone else says. For this reason, I have scheduled a series of meetings with Ivan the Terrible. Whatever differences exist between countries and religions, we can solve by talking. Therefore, myself, Ivan the Terrible and Napoleon will sit down for a summit where the finest ale and mutton will be served.
Now I want to take a moment if I may to give a shoutout to a great man in the crowd today. Copernicus, would you please stand and take a bow. Thank you. For those of you who may not know, Copernicus is the man who realized that it is the earth that revolves around the sun and not the sun that revolves around the earth. There are people who would like to go back to the days when it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth. My administration is not here to go backwards.
We will not be a bystander in the fight against climate change. We will lead the world in new green technology. There is scientific consensus that the conglomeration of people into large cities has created the need for too many horses. Matter that is expelled from the horse’s intestines has created a change in the earth’s atmosphere resulting in the heating of the earth. In addition, the constant burning of lamps for street lighting creates smoke which stays in the air and traps sunlight.
There is a liquid called oil that may be the salvation of all our environmental problems. With this ‘oil’ we will one day be able to have carriages without the pollution that horses create. We will also be able to create bright light without all the smoke. Until that day happens it is incumbent upon all of us to use our horses less. Those of you who insist on riding horses can eliminate tons of pollution by feeding your horses properly. By not over-feeding your horse, we can save thousands of pounds of horse waste. We should also get into the habit of using smaller horses. People who are in the habit of saying “A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!” should change their thinking and say instead; “Give me a waste efficient horse or I’m going to walk.”
This is the leadership that we are providing – an ale and mutton summit that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against the Bubonic Plague. Our strength lies in our diversity. Sweet are the uses of diversity. In addition, we are going to provide new green jobs which will help the economy and the environment.
Right here in Oxfordshire, we have opened up a new factory that will provide 75 new jobs. This factory will manufacture graphite pencils. Graphite pencils are the future and we must look forward. Why should we buy graphite pencils from China or any other place when we can produce them here at home? We have spent millions of pounds in order to create this new, clean graphite pencil industry and these new jobs are the fruit of our hard work.
So, despite plagues, economic catastrophes, wars, religious intolerance, and global warming, we are continuing to move forward with the change I promised. I didn’t say it would be easy as these are all the problems that I inherited from my predecessor. I still have confidence in the citizens of the country. You are all masters of your fates. And I will make sure that your fates turn out in a way deemed positive.
A parchment was discovered that documented a speech given by this ancestor of Obama’s. The parchment was in bad shape but was taken to parchment restoration experts where a process called infilling was used to fill in missing areas. The parchment was cleaned and tears were carefully mended using goldbeater’s skin, which is the outer membrane of a calf’s intestine. Even with the best efforts of top restoration experts, there are some parts of the speech that were unrecoverable. Nevertheless, with the best of intentions and with hopes that any missing sentences have been filled in true to the original intent of the document, here is the speech given by Barack Shakespeare Obama, probably at some point in the 1660s.
Madame Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, friends, Romans and Countrymen, I come here today to praise our great nation. Almost two years ago, I took office amid religious wars such as that between the Catholics and the Huguenots, and that between the Muslims and the Hindus. There were wars breaking out all over the world. There was the Polish-Ottoman War, the Franco-Dutch War, Russo-Turkish Wars, and the Nine Years War in Ulster. The Spanish Armada was invading England. The English Armada was invading Spain. The Bubonic Plague had killed hundreds of thousands of people. Weapons of mass devastation such as high powered cannons and flintlock muskets became all too common and threatened the safety of law abiding citizens. We were in a period of unprecedented inflation as greedy speculators in London and Paris had drawn wealth away from the rest of the world, while devastating the environment in the New World by mining silver and gold.
In short, I inherited a mess. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a catastrophe. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And two years later, the worst of the storm has passed. The storm is receding and the skies are brightening but problems remain. Many people are still out of work. Those who lost loved ones to the Bubonic plague, which my Health Department now refers to as the U1C1 Virus, can attest to the need for a national health insurance plan. Religious wars and wars of aggression are still raging all over the world.
O, a woman has lost consciousness! What dastardly deed is this? Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here for my smile was too much for this poor woman to bear!
At this point, Barack Shakespeare Obama, for some unexplained reason stopped his speech and turned to the side of the stage as if speaking to an invisible person, and said the following:
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose to remake civilization.
I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself.
Perchance I should consider the desires of the people.
But that would be giving in to conscience.
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly.
They don’t see my greatness or they fear it.
Be not afraid of my greatness!
Lord, what fools these mortals be.
O, what more favour can I do to thee,
To sunder his that was thine enemy?
Though we have seen better days,
It is not me who is to blame for the mess.
The way of mine enemies is wrong.
That way madness lies.
I will thrive for I am a wolf ready to strike though
He's mad that trusts in the tameness of a wolf.
My strength is my words and while
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
The people in the audience were confused by this sudden stream of consciousness but one person in the crowd was heard shouting:
One may smile, and smile, and be a villain!
Obama replied “That’s alright, that’s OK…”, as the person who shouted was removed by Knights and Centurions.
BS Obama then continued his speech:
I believe we have to talk to our enemies in order to understand them better. Strong leaders talk to their adversaries, and we will do so, no matter what anyone else says. For this reason, I have scheduled a series of meetings with Ivan the Terrible. Whatever differences exist between countries and religions, we can solve by talking. Therefore, myself, Ivan the Terrible and Napoleon will sit down for a summit where the finest ale and mutton will be served.
Now I want to take a moment if I may to give a shoutout to a great man in the crowd today. Copernicus, would you please stand and take a bow. Thank you. For those of you who may not know, Copernicus is the man who realized that it is the earth that revolves around the sun and not the sun that revolves around the earth. There are people who would like to go back to the days when it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth. My administration is not here to go backwards.
We will not be a bystander in the fight against climate change. We will lead the world in new green technology. There is scientific consensus that the conglomeration of people into large cities has created the need for too many horses. Matter that is expelled from the horse’s intestines has created a change in the earth’s atmosphere resulting in the heating of the earth. In addition, the constant burning of lamps for street lighting creates smoke which stays in the air and traps sunlight.
There is a liquid called oil that may be the salvation of all our environmental problems. With this ‘oil’ we will one day be able to have carriages without the pollution that horses create. We will also be able to create bright light without all the smoke. Until that day happens it is incumbent upon all of us to use our horses less. Those of you who insist on riding horses can eliminate tons of pollution by feeding your horses properly. By not over-feeding your horse, we can save thousands of pounds of horse waste. We should also get into the habit of using smaller horses. People who are in the habit of saying “A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!” should change their thinking and say instead; “Give me a waste efficient horse or I’m going to walk.”
This is the leadership that we are providing – an ale and mutton summit that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against the Bubonic Plague. Our strength lies in our diversity. Sweet are the uses of diversity. In addition, we are going to provide new green jobs which will help the economy and the environment.
Right here in Oxfordshire, we have opened up a new factory that will provide 75 new jobs. This factory will manufacture graphite pencils. Graphite pencils are the future and we must look forward. Why should we buy graphite pencils from China or any other place when we can produce them here at home? We have spent millions of pounds in order to create this new, clean graphite pencil industry and these new jobs are the fruit of our hard work.
So, despite plagues, economic catastrophes, wars, religious intolerance, and global warming, we are continuing to move forward with the change I promised. I didn’t say it would be easy as these are all the problems that I inherited from my predecessor. I still have confidence in the citizens of the country. You are all masters of your fates. And I will make sure that your fates turn out in a way deemed positive.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Main Stream Media And the Void It Leaves Behind
There has been a lot of discussion recently about media bias. Liberals point to the fact that the media has become consolidated among a relatively few big corporations and therefore, has a bias to the right. Conservatives point to the fact that most people in the media, based on surveys, are registered democrats and vote consistently for the democrat candidate, thereby displaying a bias to the left.
In fact, neither of these claims proves media bias. It is ludicrous to say that because the media is consolidated among a few corporations that it is, therefore, biased to the right. Historically, corporations have donated as much to democrat candidates as to republican ones. There are as many democrats who run big corporations as there are republicans.
For example, according to OpenSecrets.org, these corporations all contribute significantly more to democrats than republicans; Comcast, General Electric, Boeing, Verizon, Capital Group Companies, Exelon Corp. In fact, most corporations hedge their bets and contribute just about the same amount to democrats as they do to republicans. For the ones that actually take a stand and make a point of going to one party over the other, most actually contribute more to democrats than to republicans! The idea that corporations are interchangeable with republicans is a myth.
Similarly, to say that because most people in the media vote for democrats does not prove bias either. It is possible to vote predominantly for democrats (or republicans) and still be an objective reporter (possible but in practice, not likely). The only way to prove media bias is to look at what the media actually does – What does it cover? How much time does it devote to certain stories? How does it frame those stories?
It is clear that the Main Stream Media (MSM), which consists of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times and the overwhelming majority of print and broadcast media, including most of the entertainment industry in Hollywood as well as news magazines such as Time and Newsweek, devotes time to some stories and neglects others. The decision to neglect certain stories has created a void for those stories. An alternative media has sprung up out of necessity to fill that void. The alternative media consists mostly of Fox Cable News and talk radio. The internet has been successfully used by both the MSM and the alternative media.
Looking at actual stories, it is clear that the Jeremiah Wright controversy was not going to be looked into with any investigative zeal by the MSM. What the MSM failed to realize is that a large number of people cared about this story. People were enraged at the hatred this reverend demonstrated towards the United States and they questioned why a presidential candidate would sit in a church for over 20 years and listen to rants against the very country that the candidate wanted to be the president of!
Recent quotes pulled out of “Journolist” which is a listserve (think of it as a long email chain) show that journalists were actively seeking to bury the Reverend Wright story. These were not just people writing on a blog. They were journalists with the power to effect the editorial decisions of major newspapers, networks and magazines.
For example, Michael Tomasky, who writes for the Guardian, said to other members of “Journolist”: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy (ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos had the nerve to bring up the Wright issue) in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the (mainstream media) kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
Who is Michael Tomasky to decide how to “serve the people”? A reporter’s job is to ask questions and to get at the truth. When a story is “uncomfortable” to your belief system, is it appropriate to bury the story and smear those who want to get to the bottom of it? Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent tried to create a climate of fear so that no one would dare talk about the Wright story. He said on “Journolist”, “Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” In fact, this very scandal is now a story in and of itself but don’t hold your breath waiting for the MSM to cover it. If Fox news, however, threatened to arbitrarily smear people for talking about certain stories, the MSM would be on it and there would probably be a congressional investigation!
For many people, a “smoking gun” email chain wasn’t necessary to prove media bias in the MSM. People have observed this through the years such as in 1994 when Peter Jennings described the republican takeover of the house as a “temper tantrum”. Dan Rather was willing to put doctored documents on the air in an effort to put George Bush in a bad light. The funny thing about “Rathergate” was that it wasn’t much of a story, even if were true! It just goes to show what lengths reporters will go to in order to put someone they don’t like (conservatives) in a bad light. When Newt Gingrich received a bonus for a book he was writing while he was an active member of congress, the MSM criticized him endlessly for it but when Senator Clinton got an even bigger bonus the only thing heard was crickets. The examples are endless.
More recently the MSM has ignored horrific details in Obama’s healthcare bill and “stimulus” plan. They’ve misrepresented the situation of the Shirley Sherrod firing and slandered Andrew Breitbart for daring to post a video of the speech. Just for the record, days before Breitbart posted that video; the NAACP said that the Tea Party had racists in their group. This statement was given with no proof whatsoever but the MSM reported it dutifully.
Whatever context the Sherrod video was in, it showed that NAACP members were laughing when Sherrod spoke about “sending a white person to one of his own”. That is an outrageous statement and the reaction by members of the audience to the speech was telling. Yet no one in the MSM brought up that angle of the story. Now the MSM is talking about Sherrod as if she is a hero and Breitbart as if he is Satan. But Breitbart did a service to the truth showing that those who condemn others of racism should clean their own house first.
The alternative media has risen because of simple supply and demand. People on the left don’t seem to understand supply and demand when it comes to basic economics so it’s not surprising that they don’t quite catch the connection when it comes to the media. Bill Press, who wrote a book about bringing back some form of the “Fairness doctrine” to talk radio, said on an interview recently that his book was only concerned about talk radio and not about biases on television or newsprint. Yet one cannot talk about the success of conservative talk radio in a vacuum.
Conservative talk radio has succeeded because there is a ravenous hunger for information. People are tired of seeing the MSM misrepresent who they are and what they believe in. They are tired of the condescension shown by the MSM to anything religious or patriotic. They are tired of having their views and beliefs belittled. Not only at news networks but in the movies, conservative characters are presented as evil. It may be one unnecessary line or part of the main theme of the movie but it is there more often than not. It may be at a concert where all you want is to hear the music but have to listen to the singer denigrating the things you hold dear to your heart.
People can say whatever they want. Free speech is a good thing but choice of where to get information is also a good thing. People have turned away from the MSM and flocked to other sources because their priorities of what is important are not the same as those held by people in the MSM. People in the MSM don’t seem to care. Those who don’t share their vision of the world and what is important are just mere troglodytes. The MSM will never change to satisfy the needs of their audience for information because that kind of information is “beneath” them. In the minds of people in the MSM, they have a “higher” calling which only they get to define and only they get to judge.
In fact, neither of these claims proves media bias. It is ludicrous to say that because the media is consolidated among a few corporations that it is, therefore, biased to the right. Historically, corporations have donated as much to democrat candidates as to republican ones. There are as many democrats who run big corporations as there are republicans.
For example, according to OpenSecrets.org, these corporations all contribute significantly more to democrats than republicans; Comcast, General Electric, Boeing, Verizon, Capital Group Companies, Exelon Corp. In fact, most corporations hedge their bets and contribute just about the same amount to democrats as they do to republicans. For the ones that actually take a stand and make a point of going to one party over the other, most actually contribute more to democrats than to republicans! The idea that corporations are interchangeable with republicans is a myth.
Similarly, to say that because most people in the media vote for democrats does not prove bias either. It is possible to vote predominantly for democrats (or republicans) and still be an objective reporter (possible but in practice, not likely). The only way to prove media bias is to look at what the media actually does – What does it cover? How much time does it devote to certain stories? How does it frame those stories?
It is clear that the Main Stream Media (MSM), which consists of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times and the overwhelming majority of print and broadcast media, including most of the entertainment industry in Hollywood as well as news magazines such as Time and Newsweek, devotes time to some stories and neglects others. The decision to neglect certain stories has created a void for those stories. An alternative media has sprung up out of necessity to fill that void. The alternative media consists mostly of Fox Cable News and talk radio. The internet has been successfully used by both the MSM and the alternative media.
Looking at actual stories, it is clear that the Jeremiah Wright controversy was not going to be looked into with any investigative zeal by the MSM. What the MSM failed to realize is that a large number of people cared about this story. People were enraged at the hatred this reverend demonstrated towards the United States and they questioned why a presidential candidate would sit in a church for over 20 years and listen to rants against the very country that the candidate wanted to be the president of!
Recent quotes pulled out of “Journolist” which is a listserve (think of it as a long email chain) show that journalists were actively seeking to bury the Reverend Wright story. These were not just people writing on a blog. They were journalists with the power to effect the editorial decisions of major newspapers, networks and magazines.
For example, Michael Tomasky, who writes for the Guardian, said to other members of “Journolist”: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy (ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos had the nerve to bring up the Wright issue) in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the (mainstream media) kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
Who is Michael Tomasky to decide how to “serve the people”? A reporter’s job is to ask questions and to get at the truth. When a story is “uncomfortable” to your belief system, is it appropriate to bury the story and smear those who want to get to the bottom of it? Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent tried to create a climate of fear so that no one would dare talk about the Wright story. He said on “Journolist”, “Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” In fact, this very scandal is now a story in and of itself but don’t hold your breath waiting for the MSM to cover it. If Fox news, however, threatened to arbitrarily smear people for talking about certain stories, the MSM would be on it and there would probably be a congressional investigation!
For many people, a “smoking gun” email chain wasn’t necessary to prove media bias in the MSM. People have observed this through the years such as in 1994 when Peter Jennings described the republican takeover of the house as a “temper tantrum”. Dan Rather was willing to put doctored documents on the air in an effort to put George Bush in a bad light. The funny thing about “Rathergate” was that it wasn’t much of a story, even if were true! It just goes to show what lengths reporters will go to in order to put someone they don’t like (conservatives) in a bad light. When Newt Gingrich received a bonus for a book he was writing while he was an active member of congress, the MSM criticized him endlessly for it but when Senator Clinton got an even bigger bonus the only thing heard was crickets. The examples are endless.
More recently the MSM has ignored horrific details in Obama’s healthcare bill and “stimulus” plan. They’ve misrepresented the situation of the Shirley Sherrod firing and slandered Andrew Breitbart for daring to post a video of the speech. Just for the record, days before Breitbart posted that video; the NAACP said that the Tea Party had racists in their group. This statement was given with no proof whatsoever but the MSM reported it dutifully.
Whatever context the Sherrod video was in, it showed that NAACP members were laughing when Sherrod spoke about “sending a white person to one of his own”. That is an outrageous statement and the reaction by members of the audience to the speech was telling. Yet no one in the MSM brought up that angle of the story. Now the MSM is talking about Sherrod as if she is a hero and Breitbart as if he is Satan. But Breitbart did a service to the truth showing that those who condemn others of racism should clean their own house first.
The alternative media has risen because of simple supply and demand. People on the left don’t seem to understand supply and demand when it comes to basic economics so it’s not surprising that they don’t quite catch the connection when it comes to the media. Bill Press, who wrote a book about bringing back some form of the “Fairness doctrine” to talk radio, said on an interview recently that his book was only concerned about talk radio and not about biases on television or newsprint. Yet one cannot talk about the success of conservative talk radio in a vacuum.
Conservative talk radio has succeeded because there is a ravenous hunger for information. People are tired of seeing the MSM misrepresent who they are and what they believe in. They are tired of the condescension shown by the MSM to anything religious or patriotic. They are tired of having their views and beliefs belittled. Not only at news networks but in the movies, conservative characters are presented as evil. It may be one unnecessary line or part of the main theme of the movie but it is there more often than not. It may be at a concert where all you want is to hear the music but have to listen to the singer denigrating the things you hold dear to your heart.
People can say whatever they want. Free speech is a good thing but choice of where to get information is also a good thing. People have turned away from the MSM and flocked to other sources because their priorities of what is important are not the same as those held by people in the MSM. People in the MSM don’t seem to care. Those who don’t share their vision of the world and what is important are just mere troglodytes. The MSM will never change to satisfy the needs of their audience for information because that kind of information is “beneath” them. In the minds of people in the MSM, they have a “higher” calling which only they get to define and only they get to judge.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Slavery And Racism – Is The United States To Blame?
There is a lot of antagonism toward the United States in certain segments of the African American community. People such as Louis Farrakhan have made hatred of the United States “fashionable” and “cool”. President Obama has been a part of this community, much of it originating in Chicago, where Jessie Jackson, Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Williams Ayers and Reverend Michael Pfleger have spouted this anti-Americanism in the name of both real and perceived past wrongs.
Barack Obama’s pastor of over 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, has said the following things about America:
“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We (in the U.S.) believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America!”
Recently, the US Justice Department dropped a case against members of the New Black Panther party for “lack of evidence”. Members of the New Black Panthers were accused of intimidating voters at a polling place in Philadelphia. There was clear video evidence of the incident. J. Christian Adams, who was involved in the prosecution of the case, quit the justice department alleging that people in the justice department were told to ignore cases where the defendants were black and the victims were white.
Last summer, Barack Obama criticized the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts saying that the police acted “stupidly” in arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. He made this accusation in a prime time speech after he just admitted in the previous sentence that he didn’t know all the facts of the case.
Does Obama’s view of the US differ from that of Jeremiah Wright or the New Black Panther party? Obama’s policies are often prefaced with the phrase “an even playing field”. In reality, however, it amounts to “Getting even”.
Of course there has been slavery and discrimination in the United States. Slavery is a stain on humanity but it didn’t start with the US. Physical Evidence of slavery dates to around 11,000 years ago in southern Africa. Western slavery goes back 10,000 years to Mesopotamia. Egyptian hieroglyphics show that they practiced slavery. Where is the hatred of Egypt for originating such a vile practice? Where is the demand of Egypt for reparations?
In ancient times, conquering armies in Europe and Asia found it more profitable to enslave captives than to massacre them. Black slavery between antagonistic tribes existed in Africa long before the advent of the Portuguese in the 1400s. Portuguese slave trading began in 1442, particularly on the west coast of Africa in an area that became known as the ‘Slave Coast’. Soon the Spanish entered the slave trade in 1517, followed by the English (1553), the French (1624), and then by Holland, Denmark and the American colonies.
Once the United States was formed as an independent nation, it inherited the mess of slavery. Obama should be familiar and sympathetic to the idea of inheriting messes since he reminds us each day that he inherited a mess and that it takes time to solve such things (whether he inherited or caused the mess is another question for a different day). Slavery was a mess that was created over 10,000 years ago so solving it while trying to create and unify a new nation was no easy task.
The United States was a nation built on compromise and yes, there were many people in the new country that owned slaves. Yet the people who wrote the constitution did recognize the inconsistency of creating a nation based on equal rights and opportunities while allowing an evil such as slavery to exist. Unfortunately, in order to unify the Unites States as one nation, they had to compromise on the issue. Yet written into the constitution in Article 1, Section 9 is a mandate that slavery would be outlawed by the year 1808.
So slavery existed for over 10,000 years and this new nation, while trying to fend off foreign threats, unify disparate views and create a constitution to live by, did as one of its first priorities, write into the new constitution that slavery would be outlawed within 32 years of its founding. In fact it was the United States and England, the two nations most accused of practicing slavery, that were the most involved in ending it!
They were not completely successful but their intentions were clear. John Jay wrote in 1786:
"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."
Patrick Henry wrote:
"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."
It of course is true that the founding fathers owned slaves and this has caused many in the African American community to have contempt for these “dead white men”. The founding fathers were not perfect people but they inherited slavery, they didn’t cause it. They knew it was wrong, and were the first in over 10,000 years history to take real steps to end it. For this they deserve praise, not criticism.
There are those who will say that the wealth of America was built on the backs of slavery. If this is the case, why didn’t all the other countries who practiced slavery achieve wealth and success? Why didn’t Egypt, which had thousands of years of a head start on slavery, not become the world’s foremost economic power? Portugal was the first country to be involved in the African slave trade to the new world so why didn’t that country produce the wealth and innovation that later came out of the United States? Spain and Portugal brought slavery to South America so why didn’t any countries on that continent generate success comparable to the United States?
The wealth and success of the United States is due to a system that recognizes the rights of the individual. It is due to a unique idea that says the government governs only by the CONSENT of the people. Thomas Jefferson once said:
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
The reason why so many major inventions and patents have come out of the United States is because people know they can invest their own time and money in an idea and if successful, reap the rewards from it. People have been able to feel confident that the success or failure of their idea is up to them and not on some arbitrary person in government who may decide on a whim to change the rules. There is a reason why people risk their lives to come to the United States. It is amazing that people would call this a racist country while at the same time fighting in every way possible to come here and enjoy the opportunities it provides.
Like every country on earth, the United States has done shameful things. While the United States didn’t create slavery, segregation existed in this country well into the 1960s. That is a stain on this country that can’t be ignored. And yet, while imperfect, it is a country with a conscience. It eventually ended slavery and while far too late, eventually ended segregation as well.
The “Get even” battle being fought against America by the likes of the New Black Panther party, Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright is not a battle against the forces of racism. That battle has already been fought and won. Ironically, the battle being fought by this “Get Even” crowd is a battle against all that is GOOD about America. They are actually fighting against the very forces that were able to eliminate the evils of slavery.
Barack Obama seems to be a part of this “Get Even” crowd. He demonstrates this by his actions, his words, and by who is friends are. His vision of “change” would be to remove the principles that ended slavery and replace them with the ideas that tolerated and caused slavery. Skin color, social rank, and class all play prominent roles in Obama’s agenda. These are the evils that were behind slavery and what the constitution put in place to eliminate. It took almost 200 years to finally get it all working properly and now Obama and his “Get Even” crowd would have us go backwards again.
Barack Obama’s pastor of over 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, has said the following things about America:
“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We (in the U.S.) believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America!”
Recently, the US Justice Department dropped a case against members of the New Black Panther party for “lack of evidence”. Members of the New Black Panthers were accused of intimidating voters at a polling place in Philadelphia. There was clear video evidence of the incident. J. Christian Adams, who was involved in the prosecution of the case, quit the justice department alleging that people in the justice department were told to ignore cases where the defendants were black and the victims were white.
Last summer, Barack Obama criticized the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts saying that the police acted “stupidly” in arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. He made this accusation in a prime time speech after he just admitted in the previous sentence that he didn’t know all the facts of the case.
Does Obama’s view of the US differ from that of Jeremiah Wright or the New Black Panther party? Obama’s policies are often prefaced with the phrase “an even playing field”. In reality, however, it amounts to “Getting even”.
Of course there has been slavery and discrimination in the United States. Slavery is a stain on humanity but it didn’t start with the US. Physical Evidence of slavery dates to around 11,000 years ago in southern Africa. Western slavery goes back 10,000 years to Mesopotamia. Egyptian hieroglyphics show that they practiced slavery. Where is the hatred of Egypt for originating such a vile practice? Where is the demand of Egypt for reparations?
In ancient times, conquering armies in Europe and Asia found it more profitable to enslave captives than to massacre them. Black slavery between antagonistic tribes existed in Africa long before the advent of the Portuguese in the 1400s. Portuguese slave trading began in 1442, particularly on the west coast of Africa in an area that became known as the ‘Slave Coast’. Soon the Spanish entered the slave trade in 1517, followed by the English (1553), the French (1624), and then by Holland, Denmark and the American colonies.
Once the United States was formed as an independent nation, it inherited the mess of slavery. Obama should be familiar and sympathetic to the idea of inheriting messes since he reminds us each day that he inherited a mess and that it takes time to solve such things (whether he inherited or caused the mess is another question for a different day). Slavery was a mess that was created over 10,000 years ago so solving it while trying to create and unify a new nation was no easy task.
The United States was a nation built on compromise and yes, there were many people in the new country that owned slaves. Yet the people who wrote the constitution did recognize the inconsistency of creating a nation based on equal rights and opportunities while allowing an evil such as slavery to exist. Unfortunately, in order to unify the Unites States as one nation, they had to compromise on the issue. Yet written into the constitution in Article 1, Section 9 is a mandate that slavery would be outlawed by the year 1808.
So slavery existed for over 10,000 years and this new nation, while trying to fend off foreign threats, unify disparate views and create a constitution to live by, did as one of its first priorities, write into the new constitution that slavery would be outlawed within 32 years of its founding. In fact it was the United States and England, the two nations most accused of practicing slavery, that were the most involved in ending it!
They were not completely successful but their intentions were clear. John Jay wrote in 1786:
"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."
Patrick Henry wrote:
"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."
It of course is true that the founding fathers owned slaves and this has caused many in the African American community to have contempt for these “dead white men”. The founding fathers were not perfect people but they inherited slavery, they didn’t cause it. They knew it was wrong, and were the first in over 10,000 years history to take real steps to end it. For this they deserve praise, not criticism.
There are those who will say that the wealth of America was built on the backs of slavery. If this is the case, why didn’t all the other countries who practiced slavery achieve wealth and success? Why didn’t Egypt, which had thousands of years of a head start on slavery, not become the world’s foremost economic power? Portugal was the first country to be involved in the African slave trade to the new world so why didn’t that country produce the wealth and innovation that later came out of the United States? Spain and Portugal brought slavery to South America so why didn’t any countries on that continent generate success comparable to the United States?
The wealth and success of the United States is due to a system that recognizes the rights of the individual. It is due to a unique idea that says the government governs only by the CONSENT of the people. Thomas Jefferson once said:
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
The reason why so many major inventions and patents have come out of the United States is because people know they can invest their own time and money in an idea and if successful, reap the rewards from it. People have been able to feel confident that the success or failure of their idea is up to them and not on some arbitrary person in government who may decide on a whim to change the rules. There is a reason why people risk their lives to come to the United States. It is amazing that people would call this a racist country while at the same time fighting in every way possible to come here and enjoy the opportunities it provides.
Like every country on earth, the United States has done shameful things. While the United States didn’t create slavery, segregation existed in this country well into the 1960s. That is a stain on this country that can’t be ignored. And yet, while imperfect, it is a country with a conscience. It eventually ended slavery and while far too late, eventually ended segregation as well.
The “Get even” battle being fought against America by the likes of the New Black Panther party, Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright is not a battle against the forces of racism. That battle has already been fought and won. Ironically, the battle being fought by this “Get Even” crowd is a battle against all that is GOOD about America. They are actually fighting against the very forces that were able to eliminate the evils of slavery.
Barack Obama seems to be a part of this “Get Even” crowd. He demonstrates this by his actions, his words, and by who is friends are. His vision of “change” would be to remove the principles that ended slavery and replace them with the ideas that tolerated and caused slavery. Skin color, social rank, and class all play prominent roles in Obama’s agenda. These are the evils that were behind slavery and what the constitution put in place to eliminate. It took almost 200 years to finally get it all working properly and now Obama and his “Get Even” crowd would have us go backwards again.
Friday, July 2, 2010
The Radicalism Of Moderates And Independents
There seems to be an unwritten rule, in the minds of many, that being a Political Independent makes a person more “reasonable” than people on the extremes of the political spectrum. Many on the right look to “soften” their views in order to gain acceptance from the MSM (Main Stream Media). They may say things such as “I’m a fiscal conservative but a social liberal”, or the all too popular “I’m neither a republican nor a democrat”.
People on the left don’t need to soften their views because the MSM never views a far left view as “extreme”. The only time politicians on the left look to soften their views and move to the right is during election time which shows that either consciously or subconsciously, they know that it is THEIR views that are not in the main stream. Yet people who are independent of both parties seem to have a special arrogance as if they are more reasonable than people on the left OR the right.
One of the worst offenders of the “I’m an Independent and therefore better than the rest of you” mentality is FOX pundit Bill O’Reilly. If O’Reilly criticizes Michael Moore, he may also feel obligated to criticize someone associated with the right such as Ann Coulter. When O’Reilly criticizes far left websites such as moveon or the DailyKos, he seems to feel obligated to say that he also criticizes far right websites. He is constantly bloviating about being an “Independent”.
Bill O’Reilly, to his credit, has been at the forefront of a number of controversies. One of his uncompromising issues is child abuse and the need for laws to protect children. O’Reilly would never feel the need to justify his uncompromising stance in protecting children by saying something such as “We need to look at the underlying reasons that cause a person to commit child abuse.” There is only one issue and that is the protection of children. O’Reilly gets this here but on issues such as healthcare, the environment, the economy, national defense, taxes and many others he bends over backwards to show his “independence”.
The issue here is not that everyone on the right must agree on every issue. The left is far more intolerant of people within their ranks. They basically threw Joe Lieberman out of the democrat party because he disagreed with them on one issue – national defense. The right does, and should, tolerate differing views on all issues. However, what is happening today is that people on the right, by constantly justifying and rationalizing their views, cede the moral superiority to the left.
If someone on the right points out that Reverends Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton are racists, he may feel obligated to point out that he would feel the same way if they were white racists. Former KKK member David Duke has not been in the news for years but his name keeps popping up, as in “I would feel the same way about Jeremiah Wright as I do about David Duke.” Do the filthy words of Jeremiah Wright not stand on their own? Does it make it acceptable to criticize a minority as long as you throw a white racist former KKK member into the sentence?
When Bill O’Reilly points to extremes, he falls into the same trap that the MSM does. For example, in the Michael Moore-Ann Coulter comparison, saying that one is on the far left and one is on the far right gives them both equal status. Michael Moore has been caught lying many times. David T. Hardy in his book “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man” documents these deceptions. There are NO deceptions of a like status in any of Ann Coulter’s writings. People can debate what she says but there aren’t misrepresentations in her writings. There is a far greater difference between these two people than “far left” and “far right”.
Sometimes the truth is crazier than fiction. If this is the case do you turn the truth into fiction in order to sanitize it and make it more believable? If I said that Barack Obama is fundamentally trying to change this country from a constitutional republic where the government is put into place and run only by the consent and the permission of the people, into one where the government doesn’t care whether or not the people consent to how they are being governed and, in fact, is closer to a dictatorship in that the people have practically no say at all in what the government could do to them, you might say that I am being a radical. Certainly, politicians such as Barney Frank or Anthony’s Weiner would label me as “extreme”.
Perhaps the solution is to say “Barack Obama is gaining dictatorial power but David Duke is a racist and I’d feel the same way if he were gaining dictatorial power.” There is no need to rationalize the truth! Republicans seem to live in constant fear of what democrats and the MSM may say about them. Ronald Reagan was loved by the right because he never rationalized his beliefs. He stated his case eloquently and wasn’t intimidated by how the democrats or MSM characterized what he said. John McCain, Bill O’Reilly and many others labeled as “moderate republicans” or “independents” are looked at with suspicion from the right because they sometimes seem to look at the right with the same condescending attitude that the democrats and the MSM does.
There is a radicalism to Independents that rivals any on the right or the left. There is a need to take any situation and find an alternative to it to show that there MUST be another side to the argument. Ayn Rand spoke about this issue. She said:
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
Today, the strategy being used by democrats is to label all criticism of Obama as “extreme”. During the election, John McCain did not bring up a number of vital campaign issues because he didn’t want to be divisive. McCain failed in his duty as a candidate in the same way that a lawyer might fail in his responsibility if he left out critical evidence that could have exonerated his client. The citizens of the US are not children and they have the right to know the truth no matter how strange the truth is!
It is not radical to ask the President of the US and the leader of the free world (if there is such a thing anymore) to put forth the same paperwork as a person applying for a job at a local bank. Yet republicans run from this by saying it is not a winning strategy. Maybe it’s not, but it’s not a crazy idea to want to know the truth! And this truth involves much more than Obama’s birth certificate. It involves organizations he was part of, his sealed college records, his associates over the years and much more.
Republicans and conservatives will never be successful until they learn how to defend their vision, rather than excuse it. Bi-partisanship is not a virtue when you give up your principles in order to be perceived as a “moderate”. Again, according to Ayn Rand:
Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue…When people call themselves moderates, ask yourself: “Moderate—about what?” Since the basic question today is freedom versus statism, or individual rights versus government controls, to be a moderate is to advocate a moderate amount of statism, a moderate amount of injustice, a moderate amount of infringement of individual rights. Surely, nobody would call that a virtue.
People on the right need to stop worrying about how they are perceived. To lie even when the truth and the facts are on your side makes people doubt what the truth and facts are. Informed people will respect a person who honestly fights for his convictions. Let the left and the democrats lie – they need to!
People on the left don’t need to soften their views because the MSM never views a far left view as “extreme”. The only time politicians on the left look to soften their views and move to the right is during election time which shows that either consciously or subconsciously, they know that it is THEIR views that are not in the main stream. Yet people who are independent of both parties seem to have a special arrogance as if they are more reasonable than people on the left OR the right.
One of the worst offenders of the “I’m an Independent and therefore better than the rest of you” mentality is FOX pundit Bill O’Reilly. If O’Reilly criticizes Michael Moore, he may also feel obligated to criticize someone associated with the right such as Ann Coulter. When O’Reilly criticizes far left websites such as moveon or the DailyKos, he seems to feel obligated to say that he also criticizes far right websites. He is constantly bloviating about being an “Independent”.
Bill O’Reilly, to his credit, has been at the forefront of a number of controversies. One of his uncompromising issues is child abuse and the need for laws to protect children. O’Reilly would never feel the need to justify his uncompromising stance in protecting children by saying something such as “We need to look at the underlying reasons that cause a person to commit child abuse.” There is only one issue and that is the protection of children. O’Reilly gets this here but on issues such as healthcare, the environment, the economy, national defense, taxes and many others he bends over backwards to show his “independence”.
The issue here is not that everyone on the right must agree on every issue. The left is far more intolerant of people within their ranks. They basically threw Joe Lieberman out of the democrat party because he disagreed with them on one issue – national defense. The right does, and should, tolerate differing views on all issues. However, what is happening today is that people on the right, by constantly justifying and rationalizing their views, cede the moral superiority to the left.
If someone on the right points out that Reverends Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton are racists, he may feel obligated to point out that he would feel the same way if they were white racists. Former KKK member David Duke has not been in the news for years but his name keeps popping up, as in “I would feel the same way about Jeremiah Wright as I do about David Duke.” Do the filthy words of Jeremiah Wright not stand on their own? Does it make it acceptable to criticize a minority as long as you throw a white racist former KKK member into the sentence?
When Bill O’Reilly points to extremes, he falls into the same trap that the MSM does. For example, in the Michael Moore-Ann Coulter comparison, saying that one is on the far left and one is on the far right gives them both equal status. Michael Moore has been caught lying many times. David T. Hardy in his book “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man” documents these deceptions. There are NO deceptions of a like status in any of Ann Coulter’s writings. People can debate what she says but there aren’t misrepresentations in her writings. There is a far greater difference between these two people than “far left” and “far right”.
Sometimes the truth is crazier than fiction. If this is the case do you turn the truth into fiction in order to sanitize it and make it more believable? If I said that Barack Obama is fundamentally trying to change this country from a constitutional republic where the government is put into place and run only by the consent and the permission of the people, into one where the government doesn’t care whether or not the people consent to how they are being governed and, in fact, is closer to a dictatorship in that the people have practically no say at all in what the government could do to them, you might say that I am being a radical. Certainly, politicians such as Barney Frank or Anthony’s Weiner would label me as “extreme”.
Perhaps the solution is to say “Barack Obama is gaining dictatorial power but David Duke is a racist and I’d feel the same way if he were gaining dictatorial power.” There is no need to rationalize the truth! Republicans seem to live in constant fear of what democrats and the MSM may say about them. Ronald Reagan was loved by the right because he never rationalized his beliefs. He stated his case eloquently and wasn’t intimidated by how the democrats or MSM characterized what he said. John McCain, Bill O’Reilly and many others labeled as “moderate republicans” or “independents” are looked at with suspicion from the right because they sometimes seem to look at the right with the same condescending attitude that the democrats and the MSM does.
There is a radicalism to Independents that rivals any on the right or the left. There is a need to take any situation and find an alternative to it to show that there MUST be another side to the argument. Ayn Rand spoke about this issue. She said:
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
Today, the strategy being used by democrats is to label all criticism of Obama as “extreme”. During the election, John McCain did not bring up a number of vital campaign issues because he didn’t want to be divisive. McCain failed in his duty as a candidate in the same way that a lawyer might fail in his responsibility if he left out critical evidence that could have exonerated his client. The citizens of the US are not children and they have the right to know the truth no matter how strange the truth is!
It is not radical to ask the President of the US and the leader of the free world (if there is such a thing anymore) to put forth the same paperwork as a person applying for a job at a local bank. Yet republicans run from this by saying it is not a winning strategy. Maybe it’s not, but it’s not a crazy idea to want to know the truth! And this truth involves much more than Obama’s birth certificate. It involves organizations he was part of, his sealed college records, his associates over the years and much more.
Republicans and conservatives will never be successful until they learn how to defend their vision, rather than excuse it. Bi-partisanship is not a virtue when you give up your principles in order to be perceived as a “moderate”. Again, according to Ayn Rand:
Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue…When people call themselves moderates, ask yourself: “Moderate—about what?” Since the basic question today is freedom versus statism, or individual rights versus government controls, to be a moderate is to advocate a moderate amount of statism, a moderate amount of injustice, a moderate amount of infringement of individual rights. Surely, nobody would call that a virtue.
People on the right need to stop worrying about how they are perceived. To lie even when the truth and the facts are on your side makes people doubt what the truth and facts are. Informed people will respect a person who honestly fights for his convictions. Let the left and the democrats lie – they need to!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)