New Lingo, Same Nonsense: Bill Maher’s Repackaged Tea-Party Smears

Sep 16 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Arrogant , crass , accountability-hating “comedian” Bill Maher is at it again. The Blaze has the scoop on a recent conversation with CNN’s Larry King, in which Maher shares his brilliant thoughts on the latest primary election results and opponents of Barack Obama : MAHER: Democrats should be very happy that people like Christine O’Donnell are winning elections, because in the general election, I think—now, of course the Democrats are going to lose some seats, probably a lot, but not as many as they would have if teabaggers weren’t winning the primaries, because I think voters are generally conservative. And what I mean by that is, when I say conservative I mean they’re not comfortable with people who are ‘out there,’ on the Left or the Right. And these teabaggers are out there […] I just think people—they understand our country’s in a lot of trouble; even people who are angry understand that crazy people are not gonna make it better. The Delaware Republican primary has divided not simply principled conservatives from establishment centrists , which we’re all used to by now, but also solid right-wingers, with Mark Levin arguing that Mike Castle is a RINO of the worst order , while Charles Krauthammer thinks Christine O’Donnell’s many flaws totally undermine the good she can do for the country. Regardless of whoever deserved to come out on top, it bears repeating that Maher’s operating from a highly subjective, all-but meaningless definition of “crazy” that encompasses people who take their faith seriously and more ordinary Americans than he initially lets on (indeed, he mockingly goes on to incredulously ask, “intelligent person? Larry, we’re broadcasting in America!”). And despite what he says here, his ode to moderation isn’t a two-way street: he condemns centrist Democrats as “corporatists.” Of course, no lefty love-fest would be complete without a session of complaining about how crazy and beyond the pale Obama’s critics are: MAHER: It was bad enough when we had these people called the birthers, who thought he was not born here […] last night, I identified this new group, and I’m calling them the Churchers. They’re the people who don’t think that he’s a Christian. He’s a secret Muslim, Larry. I guess you haven’t been paying enough attention […] what’s really scary is that more people think he’s a Muslim now- KING: How did we get to this, though? MAHER: Y’know, I have a theory that the Internet makes people stupider. And also Fox News makes people stupider. Hey, Bill, how do you square that with the fact that most of the conservative media’s leading voices reject Birtherism ? How do you account for all the ridiculous, partisan things non-conservatives have believed over the years independent of and prior to the advent of Fox News and the blogosphere, like the endless smears of George W. Bush , Ronald Reagan as a religious nut who was going to bring about nuclear Armageddon, the alleged racism of virtually everyone who runs for office as a Republican, or the academic Left’s utter refusal to let go of Marxism despite its record of spectacular failure . Hey, maybe it has something to do with the Democratic Party and left-wing media establishment, unlike their morally responsible counterparts on the Right, wholeheartedly embracing and promoting it…(And for the record, Obama is not a Muslim, but as Byron York and Ann Coulter explain, the president himself deserves much of the blame for people’s confusion.) Oh, and falsely blaming Fox and the blogosphere for the actual fringe nonsense against Obama isn’t enough for Maher; he also presents “centrist liberal” as the “reality”-based characterization of the current president. Only if by “reality” you mean “fantasy” is Maher’s statement even remotely true—he’s certainly not a moderate on guns . Or abortion . Or the judiciary . Or capitalism . Or health care . Or—well, you get the idea. Lastly, Maher says it’s obvious that opposition to Obama is “extremely racist”: The one thing [teabaggers] hate is when you call them racist. The other thing they hate is black people. But they won’t say it. Like we haven’t heard that before…I could spend a few dozen more words explaining how this is manifestly false (not to mention hypocritical ), how conservative opposition to the Obama agenda is based on policy, not bigotry, and so on. But the fact is, Maher already knows better. He knows he’s lying before the lies leave his lips. Perhaps it’s best to simply observe that, since we hear so much of the racism smear from leftists and so little of anything else, maybe they simply don’t have anything else left to offer. To quote David Horowitz : Enough. Enough. It’s boring. You’re boring. _____ Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College .  He also writes for the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online .

See original here:
New Lingo, Same Nonsense: Bill Maher’s Repackaged Tea-Party Smears

No responses yet

Confessions of a ‘conservative’ purity litmus tester (and yes, we do still have the Vikings)

Sep 16 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress, Senate

David Karki In response to Dan’s hard backhand to the ad court, I offer this forehand smash up the line: What others – usually self-congratulatory “moderate” independents – in condescending tones call “purity,” I call core principles. And you’re darn right I’m going to cast a very withering glance when someone uses the labels and images and ideas of those most dearly held core principles as disingenuous cover for the implementation of policies that actually would annihilate them. Is purple glue all that holds us together? I’m sorry if this passion bothers all you superior moderates out there on your higher plane of existence, far above a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal like me. Frankly, it bothers me just as much that you don’t appear to believe in anything enough to risk ruffling feathers over it and elevate “getting along” above all else. Especially when getting along with the radical left that’s been in charge since 2006 essentially amounts to consorting with the enemy. And I guess that’s where the moderates and Dan part company with me and the tea partiers. It appears that where we most fundamentally differ is in our view of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid:   We view them as the greatest domestic threat to all America stands for and has been in its 234 year history. Moderates, apparently, do not. We view them as single-minded radicals for whom the ends justify the means, who will stop at nothing to implement their destructive ideas. (Hence my frequent usage of Kyle Reese “The Terminator” quotes, which Dan finds so amusing.)  Moderates, apparently, naively think the left is still well-meaning but misguided and can be reasoned with. Given this dichotomy, it makes sense why many feel a counter-balance to Obama’s radicalism is needed, if for no other reason than to stop his exponential expansion of government and achieve a stalemate. Why many desperately wish the GOP would stop being a going-along-to-get-along enabler and start being an opposition party, so we might have a choice instead of an echo, as well as a means to stop this runaway freight train of unaffordable trillions in spending.  And why those, like Mike Castle, who have voted for those expansions and spending more often than not (i.e. crap and tax) find it hard to win primaries even against supposedly inferior candidates. Suffice it to say, infuriating one’s own base by often voting against them isn’t a great way to keep one’s career going. (And yes, Castle IS a liberal. When you vote how he does, you’re on the left side of center. Maybe it doesn’t make him a Democrat per se, but it certainly puts him outside the party whose primary he just failed to win…which is why he just failed to win it.) As for O’Donnell, any conservative would have a hard time winning in a blue state like Delaware. But if you’re not going to try in this year, of all years, when Obama is leading the Democrats off a cliff, when are you ever going to try? And if it’s such a long shot, wouldn’t you want to use an ostensibly dispensable candidate rather than waste a more robust one? Since, in my view, Castle would vote like a Democrat anyway, I don’t see where there’s anything to lose. Had he won, the seat would effectively already be gone. Castle, Coons, what’s the difference? And I don’t see why Castle’s lone valuable vote for Senate control is a big deal. The only real difference would be if Obama gets any more Supreme Court picks. Other than that, a 51-49 minority opposite a Republican House works just as well for me. The House won’t pass anything the Democrat Senate or Obama wants, the GOP will have an unbreakable filibuster, and most importantly Obama won’t have a GOP Congress to run against in 2012. A 51-49 or 52-48 GOP Senate would leave all the power with the liberal types like Castle, Snowe, Collins, and McCain who would sandbag and backstab their own party to endless praise and plaudits from the liberal media. The way the Senate works, a strong minority beats a razor-thin majority every day of the week. Finally, as to O’Donnell not being fit for the Senate:  Are you kidding me? The 100 biggest pompous arrogant blowhards in America could only be improved by her presence, no matter who or what she is. Or isn’t (an Obama enabler), which is what really matters. Don’t buy that? Here are three words for you to chew on:  Senator Al Franken.  Now THERE’S a reason to wince every time a Senator is seen or heard, Dan.  See, as a Minnesotan, I know first-hand that electing real clowns like him and former Governor Jesse Ventura isn’t the end of the world. America will go right on as it always has, because it’s her people that make it work, not its government!  So what if she is a “phony baloney poseur”? She’ll be right at home with 99 more who are much worse than that! (And from a tea party perspective, it’s the Rumsfeld tactic: going to war with the candidates we have, not the ones we wish we had.) It’s that condescending, patronizing elitism that needs to be taken down, that black-balling of undesirables from the exclusive members-only Incumbents Club, which needs to stop most of all. Babylon on the Potomac needs a fumigating, and I don’t especially care if O’Donnell the modern political equivalent of Bluto in Animal House – one way or another, the Dean Wormers and Marmalards and Niedermayers of Washington DC need to have a giant cake float with the words “EAT ME” on it driven through their Election Day homecoming parade and watch it be ruined. And come this November, God willing, it’s going to happen. The big black Deathmobile is going knock Obama and his teleprompters off the risers. (Remember, the line “I hate those guys” should be on them for him to read.) And if we catch some equally egotistical moderates and independents up in the wash, well, so be it. I for one won’t lose any sleep over it. We need to destroy this myth that government is something more complex than nuclear physics, which only a small elite cadre can possibly manage or run – a myth made up solely to protect incumbents and all others who rely on their never-ending careers to keep their cushy paper-pushing jobs. And a myth which has resulted in the instantaneous, hateful, knee-jerk smearing of O’Donnell simply for the supposedly grievous offense of not being one of them. Though I suppose it does serve one useful purpose:  turning O’Donnell into a martyr and a cause célèbre, which might just help her win where the odds are otherwise against it. So keep it up, moderates, and you might just inadvertently make your worst nightmare come true.

View post:
Confessions of a ‘conservative’ purity litmus tester (and yes, we do still have the Vikings)

No responses yet

From the Interviews of David Horowitz: September 15, 2010

Sep 15 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Chuck Baldwin : There’s no doubt that you shaped the culture. In the book, I notice a picture of you with Ron Radosh and his daughter at Karl Marx’s tomb, High Gate Cemetery, London 1966. I take it that when that picture was taken you had quite an infatuation for Karl Marx. David Horowitz : Oh yeah, I was a Marxist. And I describe in the book how when I was in London I was approached by the KGB. This agent took me to lunch and eventually asked me to spy for the Soviet Union. He put money in my pocket and so forth. I happened to reject his advances. I had more ambitious goals for myself which was I guess to be the new Marx or something like that. But I saw him talking to a lot of other people on the “left” whom I knew. And I know, not only from personal experience, but from talking to people that there were many, many, there must have been hundreds maybe thousands of contacts between “new leftist” and the KGB and the Cuban Intelligence and Vietnamese Communist. I am the only one who has reported these incidents that I know about in Radical Son . That’s why my book, I think, would be very valuable for conservatives. It’s a vindication. Of those of you who are listening to this who have spent 50 years fighting to defend America’s freedoms and got nothing but scorn for it will get a lot of pleasure out of Radical Son . Because it vindicates the struggle that you waged, which was a noble struggle and a patriotic one. And it’s just too bad that patriotism is held in such low esteem in the liberal dominated culture that we live in. – Chuck Baldwin, June 6 1997 If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include: “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.) Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)

Read more here:
From the Interviews of David Horowitz: September 15, 2010

No responses yet

Tea Party Float Depicts Obama Whipping A White ‘Future Tax Payer’ Pulling A Wagon (Ben Armbruster/Think Progress)

Sep 14 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Ben Armbruster / Think Progress : Tea Party Float Depicts Obama Whipping A White ‘Future Tax Payer’ Pulling A Wagon

No responses yet

Can the Cant: 9-11 Was Always Already Politicized

Sep 13 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

From the pages of the Washington Times comes an article filled with hand wringing over the GZ Mosque and Qur-B-Que controversies, quoting various people lamenting the politicization of 9-11. 9-11 has always been political, though. Oh, yes, the reasons for the wanton massacre of thousands in the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and on various commercial airliners have mutated depending on the exigencies of the moment. I seem to recall that it was once outrage over the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, the breeding ground of the Wahabbist death cult . Mind you, the whole nation is “sacred,” but we mustn’t insist on moving a mosque from two blocks from Ground Zero. Mecca is so sacred that no non-Muslim must set foot there, and Medina is sacred. Jerusalem is so sacred to Muslims that any relics of prior Jewish settlement ought to be extirpated, in a slow-motion version of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. Cordoba’s cathedral ought to be opened to Muslim worship, because at one time, in contravention of an agreement with Cordoba’s Christians , Muslims worshipped there before suffering a series of territorial reverses. Bethlehem is largely devoid of Christians, and the few remaining Jews in numerous Muslim territories are leaving due to oppression. So, when I hear this sort of thing , I wonder: New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan spoke out Friday against Saturday’s planned New York protests, saying Sept. 11 “has become a holy day in our community and our nation.” “We must never allow Sept. 11th to become a time for protest and division,” he added. “Instead, this day must remain a time for promoting peace and mutual respect.” Where is the mutuality? At Gettysburg, Lincoln, without benefit of teleprompter, said this: But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Visit link:
Can the Cant: 9-11 Was Always Already Politicized

No responses yet

Hot Post:The 15 Most Obvious Lies in President Obama’s Ohio Speech and 1 Damning Freudian Slip

Sep 12 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

This popular post was first published on September 8 here . The naked lies were too numerous to count in President Obama’s speech in Ohio today. But let’s try and respond to a couple. 15. “We also hoped for a chance to get beyond some of the political divides between Democrats and Republicans…” One cannot “get beyond” the political divides of this country when the objective is to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Obama’s talk of bi-partisanship has been clearly demonstrated to just be a campaign technique to woo moderates. He could have ruled from the Center — the model was there in Bill Clinton’s second term. Instead he chose to push a leftist agenda, thus further exacerbating the divide. 14. “Because we are proud to be Democrats, we are prouder to be Americans.” Says the Post-American President who rejects the concept of American exceptionalism and bows to foreign kings. 13. “I ran for President because for much of the last decade a very specific governing philosophy had reigned about about how American should work.” He expects us to believe that anything President Bush did in any way inspired him to run for President? 12. “Folks were forced to put more debt on their credit cards and to borrow against homes that many couldn’t afford to buy in the first place.” Forced ? As in Discover Card and American Express put a gun to their customers head and demanded they load themselves up with debt? Monster House came by and threatened to devour people if they didn’t sign the mortgage? 11. “I ran for president because I believed that this kind of economy was unsustainable for the middle class and the future of our nation.” Obama is not interested in sustainability. The debt levels we already have and that he is further burdening us with make a mockery of his claims for interest in sustainability. 10. “I ran because I had a different idea about how America was built. It was an idea rooted in my own family’s story.” Built? Obama does not have a different idea about how America was built. The historical facts are quite clear. He has a different idea about the America that he wants to build — and build by destroying what already exists.

Read the original post:
Hot Post:The 15 Most Obvious Lies in President Obama’s Ohio Speech and 1 Damning Freudian Slip

No responses yet

No speeches, no ceremonies: Commemorate 9/11 by bombing Iran

Sep 11 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Dan Calabrese Here we go again. I turned on the TV this morning and the first thing I saw was Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell speaking at a solemn, somber ceremony, perhaps in front of a field in Shanksville, oddly with wind turbines conspicuous in the background. Do Democrats have to combine remembrances of 9/11 with the pimping of “green” energy? Now that's what I call a commemoration. America’s “commemoration” of 9/11 is all wrong. I am all for never forgetting, but we need to keep the reality of what happened that day fresh in our mind, not with moments of silence, not with tears, but by doing what Americans do best and kicking terrorist ass around the globe. This year, we should observe the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by attacking Iran. We should take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, take out all their strategic defense installations and openly encourage the people to rise up in rebellion against the mad mullahs who are trying to set themselves up as nuclear blackmailers. In so doing, we put the world on notice that America remembers attacks against it in its own way – not by giving itself over to defeat and despair but by rising up like a fierce tiger and devouring those who would threaten or mess with us. Oh, and we should invite Israel to help us, since especially in this case, our enemy would use an attack against the Israelis as its primary method of blackmailing us. By the way, to the ignorant fool who suggested to me on Facebook that this is not what Jesus would do, I say, crack open a Bible for the first time in your life. God regularly laid the smack to Israel’s tormentors in Old Testament days, and promises to wipe them out entirely when they rise up to attack his people in the last days. Jesus Christ is not a limp-wristed, Jimmy Carter-like, pansy ass God. He is a mighty God who will destroy all evil, and praise to the Lord Almighty for that. Welcome to 9/11. America’s annual day of global ass kicking. Oh, and North Korea, next year it’s your turn. Become Dan’s friend on Facebook . Become a fan of The North Star National on Facebook . Buy Dan’s novel, Powers and Principalities. To book Dan as a speaker, contact Lourdes Swarts at Speakers Access.

See more here:
No speeches, no ceremonies: Commemorate 9/11 by bombing Iran

No responses yet

What Again Were We Supposed to Learn from 9/11?

Sep 10 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

It’s the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks tomorrow. It’s a good time to reflect, but I’m not sure everyone knows on what exactly. Of course, there are the tragic deaths, but one of the reasons to remember is to keep in mind the lessons we need to learn to keep such a horror from happening again. And what is that lesson? Here’s what I think we need to learn from 9/11: There are large numbers of violent, irrational people out there and we can’t just ignore them and hope they go away. As we sit around with our iPads and our DVRs and enjoy our culture, it’s easy to forget there are barbarians standing just outside. They aren’t very good at anything, but they would like to see us dead. I don’t think in this post 9/11 world most people have learned the appropriate lesson from this. The whole Koran burning insanity illustrates this. That a handful of people in Florida can hold the world hostage by threatening to burn a few books is beyond silly, yet the main reaction has been not to tackle how ridiculous that is but to figure out how to appease the irrational violent people. You can’t appease irrational people. They’ll get violent over one guy burning Korans. They’ll get violent over cartoons. They’ll get violent because of false rumors of Korans being flushed down toilets. And yet are focus is on how to keep these crazy people happy and calm. There’s a popular school of thought that if we just got out of the Middle East, then all the irrational violent people would be happy and stuff. We want to prescribe rational notions to irrational people. The left think the people in the Middle East are like angry dogs; you can just do a few tricks to keep their simple minds calm. But they’re people, and people have a complex crazy. And you can’t just push that crazy off to some isolated area and think it will all work out for the better. At some point, we have to engage it. That doesn’t just mean militarily — hopefully it doesn’t mean anymore fighting — but at some point we have to stand up for ourselves. We can’t have people attack us and be all like, “Oh, we’re sorry. Let’s try to be nicer to you people.” We act weak, and we get attacked. The radical Muslims are stomping all over Europe now because those people are nothing but weak; they can’t even stand up for their culture anymore. We have to be strong, and if we’re strong enough, we can give people something better to hold onto that their current violent, craziness. The culture over there has to change one day, and we might as well lead the way. We haven’t been good at the not being weak lately. We can do better. We can’t appease the craziness in the Middle East — we have to be more willing to call it out. With all the oppression and violence that goes on there every day, we should have been more willing to ridicule the notion that a bunch of Korans burning was anything worth our attention. Well, that’s my ramble. 9/11 is complicated. There’s my attempt this year to figure some things out.

Continue reading here:
What Again Were We Supposed to Learn from 9/11?

No responses yet

Older posts »