Category: Liberals suck

  • Simon Waxman: Think “Redskins” is bad?

    Simon Waxman: Think “Redskins” is bad?

    Simon Waxman

    The Washington Post can’t find much room in their pages for news about this administration’s scandals these days, but they found space to print some stupid garbage written by some perpetually outraged Leftist Simon Waxman of the Boston Review. I guess Simon was one of the millions of guilt-ridden Liberals who assuaged their “white guilt” by opposing the name of that team of US footballers in the nation’s capitol.

    Now, that they’ve gained a foothold on that issue, it’s time to find something else to make themselves feel better. In Simon’s case, he wants the military to dump the Indian names from their arsenal. You know, names like Apache, Comanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cheyenne Black Hawk and Kiowa helicopters. Also the Tomahawk missile and he’s also upset that the hunt for bin Laden was Operation Geronimo.

    Why do we name our battles and weapons after people we have vanquished? For the same reason the Washington team is the Redskins and my hometown Red Sox go to Cleveland to play the Indians and to Atlanta to play the Braves: because the myth of the worthy native adversary is more palatable than the reality — the conquered tribes of this land were not rivals but victims, cheated and impossibly outgunned.

    Don’t forget, Simon, the 2d Infantry Division is the “Indian Head Division”. Their patch;

    Indianhead Division

    I’m guessing that the names were given out of respect for the warriors that our fore-bearers had for the fighting prowess of their enemies and also their allies. Unfortunately for Simon, the military is about war fighting, and the Indian Wars are part of our history, and our culture. But Simon, to fortify his argument, draws from that great American philosopher, Noam Chomsky;

    Noam Chomsky has clarified the moral stakes in provocative, instructive terms: “We might react differently if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes ‘Jew’ and ‘Gypsy.’ ”

    Nice straw man, Noam and Simon. No comparison. Unless you’re a guilt-ridden Liberal hack trying to convince other guilt-ridden Liberals that words are sticks and stones, and that words are strictly how guilt-ridden Liberals define them.

    You know what offends me, what words I think would make my life more pleasant if I never heard again? Just about everything that Liberals think I need “fighting for”. Most of all, what with all of the problems in the world, I think we can do without pencil-necked dorks who worry more about language than they do about solving those problems. In fact, I’d like to see the Washington Redskins become the Washington Pencil-Necked Dorks, to honor all of the Simon Waxmans of the world.

    Thanks to the twenty or so folks who sent the link to me this morning.

  • “Lie” Is Such A Harsh Word . . .

    . . . but sometimes, it’s apropos.

    Time for a quick trip in the Wayback Machine – to 1987.

    Remember our current Vice President? You know, the candidate who was forced to drop out of the 1988 Presidential Campaign after being exposed as a serial plagiarizer?

    Well, it looks like he’s at it again. But this time, it appears he’s taking direct liberties with the truth vice appropriating others’ words and work.

    Like, well, something that looks a helluva lot like baldfaced lying.

    Here’s a direct quote from the man:  “I don’t own a single stock or bond.  I have no savings account.”

    Really, Mr. Vice-President? That’s not what the official Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report you signed says.  It indicates you and your wife have a joint savings account.

    Here, “joint” means you own it too, Mr. Vice-President.

    Your disclosure form also shows you and she have some other accounts and investments as well.  Though to be fair, none of those accounts are formally called a “savings” account, or are an individual stock or bond.  Instead, they’re other forms of bank accounts and/or stock/bond funds.  And most do seem to be in your wife’s name.

    I guess we know which one in that couple is interested in – and capable of – planning for their future.

    Still:  look for someone to start asking “What difference does it make?” real soon now. Like maybe someone with a net worth of around $100M who claims to be “not truly well off”.   Or perhaps Senator Fauxahontas, who publicly stated that no one in Congress should own stock – while at the time living in a $5M house and owning a stock portfolio worth around $8M.

    But remember:  those claims concern money, and those claims are coming from liberals.  Their claims must be the truth, and can’t be motivated by greed. They have no interest in money, and only want to “do what’s best for society”, right?

    Yeah.  Right.

  • How much does right-wing rhetoric contribute to right-wing terrorism?

    In the pages of the Washington Post, Paul Waldman, attempting to deflect blame from the two murderers in Las Vegas the other day onto the political Right in the country makes some very stupid points, as you might already have figured out.

    Of course because the two murderers complained on their Google+ accounts that they tried to get into, but weren’t allowed into, the protests at the Bundy Ranch they are automatically right wing terrorists. Because they spread Gadsden flags over the corpses of two of their victims, well that makes them right wing terrorists.

    It was one more incident of right-wing terrorism that, while not exactly an epidemic, has become enough of a trend to raise some troubling questions.

    What I’m about to say will raise some hackles, but we need to talk about it. It’s long past time for prominent conservatives and Republicans to do some introspection and ask whether they’re contributing to outbreaks of right-wing violence.

    Before I go on, let me be clear about what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that Republican members of Congress bear direct responsibility for everything some disturbed person from the same side of the political spectrum as them might do. I’m not saying that they are explicitly encouraging violence. Nor am I saying that you can’t find examples of liberals using hyperbolic, irresponsible words.

    Well, that’s good, because it saves me a lot of time Googling the mountain of idiot inflammatory things that Liberals tell the low-information voters. You know, things like “the war on women”, “starving our children”, “starving old people”, “Republicans want you to die”, “Bush will rescind the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments”, “Black churches will burn if Bush is reelected”, you know stuff like that.

    The most obvious component is the fetishization of firearms and the constant warnings that government will soon be coming to take your guns. But that’s only part of it. Just as meaningful is the conspiracy theorizing that became utterly mainstream once Barack Obama took office. If you tuned into one of many national television and radio programs on the right, you heard over and over that Obama was imposing a totalitarian state upon us. You might hear that FEMA was building secret concentration camps (Glenn Beck, the propagator of that theory, later recanted it, though he has a long history of violent rhetoric), or that Obama is seeding the government with agents of the Muslim Brotherhood. You grandfather probably got an email offering proof that Obama is literally the antichrist.

    So, if Mr. Waldman wants to blame the actions of every crackpot who happens to want to be left alone by the government (so they can continue their criminal behavior), I’m going to call every two-bit thief, every pickpocket, every armed robber, every home invader a left wing terrorist, because obviously, they bought into the wealth-redistribution rhetoric they hear and read in the media every day. And the occupy movement is the worst – they terrorize entire cities and even their own members. So let’s call them left wing terrorists, too. Let’s make them extremists while we’re at it, because they even mouth the left wing words, even though they don’t understand the words.

    But the argument that no sane person could actually believe many of the things conservatives say shouldn’t absolve them of responsibility. When you broadcast every day that the government of the world’s oldest democracy is a totalitarian beast bent on turning America into a prison of oppression and fear, when you glorify lawbreakers like Cliven Bundy, when you say that your opponents would literally destroy the country if they could, you can’t profess surprise when some people decide that violence is the only means of forestalling the disaster you have warned them about.

    First, we’re not a democracy, thank God. If you want people to stop calling this republic a “totalitarian beast” tell the folks in government to stop acting like one. Read the Code of Federal Regulations sometime and count the number of times that you broke the law without realizing that you broke the law. Among my friends, it’d be hard to find someone who supported Clive Bundy, but that doesn’t matter – the Bundy bunch according to the two murderers in Vegas, wouldn’t allow them into the little activity they had at the Bundy Ranch because they were too racist and too extremist for that bunch – and a felon. So what’s you’re point?

    To my conservative friends tempted to find outrageous things liberals have said in order to argue that both sides are equally to blame, I’d respond this way: Find me all the examples of people who shot up a church after reading books by Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman, and then you’ll have a case.

    Well, maybe not, but I can name a terrorist who shot up the offices of the Family Research Council because he read the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hate Watch website. Huh?

    In our recent history, every election of a Democratic president is followed by a rise in conspiracy-obsessed right-wing populism. In the 1960s it was the John Birch Society; in the 1990s it was the militia movement shouting about black UN helicopters, and during the Obama presidency it was the Tea Party.

    Yeah, I already covered conspiracy theories from the Left during Republican administrations. So are you saying that we should shut up while your side gets to propagate their own lies unanswered? Nice strategy if you could get it.

    And I promise you, these murders in Nevada will not be the last. It may be going too far to say that conservative politicians and media figures whose rhetoric has fed the deranged fantasies of terrorists and killers have blood on their hands. But they shouldn’t have a clear conscience, either.

    Probably not – there are unbalanced people everywhere on both sides of every single issue. But my side of the political spectrum aren’t trying to get your side to shut up like you’re doing to my side. Admittedly, it’s possible to shame us into silence, while your side has no shame…at all. In fact I question if any of you have souls the way you’ve lied this country into a bunch of shiftless, hopeless, uneducated morons with no hope for a productive future. Now that’s f’n terrorism right there.

    But, if you’re trying to make me feel guilty because you’re conflating my politics with those two meth-heads in Las Vegas, well, you failed. I’m pretty sure that you’ll find not much that I had in common with them. I’ve never advocated killing the police, or anyone else who wasn’t a declared enemy of this country, for that matter. I have guns but those guns are to defend myself and my family from people like those two killed in Las Vegas. If you want to tone down our rhetoric, you need to tone down your own and stop using every little tragedy as an excuse to take the things I’ve worked for all of my life from me.

    Oh, you forgot to call us racists, too.

  • Ever Wonder What the Current Administration Thinks Was A Good Example of “Bipartisanship”?

    Did you guess the 2010 vote that passed the    asinine abomination    wonderful law creating what is currently referred to as “ObamaCare”?

    You didn’t? Why not? I mean, that was a sterling example of both parties working together to craft legislation that everyone could endorse, right?

    Yeah, I know – I had to stifle the urge to toss my cookies writing the  above. We all know that’s total bullsh!t.

    In case anyone’s forgotten, the bill creating ObamaCare was passed using a  questionable (and underhanded) parliamentary maneuver, with zero GOP input or support, literally in the middle of the night.

    Bipartisan?  Yeah, right.  Bipartisan my azz.

    But that doesn’t stop the current Administration from touting that vote as an example of bipartisanship.  And no, I’m not joking.

    Sheesh.  I’d expect that kind of transparent snow job from    Opie    Jay Carney.  That’s what he gets paid to do:  dissemble on demand.  But I previously gave the Secretary of the Treasury some credit for having common sense – and a bit of integrity.

    Are they really that clueless?  Or do they just like p!ssing on our leg and telling us it’s raining?

  • More “Words of Wisdom” from MSNBC’s Ed Schultz

    Well, the MSNBC    damnfool   idiot    pea-brain    loudmouthed moron   personality Ed Schultz has made waves again.  And this time, he did it on Twitter.

    Here’s a recent Tweet (since deleted) from Shultz.  Fortunately, it was preserved for posterity before it was deleted:


    Apparently Shultz doesn’t much care about the 6 million or so members of the Jewish faith the Nazi regime murdered – or the 4 to 5 million other “undesirables”, either. And with Schultz, apparently the Orwellian process of “rectifying” history is a “good thing”, too.

    Geez.  What. A. Freaking. Tool.

    Wonder if the rest of the libidiot mainstream media will call him on this bit of idiocy?

    Personally, I’m guessing we’ll hear crickets. But I could be wrong.

  • Clift to Clinton’s rescue

    Clift to Clinton’s rescue

    Eleanor_clift

    Eleanor Clift, who claims to be a journalist, was on The McLaughlin Group yesterday, according to the Washington Times providing cover for Hillary Clinton in regards to the Benghazi consulate and the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens along with three military veterans who were trying to protect him.

    According to Clift, Stevens died from smoke inhalation, I guess that’s a perfectly innocuous cause of death. Of course, it’s not true, anyway, but if it was true, it still happened during a terrorist attack and Pat Buchanan, who was also on the show pointed that out.

    Ms. Clift’s reply: The terrorist attack was fueled by the anti-Muslim video. And “it was still a CIA [outpost]. If you’re going to put somebody on trial, put David Petraeus on trial, not Hillary Clinton.”

    Clift spent the 90s making excuses for the Clintons, and apparently she’s gearing up for another round. I only mention this whole episode because I’m sure we’re going to hear it a lot more though the 2016 campaign. Clift arms the low information voters who want to vote for Clinton with her bumper sticker analysis of complex issues.

  • Left Hand, Meet . . . the Other Left Hand

    Recently, the Department of the Interior announced it was granting “green energy” producers operating wind farms 30-year permits to kill eagles.  In essence, it was a recognition of the fact that such “green energy” programs are not free of significant detrimental environmental effects despite the claims to the contrary.

    The permits are likely essential.  There’s really no good way to keep birds from flying into such wind farms.  For this form of “green energy” to be viable the companies operating wind farms need legal protection.

    So, all is good, right?  Um, well . . . not exactly.

    It seems that an environmental group – the American Bird Conservancy – takes exception to this new rule.  They’ve announced their intent to file a Federal lawsuit over this new rule.  They’re alleging it’s a violation of three major environmental laws:  the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

    I think this one is gonna be fun to watch.  (smile)

  • Yea, Verily, I Say Unto Thee . . .

    . . . the Millenia is at hand.  The signs have appeared.

    Wanna guess who’s calling for the POTUS’s impeachment now?  Go ahead – guess.

    Now, tell the truth:  did you guess Ralph Nader?

    You should have.   Seriously

    Just another example of the “stopped clock principle”, I guess.  Nader is a leftist idiot and a Progressive loon of the first magnitude.  The linked article makes that quite clear.

    But it’s still great to read about Nader calling for the POTUS’s impeachment.  (smile)