November 9, 2008
Affleck Parodies Olbermann
Ben Affleck captures Keith Olbermann perfectly in this SNL skit. Wherever you are on the political spectrum I think you'll find it hilarious. What's ironic is that Affleck probably agrees with him on most of the issues.
Posted by Tom at 9:22 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
November 2, 2008
More Creepy Obama Supporters
Via Jonah Goldberg at NRO
This is so wrong.
Frighteningly, there are more;
There is something about Obama that attracts this weirdness. As Mark Levin wrote earlier this week;
There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.
No kidding.
And yes I know there are a few pro-McCain songs out there but it's not at all the same. I've never seen anything like this Obama cult following for any Republican, even Ronald Reagan.
Previous
The Creepyness of Obamamania
Posted by Tom at 8:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 30, 2008
The Creepyness of Obamamania
Update - New video below the fold that's very disturbing.
You just can't make this stuff up.
If I hadn't seen the first one at Andrew Sullivan I would have thought it was a spoof.
The second is a perfect example of what Mark Hemingway calls Manipulated Child Syndrome.
My only question for Obama supporters is, if he's elected president, will we have to call him "Great Leader", or will "Dear Leader" suffice?
Update - New video
Newsbusters says this video is very real and is not a spoof.
Posted by Tom at 8:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 7, 2008
Proving Malkin Right
Michelle Malkin calls it like it is in her editorial today. Here's an excerpt:
There's something about outspoken conservative women that drives the left mad. It's a peculiar pathology I've reported on for more than 15 years, both as a witness and a target. Thus, the onset of Palin Derangement Syndrome in the media, Democratic circles and the cesspools of the blogosphere came as no surprise. They just can't help themselves.Liberals hold a special animus for constituencies they deem traitors. Minorities who identify as social and economic conservatives have left the plantation and sold out their people. Women who put an "R" by their name have abandoned their ovaries and betrayed their gender. As female Republican officeholders and female conservative public figures have grown in number and visibility, so has the progression of Conservative Female Abuse. The astonishing vitriol and virulent hatred directed at Alaska's Republican Gov. Sarah Palin is the most severe manifestation to date.
As if to prove her right, several liberals left some rather unhinged comments. Here are a few
By: petemurray1. Ms. Palin has rushed to make political capital from her Down's syndrome child. However, as Alaskan writer and herself a mother of a Down's syndrome daughter, and Democrat, Mary Mullen points out, all the programmes onwhich Alaskan parents of special needs children depend to assist them in helping their children maximize their potential were put in place under Democrat administrations and were opposed tooth and nail by the Republicans.
2. The political wedding of her pregnant 17 year old daughter is nothing less than child-abuse in the cause of political respectability. To pressurize this pregnant child into marriage at this age is to ignore the statistical fact that 95% of such marriages fail with sad personal consequences to all concerned. This child was impregnated when she was 16 and in most advanced societies "Levi" would not be preparing for marriage. He would be preparing his defence to charges of statutory rape.
3. Imagine what a field day Ms. Malkin and the other attack-dogs of the extreme right-wing press would have had if Chelsea Clinton had got herself pregnant at 16 rather than exercsing restraint and growing up a credit to herself and her parents.
4. Is feckless teenage parenting and the equally feckless failure of parents to inculcate decent values in their teenage children now off the agenda for conservative pundits?September 7, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: SDindependentIt is Sunday, McBush has Palin sequestered, she is not allowed to take a singe question from anyone. According to the lobbyist that runs his campaign, Rick Davis she will not be interviewed until she is ready..... "READY". What the hell is this. She is not READY to answer a question from a reporter but she is READY to step in and take over the presidency.
This has got to be the most ominous scam on the American public since the Bush-Cheny Iraq War on WMD's claim.
September 7, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: kcMore spittle for Cons to lick up. Ms.hatelibs selling some of her wonder spittle for the gullible Cons to swill down. Drink it up and feel empowered by hate. Nothing more liberating in the world then being given permission to hate. Lick it up. Feel the power.
September 6, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
You can see that when Malkin wrote Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, she had no lack of material to draw from.
Posted by Tom at 8:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 31, 2007
Flacking 4 Chavez
I watch very little TV, but yesterday while waiting for the football games to start the TV was tuned to CNN. This commercial came on, and it just about made my jaw drop
I knew Joe Kennedy was a leftie, but to flack for Fidel Castro wanna-be Hugo Chavez is way over the top.
Apparently this commercial has been out for a few months. Maybe I should just go back to not watching any TV at all. There also seem to be more than one, but this is all I can find at the moment.
Anyway, I did a bit of research and here's the background, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal
The arrangement is this: Mr. Chávez's Citgo--a Houston-based oil company owned by the Venezuelan government--is supplying home heating oil to Mr. Kennedy's Citizens Energy Corporation at a 40% discount. Citizens, a nonprofit outfit, says it passes the savings onto the poor, aiming to help 400,000 homes in 16 states that would otherwise have trouble heating their homes. In the process, Mr. Kennedy happens to get a high-profile publicity plug. If you think you qualify, says the television ad that drew our attention to this partnership, just dial 1-877-Joe-4-Oil.
Joseph P. Kennedy II, the useful idiot helping burnish Chavez' image, is the eldest son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, who was of course the younger brother of President John F. Kennedy. Joe Kennedy was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts in 1986 and served until 1999.
As the OpinionJournal piece points out, "Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez is an ally of the Iranian mullahs, a supporter of North Korea, a close friend of Fidel Castro and a good customer for Vladimir Putin's weapon factories." Yet the former congressman has no problem in lending his name and time to help defend this man who is trying his best to subvert Venezuelan democracy.
Kennedy founded Citzens Energy in 1979, and since 1998 has been its Chairman and President. From a description on their website, he "founded the non-profit company in 1979 to provide low-cost heating oil to the poor and elderly." Among other things, they also say that "last year" they provided free energy to 170,000 households, 250 shelters, and 37 Native American tribes. Kennedy defended his choice to accept oil from Venezuela in an article posted at Common Dreams
... those who have no problem staying warm at night should not condemn others for accepting Venezuela's oil. Rhetoric means little to an elderly woman who has to drag an old cot from her basement to sleep by the warmth of the open kitchen stove or give up food or medicine to pay her heating bill. ...When our partnership with Citgo was announced last year, US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman praised the discount program as corporate philanthropy. "It's a charitable contribution," he said, "and I wish more companies did it." Charities like the Baseball Hall of Fame and the Muscular Dystrophy Association receive generous donations from Citgo, but no one is telling them to decline the gifts.
...Criticism of our program isn't about cheap heating oil. It's all about Hugo. While conservative interests in this country don't like him, US businesses don't mind his money and his marketplace.
...Even though doing business with Venezuela has been very good for capitalists, the issue at hand is Chávez and his politics of socialism. Before we accept the characterizations of him as a socialist threat to our way of life, we ought to look at our own country -- ironically, a system of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.
...So, sure, we'll distribute Hugo's oil. Doing so is called compassionate capitalism. Right now, our country's vulnerable families fend for themselves, while the well-to-do can afford to throw snowballs at our program from the security of their warm homes and offices.
There are many issues here, and I'll try and go through a couple of them.
Kennedy is fairly cautious in his description of Chavez. In this and a Boston Globe article that I found, he's circumspect about Chavez, prefering to concentrate on the program itself.
But the entire program is based on the logical fallacy that two wrongs make a right. Kennedy justifies what he's doing because some American businesses operate in Chavez' Venezuela. But what if they didn't? What if we banned them from doing business there, much like the embargo on Cuba? Would Kennedy then break off relations with Citgo? Of course not. The argument is therefore invalid.
Looking around the internet, many leftists defend Kennedy by pointing out that we do business with Saudi Arabia. Again the argument falls for the same reason. I have stated many times on this blog (here's my biggest post on the matter) that we must take strong measures to cut back consumption of oil so as to wean ourselves from Middle East oil. Others have too, notably many on the staff of National Review, a pretty conservative publication by any measure. So attempts to claim that conservatives are just a bunch of hypocrites does not stand up to scrutiny either.
According to Kennedy, the source for aid does not matter. Would he then have accepted aid from apartheit South Africa? Again, of course not.
Kennedy spends much time bashing oil companies, blaming them for everything from high prices to their alleged lack of charitable giving. But this Investors Business Daily editorial, carried on CNN, puts the lie to both those claims
What this is really about is advancing Chavez's U.S. agenda, a big part of which is to blame U.S. oil companies for high oil prices.High oil prices do squeeze the poor. But oil companies do not control them. Dictators such as Chavez do. Eighty percent of the world's oil is held by inefficient state oil companies. Venezuela is one of the worst, producing its oil with scab labor since a 2003 strike, and it has also confiscated at least $1 billion in U.S. oil assets since then. Some industry analysts estimate that Chavez adds as much as a third of the cost to world oil prices. No wonder he wants someone else, like Big Oil, blamed.
And also, with regard to charity, the editorial points out that
Oil companies, in fact, give far more to charity than Kennedy's $25 million program. In 2006, Chevron gave $90.8 million. British Petroleum (NYSE:BP) gave $106.7 million. Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) gave $138.6 million.
As for the "discounted oil", it's supposedly sold to Citizen Energy at 40% of market value. The problem here is that such a deal only hurts the people of Venezuela. According to the CIA Factbook, the 2006 per capita income for Venezuela was $7,200, and for the United States $43,800. Which such figures do not take into account purchasing power and are therefore somewhat misleading, they are still a good rough indicator. The bottom line is that Chavez is hurting his own people with this program in pursuit of political goals. That Joseph P. Kennedy II eagerly participates makes him a useful idiot.
Perhaps we do need to do more to help poor and disadvantaged people in this country purchase energy. Maybe federal, state, and local governments need to revize their programs and spend more money. We might even need a special tax on electricity or natural gas to pay for it. If this is what Kennedy believes, then fine, he should make his case before the relevant legislative bodies. He should write newspaper editorials. He should solicit private citizens for donations. I try to keep an open mind, and am willing to be convinced we need to do more if he can make the case.
But what I am not going do do is approve of a blatantly political program who's main purpose is to shore up Hugo Chavez, who is trying to undermine democracy and pluralism in his own country and others around the world.
Posted by Tom at 6:34 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
December 10, 2007
The NIE causes an outbreak of BDS
This letter to the editor, which appeared in Sunday's Washington Times, is typical, I think, of what many on the left have been saying after last week's release of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE 20071203) on Iran
Not quite two months ago, President Bush said, "If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace. So, I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons.However, in the past few days it has come out that all 16 of our intelligence agencies have determined that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons ("Estimate of Iran's nukes reversed," Page 1, Tuesday). Now we find out that Mr. Bush was told by these agencies before he made his bizarre reference to World War III that Iran wasn't making weapons. Mr. Bush lied — again.
We all know that Mr. Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war, and now he's doing the same thing again. Every time Mr. Bush says something stupid like World War III, the price of gas goes up 25 cents. Mr. Bush is a madman, and he's trying to start another war. Where is the outrage? Has America sunk so low that when the president tries to start another illegal war no one cares? And we wonder why America is no longer respected in the world community.
MARC PERKEL
San Bruno, Calif.
Mr Perkel, apparently referring to the NIE, says that " it has come out that all 16 of our intelligence agencies have determined that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons."
But the NIE says no such thing. Mr Perkel is clearly possessed by Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Once again, here is what the NIE actually says:
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we access with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons....• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and NIC access with only moderate confidence that the halt to those programs represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
Here is how the authors define high and medium confidence:
High confidence generally indicates that our judgements are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgement. A "high confidence" judgement is not a fact or certainty, however, and such judgements carry a risk of being wrong.Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.
(boldface emphasis added)
Therefore, the NIE does not make the absolute statement that "Iran is not developing nuclear weapons."
What it says that Iran probably stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, we don't think they've restarted it, but aren't really sure.
These are distinctions with a difference, and those who want to criticize the president need to get it right.
Previous
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian Nuclear Capabilities
More on the NIE
Posted by Tom at 7:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 12, 2007
The Fascists of Code Pink
If you haven't seen it before, here is the video of two members of Code Pink getting thrown out of the Petreaus/Crocker hearing on Monday. The Pinko sitting in back taking videos with her cell phone might be Gael Murphy.
Let's get one thing straight right up front; this is not just some harmless protest that we can all laugh at and go on with our business. This is an attempt by a bunch of fascists to destroy American Democracy.
And good for Rep Ike Skelton for taking matters firmly in hand. The Pinkos have continued to disrupt the hearings, at periodic intervals one or more of their members would stand and scream some inanity.
What gets me is how they seem to think they have a right to disrupt the hearing. Unlike traditional civil rights activists who have engaged in civil disobedence, the Pinko in the video above actually fought with police as she was dragged from the room. She apparently thinks she has some sort of right to just stand there and be allowed to scream.
I've had my dealings with Code Pink outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center (and here), as well as at many Rallies and Protests in Washington DC (look under "Categories" at right). Nothing they do surprises me anymore.
A quick Youtube search turned up another instance in which Code Pink disrupted a committee hearing on the hill. In this video, dated May 10, 2007, Pinko Medea Benjamin is the one ejected from the room.
As usual, the New York Times gets it all wrong
For that matter, (the American people) deserve more than what was offered by Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. When protesters interrupted the hearing, Mr. Skelton ordered them removed from the room, which is understandable. But then he said that they would be prosecuted. That seemed like an unnecessarily authoritarian response to people who just wanted to be heard.
What utter nonsense. The members of Code Pink didn't just want to be heard, they wanted to disrupt a vital institution of our democracy. They have the same rights the rest of us have, and the same opportunity to be heard. They can start a newspaper or magazine, and can stand on streetcorners handing out literature. They can and have received many permits to hold demonstrations in Washington DC and elsewhere. It is right and proper that every group, no matter how offensive, be allowed their First Amendment rights.
But this does not mean that we have to listen. And just as one cannot cry "fire" in a theater if there isn't one, we simply have to have standards of decorum in parlimentary proceedures if democracy is to continue. Code Pink thinks that they can disrupt our representatives when they are conducting official business. They are wrong and must not be allowed to get away with it.
This is not at all to say they should be treated harshly. Far from it, I'm sure the Capitol Hill Police performed their duties professionally, and that whatever penalties the Pinkos receive will not be oppressive. This, too, is as it should be.
Note that in both videos above it was a Democrat who threw them out, so no one can claim partisanship. This is not, or should not, be a Republican-Democrat or Left-Right issue. Everyone is threatened by these sorts of tactics. I would be mortally embarrassed if someone claiming to be conservative did such a thing, and I would condemn them immediately.
Posted by Tom at 8:56 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Moveon.org Slanders General Petraeus II
So far not a single Democrat Congressman or Senator has denounced the slanderous Moveon.org attack on General Petraeus. I checked the site of my own Democrat Senator, James Webb, and he is completely silent on the matter. He ran as a conservative Democrat. Let's see if that was just hot air or if he does the right thing.
Instead, once again Senator John McCain stands tall in a Congress full of Liliputians
"I remain deeply disappointed by the failure of leading Democrat presidential candidates to personally and publicly denounce the smear tactics used against General Petraeus by MoveOn.org. There is no greater slander to a soldier than an accusation of betrayal to his nation. I do not understand why those seeking to be commander-in-chief have yet to forcefully denounce, in their own words, this McCarthyite attack on our commander. I hope they would reconsider their silence and not let this slander of an exceptional American stand."
Be sure to also read his opening statement before the Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
Becuase of his stances on immigration and campaign finance I've never thought I could support him for president, but if he keeps this up I'll definately reconsider.
The Washington Times points out that
The Democrats who take MoveOn.org's money are the same ones who cry "my patriotism!" whenever someone observes how weak they are on national security. They're either silent or engage in Mr. Reid's tepid talk in defense of common decency. Democrats dismiss Gen. Petraeus as not being an "independent evaluator" — that's Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California — or accuse him of "carefully manipulating the statistics" — that's Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois. Others who cannot summon the boldness to say anything in public praise MoveOn.org's ability to do the dirty work.If these attacks are not smears on the patriotism of Gen. Petraeus, nothing could be. The left expects its "my patriotism!" indignation to be taken seriously, but and expect others to stand by as the smear is launched. It does not add up.
My response to any leftist who is upset that someone has questioned his patriotism is "fine, we'll stop questionin your patriotism, the moment you stop calling our President and military leaders liars".
And those Democrats who claim that Gen Petraeus has presented misleading information need to put their money where their mouth is. If they truely believe such things, they need to file perjury charges, or recommend that he be brought up on charges and tried in a courts-martial.
After reviewing several of the more offensive statements leading Democrats have made about Petraeus, the Wall Street Journal asks if
(This can) really be the new standard of political rhetoric across the Democratic Party? There was a time when the party's institutional elites, such as the Times, would have pulled it back from reducing politics to all or nothing. They would have blown the whistle on such accusations. Now they are leading the charge.Under these new terms, public policy is no longer subject to debate, discussion and disagreement over competing views and interpretations. Instead, the opposition is reduced to the status of liar. Now the opposition is not merely wrong, but lacks legitimacy and political standing. The goal here is not to debate, but to destroy.
No doubt that in the 90s many on the right got carried away with their denunciations of President Clinton. I sometimes found myself half-believing in some of it. It's a strong temptation to believe the worst about your political enemies. But after all of the investigations, I was persuaded that yes, Vince Foster really did kill himself in Fort Marcy Park, and that no, the government did not intentially set fire to the Waco compound.
The next time there's a Democrat president I'll have to watch myself, that I don't automatically buy into every bad thing that's said about him...or her. Perhaps in that sense the 90s and today are good lessons for us all.
Previous
Moveon.org Slanders General Petraeus
Posted by Tom at 8:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 10, 2007
Moveon.org Slanders General Petraeus
Yes I know, half the conservative blogosphere is up in arms about this outrage, and I'm late in posting about it, but it deserves wide attention so here goes.
This ad by Moveon.org appeared today in the New York Times
What a disgrace. So much for "we support the troops but oppose the war", in case anyone ever believed that lie.
But it's Moveon.org that is lying. Take this one sentence from the ad:
"Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows t hat the surge strategy has failed."
Besides committing the logical fallacy of making a universal statement (in which case a single exception invalidates the premise), only someone on the loony left could believe such a thing. There are hundreds of independent reports by qualified individuals who say that the strategy is, in fact, working. I've linked to dozens on this site alone.
The "facts" on the Moveon.org webpage to support their assertion are laughable.
I used to wonder if I should question the patriotism of the Moveon.org people. No more.
Let me be clear here: No I am not saying that if you do not support the surge strategy, or think that it is working, you are unpatriotic. Nor am I saying that if you think that the invasion was a mistake and that the best thing to do is withdraw you are unpatriotic.
If you believe these things, make your case using facts and logic. But this ad is pure character assassination.
And this is what I meant by my above statement that up until now I wasn't quite sure where to place Moveon.org. Groups like International ANSWER, Code Pink (the nuts who got thrown out of today's hearing), United for Peace and Justice and any of the organizations that are members of it are not patriots. They are part of the hate-America left, and they are not patriots.
But I never wanted to make that group too broad. I didn't and don't want to get into the habit of saying that every group that opposes what I think is right to be anti-American or unpatriotic. As such, I wanted to be careful before I characterized Moveon.org
But I now conclude that they have joined the ranks of the hate-America left. Congratulations, idiots.
More
I can't do better than Michelle Malkin so be sure and visit her site for more on the Moveon.org outrage.
Byron York asks if Moveon.org has betrayed the Democrat Party by going too far in this ad. I listened to much of the hearings today, and when Republicans brought up the ad, Democrats seemed quick to distance themselves. Here's the money quote from York's piece
...the thing that should trouble party leaders is not that MoveOn is capable of silly stunts. It’s not even that MoveOn is capable of making slanderous comments about U.S. military officials. And it’s not that MoveOn is against the war in Iraq, which polls show many Americans believe was a mistake. Rather, MoveOn’s latest campaign is a continuation of a drive to oppose not just the action in Iraq, but the war on terror in general, and, in a larger sense, America’s use of military power in its own defense.
Captain Ed also questions their patriotism. As do I.
Posted by Tom at 9:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 5, 2007
Book Review: Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild
Liberals, or at least a goodly portion of them, have come unglued these past 7 years. I don't mean that they're just mad at President Bush over Iraq or Katrina, or at Republicans in Congress over the Terri Schiavo affair.
I mean some of them have absolutely gone nuts.
Michelle Malkin documents this phenomenon in her 2005 book Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. It's 170 pages of, well, unhinged actions by liberals.
Just so we're clear, the purpose of this book was not to do some soft of scientific study of the left and right to see which side is worse. There's no "balance" in this book simply because that's not the point. And truth be told, this is not the type of book that I normally don't buy or review here. I picked it up mainly because she was at CPAC 2007, and wanted her autograph. I already had In Defense of Internment, so I chose this one.
Read the title again if you don't get it; her purpose is to "expose liberals gone wild". And expose she does.
Malkin provides example after example of one nutty liberal after another doing absolutely crazy things. Here are some of the subject areas.
- Racism and sexism. Some of the most vile attacks are on Condolezza Rice, but Malkin has received her share. "You are one sick gook" is among the nicer things they say about her. Most of what she reprints in the book is vile beyond description. Conservtives who happen to be minorities are regularly called an "oreo", "coconut", or "banana" (black/brown/yellow on the outside but white inside, if you're not familiar).
- For some reason many on the left seem not be able to communicate without resorting to foul language. I've seen much of this myself at many "anti-war" demonstrations.
- Ever since at least the 80s it has been typical of leftists to try and prevent conservatives from speaking at public events. As of late it has become fashionable to ambush and throw a pie at the face of the speaker.
- Assassination fascination. You don't have to go far on left-wing sites to read people wishing Bush or Cheney were dead. But we're not just talking about Internet posts. One Sarah Vowell even wrote a book about her fixation called Assassination Vacation. Another wrote a play called "I'm Gonna Kill the President!" the president, of course, being George W Bush. Yet a third example is Nicholson Baker's novel Checkpoint, another fantasy about murdering you-know-who.
- Hollywood. Sigh. We've always known that they're mostly a bunch of leftists, but ever since the election of George W Bush they've become... unhinged.
- Colleges and Universities get another big sigh. Ward Churchill may have gotten much of the media attention, but believe you me, he's not alone in his opinions.
- The hard left absolutely does not support the troops. Stories of stolen or vandalized yellow ribbons, keyed cars (ones that displayed an American flag or support the troops sticker) and such are legendary in places like Seattle. Leftist administrators and professors wage unrelenting war on military campus recruiters.
And all this was before the Amanda Marcotte affair.
The book is entertaining to read, though you can only take so much of it at any one sitting. Page after page of one crazy liberal after another gets to be a but much after awhile. If you want documentation on the above without buying the book, just go to her website and type "unhinged" into the search tool. Enjoy.
Michelle Malkin herself drives some liberals crazy.
Not like Ann Coulter, to be sure, who taunts liberals and so brings much of it on herself.
Only chapter of this book is about the hatred that is directed towards Malkin herself. No doubt that anyone in public life will receive death threats, and will receive messages of hate. But but with Malkin so much of it is racist and sexist in nature. Perhaps because she is an attractive woman, the sexual nature of the attacks is particulary vicious. And we all know that any minority (Malkin's parents are Filipino, her maiden name is Maglalang) conservative comes in for especially rude treatment. In 2005 she posted a sample of the hate mail that she receives every day. I'm sure nothing has changed.
This book has driven some liberals crazy. It's obvious fromt he reviews on Amazon that there's a war being raged by the left to bring the *star* rating for the book down. I suppose you can say the right is equally trying to drive the ratings up, my point is simply that if you read some of the left reviews I'll think you'll agree that some of them are, well, unhinged.
Interestingly, the author of the Publishers Weekly review on Amazon also can't resist taking a gratuitous shot at the book, saying that she
...scoured blogs, speeches, media commentaries and even transcripts from Oprah for material, though she misses the boat in a number of instances, most notably in her obliviousness to sarcasm and irony, and she overextends her analytical prowess by offering shallow, shoddy critiques of theater, literature and modern art.
"sarcasm and irony"? What a joke. The examples of unhinged behaviour she cites are pretty clearly from people who have gone round the bend.
Avoiding the Temptation
It's always tempting to think that "the other side" is worse in every respect; they're more corrupt, hypocritical, unreasoned, nasty, unhinged. It's also tempting to excuse certain behaviors when they occur on your side, while condeming it on the other. This temptation to be avoided.
An equal temtation to be avoided is falling into habit of throwing up your hands and saying the "both sides do it". Sometimes this is true, and sometimes it isn't. There are times when Republicans, as a whole, are more corrupt than the Democrats, and vice versa. Likewise, there are times when one side is more nasty than the other. I believe we live in a time where as a whole the left is nastier than the right.
Some of this, I think, is simply due to the fact that liberals were out of power in both houses of Congress and the presidency. We shall see what happens if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008 and they retain the House and Senate.
Yes It Occurs on the Right
When Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin says that "Whenever I appear on TV shows such as Hannity and Colmes or Bill O’Reilly, I receive vicious messages on my phone and threatening emails that scare my children and anger my husband with their variations on the theme of “Die, you ugly, communist, lesbian, American-hating bitch.”" I believe her.
When Ralph Peters says he gets email from the Islam-hating right telling him that Islam is evil and that he is "a foolish "dhimmi," blind to the conspiratorial nature of Islam", I believe him too.
And we've all been to websites in which authors or commenters go too far in attacking the left.
Lastly, yes I recall the 1990s when it many on the right fell for every Vince Foster/Waco/ dead bodyguard/case of sexual harassment case out there. I felt the temptation, but always found myself backing off when reading "the other side".
The Final Analysis
In the end I have to agree with Malkin that these past several years the left is more unhinged than the right. The insults at Christians, the racist and sexist attacks, are simply unparalleled on the right. The outlandish behavior and outrageous statements come mostly from the left.
I also know this; that when (and it's always only a matter of time) the Democrats control the White House and at least one house of congress, I'll get out Unhinged and vow not to become a right-wing equivalent of the liberals that Malkin exposes. And I'll try and hold other conservatives to the same standard.
Michelle Malkin blogs at MichelleMalkin.com Her ground-breaking video blog is HotAir.com
July 26 Update
Michelle documents more unhinged leftist behavior. You won't believe some of this stuff. Given some of the stuff they say about her, I'd say she's one of the the bravest woman around. Keep on bloggin'!
Posted by Tom at 8:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 27, 2007
Code Pink Calls Our Troops Terrorists
At last Friday's FReep in front of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, several members of the odious Code Pink walked up to our group because they were jealous of some press attention we were receiving. A a film crew from French-Canadian TV 3 in Quebec was filming an interview they were doing with Free Republic DC Chapter President Kristinn Taylor when the Pinkos arrived. Pinko Gael Murphy was in the lead.
One of their number called our troops terrorists. Watch the video
Hardly a surpise that they'd say something like that, but it does reveal for the unitiated just who they really are.
Go read the full report with photos on what happened that evening at Free Republic.
See my "The Case Against Code Pink" for more information. Discover the Network also has the goods on them.
Posted by Tom at 10:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 1, 2006
Leftist Loons Assail Michelle Malkin II
Yesterday I posted on how the idiots at two leftist website, Wonkette and IsThatLegal, fell for what was an obviously fake photo of Michelle Malkin, and then called her a hypocrite. The situation had gotten bad enough by week's end that the Washington Times named the two offenders their Knaves of the Week.
Today Malkin wrote a fairly brilliant hard-hitting defense of, well, her defending herself. It deserves to be read in it's entirety, but here is the gist of it
There are many unhinged people who would like me to shut up. There are those who engage routinely in active defamation and empty ad hominem attacks. There are also those who enable, excuse, and snicker at these attacks.When I ignore them, lies are perpetuated and assumed to be true. When I respond, I am belittled as a self-promoter, whiner, humorless scold, and opportunist. Trolls at places like the Democratic Underground and obscure far-left blogs don't warrant responses. But when the attacks come from a publicly subsidized UNC law professor and the largest blog conglomerate (valued at $76 million in 2005), they cannot go unanswered.
There seem to be some very dense people who don't understand that this is not just about a bikini Photoshop. It is about disseminating the fake photo to cast me in a false light and "prove" that I'm somehow a hypocrite.
Today I'd like to address two issues related to all this; one, the vile slanderous attacks that minority conservatives receive from liberals, and two, the issue of hypocrisy.
Liberal Bigotry
Liberals, leftists, call them what you will, but some are guilty of the most vicious forms of race and sex (no not "gender", that would be bad English) prejudice against women and minorities who adopt conservative political views.
Michael Steele is a black conservative who is running for US Senate on the GOP ticket in Maryland. Yet Maryland Democrats think that it is just fine to make racial attacks on him.
Kate O'Beirne, of National Review, wrote Women Who Make the World Worse. an attack on the feminst establishment. Leftists responded with a campaign to leave ugly "reviews" on the Amazon website.
Michelle Malkin, however, has received worse than either of these two, or any other conservative writer, from what I can tell. Brave woman that she is, she documents the sexual and racial attacks on her in posts. See here, here, here, here and here for examples.
As you can see, it's some pretty nasty stuff.
Malkin is a woman an Asian, and, let's be honest, very attractive. For this last reason certain lefties seem fixated on making the most vile sexual comments about her.
You see, in the world of liberaldom, it is "illegal" to be a woman or minority and be a conservatives. You are a "traitor" to the cause. To them, it is "just obvious" that all women and minorities should be liberals. Whenever one expresses conservative views, these liberals are enraged. They resort to any and all forms of name-calling.
This is exactly what the modern-day left is all about. They preach endlessly about "tolerance", but they are themselves only tolerant of those who agree with them exactly.
On Hypocrisy
My argument with the left, however, isn't really that they are a bunch of hypocrites. My argument with them is that 1) too many of them engage in racist and sexist attacks on conservatives, and 2) they don't understand the concept of hypocrisy or it's meaning.
I wrote a post on the use and misuse of the charge of hypocrisy about a year ago, and if I may I'll just quote myself
We need to distinguish between inconsistency and hypocrisy, for they are often mistaken for one another. Inconsistency is when a person does or says two things that are at odds with one another. In 1990 John Kerry voted against going to war with Iraq over Kuwait. When running for president in 2004, he said that he opposed the war in Iraq because we did not have a large international coalition. In taking this position Kerry was certainly inconsistent, but he was not a hypocrite.An argument stands or falls on its own merits, not those of the person making it. Adultery is a sin, a bad thing. This is so whether the person admonishing us to be faithful to our spouses is faithful himself. It was either a good idea or not to invade Iraq, and whether or not the person making the case for invasion had ever served in the armed forces or not is irrelvant.
Hypocrisy is certainly something to be avoided, both in one's personal life and in recommending public policy. While the preacher who says that we must lead clean lives is certainly speaking the truth, but his message is dimished if he is caught in bed with another man's wife.
(Further), one of the most maddening characteristics of our modern culture is one in which the person who tries do live right but falls is considered a worse person than the person who doesn't try at all, and indeed flaunts his immorality. Considered even worse is the person who dares to tell others that they should live moral lives, yet who themselves yields to temptation.
Who is subjected to more abuse by the media and professionaly punditry; Monika Lewinsky or Jim Bakker?
To be sure, Bakker defrauded his followers of millions, so the analogy is not perfect (they never are). But consider their reactions when caught: Lewinsky seems proud of her affair with the president, while Bakker wrote I was Wrong, a 1996 mea culpa. I rather doubt we will ever see a similar book from Lewinsky, nor will one be demanded from her.
So we may conclude that while hypocrisy is something to be avoided, as a sin it has so en blown out of proportion that being a hypocrite is viewed as worse than someone who commits a sin and doesn't care who knows it. This is wrong.
In other words, folks, you have to argue the facts of the case. If Saddam Hussein gets up in front of us and says that murder is wrong, we may laugh at his hypocrisy, but ultimately we have to admit that he is right.
The bottom line is that all too often the charge of hypocrisy is made by people who want to avoid debating the issues. It's much easier to simply call your opponent a hypocrite than argue the facts and logic of the case.
Back To Malkin
Bringing all this back to Michelle Malkin, her loonly leftist attackers, Wonkette and Eric Muller attacked her for being a hypocrite. They did so because she has written columns critical of the sexualization of our culture, and of young girls in particular. Malkin, like most of us conservatives, values modesty. To us, "Girls Gone Wild" is not funny
but pathetic. Clothing stores such as Victoria Secret and Abercrombie & Fitch are stores to avoid, not to shop at. And the Bratz series of toys are certainly nothing social conservatives are going to buy.
So these leftist loons discover a photograph which allegedly shows a young Malkin in a bikini. Ah Ha! This, they say, "proves" that she is a hypocrite.
Uh, no.
On Redemption, The Prodigal Son, and "Breaking the Faith"
Luke 15:11–32 tells the story of the "Prodigal Son". We all know the story, or should: A man has two sons, one of whom leaves and goes off to live the wild life. The other stays home and is faithful. One day the first son returns, pleads forgiveness, and the father not only takes him in but throws a huge party. The second son is indignant, but the father tells him to not be angry but to rejoice, for it is good that the other son was once lost, but now is found.
Redemption is therfore possible. No matter what you've done, you can redeem youself.
Ok, so far so good. Here's where it gets tough, and what a lot of liberals wont' want to read: Once redeemed, you can tell others that they should change their ways.
People who are doing wrong things don't want to hear this. The person in their midst who wants to change is a threat that must be beaten down. If the person insists, fine, but must not be allowed to come back and tell the group that they must reform.
So amongst a group of drinkers or drug users no one in the group is allowed to leave. Anyone who dares express the view that all is not right will be immediately ridiculed. If he leaves, reforms, and comes back, he will be attacked as a hypocrite.
But this is not accurate. The hypcrite is someone who preaches one thing and does another. Someone who reforms and comes back to tell others that they shouldn't be doing what they do is not a hypocrite at all.
But idiots like Wonkette and Muller don't see it this way. To them, once you've done something wrong, you are forever more forbidden to tell others that they shouldn't do it. So if you used drugs in your youth, and then, as an older person advise young people that they oughtn't engage in such behavior, you are a "hypocrite".
Such thinking, however, is stupidity defined. Actually no, it's not stupidity, it's more that the people who make this charge want to engage in the behavior themselves or think the behavior acceptable, and can't tolerate dissention.
Now, to reiterate, this issue doesn't come up in the aforementioned case of Malkin, because the photo in question was an obvious fake. But so what if it was? How in the world does being photographed in a bikini make it illigitimate for you to criticize the sexualization of our culture in general or of children in particular? But as Malikin says, those who criticize her the harshest usually haven't actually read what she has written.
I think it best that I let Malkin have the last word
Since mm.com came into existence, I've been attacked regularly as a whore and a c**t and a puppet and a dupe and a sellout, etc. etc. etc. It comes with the territory--particularly when you happen to be a woman, a minority, and a conservative. The extensive arguments and blog posts and columns and books I've written are reduced to bumper-sticker putdowns by critics and their fellow travelers who couldn't be bothered to actually read what I've written day in and day out for the last two years on the blog and the past 14 years in my books and columns. I poked fun at this pathology in my last book. I think what drives a lot of the haters crazy is that despite their ceaseless sniping, they can't shut me up.
Rock on, Michelle.
Posted by Tom at 8:32 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 30, 2006
Leftist Loons Assail Michelle Malkin
If you want to go after somebody's political views, fine. If you want to call them a nut, crazy, dangerous, ignorant, a fool or a fanatic, that's fine too.
But racist and sexist attacks should be beyond the pale.
Unfortunately, there are a few leftist retards that haven't gotten the message.
One of them is the editors of Wonkette, Alex Pareene and Ana Marie Cox, and the other is Eric Muller of IsThatLegal?
For their juvenile attacks on Malkin, they were awarded the title Knaves of the Week by the Washington Times.
I'm not going to rehash the entire episode, for that you can go to Michelle's posts on the episode here and here and follow the links.
Anyone who has followed Michelle's blog or seen her newspaper columns knows that she has written about the sexualization of young girls, and how harmful to them and society this is. Eric Muller, who is actually a law professor at the University of North Carolina, responded by linking to a a photo which allegedly showed a young Malkin in a bikini. This, he said, shows that she is a hypicrite. Except that, uh, the photo is an obvious photoshop forgery. Then Wonkette posted a few pieces also claiming that Malkin is a hypocrite.
Besides the insanity of thinking that a simple pose in a bikini invalidates Malkin's thesis (I guess Muller and Wonkette can't be bothered to read what she actually wrote), and besides that the photo is such an obvious fake that only someone afflicted with Malkin Derangement Syndrome would believe it to be real, there's the whole business of the slimey and disgusting way that they tried to use it against her. In this respect, Wonkette was the worst, the writing on that site being very juvenile. Muller is a bit better, but not by much.
Michelle Malkin is a no-holds-barred conservative writer. She pulls no punches and calls them like she sees them. But she's always kept her criticism above board, never sinking to the level of racial or sexual slurs. I'd say I agree with her 90% of the time.
Now, Wonkette is one of those blogs that I've heard of but never visited. I'd gathered that it was a gossip-column sort of thing, and figured it was similar to what you see in major newspapers, a sort of "talk of the town" section. I even seem to recall that Ava Marie Cox was on CNN one time along with Andrew Sullivan to comment on one of President Bush's State of the Union addresses.
But today when I saw Michelle's post I decided to follow the link to Wonkette and see for myself. Was I ever in for a surprise. "Politics for people with dirty minds" is what you get when you search for them on Google. Uh huh. Bottom line is that it's a stupid site and quite beyond me what people see in it. But this isn't the first time that Wonkette has sunk to this level with Malkin. The first time was much worse.
Muller? Well, for a university professor he's a disgrace.
This Episode is the Least of It
As these things go with Michelle Malkin, this episode was pretty mild. Leftists have a fixation on attacking her in the most vile sexual and racist manner.
Don't believe me? She's got it all documented, see here, here, here, here and here. Actually there's more, but you'll get the point.
Not Just Michelle
Michael Steele is running as a Republican for US Senate in the state of Maryland. He is also black. He also has been the victim of racial slurs from liberals.
Last November I reported on Maryland Democrats who thought that there was "nothing wrong" with racial attacks on a black man, as long as he was a Republican.
From the Washington Times story that prompted my post is worth quoting at length
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."
"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
Unreal.
How about that liberal tolerance?
Posted by Tom at 9:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 17, 2006
Jimmy Carter Does It Again
Many of you will have read or heard of this by now, but it bears repeating. Ex-President Jimmy Carter gave an interview to Spiegel in which he reveals why he was only a one-term president. Ok, not intentionally, but that's how it came out.
I'm not going to spend much time going after him, because it 's too easy, and readers should follow the link to get mad themselves. Don't worry, you won't have to read very far. But here are a few parts of the interview that struck me as particularly outrageous
SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.
"massive bombing"? Compared to what? Dresden, Tokyo, Linebacker II? We bombed Baghdad more during the Gulf War. Oh wait, he was against that one too.
"entire nation of Lebanon" Oh Lordy.
And lastly there's the appeal to "proportion"; Hezbollah, described by jimma as "militants", only took two soldiers, so the Israeli counterattack was unjustified. By this logic we had no right to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan over Pearl Harbor.
There is so much more in the interview that I could spend all day on it.
Carter's Weakness Emboldened Iran
We could write off the Spiegel interview as the rantings of another deluded leftie, but this leftie is partially responsible for our current mess in the Middle East.
By failing to respond forcefully to the kidnapping of our diplomats by the Iranian "students", Carter essentially told would-be terrorists everywhere that we can be humiliated. Amir Taheri elaborates in a story
In a sense the Nov. 4, 1979 attack on the US Embassy in Tehran could be regarded as the opening scene of a long drama that reached its catharsis on Sept. 11, 2001.Here is why....
As days passed, with the American diplomats paraded in front of television cameras blindfolded and threatened with execution, it became increasingly clear that there would be no “thunder and lightning” from Washington. By the end of the first week of the drama, that was to last for 444 days and ended the day Ronald Reagan entered the White House, Khomeini’s view of the United States had changed.
Ahmad Khomeini’s memoirs echo the surprise that his father, the ayatollah, showed, as the Carter administration behaved “like a headless chicken.”
What especially surprised Khomeini was that Cater and his aides, notably Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, rather than condemning the seizure and the treatment of the hostages as a barbarous act, appeared apologetic for unspecified mistakes supposedly committed by the US and asked for forgiveness and magnanimity.
Once he had concluded that the US would not take any meaningful action against his regime, Khomeini took over control of the hostages’ enterprise and used it as a means of propping his “anti-imperialist” credentials while outflanking the left.
The surprising show of weakness from Washington also encouraged the mullas and the hostage-holders to come up with a fresh demand each day
The slogan "Death to America" was used for the first time during the hostage crisis, and has been with us ever since. Another, perhaps less known one, is “America cannot do a damn thing” , which was also used for this first time during the crisis.
Taheri sums up
For 22 years the United States, under presidents from both parties, behaved in exactly the way that Khomeini predicted. It took countless successive blows, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, without decisive retaliation. That attitude invited, indeed encouraged, more attacks. The 9/11 tragedy was the denouement of the Nov. 4 attack on the US Embassy in Tehran.
Thank you, Mr Carter.
Posted by Tom at 9:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 12, 2005
A Call to Arms
Citizen Smash issues a Call To Arms:
THE CENTRAL FRONT in the War on Terror is now on Capitol Hill.One need not be young or even able-bodied to enlist in this campaign. Simple literacy is sufficient. If you feel that our Civilization is worth defending; if you believe Liberty is worth fighting for; if you know in your heart that Freedom will Prevail, then I have a message for you:
I WANT YOU
I have no more patience for critics, bench-warmers, and spectators. It's time to put down your pom-poms, get down from the bleachers, and take the field. If you lack the will, courage, or stamina for this fight, I have no further use for you. You are dismissed.
Follow my lead, or get out of the way.
THE ENEMY is circulating a petition, urging the Congress to withdraw our troops from Iraq. They plan to deliver copies of this petition to Congressional offices across the nation next Wednesday, December 14.
In the meantime, their legions are calling, writing, faxing, and lobbying their Congressional Representatives, and pressuring them to release a statement on the same day endorsing the MoveOn.org Cut & Run Plan.
December 14 is D-day. We have less than one week to prepare.
To this point, I have released three sets of Mission Orders. Mission Four will be released later today.
The first mission is to Call your Congressman. He needs to hear from you -- if he is pro-victory, to know that you support him, and if he is anti-victory, to know that his position will cost him your support. The toll-free number for the U.S. Capitol Switchboard is 1-888-818-6641. If you have not yet done this, you are delinquent. It only takes about two minutes to accomplish. It's very simple: you talk, they listen. CALL NOW.The second mission is to spread the word about our campaign via talk radio and and other forms of mass communication. This is a force multiplier mission. It's not enough to take action yourself -- I need your help to spread the word. If you don't have time to wait on hold, at least forward these missions via email to like-minded people. DO THIS NOW.
The third mission is to write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper(s). This will take a little bit more thought, time, and effort than the first two missions. But it's not that much when you consider that others are spending several months or even years sweating it out in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight for your freedom, and all you are doing right now is surfing the Internet. Get off your butt and start writing.
What are you waiting for, an engraved invitation?
Dead on target, and I'll go do as much as I have time for.
For the record, I don't know that I'd call even Moveon.org "The Enemy", but at this point they're certainly not in favor of winning (they are the one who are circulating the petition referenced above).
And any resolution before Congress about pulling our troops out is bound to fail.
Nevertheless, we must stay ahead of the curve. If we let them get away with this stuff unchallenged, they will be able to bend the weak to their side. It'll not happen on my watch.
Posted by Tom at 10:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 1, 2005
The Kidnapped Activists
Four activists have been kidnapped in Iraq. Most news outlets have a story or two on this, mostly just describing them as "peace activists"
Which no doubt they believe themselves to be. And noone deserves to be kidnapped or worse. It's the old saw about if you walk down a dangerous street at night flashing a wad of money, and are robbed, you may be naive, but you don't "deserve it".
Further, our prayers should go out to them that they are speadily released.
Just who are the people who have been kidnapped?
Todays Washington Times caught my attention with this AP story:
Four Christian peace activists taken hostage in Iraq belong to a group that has spent more than 15 years walking into some of world's hottest war zones, usually armed only with notes explaining that they aren't there to convert anyone.
Ok, I thought, this is interesting. "arn't there to convert anyone" St Paul would have a few things to say about that.
The Chicago-based organization -- supported by several Protestant denominations that believe Christianity forbids all war and violence -- has sent activists into war zones, including Bosnia and Haiti, since the late 1980s. It has about 160 members around the world and about a dozen in Iraq.
The Bible is not a pacifist document, and most certainly does not "forbid all war and violence", as anyone who has actually read it knows. But ok, let's read on.
The group adamantly opposes the Iraq war, saying the kidnappings are "the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people."Despite its name, Christian Peacemaker Teams works in the name of peace, not religion, Miss Phillips said.
"We are very strict about this: We do not do any evangelism; we are not missionaries," she said. "Our interest is to bring an end to the violence and destruction of civilian life in Iraq."
Ok, that does it, I said to myself. I've been on a number of mission trips and know a bit about how these things work. I've also done research into left-wing Christian groups and know how they operate, also (yes I've looked into the religious right, and no I'm not a fan of Falwell or Robertson).
Let's find out exactly these folks are.
What better source to turn to that David Horowitz' excellent database on leftist groups, DiscoverTheNetwork.org? We are immediately rewarded with an article about the group, Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT). Here's what we discover:
* Anti-war NGO with a strong, pro-Palestinian militant, anti-Israel agenda* Repeatedly condemns Israeli government policies, while making no
mention of the Palestinian terror campaign* Maintains a seasonal presence along the Arizona/ Mexico border,
where it conducts what it describes as "a campaign to challenge
U.S. immigration policies that result in hundreds of migrant deaths
in the dessert every summer"*Maintains a continuous presence in Iraq, protesting the U.S.-led
invasion and blaming America for inflicting great suffering on the
Iraqi people
And further
CPT publications also reflect a consistent pro-Palestinian agenda, in sharp contrast to the CPT mission statement related to nonviolent conflict resolution. One example is an article published by the Global Ministries, documenting the January 2003 CPT Ohio Conference. While repeatedly condemning Israeli government policies, there is no mention of the Palestinian terror campaign and the hundreds of murdered Israelis....
Clearly, the evidence demonstrates the vast gap between CPT's claims to work for peace "through non-violent means," and its biased political agenda. CPT's strident advocacy is part of the NGO-led divestment campaign designed to promote demonization and isolation of Israel in the framework of the on-going political conflict.
Just as I suspected.
Go ahead and visit CPT's website. It's about what you think expect, they look like the standard leftie "peace" group to me.
As Christians, we must hope and pray that their hostages will be speadily released unharmed. We can expose their political agenda while still wishing them nothing but good on a personal level.
Monday Evening Update
Silly me. James Robbins writing at NRO makes an excellent point that escaped me; kidnapping your allies is pretty stupid:
A sensible terrorist political warfare strategy tries to drive wedges into the enemy society by isolating the groups you will never be able to win over and appealing to as wide a base as possible. The Swords of Truth Brigades should not be threatening the CPT team; they should be holding a joint press conference to denounce the Coalition. The way they are behaving is comparable to the North Vietnamese shooting Jane Fonda with a firing squad instead of a camera in 1972. The terrorists really do not know who their friends are. They kidnap humanitarian workers. They target journalists. They bomb the U.N. Lenin must be spinning in his tomb.
Useful Idiots
Lenin may be spinning in his tomb because of the stupidity of the terrorists, but he's smiling because of the actions of the kidnapped. They are behaving like perfect useful idiots. Do they blame the terrorists? Of course not! From their website:
We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. governments due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people. Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) has worked for the rights of Iraqi prisoners who have been illegally detained and abused by the U.S. government. We were the first people to publicly denounce the torture of Iraqi people at the hands of U.S. forces, long before the western media admitted what was happening at Abu Ghraib.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Posted by Tom at 8:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 22, 2005
A Pinko Speaks
I caught Laura Ingraham this morning as she was interviewing Jodie Evans of the whacko leftist group Code Pink Women for Pink. It was about as bad as you might think.
I've had numberous encounters with Code Pink and other leftist groups, and if you'd like to about them go to the sidebar and select "Rallies and Protests"
Laura is one of my favorite talk-show hosts, and as usual she was at her best. She exposed Jodi Evens and her group for the "useful idiots" they are.
I tried to write down some of what I heard. The exact wording is not going to be correct, and much is left out, but I did get the meaning of the conversation, or inverview. Here are a few snipets:
Laura: How should we fight terrorism? What is your plan?Jodie: We need to get out of Iraq.
Laura: Why do you think we should leave Iraq?
Jodie: To end terrorism there.
Laura: What were you doing in the 1990s, when Saddam was killing his own people?
Jodie: We were against the sanctions. The sanctions gave Saddam power. Terrorism will not end until we leave Iraq.
Laura: What about Afghanistan?
Jodie: We trained bin Laden and created the Taliban
Laura: Why won't you condemn the terrorists? I've asked you several times about this and you keep evading me(as I said, I tuned in part way through the interview)!
Jodie: What the terrorists are doing is terrible
Laura: Finally!
Again, this is not at all meant to be an exact transcript, but does catch the flavor of the interview. Every time Laura would ask Jodie about terrorism or the situation in Iraq, or for matter just anything having to do with the global WOT, all Jodie would say was "We need to get out of Iraq". What a broken record.
Last year the invaluable Christopher Hitchens had something to say about people who were against the sanctions, and then opposed our invasion of Iraq:
A few years ago, many of the same liberals and leftists were quoting improbable if not impossible numbers of dead Iraqi children, murdered by the international sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. Even at its most propagandistic, this contained an important moral point: Iraqi civilians were suffering for the sins of their dictatorship (and from the lavish corruption of the U.N. supervision of the "oil-for-food" program). OK, then, we'll remove the regime and lift the sanctions. Happy now? Not at all! It turns out that 1) the Saddam regime was only a threat invented by neo-cons and that 2) we don't owe the Iraqi people a thing. Also, we could use the money ourselves.This would mean that all the protest about dead and malnourished Iraqi infants was all for show. Surely that can't be right?
Afraid so, Hitch.
Posted by Tom at 9:14 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
November 12, 2005
Leftist Whacko Update
The folks at Code Pink at least know the origin of Veterans Day.
Cute, eh?
This was the biggest sign that the Pinkos had as they held their anti-war protest (er, "vigil") outside of Walter Reed Army Medical center yesterday evening. They've been doing this every Friday night for over 30 weeks now. Across the street, countering and out-numbering them, are real pro-troop, pro-Iraq, and pro-democracy people. For complete background, including many photos, on these events go here.
"Armistice", of course, is just another way of saying, "We want to cut-and-run" in Iraq. You'd have to be either hopelessly naive or very evil to believe that the terrorists would honor any armistice we signed with them (assuming they even agreed to one). But we see this attitude thoughout the leftist media.
The Nation magazine, the liberal equivalent to National Review, wants us to pull out immediately:
.
We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation
That anyone can actually believe that Iraq under the rule of Al Qaeda and/or a resurgent Ba'athist regime could be no worse than the current situation is truely amazing. Reasoning with such people is simply not possible. To justify themselves, they dredge out the same old "Bush lied" nonsense that we are starting to see from mainstream Democrats.
On the Nation's site today we also find Medea Benjamin & Gayle Brandeis. Benjamin is a founder of Code Pink. I'm not familiar with Brandeis. They offer their suggestions for supporting the troops:
Send care packages to Iraq: books and snacks and toiletries to mitigate some of the harshness of the desert war zone. Donate to organizations, like the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, that provide help for returning soldiers struggling to put their lives together after war. Stand on street corners with candles and signs that spotlight the injustices our troops face. Support groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War, made up of courageous soldiers speaking out against the war. Urge elected officials to end this misbegotten military adventure. Support clean, green energy programs and lifestyles that move us off our dependence on other countries' oil.
I'll certainly agree with sending care packages. I send weekly letters (with half the sports section of the paper detailing the Sunday football games stuffed inside), and bi-monthly packages through Adopt-a-Platoon. But the rest of what they suggest is just the usual leftist tripe.
Benjamin's group, Code Pink Women for Peace, gave $600,000 in money and supplies to the terrorists in Iraq. If you don't believe me, they admit to it on their website.
They're also sending "Friendship Delegation" to Cuba December 27-January 2, 2006. This, too, is on their website.
One anti-American latin dictator not being enough, on January 23- Feburary 4th they'll be in Venezuela attending the World Socialist Forum. You guessed it, this is on their website too.
The President Strikes Back
Yesterday, during a Veteran's Day speech, President Bush stuck back at his antagonists:
While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate — who had access to the same intelligence — voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.
Exactly Right.
Peter Fleming, writing on my other blog site, says "About Time!", to which I say, "Amen!"
Meanwhile, Norman Podhoretz has a devastaging critique of those who persist in "Bush lied!" nonsense. His conclusion is that
...so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq—the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy—have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.
Posted by Tom at 2:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 26, 2005
Fake Vigil
Here they are, holding their fake vigil in my own home town
What these people claim to be doing is holding a vigil to "mark the death of the 2,000th reported U.S. military death in Iraq and to say that the country’s pro-peace majority wants Congress to stop the deaths by stopping the dollars that are funding the war."
What they're really doing is exploiting war dead to push an insane agenda that at the least would result in more, not less, bloodshed in Iraq, and at worst an al-Qaeda run caliphate throughout the Middle East. AFPS thinks that we should end the war in Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences. It's on their website here, check it out.
The organizers of this "vigil" are members of a group called the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), and they're a far left group that has been agitating for unilateral US disarmament for decades.
This time they're holding a series of parties (er, "vigils") to celebrate (I mean "mark") the death of 2,000 American soldiers (and I mean to include sailors, Marines, airmen and Coast Guard) in the liberation of Iraq. Acording to their website, there were 606 such "vigils" scheduled to be held today.
Why Do I Call them Fake?
I call them fake because their purpose is to demoralize the American people so that we pull our troops out of Iraq immediately, regardless of the conseqences. In it's entire history this organization has not shown a whit of concern for the welfare of American soldiers.
Let me make this clear: If you simply think we should not have gone into Iraq, that is fine. We can disagree on this. Further, if you think that President Bush and co have made a mess of matters, then fine, too, we can debate these points. But decent opponents of the administration believe that since we are there we must win. If you believe that we should pull out without winning, you are a "useful idiot" and I have no sympathy for you.
And yes, it matters who is organizing the protest or rally. The excuse "I'm just here to show my support/opposition to X but don't support the organizers" doesn't cut it. People have an obligation to check out the organization holding an event if they plan on attending. If you don't think so, imagine if a front group for the Klan held an anti-affirmative action protest. If it then became commonly known that the organizers were Klan members, would you accept that excuse from people who attended? I sure wouldn't.
You can read my post yesterday on the AFSC or simply go to DiscovertheNetwork.org and read all about them .
Unfortunately, they're not alone in exploiting our soldiers.
They're Not Alone
Not to be outdone, Moveon.org is running a TV commercial called "How many more?" This blogger says he saw it run on CNN (Hat tip Michelle Malkin).
The disgusting group Code Pink is also calling for "action" today. Did I tell you where they're going to celebrate New Years? Here's a hint; it's an island to the south of the US run buy a guy who wears old army uniforms and has a beard. If you miss that one you can go with them to Venezuela in late January.
Of course, Code Pink has a lot of experience at holding fake vigils. They hold one every Friday night outside the main entrance to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC.
And as I'm sure you all know by now, mother Sheehan says that she'll tie herself to the White House Fence "to protest the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq."
Much of the media is playing the game too. Check out this picture posted on MSNBC.
The Right Side
This USAF major points out why the accounting is bogus(hat tip K-Lo at NRO).
The US military doesn't think much of all this, either. U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, spokesman for the coalition in Iraq, has this to say in an email to the press
I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives.
The Col is right on all counts.
LGF has about a dozen posts on all this. Be sure to check them out.
And last, but most of all, go here to find out all about American heroes in Iraq.
Posted by Tom at 10:08 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
October 6, 2005
Poor Man
Once, again, Al Gore has lost it.
He seemed OK at one point. Heck, during the '80s I almost thought he was on our side on certain issues, like abortion.
But ever since loosing to W in 2000, he has become positively unhinged.
There was the speech during which he ranted and raved like, well, Howard Dean. It wasn't so much what he said, although that was pretty loony too, as how he said it. As Glenn Reynolds pointed out, even Maureen Dowd mocked him for that one.
This time he's gone paranoid.
In a speech the other day at a media conference he said that American democracy was in "grave danger" because...conservative views are now voiced in the media.
I kid you not.
Ok, he didn't exactly say that word for word, just like he never exactly said that he "invented the Internet". But the meaning is plain enough.
He started off by reminiscing about the good old days when we had a "marketplace of ideas" in the media. Those days, according to Gore, were when Americans got virtually all of their news from the print media.
This "marketplace of ideas", he says, was "open to every individual", was based on a "Meritocracy of Ideas", and the "participants were all governed by an unspoken duty to search for general agreement."
So let me get this right. Back when in order to be heard you had to either work for a newspaper (still subject to your editor's whims), start a newspaper, or get a letter-to-the-editor published, this was a freewheeling "marketplace of ideas"? You've got to be kidding.
According to Gore, this is what went wrong:
And yet, as we meet here this morning, more than 40 years have passed since the majority of Americans received their news and information from the printed word. Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers and, for the most part, resisting the temptation to inflate their circulation numbers. Reading itself is in sharp decline, not only in our country but in most of the world. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by television.Radio, the internet, movies, telephones, and other media all now vie for our attention - but it is television that still completely dominates the flow of information in modern America. In fact, according to an authoritative global study, Americans now watch television an average of four hours and 28 minutes every day -- 90 minutes more than the world average.
Television stations, Gore says, "...are almost completely inaccessible to individual citizens and almost always uninterested in ideas contributed by individual citizens."
I'll certainly be the first to agree that television is not exactly the source for news, whether you're watching Fox News or CNN. But a threat to our democracy?
And while they may not be directly accessible to individual citizens, in recent years we have seen that they can certainly be held accountable, so Gore is flat-out wrong here. To pick one example, CBS and Dan Rather were raked over the coals for the fake documents on George W Bush.
The reason Gore thinks television is so bad is because "...three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible" for 9/11. That and the O.J. trial (Jonah Goldberg has the scoop on where Gore that that 3/4 figure. It's from some group called the Program on International Policy Attitudes). But again, a "threat to our democracy"? Come on.
Gore doesn't come out and say it, but it would seem he's talking about Fox News. As Goldberg says, "...you hear this from liberals all the time."
Earth to Al Gore: Televison is not a recent invention. It has been around for decades. Let's just be honest; the reason for your complaints is that you liberals lost your monopoly on it. No longer do we just have the big 3 and PBS. Fox News is beating CNN and MSNBC hands down in the ratings(hat tip USS Neverdock). And now we have the Internet to hold the rest of the liberal media accountable.
What exactly does Gore want to do about all this? He doesn't really say, other than that we must"...ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Worldwide Web."
As if anything on the Internet other than child porn is going to be limited. Maybe he's against letting the UN get their hands on it, but he doesn't say.
Maybe he wants to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", which was anything but fair. Who knows.
Poor man, you do have to kind of feel sorry for him.
Speaking of the Media
This from today's Washington Times:
Robert Maginnis, a retired Army colonel and frequent military analyst on radio and TV, is touring Kuwait and Iraq, compliments of the Pentagon, to see how things are going firsthand.After a dinner last night with Army soldiers, Mr. Maginnis reports to us:
"The soldiers expressed frustration with the fact that most of the U.S. news coverage about Iraq is bad, which contradicts their firsthand view. Two of those soldiers have children stationed with combat units in Iraq. These proud parents appreciate the importance of their Kuwait sup