 |
| Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Mohammed by Hlkolaya (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/no_apologies.html#ixzz27ZSxIF1N
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Time to Stand Up
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/no_apologies.html#ixzz27ZSxIF1N
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Enough!
Will Ordinary Dems Ever Say 'Enough'?
By Karin McQuillan
I have a lot of liberal friends. I know they disagree with Republican principles and proposals -- profoundly disagree. That's fine. They are decent, big-hearted, smart people. They love our country. I'm proud to have them as friends. There are many problems that face our nation that should not be partisan.
So when will they say "Enough" to President Obama?
Will I ever hear them say things like what's below? For example:
I want honest talk when our embassies are overrun and our ambassador and others murdered -- not nonsense that it had "nothing to do with the United States," 9/11, the killing of bin Laden, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda. I don't want to hear about how "it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video -- a film." Do not tell me that it was a spontaneous riot caused by an obscure YouTube posting from last June. Please. We are really not that stupid.
I don't want one more lecture on Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance. Your job is to protect our country from the jihadis, not interfaith outreach.
Why is our national security being limited to drone strikes? What about the need for intelligence? If we still had a functioning intelligence capability, wouldn't we have known about the planning of the attacks in Cairo and Libya?
I want free speech -- it is not okay that a man who posts something obnoxious on YouTube was carted off by federal agents in the middle of the night.
I don't want my president to meet with Letterman and Beyoncé and refuse to meet with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. It is a dereliction of your responsibilities. It is unbefitting and disrespectful to the office of president. Israel is facing the looming threat of a nuclear Holocaust from Iran. What on Earth are you doing choosing Letterman over your job as president?
I don't want my president to hold a fundraiser in Las Vegas instead of staying in Washington when there are anti-American riots in 21 Muslim countries across the globe.
I don't want my president to tell me that the Muslim Brotherhood are moderates, when their motto is "Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
I don't want my president to not protect our embassies on 9/11.
I don't want a president who fought against sanctions on Iran in Congress, then gutted them with hundreds of exemptions, including oil for China, and claims that that's all he has to do to deal with the threat of a nuclear Iran.
I want a president to attend his national security meetings each day in person so he can ask questions and discuss options, instead of half the time skipping the meeting and reading a brief summary.
Will my Democrat friends ever hold Obama accountable on the economy? Republicans were revolted by Bush's overspending, and they created the Tea Party to insist on fiscal responsibility. Where are the rebels in the Democrat party? Will they ever say any of what follows?
I want a president who works with his own party and submits a budget to Congress, as required by law.
I want the president to take the debt seriously.
I want to hear how you're going to save Medicaid and Social Security from going bankrupt. People rely on those programs. We can't afford for them to fail while you are milking them for votes.
Don't lie to me that "taxing the rich" is going to pay for your yearly trillion-dollar overruns.
Stop printing money to finance our crushing debt burden. You are jacking up oil prices and the price of everything that is transported. You are killing the middle class every time they fill up their cars or buy groceries. You have doubled the price of gas. Enough. Stop spending money we don't have.
Twenty-three million Americans don't have work. Fewer people are working now than when you took office. The recession and banking crisis ended in 2009. Mr. President, what policies did you put into place to stimulate the private sector, and where are the results? Any new ideas other than attacking the rich?
My friends are silent, which leaves me with nothing but questions. Where is their sense of holding Obama responsible -- for anything? Where is there sense of what is creepy behavior by a president? Obama has time for The Pimp with a Limp, but not for national security briefings? Where is their sense of our constitutional rights and protections? A citizen is carted off by federal agents for posting something on YouTube, and they are silent? Why aren't they crying like Clint Eastwood when 23 million fellow Americans are out of work? How can they want four more years of the same?
This is not what they voted for. They voted for something much better. Is there any broken promise, any failure, any lie, any flouting the law, any dereliction of duty, any divisive political tactic that would make them say "Enough"?
The author was a Peace Corps Volunteer who served in Senegal, a clinical social worker and psychotherapist, and a mystery author whose novels highlighted the wildlife and peoples of Kenya. She currently writes for American Thinker.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com
Monday, September 17, 2012
Obama's Disdain for Democracy and Free Expression
 |
| (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife) |
Last week, we learned that the White House has been pressuring Google to censor a video about Muhammad because it has allegedly incited violence in Libya. Google refused, but the very request is a useful reminder of the President's disdain for the democratic process and the principles of free expression upon which it stands. It suggests that, even if his policies were not a catalogue of failure, giving him another term would constitute a clear and present danger to the republic. Time after time, given the choice between accepting the will of the people and clinging to his own agenda, he has chosen the latter. Again and again, given the choice between political expediency and freedom of speech, Obama has chosen the former.
Ironically, one of the most brazen examples of the President's propensity to ignore the wishes of the electorate occurred just recently at the Democratic National Convention. I refer, of course, to the infamous floor vote that resulted in the reinsertion of the words "God" and "Jerusalem" in the Democratic-party platform. Obama and his accomplices belatedly realized that the absence of those words would be a liability during the final weeks of the election season, so they ordered their hapless convention chair to remedy the problem. But a funny thing happened when Antonio Villaraigosa tried to nail down these two seemingly innocuous planks to the platform -- he couldn't get the Democrat delegates to cooperate.
We have all seen the video. Villaraigosa called for a voice vote on the platform change, which required the assent of a two-thirds majority, but the delegates confounded him by responding with as many "no" votes as "ayes." After trying twice more and getting the identical result, Villaraigosa issued an arbitrary ruling that conformed to the wishes of his party bosses rather than the clearly expressed preference of the convention delegates. Most conservative commentators have used this episode as an opportunity to highlight the increasingly militant secularism of the Democrat party, but this aspect of the vote is far less important than what the incident says about how Obama and his DNC stooges regard the democratic process.
Obama vs. The First Amendment
 |
| (Photo credit: jamesomalley) |
The game never goes according to plan. The batted ball always manages to find the suspect fielder, no matter how hard the coach, or the campaign, tries to hide him. On the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities, the world and its affairs found the Obama administration — intruding on the president’s effort to win reelection by a brand of domestic class warfare that gives new meaning to the word “small.”
When it came, Obama’s moment was entirely predictable. It was, after all, self-inflicted: the inevitable fallout of policy crafted by the faculty-lounge pinhead, whose ideas are so saccharine smug there’s never a thought of anything so jejune as their consequences. Obama being Obama, when the consequences came, he crawled under his desk — before escaping to a Vegas fundraiser.
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” So declared the Obama State Department in a statement issued on the website of its Egyptian embassy. At the time, it was clear that another episode of Muslim mayhem was imminent.
The statement is a disgrace, just as Mitt Romney said it was. It elevated over the U.S. Constitution (you know, the thing Obama took an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend”) the claimed right of sharia supremacists (you know, “Religion of Peace” adherents) to riot over nonsense. Further, it dignified the ludicrous pretext that an obscure, moronic 14-minute video was the actual reason for the oncoming jihad.
Here is the important part, however, the part not to be missed, no matter how determined the president’s media shysters are to cover it up: The disgraceful embassy statement was a completely accurate articulation of longstanding Obama policy.
As Obama struggled to put daylight between himself and his record, the press was duly pathetic. The president, Politico was quick to cavil, had nothing to do with “the statement by Embassy Cairo.” An administration official declaimed that it “was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.” You are to believe the Obama White House exists in a galaxy separate from the Obama State Department, which itself inhabits a frontier distant and detached from the U.S. embassy in Cairo — except, one supposes, for the $38,000 in taxpayer funds the embassy spent on Obama autobiographies, apparently thought to be craved by Egyptians, at least when they’re not ever-so-moderately chanting “Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas.”
In point of fact, the embassy’s statement perfectly reflects the views of the United States government under Obama’s stewardship. It is anathema to most Americans, but it has been Obama’s position from the start.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Some Sunday Reads
 |
| (Photo credit: Taekwonweirdo) |
I am here to report a rape. To protect President Obama from the failure of his administration to anticipate or respond appropriately to the attacks on our embassies in the Middle East, the media has absolutely raped the truth.
Americans were targeted and murdered by radical monsters around the globe. The president did nothing about it. The White House had at least a 48-hour advance warning this was coming. It told no one. It didn’t warn the diplomats or increase security at the embassies. It didn’t warn the complicit governments – and they are as involved in this as the mobs and murderers themselves – of potential consequences.
And when the attacks were over? The president took all of one hour of out of his busy fundraising/campaign schedule to address this matter. Then, it was off to Las Vegas and back to his rich friends to shake the money maker. Read the rest here:
The Media's Rape of Reality
Remember back in the beginning of 2011 when Obama told us about the freedom lovers in Egypt and Libya living under the oppression of dictators and needing our immediate help to establish democracy in their fair lands?
You do? So do I. How weird. We should become best friends. Facebook me.
Anyway … it turns out that the “freedom lovers” Obama coerced lots of Americans to rally behind (and whom he also pimped out with billions of sawbucks from America’s pitiful piggy bank) were bat crap crazy.
I’m talking crazy on steroids crazy—and not just peaceful crazy like Joe Biden but rather hide-sharp-objects-from-them, menopausal wolverine sow crazy. Read it all here:
Middle East Mayhem: Congrats Obama,You Built That
According to Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the short anti-Muhammad video supposedly made by filmmaker Sam Bacile isn’t the primary cause of the ongoing violence and anti-American unrest in the Middle East.
In an appearance on Friday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel, Krauthammer downplayed White House spokesman Jay Carney’s insistence that the video is at fault for the turmoil. Instead, he blamed America’s weak policy posture.
“[Saying that] this has nothing to do with us or our policies, [that] it’s about a video, is either willfully obtuse or simply clueless,” Krauthammer said. “What has happened is, as you pointed out, beginning with the Cairo speech, Obama changed American policy on the theory that the reason that people hated us was because we were tough. They hated us because of Iraq. They hated us because of Guantanamo. They hated us because of the torture — he used the word, he accuses his own country abroad of torturing.”
“And he was now apologizing and promising to change course,” he continued. “We would no longer be tough. We would be loved. We would show compassion. And we would get out of Iraq. He set a deadline for Afghanistan. He doesn’t support the Green Revolution in Iran. He shows the Ayatollahs tremendous respect. He essentially protects them when they are under attack. He gets nowhere on the Iran nuclear issue. He is equivocal uncertain during the Arab Spring. He leads from behind in Libya. The theory was if we go soft, if we are very nice, if we say ‘Assalamu alaikum,’ enough times, everything will be all right. And what he decided is, the way to do that, the theory and therefore the practice is going to be, retreat and withdraw. Remember the line he uses? The tide of war is receding.”
Read it and see the video here:
So, let me get this straight:
It is September 11, 2012. An Al Qaeda sponsored mob is marching, running, screaming towards the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Supposedly they are angry about an e-mail cartoon about the Islamic figure, Mohammed. It is known right away that the organizers of the march are the same entity that did the mass murder of Americans on 9.11.01.
The Embassy issues an apology for an American using his free speech rights about a matter of deep concern. They attempt to appease the mob. It doesn't work. The mobs acts violently and disrespectfully towards the U.S. Embassy. They are al Qaeda. This is what they do.
No comment or almost none from Mr. Obama.
Then an al Qaeda mob attacks the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya, burns it, kills the U.S. Ambassador and three other heroic American diplomats. Again, in a classic al Qaeda move, it is all timed perfectly to infuriate the USA. It isn't spontaneous. It was 9/11, for Pete's sake.
No comment from Mr. Obama except terse condolences.
Then along comes Governor Romney, who rightly says, "Hey, why are we appeasing an al Qaeda mob? Why aren't we calling these guys the vicious killers that they are? Why are we back in this apology to bad guys mode?"
Then, and only then, the Obama White House goes into hyper drive. It turns out that the real problem is not al Qaeda. No, and it's not Mr. Obama's appeasement. No, the real threat to America is (wait for it), Mitt Romney. Yes!!! According to White House uber-pal, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Romney is working with the terrorists against the U.S. government by calling for criticism of the al Qaeda!
Yes, Romney is the enemy for pointing out that Mr. Obama is ass kissing the terrorists!
Mr. President, Mitt Romney Is Not the Enemy
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Free Speech? Not So Fast Comrade!
The Video Didn’t Do It
SEP 24, 2012, VOL. 18, NO. 02 • BY LEE SMITH
It was bad enough, two years ago, that Defense Secretary Robert Gates called fringe Florida pastor Terry Jones to ask him not to burn copies of the Koran, or last week, that chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey took his turn to call Jones to ask him to stop publicizing a YouTube video, The Innocence of Muslims. But then on Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney told the world that the violent protests in Cairo and Benghazi and elsewhere were a “response not to United States policy, and not obviously the administration or the American people,” but were “in response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” Carney repeated the point for emphasis: “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or at U.S. policy, but in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”
Carney’s comments lie outside the range of plausible spin, even by Obama administration standards, and if his bosses believe them—as we fear they do—are simply delusional. But they are not without consequence. Nor are Gates’s and Dempsey’s phone calls. They all send the message to America’s enemies that if you kill our diplomats and lay siege to the our embassies, the first move the American government will make is to denounce . . . Americans. Our leaders apparently believe that the way to protect Americans from extremists and terrorists abroad is to tell other Americans to shut up.
What’s next? Where does it go from here? There are more than 300 million ways in which Americans expressing themselves might give offense to those who make it their business to be offended. Maybe it’s some other film, maybe it’s a book or even just a tossed-off phrase that our enemies might seize on to galvanize support for their causes. Is the White House going to put every American crank on speed-dial so it can tell them to shut up whenever a mob gathers outside a U.S. embassy or consulate?
It’s worth noting that virtually every description in our media of the movie that is supposed to have touched off the protests was attended by various aesthetic qualifiers—laughable, crude, amateurish—as if the mobs and their organizers were motivated by considerations of artistic craft. Let’s recall that similar murderous campaigns of terror were waged to protest Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, at the direction of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Would the editorial boards and newsrooms of our leading media debate the merits of White House officials warning prestige novelists to keep their mouths shut lest they anger extremists?
The Constitution was not written on behalf of poets and philosophers and film producers but to enshrine the rights of all citizens. Since 9/11 and our ensuing engagements in the Middle East, there have been appropriate occasions during which the American people have debated how the so-called clash of civilizations might be ameliorated. This is not one of those occasions.
To debate the right of an American to criticize religion does not indicate sophisticated sensitivity to the feelings of others but a willingness to turn tail and abandon our principles at the first sign of a fight. And to take seriously the notion that all those riots and attacks are about a video, not about American principles and power and policy, is silly.
What we have seen unfold in the Middle East over the last week is what distinguishes the region’s societies from our own. The protests in Cairo and Benghazi were not really about the film, the preacher, or Muslim sensitivities. They were an exercise in raw power politics, partly aimed at intramural rivals in the Arab political sphere, but mainly against the United States.
If the reaction of U.S. officials in the face of such an assault is to “condemn . . . efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” (the initial response of the U.S. embassy in Cairo) and to try to silence individual citizens, there is good reason for the terrorists to believe that, with more acts of terror, they will also change American policies. The unpleasant fact is that the Obama administration has encouraged our adversaries to keep at it.
President Obama believed that to maintain “credibility with the Arab states,” as he once told a group of Jewish leaders, he had to put some daylight between ourselves and Israel. His administration sought desperately to “engage” Iran and Syria, two state sponsors of terror that have been killing Americans for decades. The same Joint Chiefs chairman who told journalists in London that he doesn’t want to be “complicit” in any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities now advises an American citizen to stop alienating Muslim mobs.
A president who began his tenure by going to Cairo to say he considered it his “responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear” should not be surprised that the U.S. embassy in Cairo tweets similar apologetics while it is under siege.
It would be nice to have an American administration that stood up for America, for its people and its principles. It would also make the world far less dangerous for Americans—and for decent people of all faiths.
Friday, September 14, 2012
The Failure of the Cairo Speech
 |
| (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife) |
Flash forward to today and read this little piece from Neal Boortz:
Our Improved Relations with the Muslim World
Yeah .. that was sarcasm. Anti-American protests are spreading throughout the Middle East, and our embassy in Indonesia is preparing for more of the same there.
Things are happening pretty quickly here, and it’s hard to blend it into one continuing narrative. So let’s just list some bullet points.
- Initially we were told that these attacks in Egypt and Libya were the result of Muslim outrage (Muslims just aren’t happy if they’re not outraged) over some YouTube movie that insulted (how easy is that?) the so-called “prophet” Muhammed, or Mohammed, or however you spell it.
- I think it can be argued that the whole “blame the move” bit is being promoted by the ObamaMedia in order to keep the heat off Obama.
- Now there are reports that we had advanced warnings of these attacks. Those reports are coming out of our own intelligence community and officials in Libya and the Middle East.
- Barack Obama did not attend one single daily presidential security briefing in the week preceding the 9/11 anniversary. The White House says he receives his briefings in written form. That way he doesn’t get to interact with security experts, seek clarifications.
- Actually … Barack Obama is so incredibly brilliant he really doesn’t need intelligence briefings. He should be briefing the intelligence experts.
- Obama was reportedly awake and was notified when the attack on the consulate in Libya began. He was asleep when our ambassador was murdered.
- After news broke that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was murdered by the Islamic mob in Libya, Obama issued a statement and headed to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser.
- The ObamaMedia, having already covered for Obama’s inept foreign policy in the Middle East, by blaming an amateur film for the violence decided that Obama needed some cover over his promise to “reset” relations with the Muslim World, and his decision to head to Vegas during a time of crisis for our people in the Middle East.
- When Romney spoke to the media in January the media attacked. They were not interested in asking Romney what he would have done differently, or what he would do to improve relations with the Muslim world if he is elected. They focused entirely on Romney’s statement criticizing Obama’s State Department for the press release warning Americans not to hurt Muslim feelings. In short, they circled the wagons about their precious Barack Obama to protect him from the marauding Mitt Romney.
- In the days after the attacks the media stories have been more about whether or not Mitt Romney has doomed his own campaign by speaking out against Obama, rather than how Obama has mangled, not managed, U.S. relations in the Middle East.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Apologizing to Our Enemies
 |
| LIBYA/ (Photo credit: شبكة برق | B.R.Q) |
All Presidents are hostages to events. It is, however, the manner in which they respond that shapes their outcome.
By the afternoon of September 11, the Obama administration scrambled to disavow a statement to the assault on the U.S. embassy in Cairo that had been issued by the embassy.
The statement said, “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
“Misguided individuals”?
“The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect views of the United States government” an unnamed administration official told Politico.
But the statement did reflect the Obama administration’s views as expressed repeatedly over the years. Indeed, in condemning the killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and his staff, issued on September 12, was repeated in President Obama’s statement. “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the senseless violence that took the lives of these public services.”
The attacks, deliberately timed to coincide with the eleventh anniversary of the worst attack on the U.S. homeland since Pearl Harbor on 9/11, the administration made no effort to connect them. It made no effort to explain to Americans that this nation is at war with Islam, a war made manifest in Afghanistan following 9/11, pursued against the dictator Saddam Hussein, and which the President himself has been personally carrying out with drone attacks on al Qaeda leaders in Yemen and in Pakistan; a war personified in the ten-year effort to find and kill Osama bin Laden.
It was a war declared by Iran when, in 1979, Islamist revolutionaries scaled the walls of the American embassy in Tehran and took our diplomats hostage for 444 days until releasing them the same day Ronald Reagan took the oath of office for his first term in office. He would later order an attack on Moammar Gaddafi, the dictator of Libya after he sponsored terrorist attacks carried out against American targets in Germany and the bombing of an airliner over Great Britain carrying Americans. Gaddafi sued for peace.
If Obama had announced that the proposed funding to Egypt would not be sent, nor similar support for the nascent Libyan government that replaced Gaddafi then, at the very least, a message would have been sent that we will not support governments that stand aside when such attacks occur.
Obama’s “diplomacy” with the Middle East has been a message of apology.
All this is reminiscent of former President Carter’s failed attempts to assert American power and outrage. For all the criticism of President Bush, after 9/11 he swiftly authorized the bombing of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama has been trying to open lines of communication with the Taliban instead of steadfastly pursuing a policy of destroying them. In this regard, ignoring Pakistan’s support for them has been a failure of spectacular misjudgment.
Never forget that Osama bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan where he had received sanctuary, living barely a mile from that nation’s equivalent of our West Point academy.
Contrast that with Republican candidate, Mitt Romney’s response to the Libyan killings. “I am outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
This goes way beyond the politics of the current campaigns. It goes to the heart of the fact that America has been under attack since the killing of marines in Beirut in 1983 and by the attacks on our embassies there and in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
Islam is at war with America and the West. Iran has covertly been waging this war. And the Obama administration’s response has been to attack our only true ally in the Middle East, Israel, openly withdrawing from support for a nation that, along with ours, is threatened by Iran.
We must stop apologizing to our enemies and begin to punish them before they once again bring their war to our shores.
© Alan Caruba, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
7 Things Liberals Think All Conservatives Believe
Found this over at The Gormogons:
Just as not all liberals are unwashed Occupy protesters (in fact, based on their turnouts, almost no one is an Occupy protester at all), nor do all liberals hate the troops, nor are all liberals against financial reform...well, frankly, these items describe a tiny minority of you. In fact, most conservatives would be shocked to learn that most liberals (by a long shot) think the United States military is about the most impressive thing on earth.
Guess what? There are several things that liberals falsely believe about conservatives, too. Yes: while you might find a few whackjobs on right-wing websites punching into the Comments section to leave nasty messages, these represent either trolls looking for attention or the oddball who lives in his camper-van and uses the public library’s free internet connection to hate hate hate on the government. But it saves him a lot of time from typing out his manifesto on an old manual below a flickering bare bulb, right?
Here are seven things (in no intended order) that liberals frequently believe about conservatives that are rarely true in the broader sense.
Enjoy, liberal readers!
Just as not all liberals are unwashed Occupy protesters (in fact, based on their turnouts, almost no one is an Occupy protester at all), nor do all liberals hate the troops, nor are all liberals against financial reform...well, frankly, these items describe a tiny minority of you. In fact, most conservatives would be shocked to learn that most liberals (by a long shot) think the United States military is about the most impressive thing on earth.
Guess what? There are several things that liberals falsely believe about conservatives, too. Yes: while you might find a few whackjobs on right-wing websites punching into the Comments section to leave nasty messages, these represent either trolls looking for attention or the oddball who lives in his camper-van and uses the public library’s free internet connection to hate hate hate on the government. But it saves him a lot of time from typing out his manifesto on an old manual below a flickering bare bulb, right?
Here are seven things (in no intended order) that liberals frequently believe about conservatives that are rarely true in the broader sense.
- Conservatives believe climate change is a hoax. Not exactly; in fact, this is quite well off the mark. Yes, some outliers do think that climate change—especially global warming—is a manufactured farce. A large number of conservatives, however, are opposed to the monumental reformist programs queued up to siphon money away. The reality is this: conservatives don’t understand how a potential change in climate—which they are uncertain the evidence points to, given how badly it has been presented over the years—warrants UN intervention, a complete change to the American economy, and all the other things imposed by Cap and Trade, Kyoto Protocols, and so on. Many of the climate change responses are ill-thought out, and have proven to serve other causes (don’t worry if you missed that proof—those causes have since been eradicated when exposed by local governments). Conservatives don’t know what to think about the climate, but that isn’t the fault of liberals: it’s the fault of governmental policies that botched the data, ran in the wrong directions, and made everybody unpleasant.
- Birtherism is one of the goofier distractions ever. Very few Americans dispute that Barack Obama was born in America; however, two factors keep this going: a couple of high-profile believers (whether Donald Trump is even remotely a conservative is a subject of debate), and the President’s own promotion of himself as a born-in-Kenya schtick in an effort to get chicks in school. This is one of those stupid boasts, like the Czar did when he claimed in college that he, personally, brought about the peace accord between Mengrai of Lanna and Ramkhamhaeng the Great of Sukhothai. Made up. But it got enough right-wing people to wonder, and—let us be honest—quite a few left-wing people began to wonder for a time as well. President Obama was born in America, no matter what nonsense he farted out in college.
- Obama's religious views are, perhaps amazingly, not at all of interest to most conservatives. Of greater interest, perhaps, is what was promoted at the church he attended for two decades, yes, but not whether he is a secret muslim. With the impending arrival of the country’s first Mormon president, a lot of liberals are rightly wondering what the heck goes on there, too. Fair enough.
- Conservatives want to completely dismantle the federal government. Ask any of them! Except, no: the federal government is a necessary evil that dates back to, well, 1789. While a couple thousand
Ron Paul 2012shallow ultra-libertarians want to see us back to ox carts and bowyers, the reality is that a gigantic nation like ours needs some gigantic government. But gigantic does not mean bloated, inept, and questionable. A hideous portion needs to be eliminated, gradually, to make us revenue neutral. Why the Federalgovernment is involved with so many programs better handled at the State or local level is one of the key themes to this very website. But total reduction to a standing army of 5,000 and a justice of the peace? Not conservatives. - Conservatives want to deny healthcare to millions! Or so it goes. While conservatives would love a 100% market-driven healthcare system in which a doctor visit costs $18 on average, we understand that millions still would need help paying that. Fine—nowhere do conservatives stipulate they want to deny millions of people healthcare except in Democratic ads. In fact, the only thing conservatives don’t object to with Obamacare is the healthcare aspect, which makes up about 0.1% of the entire law. It’s the other 99.9% involving taxes, commissions, bureaus, investigations, paramilitary medical corps, and more that was improperly and illegally rammed down the public’s throats that tick us off the point we want Obama retired this November.
- Food stamps and welfare are codes for black people. This trope is convenient, but conservatives not only reject it, we suspect liberals know it isn’t true, either. Most Americans receiving food stamps and on welfare are white, by a significant percentage. What we object to is the ease with which families of all colors are jumping into this process. The Obama administration is actively pushing people to participate, even though we all know that this makes liberals wince and deny it. Participation in these largely unnecessary tax drains is at record levels, so much so that we have more people on welfare than many major countries have people. Yeah, liberals acknowledge, it would be nice if no one needed these programs; fine, conservatives reply, let’s start getting people off of them.
- Conservatives want Obama to fail. No, the millions of votes he enjoyed in 2008 prove that Americans of all stripes wanted him to succeed. Hey, the Czar voted for the other guy, and he still wanted Obama to succeed. A rising tide lifts all boats, and a successful Obama could have made people very happy. And while Rush Limbaugh hoped Obama would fail because it would expose the nonsense that is modern liberal thought, somehow this has been completely warped. Presently, some liberals are circulating a theory that Sen. Mitch McConnell met privately with Newt Gingrich on Inauguration Day to plan the downfall of President Obama. Seriously. We have personally heard this theory. It all stems from liberal confusion as to who is “in charge” of conservatives at any given moment (in reality, no one—that’s how conservatives roll), and how else to explain the reality that President Obama is what he really is: an over-educated but petty and shallow book-skimmer who highlighted only what was expected to be on the test and did no other reading. It isn’t that conservatives want Obama to fail; it’s that he has failed, and the signs were clear as early as 2009 that he was failing. Of course, cough cough, some of us Illinois residents were spelling this out back in early 2008.
Enjoy, liberal readers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)