Former NPR employee Juan Williams admits he instinctively becomes queasy at the sight of men in Muslim garb boarding the plane on which he sits awaiting takeoff. "Will their actions lead to the demise of everyone on board?" he asks himself.
Not me. I long to fly on planes where every other passenger, as well as the pilot, is a Middle Eastern man dressed in Muslim garb. I don't think of how the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in recent years were perpetrated by men of similar appearance. I am so politically correct that I'm adroitly able to suppress chemical reactions that often occur within the body of less enlightened people, such as former NPR employee Juan Williams.
The reason it's okay for TSA agents to strip search five-year-old boys is because five-year-old boys are equally likely to blow up commercial airliners as Middle Eastern men dressed in Muslim garb. After all, five-year-old boys clearly hate us for our freedom. While they're stuck inside cleaning their room, or finishing their veggies, we're out supersizing our value meal at the local burger joint.
No, as a matter of fact I do not wish to hear statistics that make it seem as if five-year-old boys aren't a huge threat to our safety. If Peyton Manning completes twenty consecutive passes it doesn't guarantee he will connect on a twenty-first!
By being forced to remove their artificial limbs in the name of national security, it's okay those with prosthetic body parts are humiliated at airports because Al-Qaeda has threatened to use such devices in future attacks and therefore the same instinctive feeling of fear will well up within former NPR employee Juan Williams after he notices a fake-legged Methodist lady from Indiana sitting across the aisle while en route to the new vacation home he likely purchased after signing a lucrative contract with Fox News.
Don't tell me you're going to say I should question President Obama's sincere claim that forcing a Methodist housewife from Indiana to remove her prosthetic leg at a security checkpoint makes air travel much safer, and that, by asserting such nonsense, the Commander in Chief insults the intelligence of every American!?
You're probably going to add that you wouldn't feel safe sharing a plane with a limping Middle Eastern man dressed in Muslim garb had he not been randomly selected to pass through a full body scanner or receive an intense pat down. Then you're probably going to tell me that, even after receiving a pat down oozing with intensity, you're still not crazy about the idea of flying on the same plane as a limping Middle Eastern man dressed in Muslim garb because the patter-downer was an employee of the United States Government and, if getting your license to drive, registering your car with the motor vehicle department, or mailing anything of any size has taught you anything, it's that employees of the government are horrifically incompetent.
What kind of monster are you!?
Then, I have a strong feeling you're going to tell me that it's okay to yell at TSA employees who have their latex-covered hands down your underwear even though rational individuals understand they're just following orders!
You will probably argue that the "just following orders" argument holds no water because if every company and governmental body told its employees they must molest certain customers then each and every subsequent molestation would be justified, and, as a result, we'd live in a country full of molesters.
Next you'll probably say something asinine like, "Despite the struggling economy, TSA agents forced to sexually assault law-abiding citizens should take the high road and resign their post in the name of decency."
Then you'll probably have the audacity to say that this article is all over the place and makes no sense. That I'm throwing words against the wall hoping some kind of rational argument will stick and that my putrid attempt at persuasion parallels Janet Napolitano's habit of implementing random policies in hopes that, when combined, they will somehow make us safer.
You've got to be one of the stupidest people on the face of the earth and I can't wait to laugh in your face when the TSA apprehends its first terrorist. And don't you dare ask, rhetorically, "How much damage could a terrorist, stupid enough to get caught by the TSA, really do?"
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to jury duty.
America has Moved to the "Right"!?
I've heard more than one raging leftist claim they were fairly moderate until George W. Bush moved the country to the extreme right.
The only thing middle-of-the-road George W. Bush did, by starting two unpopular wars, was make it socially acceptable to call our president names that would make a sailor blush.
Despite a center-right population, the country is more liberal today than it was yesterday. Yesterday we were more liberal than the day before.
Beg to differ?
During World War II we threw Japanese-Americans into internment camps as if they were carpet-soiling animals. Today we fondle upstanding American citizens because we're too sensitive to ask TSA agents to peruse pictures of the men who committed 1,000 of the previous 1,001 terrorist attacks and then instruct, "When you see men of similar appearance, do whatever is necessary to make certain they're unable to harm anyone on the plane they wish to board. In fact, instead of randomly patting down passengers, we'll be randomly selecting TSA agents to accompany planes containing terrorist look-alikes government screeners were charged with searching."
School children once proudly pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, now they are forbidden from displaying our flag on their bicycle because school administrators worry showing pride in the country on which everyone is freely standing will offend foreign minority groups that demand the rules of their homeland apply to whatever location they illegally travel. How would you feel if someone broke down your door, entered your house, said, "The rules of my dwelling apply within these walls!" and then demanded you remove your family crest because they found it highly offensive?
To prepare meals their customers thoroughly enjoy as measured by repeat visits, restaurants can no longer follow recipes perfected over time because certain ingredients are no longer legal. The next time you plan to slave over a succulent meal made from scratch, pretend you own a Manhattan restaurant by verifying you're lawfully permitted to use every ingredient called for by the recipe contained in what basically amounts to a mixing manual for deadly poisons on which your evil family has bestowed the euphemism, "Grandma's Down-Home Southern Family Fixins". I bet the altered food won't taste like you're living in a far-right bastion.
Republican George H.W. Bush won the state of California in the 1988 Presidential Election. Today residents of the Golden State happily reelect Democrats who've financially ruined the once proud home of Ronald Reagan. The first Tuesday in November of 2012, do you think most Californians will actually think about the burning cars and boarded-up buildings, where businesses operate today, they passed on their way to the polls? Or do you think they'll pull the lever for everyone with a "D" beside their name, because, despite the scarcity of food, they’re still convinced green jobs are the key to economic prosperity?
Though it's currently politically correct to call a black person "African-American", I recently witnessed a black man inform a television host that he didn't appreciate being referred to as an "African-American" and is in the habit of correcting people who address him that way. America is so far to the right, when speaking about a person of color we must first discover which description he or she prefers. If you return to a store and ask to speak with the African-American sales associate who helped you purchase a product, the conversation would go something like this:
Store Manager: Can you describe the salesperson with whom you dealt?
You: Not until I talk to him first.
Store Manager: Yes, but a description is needed for the purpose of locating him.
You: If it were only that simple...
Because leftists control the media, as well as most academic institutions throughout the United States, we'll forever be moving leftward.
Due to the emergence of the Tea Party, there is some hope we can reverse course.
However, knowing the violent lengths radical left-wingers will go to expand their reign of terror, a move to the right is far from certain. Of course I'm speaking of the conservative man whose finger was bitten off by a liberal wacko at an ObamaCare rally, as well as the "African-American" or "black" gentleman who was brutally beaten by SEIU thugs while attempting to sell paraphernalia at a peaceful Tea Party function. This begs the question: If a union beating leaves a black man incapable of speaking, do we refer to him as "black" or "African-American"?
This country is so far to the right that conservatives are literally beaten and eaten for the horrible crime of publicly supporting traditional values they hold dear. Despite the horrific nature of these crimes, the perpetrators get off scot-free.
America is so extremely conservative that left-wingers are allowed to chomp off digits, threaten voters, and senselessly pummel conservatives without fear of prosecution.
Yep, exactly what our forefathers envisioned.
The only thing middle-of-the-road George W. Bush did, by starting two unpopular wars, was make it socially acceptable to call our president names that would make a sailor blush.
Despite a center-right population, the country is more liberal today than it was yesterday. Yesterday we were more liberal than the day before.
Beg to differ?
During World War II we threw Japanese-Americans into internment camps as if they were carpet-soiling animals. Today we fondle upstanding American citizens because we're too sensitive to ask TSA agents to peruse pictures of the men who committed 1,000 of the previous 1,001 terrorist attacks and then instruct, "When you see men of similar appearance, do whatever is necessary to make certain they're unable to harm anyone on the plane they wish to board. In fact, instead of randomly patting down passengers, we'll be randomly selecting TSA agents to accompany planes containing terrorist look-alikes government screeners were charged with searching."
School children once proudly pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, now they are forbidden from displaying our flag on their bicycle because school administrators worry showing pride in the country on which everyone is freely standing will offend foreign minority groups that demand the rules of their homeland apply to whatever location they illegally travel. How would you feel if someone broke down your door, entered your house, said, "The rules of my dwelling apply within these walls!" and then demanded you remove your family crest because they found it highly offensive?
To prepare meals their customers thoroughly enjoy as measured by repeat visits, restaurants can no longer follow recipes perfected over time because certain ingredients are no longer legal. The next time you plan to slave over a succulent meal made from scratch, pretend you own a Manhattan restaurant by verifying you're lawfully permitted to use every ingredient called for by the recipe contained in what basically amounts to a mixing manual for deadly poisons on which your evil family has bestowed the euphemism, "Grandma's Down-Home Southern Family Fixins". I bet the altered food won't taste like you're living in a far-right bastion.
Republican George H.W. Bush won the state of California in the 1988 Presidential Election. Today residents of the Golden State happily reelect Democrats who've financially ruined the once proud home of Ronald Reagan. The first Tuesday in November of 2012, do you think most Californians will actually think about the burning cars and boarded-up buildings, where businesses operate today, they passed on their way to the polls? Or do you think they'll pull the lever for everyone with a "D" beside their name, because, despite the scarcity of food, they’re still convinced green jobs are the key to economic prosperity?
Though it's currently politically correct to call a black person "African-American", I recently witnessed a black man inform a television host that he didn't appreciate being referred to as an "African-American" and is in the habit of correcting people who address him that way. America is so far to the right, when speaking about a person of color we must first discover which description he or she prefers. If you return to a store and ask to speak with the African-American sales associate who helped you purchase a product, the conversation would go something like this:
Store Manager: Can you describe the salesperson with whom you dealt?
You: Not until I talk to him first.
Store Manager: Yes, but a description is needed for the purpose of locating him.
You: If it were only that simple...
Because leftists control the media, as well as most academic institutions throughout the United States, we'll forever be moving leftward.
Due to the emergence of the Tea Party, there is some hope we can reverse course.
However, knowing the violent lengths radical left-wingers will go to expand their reign of terror, a move to the right is far from certain. Of course I'm speaking of the conservative man whose finger was bitten off by a liberal wacko at an ObamaCare rally, as well as the "African-American" or "black" gentleman who was brutally beaten by SEIU thugs while attempting to sell paraphernalia at a peaceful Tea Party function. This begs the question: If a union beating leaves a black man incapable of speaking, do we refer to him as "black" or "African-American"?
This country is so far to the right that conservatives are literally beaten and eaten for the horrible crime of publicly supporting traditional values they hold dear. Despite the horrific nature of these crimes, the perpetrators get off scot-free.
America is so extremely conservative that left-wingers are allowed to chomp off digits, threaten voters, and senselessly pummel conservatives without fear of prosecution.
Yep, exactly what our forefathers envisioned.
Blame America
I recently learned the best fate that could possibly befall a Palestinian man caught blogging against Islam is a lifetime behind bars.
In America, television shows are allowed to make millions by depicting Christian figures as buffoons.
Liberals, who are adamant no religious symbols reside near governmental institutions, are notoriously pro-Palestinian.
The same people, who wet themselves at the sight of a single commandment displayed on public property, openly root for execution-happy authoritarians who murder citizens for openly opposing the religion everyone is required to follow. In order to survive in these lands, many people pretend to worship a god in whom they don't believe.
Standing up for a foreign government usually indicates a desire to be ruled by likeminded leaders. Liberals praise socialist icons like Hugo Chavez while desperately hoping a similar man or woman one day controls America with an iron fist.
That means liberals would love to live in a land where they're forced to follow the uber-strict rules of a specific religion, right?
Instead of having a core set of values, most liberals automatically turn their anger against America, particularly American conservatives, while heaping credit upon international leaders who stifle the only freedom liberals appreciate as Americans.
Because those on the left believe they know what's best for persons of every age, they have a burning desire to control all aspects of our lives. Which religion we follow, if any, is one of the few decisions they graciously allow us to make sans governmental influence.
Liberals praise Palestinians despite the fact that they inhibit one of the few freedoms leftists cherish.
Why? Because America is traditionally pro-Israel; and liberals can't bring themselves to side with America.
Because America achieved superpower status through capitalism, liberals will always view her as evil and corrupt. America simply can do no right.
Were Hitler in power today, liberals would undoubtedly assert America's oppressive actions left him with no other choice but to loathe Jews.
It's clear my argument carries water for the simple reason liberals will forget about everything they hold dear in order to bash America. They say, "A man living in a Muslim country will literally die for posting internet messages that criticize the government mandated religion. Though I would falsely claim a willingness to perish in order for such action to remain free in America, with all my heart I will back the oppressive executioners in their fight against America-backed Israel. It doesn't matter how many non-compliant Arabs die in their quest to follow the religion they deem true, as long as America sides against the executioners, I will side with them."
And it's not like liberals refuse to turn against their heroes because of a simple unwillingness to grant their citizens the freedom necessary to select a religion. No, these religious zealots are actually killing people who've said, "You know, Islam just isn't my cup of Qamar Eddine."
To reiterate, liberals go ballistic over Nativity Scene sightings on public property in America, yet constantly side with regimes that murder religious dissidents. These liberals do realize that in lands where leaders hang those who follow the wrong faith, they also erect religious symbols on public lands?
I can't imagine a leftist saying, "Palestinians executed an atheist for blogging against Islam: that's fine. Palestinians had the audacity to place a Rub el Hizb where!?"
In America, television shows are allowed to make millions by depicting Christian figures as buffoons.
Liberals, who are adamant no religious symbols reside near governmental institutions, are notoriously pro-Palestinian.
The same people, who wet themselves at the sight of a single commandment displayed on public property, openly root for execution-happy authoritarians who murder citizens for openly opposing the religion everyone is required to follow. In order to survive in these lands, many people pretend to worship a god in whom they don't believe.
Standing up for a foreign government usually indicates a desire to be ruled by likeminded leaders. Liberals praise socialist icons like Hugo Chavez while desperately hoping a similar man or woman one day controls America with an iron fist.
That means liberals would love to live in a land where they're forced to follow the uber-strict rules of a specific religion, right?
Instead of having a core set of values, most liberals automatically turn their anger against America, particularly American conservatives, while heaping credit upon international leaders who stifle the only freedom liberals appreciate as Americans.
Because those on the left believe they know what's best for persons of every age, they have a burning desire to control all aspects of our lives. Which religion we follow, if any, is one of the few decisions they graciously allow us to make sans governmental influence.
Liberals praise Palestinians despite the fact that they inhibit one of the few freedoms leftists cherish.
Why? Because America is traditionally pro-Israel; and liberals can't bring themselves to side with America.
Because America achieved superpower status through capitalism, liberals will always view her as evil and corrupt. America simply can do no right.
Were Hitler in power today, liberals would undoubtedly assert America's oppressive actions left him with no other choice but to loathe Jews.
It's clear my argument carries water for the simple reason liberals will forget about everything they hold dear in order to bash America. They say, "A man living in a Muslim country will literally die for posting internet messages that criticize the government mandated religion. Though I would falsely claim a willingness to perish in order for such action to remain free in America, with all my heart I will back the oppressive executioners in their fight against America-backed Israel. It doesn't matter how many non-compliant Arabs die in their quest to follow the religion they deem true, as long as America sides against the executioners, I will side with them."
And it's not like liberals refuse to turn against their heroes because of a simple unwillingness to grant their citizens the freedom necessary to select a religion. No, these religious zealots are actually killing people who've said, "You know, Islam just isn't my cup of Qamar Eddine."
To reiterate, liberals go ballistic over Nativity Scene sightings on public property in America, yet constantly side with regimes that murder religious dissidents. These liberals do realize that in lands where leaders hang those who follow the wrong faith, they also erect religious symbols on public lands?
I can't imagine a leftist saying, "Palestinians executed an atheist for blogging against Islam: that's fine. Palestinians had the audacity to place a Rub el Hizb where!?"
Professor Obama is Not Happy with Our Progress
On November 2, 2010 we conservatives proved once and for all that we're simply not picking up what President Obama is putting down.
You see, Mr. Obama isn't of the opinion big government, massive entitlements and universal healthcare are right for America, rather it's an undeniable fact that all three are supremely moral, while every single conservative idea originated in the loins of Satan.
One day all of us will have that, "I get it!" moment, but, until then, we remain in the back of the class, desperately trying to catch up with the progressives seated in front.
President Obama is trying to convince conservatives that only his policies are worthy, just as we would attempt to convince a communist that only democracy leads to prosperity. In such a situation, we wouldn't assert we have a simple difference of opinion; we'd insist a communist government would cause the topic of conversation in America to turn from professional sporting results to length of bread line.
The difference, of course, is that conservatives have the history of the world on our side and can say with certainly that communism has led to scores of brutal deaths while Obama and his ilk can't point to one prosperous civilization and scream with joy, "Massive entitlements are the reason those people dance in the streets!"
History professors aren't hired to teach a class in hopes they can convince their pupils that the Allies were victorious in World War II, but will happily acquiesce if the majority of students are adamant the Axis powers now rule the world, just as Mr. Obama wasn't elected in hopes he could convince the American people that his progressive policies are both moral and sound, but will happily acquiesce if his fellow citizens believe they reduce freedom and lead to chaos.
The history professor has done his or her job only if students walk out of that classroom at the conclusion of the school year with knowledge that the Allies possess the trophy.
Mr. Obama has done his job only if the American people eventually believe progressive policies alone are acceptable for a civilized nation.
To Mr. Obama, universal healthcare is undeniably right for the United States and he must convince us of this fact just as a history professor must convince his pupils that the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on the morning of December 7, 1941.
So don't act surprised to see Mr. Obama on television insisting he's going to press forward with his radical agenda because you wouldn't think twice about a history professor saying he'd never stop trying to change the mind of a student who claimed with certainty that breaking news coverage of the attack on Pearl Harbor preempted an episode of Two and a Half Men.
You see, Mr. Obama isn't of the opinion big government, massive entitlements and universal healthcare are right for America, rather it's an undeniable fact that all three are supremely moral, while every single conservative idea originated in the loins of Satan.
One day all of us will have that, "I get it!" moment, but, until then, we remain in the back of the class, desperately trying to catch up with the progressives seated in front.
President Obama is trying to convince conservatives that only his policies are worthy, just as we would attempt to convince a communist that only democracy leads to prosperity. In such a situation, we wouldn't assert we have a simple difference of opinion; we'd insist a communist government would cause the topic of conversation in America to turn from professional sporting results to length of bread line.
The difference, of course, is that conservatives have the history of the world on our side and can say with certainly that communism has led to scores of brutal deaths while Obama and his ilk can't point to one prosperous civilization and scream with joy, "Massive entitlements are the reason those people dance in the streets!"
History professors aren't hired to teach a class in hopes they can convince their pupils that the Allies were victorious in World War II, but will happily acquiesce if the majority of students are adamant the Axis powers now rule the world, just as Mr. Obama wasn't elected in hopes he could convince the American people that his progressive policies are both moral and sound, but will happily acquiesce if his fellow citizens believe they reduce freedom and lead to chaos.
The history professor has done his or her job only if students walk out of that classroom at the conclusion of the school year with knowledge that the Allies possess the trophy.
Mr. Obama has done his job only if the American people eventually believe progressive policies alone are acceptable for a civilized nation.
To Mr. Obama, universal healthcare is undeniably right for the United States and he must convince us of this fact just as a history professor must convince his pupils that the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on the morning of December 7, 1941.
So don't act surprised to see Mr. Obama on television insisting he's going to press forward with his radical agenda because you wouldn't think twice about a history professor saying he'd never stop trying to change the mind of a student who claimed with certainty that breaking news coverage of the attack on Pearl Harbor preempted an episode of Two and a Half Men.
America as an Underdeveloped Nation
The liberal "solution" to all the problems of the world is to reduce the quality of life for those of us who reside in America. In other countries, liberals don't wish to see the implementation of policies that have directly led to unprecedented prosperity in the United States.
Were they to achieve their goals, indoor plumbing would soon be the exception in Enid, Oklahoma. Families having the ability to serve their children three squares a day would be considered elite in Effingham, Illinois.
Had liberals reached their dreams years ago, thousands more would have died from natural disasters in America and around the world. People in Haiti are alive today because liberals have failed to achieve their goal of tearing down America on a widespread scale. Thanks to the prosperity and generosity of their fellow countrypersons, folks in New Orleans, who otherwise would have almost assuredly perished, now live comfortably in homes they were able to rebuild after Katrina.
Liberals criticized the Bush Administration for not doing enough to aid the victims of Katrina, yet, if those same leftists had their way, no president would have the resources to do anything other than recite a sympathetic statement. After all, in order to distribute money, the government must confiscate funds from people with the ability to generate profits.
In other words, liberals want massive funding for those in need, yet implement policies that will eventually make it impossible for the government to obtain such funding. Liberals want you to believe increasing taxes will mean the amount of cash available to Bill Gates will drop from $50,000,000,000 to $49,998,999,999, while thousands of hungry children will receive adequate food and shelter. But that's simply not the case. Bill Gates and his peers will stop hiring workers while the party in power will squander the money on loyal backers and expensive studies that primarily benefit shrubbery.
When you pull the lever for a liberal candidate, remember that you are greatly increasing the chances innocent people will suffer.
As a massive hurricane approached a third world country, can you imagine how much greater the sensation of dread in the pit of your stomach would be were America also a third world nation?
Knowing America, in its current form, will quickly mobilize to assist those in need brings an unmatched sense of relief, because, regardless the quality of sleeping bag offered by other countries, an overwhelming majority of governments lack the resources needed to save lives.
Were liberals successful in tearing down America, I suppose you would never have a sensation of dread in the pit of your stomach because you likely wouldn't possess the electronic devices necessary to learn a hurricane was approaching a third world country. Persons in certain parts of the world aren't heartbroken over the earthquake in Haiti because they aren't aware the Haitians suffered an earthquake.
No matter how much the DNC spins, it's not opinion that liberal policies lead to suffering on a massive scale. And the future looks even bleaker. The healthcare bill will lead to the suffering of people who fail to show a member of their death panel adequate respect. The stimulus package will lead to the financial suffering of future generations. As they talk about retail stores not making a profit until after Thanksgiving, parents are now forced to say, while holding their newborn for the first time, "He has his entire life ahead of him after he’s tirelessly finished working off his share of the massive debt accumulated by our generation."
Just think of it like this; customers wouldn't ultimately benefit if the CEO of a dreadful company declared, "The only way we can compete with our successful rival is by unscrupulously tearing them down. Therefore, instead of improving our entire operation from top to bottom, we'll sabotage theirs."
Would soft-drink fans benefit if Generic Brand Cola Company was somehow able to successfully complete their sinister, "We can't make our drink taste as good as Coke, but we can make Coke taste as bad as Generic Brand Cola," plan?
Were they to achieve their goals, indoor plumbing would soon be the exception in Enid, Oklahoma. Families having the ability to serve their children three squares a day would be considered elite in Effingham, Illinois.
Had liberals reached their dreams years ago, thousands more would have died from natural disasters in America and around the world. People in Haiti are alive today because liberals have failed to achieve their goal of tearing down America on a widespread scale. Thanks to the prosperity and generosity of their fellow countrypersons, folks in New Orleans, who otherwise would have almost assuredly perished, now live comfortably in homes they were able to rebuild after Katrina.
Liberals criticized the Bush Administration for not doing enough to aid the victims of Katrina, yet, if those same leftists had their way, no president would have the resources to do anything other than recite a sympathetic statement. After all, in order to distribute money, the government must confiscate funds from people with the ability to generate profits.
In other words, liberals want massive funding for those in need, yet implement policies that will eventually make it impossible for the government to obtain such funding. Liberals want you to believe increasing taxes will mean the amount of cash available to Bill Gates will drop from $50,000,000,000 to $49,998,999,999, while thousands of hungry children will receive adequate food and shelter. But that's simply not the case. Bill Gates and his peers will stop hiring workers while the party in power will squander the money on loyal backers and expensive studies that primarily benefit shrubbery.
When you pull the lever for a liberal candidate, remember that you are greatly increasing the chances innocent people will suffer.
As a massive hurricane approached a third world country, can you imagine how much greater the sensation of dread in the pit of your stomach would be were America also a third world nation?
Knowing America, in its current form, will quickly mobilize to assist those in need brings an unmatched sense of relief, because, regardless the quality of sleeping bag offered by other countries, an overwhelming majority of governments lack the resources needed to save lives.
Were liberals successful in tearing down America, I suppose you would never have a sensation of dread in the pit of your stomach because you likely wouldn't possess the electronic devices necessary to learn a hurricane was approaching a third world country. Persons in certain parts of the world aren't heartbroken over the earthquake in Haiti because they aren't aware the Haitians suffered an earthquake.
No matter how much the DNC spins, it's not opinion that liberal policies lead to suffering on a massive scale. And the future looks even bleaker. The healthcare bill will lead to the suffering of people who fail to show a member of their death panel adequate respect. The stimulus package will lead to the financial suffering of future generations. As they talk about retail stores not making a profit until after Thanksgiving, parents are now forced to say, while holding their newborn for the first time, "He has his entire life ahead of him after he’s tirelessly finished working off his share of the massive debt accumulated by our generation."
Just think of it like this; customers wouldn't ultimately benefit if the CEO of a dreadful company declared, "The only way we can compete with our successful rival is by unscrupulously tearing them down. Therefore, instead of improving our entire operation from top to bottom, we'll sabotage theirs."
Would soft-drink fans benefit if Generic Brand Cola Company was somehow able to successfully complete their sinister, "We can't make our drink taste as good as Coke, but we can make Coke taste as bad as Generic Brand Cola," plan?
Christians Killed Us on 4/19/95
When people say, "Muslims" attacked us on 9/11, liberals freak out because the word, "extreme" wasn't placed in front of "Muslims." Leftists argue, "Because Timothy McVeigh was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, we can claim that, 'Christians killed us on 4/19/95.'"
When you take a look at the terrorist attacks of the past 50-years, you'll see that their argument is bogus because the overwhelming majority of cowardly offenses were perpetrated by Muslims. If one Muslim committed one terrorist attack over a decade ago, not a sole would even bring up religion when discussing the attack. Not to mention the fact that Christians everywhere immediately condemned the Oklahoma City bombing, whereas many Muslims throughout the world took the "I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of learning how to fly an airplane for the express purpose of committing jihad against America, but can understand why they did it" attitude. It's very similar to Chris Rock suggesting it was the fault of Nicole Brown Simpson for getting murdered by OJ due to the fact that she was spending his money and allegedly having physical relations in the home he still owned. Mr. Rock said, "I'm not saying he should have killed his wife... but I understand."
Christians aren't flying planes into full mosques. If a few did, the remaining wouldn't say, "We're not saying they should have used those planes as missiles... but we understand. After all, it was primarily the fault of those inside the mosque."
The reason liberals argue that you must claim, "Christians attacked Oklahoma on 4/19/95" if you have the audacity to assert, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11," is because they can't say what they really believe for risk of losing their livelihood.
Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg recently walked out of an interview on their dreadful morning talker because moderate TV personality Bill O'Reilly said, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11."
Ms. Behar and Ms. Goldberg were likely upset they couldn't respond to Mr. O'Reilly's assertion with, "No, Bill, due to an oppressive foreign policy, we attacked us on 9/11."
"I'm not saying OJ should have killed his wife... but I understand."
Unless you make your living shocking people, liberal figures can't say what they really believe. They must rely on the ignorance of the American people, most of who don't care enough to learn the truth.
It's why President Barack Obama still has a few supporters remaining who aren't raging leftists. Because they buy his official stance that states he loves his country, they don't understand Mr. Obama implements policies that punish America.
That's the worst part of America's decline. Were liberals honest...Were President Obama to publicly say every American making a decent living is part of the problem... Were he to repeat with vigor, "redistribution of wealth and social justice are the keys to making amends for the many crimes of America."... Were Joy Behar to say America is to blame for every terrorist attack we have suffered... If they were simply to be honest, they would be shunned by most Americans.
But sadly, most Americans don't care enough about the future of their country to think critically. They don't care enough about the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to do anything more than catch five minutes of a debate and choose a candidate based on his or her speech pattern. Because the last time I checked, Barack Obama's oratory skills had yet to put food on anyone's table, whereas his policies have forced thousands to seek government assistance in order to secure a hot meal.
You can't rely on the righteousness of the liberal to "tell you like it is;" you must discover for yourself if their words are true. You can't assume, because you are always truthful about your intentions, everyone else must also say what they mean and mean what they say. If liberals want to get elected, they must lie, and because their only desire is forcing you to live a certain way, don't have the integrity to admit they're in the minority and bow out gracefully.
Liberals must tell you that they don't want to control your life in order to gain control of your life. Joy Behar must tell you to include "extremist" after the word "Muslim" when describing our attackers on 9/11 because it's an absurdity that won't get her fired, whereas honestly saying, "The extreme policies of America left the freedom fighters no other choice but to attack us on 9/11," would mean her days frightening children on daytime television would immediately end.
Never believe a liberal, and understand that they almost always mean exactly the opposite of what they say. I'll give you one example. Sure, I could offer up thousands, but will go with one I find particularly chilling.
"After healthcare reform passes, you can keep your doctor," means, due to the policy of the man you elected because you were 100% certain he would make your life better, you must say goodbye to the only physician you feel comfortable treating your children.
When you take a look at the terrorist attacks of the past 50-years, you'll see that their argument is bogus because the overwhelming majority of cowardly offenses were perpetrated by Muslims. If one Muslim committed one terrorist attack over a decade ago, not a sole would even bring up religion when discussing the attack. Not to mention the fact that Christians everywhere immediately condemned the Oklahoma City bombing, whereas many Muslims throughout the world took the "I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of learning how to fly an airplane for the express purpose of committing jihad against America, but can understand why they did it" attitude. It's very similar to Chris Rock suggesting it was the fault of Nicole Brown Simpson for getting murdered by OJ due to the fact that she was spending his money and allegedly having physical relations in the home he still owned. Mr. Rock said, "I'm not saying he should have killed his wife... but I understand."
Christians aren't flying planes into full mosques. If a few did, the remaining wouldn't say, "We're not saying they should have used those planes as missiles... but we understand. After all, it was primarily the fault of those inside the mosque."
The reason liberals argue that you must claim, "Christians attacked Oklahoma on 4/19/95" if you have the audacity to assert, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11," is because they can't say what they really believe for risk of losing their livelihood.
Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg recently walked out of an interview on their dreadful morning talker because moderate TV personality Bill O'Reilly said, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11."
Ms. Behar and Ms. Goldberg were likely upset they couldn't respond to Mr. O'Reilly's assertion with, "No, Bill, due to an oppressive foreign policy, we attacked us on 9/11."
"I'm not saying OJ should have killed his wife... but I understand."
Unless you make your living shocking people, liberal figures can't say what they really believe. They must rely on the ignorance of the American people, most of who don't care enough to learn the truth.
It's why President Barack Obama still has a few supporters remaining who aren't raging leftists. Because they buy his official stance that states he loves his country, they don't understand Mr. Obama implements policies that punish America.
That's the worst part of America's decline. Were liberals honest...Were President Obama to publicly say every American making a decent living is part of the problem... Were he to repeat with vigor, "redistribution of wealth and social justice are the keys to making amends for the many crimes of America."... Were Joy Behar to say America is to blame for every terrorist attack we have suffered... If they were simply to be honest, they would be shunned by most Americans.
But sadly, most Americans don't care enough about the future of their country to think critically. They don't care enough about the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to do anything more than catch five minutes of a debate and choose a candidate based on his or her speech pattern. Because the last time I checked, Barack Obama's oratory skills had yet to put food on anyone's table, whereas his policies have forced thousands to seek government assistance in order to secure a hot meal.
You can't rely on the righteousness of the liberal to "tell you like it is;" you must discover for yourself if their words are true. You can't assume, because you are always truthful about your intentions, everyone else must also say what they mean and mean what they say. If liberals want to get elected, they must lie, and because their only desire is forcing you to live a certain way, don't have the integrity to admit they're in the minority and bow out gracefully.
Liberals must tell you that they don't want to control your life in order to gain control of your life. Joy Behar must tell you to include "extremist" after the word "Muslim" when describing our attackers on 9/11 because it's an absurdity that won't get her fired, whereas honestly saying, "The extreme policies of America left the freedom fighters no other choice but to attack us on 9/11," would mean her days frightening children on daytime television would immediately end.
Never believe a liberal, and understand that they almost always mean exactly the opposite of what they say. I'll give you one example. Sure, I could offer up thousands, but will go with one I find particularly chilling.
"After healthcare reform passes, you can keep your doctor," means, due to the policy of the man you elected because you were 100% certain he would make your life better, you must say goodbye to the only physician you feel comfortable treating your children.
Who Wants Barack Obama Beside Them in a Bar Fight?
Because I am a peaceful man, I never get into physical confrontations. If I were to find myself in an unfortunate altercation, however, I can say with certainty that the last man I would want by my side is Barack Obama.
Unfortunately the world is a very disturbing place. Yet many Americans are still under the impression that everyone is just as nice as they are. They also believe that if we removed from the mix any action that certain people find hostile, those with whom we're at odds would leave us alone. President Barack Obama is one of those Americans.
He genuinely believes the best way for a victim to handle confrontation is to admit they're at fault and agree to change everything about their life in order to please the aggressor, no matter how moral the victim and how immoral the perpetrator.
In Mr. Obama's world, you should not confront a raging pervert who makes a pass at your wife. You should instead examine your own selfish and antiquated policy that states a couple should remain monogamous after exchanging their wedding vows. And who are you to say a woman should have the right to choose her sexual partner?
In Mr. Obama's world, it's not moral to alert the police should a man or woman steal your vehicle, because your definition of "ownership" is likely oppressive and not relevant in modern society. You considering the automobile you purchased as, "belonging to you" represents greed and oppression. Just because you worked 80-hours per week to afford said vehicle doesn't mean you should have the audacity to assume it will belong to you until the day you decide to sell it. Why should you have a car while those on the sidewalk are forced to go it on-foot?
In Mr. Obama's world, should a man randomly punch you above the neck, you should immediately inquire as to why exactly your face was hideously mangled. Even if the response is, "Because you participate in activities you greatly value," you should change your behavior immediately. If the puncher tells you he annihilated your mug with a wicked left-cross because you work hard, because you attend a Christian church regularly, and because you're teaching your children that violence is wicked - but defending freedom is required by God; even if you're exceedingly proud of every one of these behaviors, you should change your ways posthaste. Based solely on the opinion of the aggressor, you should begin working sporadically, you should only attend worship services approved by your attacker, and you should teach your children that a violent death should come to those who don’t follow the Muslim religion.
With Mr. Obama at the controls, our world, once filled with freedom and prosperity, will cease to exist.
We didn't start out perfect, and no system will ever produce heaven on earth, but, were this country to continue travelling down the path our forefathers laid out, we'd come awful close.
Too bad Mr. Obama turned the cart around.
Unfortunately the world is a very disturbing place. Yet many Americans are still under the impression that everyone is just as nice as they are. They also believe that if we removed from the mix any action that certain people find hostile, those with whom we're at odds would leave us alone. President Barack Obama is one of those Americans.
He genuinely believes the best way for a victim to handle confrontation is to admit they're at fault and agree to change everything about their life in order to please the aggressor, no matter how moral the victim and how immoral the perpetrator.
In Mr. Obama's world, you should not confront a raging pervert who makes a pass at your wife. You should instead examine your own selfish and antiquated policy that states a couple should remain monogamous after exchanging their wedding vows. And who are you to say a woman should have the right to choose her sexual partner?
In Mr. Obama's world, it's not moral to alert the police should a man or woman steal your vehicle, because your definition of "ownership" is likely oppressive and not relevant in modern society. You considering the automobile you purchased as, "belonging to you" represents greed and oppression. Just because you worked 80-hours per week to afford said vehicle doesn't mean you should have the audacity to assume it will belong to you until the day you decide to sell it. Why should you have a car while those on the sidewalk are forced to go it on-foot?
In Mr. Obama's world, should a man randomly punch you above the neck, you should immediately inquire as to why exactly your face was hideously mangled. Even if the response is, "Because you participate in activities you greatly value," you should change your behavior immediately. If the puncher tells you he annihilated your mug with a wicked left-cross because you work hard, because you attend a Christian church regularly, and because you're teaching your children that violence is wicked - but defending freedom is required by God; even if you're exceedingly proud of every one of these behaviors, you should change your ways posthaste. Based solely on the opinion of the aggressor, you should begin working sporadically, you should only attend worship services approved by your attacker, and you should teach your children that a violent death should come to those who don’t follow the Muslim religion.
With Mr. Obama at the controls, our world, once filled with freedom and prosperity, will cease to exist.
We didn't start out perfect, and no system will ever produce heaven on earth, but, were this country to continue travelling down the path our forefathers laid out, we'd come awful close.
Too bad Mr. Obama turned the cart around.
Conservatives Represent Responsibility
It's difficult for us conservatives to understand why so many liberal elites despise every fiber of our being simply because we believe in small government, the power of the individual, and most importantly: liberty for all.
If you were to place a conservative next to Charles Manson; a liberal elite would debate for hours if asked, "Who do you despise with greater ferocity?"
Liberals claim we conservatives have an overwhelming desire to make the poor suffer by not providing them with a lifetime of entitlements.
Through massive entitlements, we conservatives think you harm the poor by removing motivation that ultimately leads to prosperity and reliance on self. Yet we don't accuse you of hating the poor.
And you couldn't get one sane conservative to say they were vehemently opposed to helping those in need. While government should perhaps play a small roll, we believe charity should be handled by churches and private non-profit organizations.
You don't really believe conservatives despise poor people. You don't really believe conservatives despise minorities. Yet your hate for us knows no bounds.
Is it because we represent authority figures? Is it because we represent work? Is it because we remind you that everyone can’t spend their lives chained to a tree in protest? Is it because we remind you that someone must provide sustenance?
A kid confined to his room because he refused to eat his vegetables temporarily despises his parents even though he knows he didn't follow the rules. He shouldn't have to follow the rules, he thinks. Rationality doesn't come into play. In his mind, he should be allowed to live as he chooses, and has great resentment for those who prevent 24/7 frivolity.
Most children eventually learn that productivity is essential for fulfillment.
But perhaps liberals go through life resenting anyone who reminds them of their duties as a human being.
Perhaps that's why Barack Obama is their hero.
Mr. Obama has never been keen on responsibilities. He's never produced anything. He's managed to live the life most children dream of before they grow up and realize production is a thrill unmatched. He's gone through life perpetrating the illusion that he's helped people simply because he bestowed himself a title, community organizer, that's vague enough to make people assume he's making a huge difference.
But as citizens of the United States are seeing, he doesn't help humanity prosper.
He aims to feed the child in all of us by promising that we'll never be forced to take on any responsibility; that all of us can live a carefree life and society won't crumble. In fact, he tells us that those who've spent every waking hour developing products that fulfill our lives are evil because they had the audacity to profit from their work.
Don't get me wrong, I still remember the rage that resulted from being forced to act appropriately. Before learning the thrill that accompanies simply doing the right thing, my favorite phrase as a child (to anyone other than a school administrator or parent) was, "You're not the boss of me," mixed in with the occasional, "You can't tell me what to do."
Most of us grow out of this phase. But, as a youngster cries "child abuse" because a parent has placed him or her in time-out due to his or her habit of taking an electric lime Crayon to the living room wall, liberal elites cry "hate monger" simply because conservatives believe in teaching the less fortunate to fend for themselves instead of giving them detailed directions to the governmental office that promises to provide the handouts necessary to sustain life.
If you were to place a conservative next to Charles Manson; a liberal elite would debate for hours if asked, "Who do you despise with greater ferocity?"
Liberals claim we conservatives have an overwhelming desire to make the poor suffer by not providing them with a lifetime of entitlements.
Through massive entitlements, we conservatives think you harm the poor by removing motivation that ultimately leads to prosperity and reliance on self. Yet we don't accuse you of hating the poor.
And you couldn't get one sane conservative to say they were vehemently opposed to helping those in need. While government should perhaps play a small roll, we believe charity should be handled by churches and private non-profit organizations.
You don't really believe conservatives despise poor people. You don't really believe conservatives despise minorities. Yet your hate for us knows no bounds.
Is it because we represent authority figures? Is it because we represent work? Is it because we remind you that everyone can’t spend their lives chained to a tree in protest? Is it because we remind you that someone must provide sustenance?
A kid confined to his room because he refused to eat his vegetables temporarily despises his parents even though he knows he didn't follow the rules. He shouldn't have to follow the rules, he thinks. Rationality doesn't come into play. In his mind, he should be allowed to live as he chooses, and has great resentment for those who prevent 24/7 frivolity.
Most children eventually learn that productivity is essential for fulfillment.
But perhaps liberals go through life resenting anyone who reminds them of their duties as a human being.
Perhaps that's why Barack Obama is their hero.
Mr. Obama has never been keen on responsibilities. He's never produced anything. He's managed to live the life most children dream of before they grow up and realize production is a thrill unmatched. He's gone through life perpetrating the illusion that he's helped people simply because he bestowed himself a title, community organizer, that's vague enough to make people assume he's making a huge difference.
But as citizens of the United States are seeing, he doesn't help humanity prosper.
He aims to feed the child in all of us by promising that we'll never be forced to take on any responsibility; that all of us can live a carefree life and society won't crumble. In fact, he tells us that those who've spent every waking hour developing products that fulfill our lives are evil because they had the audacity to profit from their work.
Don't get me wrong, I still remember the rage that resulted from being forced to act appropriately. Before learning the thrill that accompanies simply doing the right thing, my favorite phrase as a child (to anyone other than a school administrator or parent) was, "You're not the boss of me," mixed in with the occasional, "You can't tell me what to do."
Most of us grow out of this phase. But, as a youngster cries "child abuse" because a parent has placed him or her in time-out due to his or her habit of taking an electric lime Crayon to the living room wall, liberal elites cry "hate monger" simply because conservatives believe in teaching the less fortunate to fend for themselves instead of giving them detailed directions to the governmental office that promises to provide the handouts necessary to sustain life.
Dems in the Know are to the Extreme
If you know what's going on in the political word and vote Democrat, you are a far-left kook.
The majority of citizens who regularly vote Democrat, however, have very little clue regarding the inner workings of the Beltway.
The success of Democrats over the years can largely be attributed to their ability to keep the masses ignorant.
Like we're seeing with the Tea Party movement; as average citizens become more and more informed about the issues that impact their lives, the popularity of President Obama and his fellow Democrats greatly diminishes.
Political debates leave an overwhelming majority of people, typically uninterested in politics, thinking Democrats will find a way to give them money earned by other people.
Many of these people are discovering that Democrats actually have a plethora of clever ways to instead take their money. In fact, ordinary citizens are learning that even in these most difficult of economic times, the only desire of the Democrats is to confiscate money from the middle class for the purpose of funding studies on why Italians have an affinity for foods ending in "o" and "a".
It's unfortunate that it takes a troubled economy for so many people to see the light, to see that, were a Democrat politician to listen to the story of how their offspring's college fund had been reduced to pennies, the last of their 401K money was prematurely withdrawn weeks ago, they were unsure if they could keep their home, and the corporation which employed them had greatly reduced their hours, the politician would nevertheless call for an increase in their taxes so those coming into this country illegally can be provided with ample entitlements, so the NEA can make sure "starving" is never again used to describe an unemployed artist, and so some scientist can figure out exactly why Leopards prefer mating with other Leopards.
Democrats don't care about the hard-working little people. They care about the little people who perennially depend on Democrats to provide breakfast, lunch, dinner, as well as the fourth meal.
There will always be communists and socialists in the United States who vote Democrat, or worse. And there are unfortunately a great number of ignorant individuals still under the impression the word "conservative" is a euphemism for "member of the KKK that occasionally misses meetings."
The media helps perpetrate this stereotype with their misleading coverage of Tea Party rallies, but people are finally beginning to learn the truth. Ordinary Americans hear supposedly mainstream members of the media talk about Tea Party events as if it's difficult for attendees to concentrate on the conservative speakers due to frequent shouts of "Heil Hitler". Yet we see little footage of extreme behavior.
Because he knows many folks are ignorant when it comes to politics, Bill Clinton recently told Mr. Obama to continue pushing his agenda to the American people, despite a decline in poll numbers. In other words, Mr. Clinton told Mr. Obama, "People tell you that they hate what you're doing. It doesn't matter. Tell them you're right. Tell them they're so stupid, they don't understand how your policies will help the country thrive. Tell them that all the free stuff you promised will soon arrive in their mailbox. Tell them that it’s not about what they want; it's about what you want. Tell them to sit down and shut up, because it's your country."
Thank goodness people are wising up. Thank goodness they're learning that Democrats will lie to get your vote. They're learning that America became great because success was based on sweat emanating from hard work, and although it means there will always be some without, capitalism cannot be matched.
People are no longer willing to simply allow Mr. Obama to tell them they needn't worry their pretty little faces, as if he's akin to a 1950's style husband, because they know his ideal civilization punishes merit and rewards laziness.
The extreme policies of the Democrats in power are harming this country so badly that the American people are finally catching on, which means future elections will result in fewer Washington Democrats.
The majority of citizens who regularly vote Democrat, however, have very little clue regarding the inner workings of the Beltway.
The success of Democrats over the years can largely be attributed to their ability to keep the masses ignorant.
Like we're seeing with the Tea Party movement; as average citizens become more and more informed about the issues that impact their lives, the popularity of President Obama and his fellow Democrats greatly diminishes.
Political debates leave an overwhelming majority of people, typically uninterested in politics, thinking Democrats will find a way to give them money earned by other people.
Many of these people are discovering that Democrats actually have a plethora of clever ways to instead take their money. In fact, ordinary citizens are learning that even in these most difficult of economic times, the only desire of the Democrats is to confiscate money from the middle class for the purpose of funding studies on why Italians have an affinity for foods ending in "o" and "a".
It's unfortunate that it takes a troubled economy for so many people to see the light, to see that, were a Democrat politician to listen to the story of how their offspring's college fund had been reduced to pennies, the last of their 401K money was prematurely withdrawn weeks ago, they were unsure if they could keep their home, and the corporation which employed them had greatly reduced their hours, the politician would nevertheless call for an increase in their taxes so those coming into this country illegally can be provided with ample entitlements, so the NEA can make sure "starving" is never again used to describe an unemployed artist, and so some scientist can figure out exactly why Leopards prefer mating with other Leopards.
Democrats don't care about the hard-working little people. They care about the little people who perennially depend on Democrats to provide breakfast, lunch, dinner, as well as the fourth meal.
There will always be communists and socialists in the United States who vote Democrat, or worse. And there are unfortunately a great number of ignorant individuals still under the impression the word "conservative" is a euphemism for "member of the KKK that occasionally misses meetings."
The media helps perpetrate this stereotype with their misleading coverage of Tea Party rallies, but people are finally beginning to learn the truth. Ordinary Americans hear supposedly mainstream members of the media talk about Tea Party events as if it's difficult for attendees to concentrate on the conservative speakers due to frequent shouts of "Heil Hitler". Yet we see little footage of extreme behavior.
Because he knows many folks are ignorant when it comes to politics, Bill Clinton recently told Mr. Obama to continue pushing his agenda to the American people, despite a decline in poll numbers. In other words, Mr. Clinton told Mr. Obama, "People tell you that they hate what you're doing. It doesn't matter. Tell them you're right. Tell them they're so stupid, they don't understand how your policies will help the country thrive. Tell them that all the free stuff you promised will soon arrive in their mailbox. Tell them that it’s not about what they want; it's about what you want. Tell them to sit down and shut up, because it's your country."
Thank goodness people are wising up. Thank goodness they're learning that Democrats will lie to get your vote. They're learning that America became great because success was based on sweat emanating from hard work, and although it means there will always be some without, capitalism cannot be matched.
People are no longer willing to simply allow Mr. Obama to tell them they needn't worry their pretty little faces, as if he's akin to a 1950's style husband, because they know his ideal civilization punishes merit and rewards laziness.
The extreme policies of the Democrats in power are harming this country so badly that the American people are finally catching on, which means future elections will result in fewer Washington Democrats.
Are Conservatives Too Nice?
Now that the stakes are incredibly high regarding the future of our country, I'm thinking it's time we conservatives stop being so darn nice.
Let's compare the behavior of liberals to the behavior of conservatives...
If you, a conservative, move to Hollywood, hopeful for a career in the entertainment industry, you are instructed to keep your conservative beliefs to yourself or else be shunned by the entire community.
In liberal dominated bastions, conservatives are afraid to put signs on their lawns, bumper stickers on their cars, and clothes on their bodies showing support for right leaning candidates.
Tea Party protests have all been extremely peaceful, except for the instance in which union thugs physically assaulted an African-American seller of conservative paraphernalia.
No physical harm would come to a Democrat that walked into the middle of a Tea Party rally and loudly declared, "I am a proud liberal!"
Great physical harm would come to a conservative that walked into the middle of a liberal gathering and loudly declared, "I am a proud member of the GOP!" If you're a progressive who doesn't believe this assertion, please attend a liberal event in your area wearing a Glenn Beck hat, a shirt indicating you've been 'Hannitized' while carrying a book authored by Ann Coulter, and then report back to me with the extent of your injuries.
Out of thin air, liberals made up racist quotes, which they attributed to Rush Limbaugh when he was in talks to buy an NFL football team.
Because many Americans on both sides of the political aisle have publicly expressed their opinion that it's unwise to build a mosque near Ground Zero, liberal journalists are writing column after column pretending that anti-Muslim sentiment among conservatives is on the rise in America, when, in reality, there has been little to no backlash against the American Muslim community.
Why do people, supposedly so confident in their beliefs, resort to lying to, shunning, and physically assaulting, their political adversaries?
Simply, because they're wrong. Liberal policies have never led to prosperity, a fact that can't be denied during civilized arguments. Liberals know this, and therefore refuse to engage in civilized arguments.
Because conservatives are keenly aware of the fact that insecurity in their beliefs lead to aggressive action by liberals, we've always turned the other cheek.
But let's start making stuff up. In fact, did you know that Keith Olbermann recently told his Countdown crew that the best way to starve a minority was to hide his welfare check under his work boots?
Conservatives, please start shunning your liberal friends and colleagues. If you're lucky enough to know a liberal is in your employ, immediately inform him or her that their services are no longer needed. Subtly make certain they know that, since they lean to the left, they will never work in your business again.
Delete them as Facebook friends, and then send them texts that say you're so disgusted by their politics that you've forever removed them from your contacts.
Remove signs promoting progressive candidates from the lawns of your liberal neighbors. Key cars displaying bumper stickers calling for the election of Democrats. Loudly scoff at those clad in left-leaning garb. Make them think, the next time they contemplate adorning their body with a pro-Obama t-shirt, "Do I really want to face public ridicule for wearing this shirt when a plain blue number will lead to only smiles?"
I suppose this article is all for naught, as even I don't support what I've suggested.
As over the top as he is, I don't hate Keith Olbermann and wish him no ill will. I certainly wouldn't attribute a vile joke to him unless he actually uttered the words. Despite the fact that he often refers to some of my favorite conservative thinkers as, "The Worst People in the World," I wouldn't even call him that. To me, the worst people in world are Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson, and others who murder for pleasure.
But it's difficult seeing the decline of America because conservatives don't believe two wrongs make a right, because we don't believe the ends justify the immoral means, because we're compulsive tellers of the truth, because we believe in peaceful dialogue, because, instead of applauding his injuries, we'd actually come to the aid of a battered and bruised liberal lying on the pavement.
It's simply sad to see America fail because we conservatives aren't willing to stoop to the level of liberals.
But, as unfortunate as the results will likely be, I would have it no other way.
Let's compare the behavior of liberals to the behavior of conservatives...
If you, a conservative, move to Hollywood, hopeful for a career in the entertainment industry, you are instructed to keep your conservative beliefs to yourself or else be shunned by the entire community.
In liberal dominated bastions, conservatives are afraid to put signs on their lawns, bumper stickers on their cars, and clothes on their bodies showing support for right leaning candidates.
Tea Party protests have all been extremely peaceful, except for the instance in which union thugs physically assaulted an African-American seller of conservative paraphernalia.
No physical harm would come to a Democrat that walked into the middle of a Tea Party rally and loudly declared, "I am a proud liberal!"
Great physical harm would come to a conservative that walked into the middle of a liberal gathering and loudly declared, "I am a proud member of the GOP!" If you're a progressive who doesn't believe this assertion, please attend a liberal event in your area wearing a Glenn Beck hat, a shirt indicating you've been 'Hannitized' while carrying a book authored by Ann Coulter, and then report back to me with the extent of your injuries.
Out of thin air, liberals made up racist quotes, which they attributed to Rush Limbaugh when he was in talks to buy an NFL football team.
Because many Americans on both sides of the political aisle have publicly expressed their opinion that it's unwise to build a mosque near Ground Zero, liberal journalists are writing column after column pretending that anti-Muslim sentiment among conservatives is on the rise in America, when, in reality, there has been little to no backlash against the American Muslim community.
Why do people, supposedly so confident in their beliefs, resort to lying to, shunning, and physically assaulting, their political adversaries?
Simply, because they're wrong. Liberal policies have never led to prosperity, a fact that can't be denied during civilized arguments. Liberals know this, and therefore refuse to engage in civilized arguments.
Because conservatives are keenly aware of the fact that insecurity in their beliefs lead to aggressive action by liberals, we've always turned the other cheek.
But let's start making stuff up. In fact, did you know that Keith Olbermann recently told his Countdown crew that the best way to starve a minority was to hide his welfare check under his work boots?
Conservatives, please start shunning your liberal friends and colleagues. If you're lucky enough to know a liberal is in your employ, immediately inform him or her that their services are no longer needed. Subtly make certain they know that, since they lean to the left, they will never work in your business again.
Delete them as Facebook friends, and then send them texts that say you're so disgusted by their politics that you've forever removed them from your contacts.
Remove signs promoting progressive candidates from the lawns of your liberal neighbors. Key cars displaying bumper stickers calling for the election of Democrats. Loudly scoff at those clad in left-leaning garb. Make them think, the next time they contemplate adorning their body with a pro-Obama t-shirt, "Do I really want to face public ridicule for wearing this shirt when a plain blue number will lead to only smiles?"
I suppose this article is all for naught, as even I don't support what I've suggested.
As over the top as he is, I don't hate Keith Olbermann and wish him no ill will. I certainly wouldn't attribute a vile joke to him unless he actually uttered the words. Despite the fact that he often refers to some of my favorite conservative thinkers as, "The Worst People in the World," I wouldn't even call him that. To me, the worst people in world are Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson, and others who murder for pleasure.
But it's difficult seeing the decline of America because conservatives don't believe two wrongs make a right, because we don't believe the ends justify the immoral means, because we're compulsive tellers of the truth, because we believe in peaceful dialogue, because, instead of applauding his injuries, we'd actually come to the aid of a battered and bruised liberal lying on the pavement.
It's simply sad to see America fail because we conservatives aren't willing to stoop to the level of liberals.
But, as unfortunate as the results will likely be, I would have it no other way.
Why Did "You" Vote Obama?
Whenever I encounter an individual who cast their ballot for Barack Obama in November of 2008, I have a burning desire to ask, simply, "What were you thinking?"
However this piece isn't meant to belittle anyone who voted for Mr. Obama, rather it's a call for the duped to reflect upon how they came about their decision, i.e., what did they know and when did they know it.
After all, they voted for a man who has ruined the economy. They voted for a man who favors the religion of terrorists, who brutally murdered thousands of American citizens, over his own religion. They voted for a man whose only desire is to radically transform the greatest country in the history of the world. They voted for a man inspired by a pastor who refers to America as the, "U.S. of KKK." They voted for a man who wants to implement universal healthcare, a system that has caused much misery throughout the world. They voted for a man who equates our founding fathers to the men who ran Nazi Germany. They voted for a man who is suing a state for the egregious sin of trying to protect their own citizens from violent deaths at the hands of illegal immigrants.
What failing in your life caused you to vote for Barack Obama?
Were you simply ignorant?
Ask yourself, Obama voters, did you see the footage his pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, lambasting his own country on multiple occasions? Regarding 9/11, he said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Did you see the footage of Mr. Obama telling a group of his backers that he had a burning desire to witness the eventual passage of universal healthcare?
Did you hear him say he wanted to radically transform the United States of America, and, if so, what did you think he meant?
Did you see footage of him telling Joe the Plumber that he planned to spread the wealth?
If all of this is new to you, ignorance was your downfall.
Perhaps you didn't believe one man could so radically change such a resilient nation. Hopefully your eyes are now wide open, and, before casting your next ballot, you will take the time to read every word, and listen to every speech of the man or woman who has won your political heart. Because the footage and the words of Mr. Obama were available to anyone interested.
Perhaps you underestimated the importance of your vote. "Everything will basically remain the same regardless of who resides in the White House," you may have said to yourself. Maybe that’s why you're so reticent to believe health care rationing is on the horizon, or why you won't admit that Mr. Obama has a deep-seated hatred for his own country.
But now you must face reality. Mr. Obama said he could fix the economy, yet he has failed miserably. He didn't say, "Mr. Bush has so badly ruined the financial system that, two years after I take office, it will remain in shambles." He told you he could fix it, but the truth is he doesn't want to fix it; because economic chaos leads to uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to the election of people who run on platitudes. It was obvious to those of us who did our homework that, once Mr. Obama's agenda came to fruition, America would begin losing her luster. Well, it's official; her luster has been lost. We'd need at least a thousand coats of luster to return to pre-Obama levels.
Don't let liberals make you perennially ignorant. They want you to immediately dismiss the words of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter without giving the substance of their statements a single thought. While you brush aside traditional conservative talk, claiming it's from the mouth of evil hate-mongers, you consider the words of MSNBC hosts and other far-leftists, like Howard Dean, mainstream. But ask yourself, what group of people most closely resemble our founding fathers? By being a good little soldier in the liberal army, you don't realize that you’re actually saying, "Any criticism of Obama is racist, we should nationalize healthcare, social justice is the key to our future, and America is inherently evil."
It's never too late to start reading. It's never too late to begin listening to talk radio and watching Fox News, where you would have learned much of the information I've provided.
You should have known that you're not required to blindly follow conservative talkers. You can dissect their words and come to your own conclusions. But, by allowing the liberal media to convince you that listening to those to the right of Chris Matthews is akin to absorbing a speech by Adolf Hitler, you let them brainwash you so severely that Joseph Goebbels himself would applaud their ingenuity.
By the time the 2012 Presidential election rolls around, about of a quarter of the American people will likely approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing. Instead of business as usual, why don't we start a national, "Where did we go wrong," campaign? Into video cameras, ordinary citizens could tell the story of why they made the decision to vote for Mr. Obama and how, had they spent a few minutes each day taking in vital information; they would have clearly seen the light. They could then upload the footage to YouTube or Facebook.
Where did you go wrong?
Did you vote for Mr. Obama simply because he promised, "hope and change"?
Did you vote for Mr. Obama because the media had you convinced he was a centrist?
Did you vote for Mr. Obama because you saw an internet video of Tom Hanks asking you to, and you really like Tom Hanks?
Did you vote for Mr. Obama because every member of the uber-cool celebrity panel Bill Maher gathered for his HBO program, Real Time, was a staunch Obama-backer, and you've always wanted to run with the cool crowd?
Did you vote for Mr. Obama because the economy was hurting and you assumed Republicans were at fault?
Did you decide to cast your vote for Mr. Obama early in the campaign, but, if asked, would not have been able to tell the inquirer one pertinent fact about the man in regards to why he was your choice to run our country for a whopping four years?
Stupidity is difficult to overcome. Ignorance is not.
If you were ignorant, wise up. It's as simple as that.
Like a football player often follows a careless play with a foolish penalty out of instinctive frustration, please don't compound your error by again voting for a progressive. Realize that, in order to win your precious vote, Mr. Obama mislead you regarding his true intentions. He didn't tell you he would ignore the polls and force through health care. He didn't tell you that he would set up several slush funds for the express purpose of keeping his loyal backers happy. He didn't tell you that he would handcuff states so they couldn't protect their citizens against violent illegal immigrants. He didn't tell you he would take Air Force One to every corner of the world and apologize for the sins of the United States.
Had he told you these things, you wouldn't have voted for him. He played you.
Yet, many of us knew the words he used while debating Senator McCain were empty. We had seen footage, often grainy, of him speaking about his true intentions for the United States of America, and knew those words contradicted the ones he used while speaking to the masses.
We weren't fooled.
Why were you?
Please, learn from your mistake.
Don't be embarrassed.
Don't be ashamed.
We all have stories of how one unwise act led to many future decisions thoughtfully based on extensive fact gathering.
Perhaps your story could help someone refrain from erring similarly.
Please, our country hangs in the balance.
However this piece isn't meant to belittle anyone who voted for Mr. Obama, rather it's a call for the duped to reflect upon how they came about their decision, i.e., what did they know and when did they know it.
After all, they voted for a man who has ruined the economy. They voted for a man who favors the religion of terrorists, who brutally murdered thousands of American citizens, over his own religion. They voted for a man whose only desire is to radically transform the greatest country in the history of the world. They voted for a man inspired by a pastor who refers to America as the, "U.S. of KKK." They voted for a man who wants to implement universal healthcare, a system that has caused much misery throughout the world. They voted for a man who equates our founding fathers to the men who ran Nazi Germany. They voted for a man who is suing a state for the egregious sin of trying to protect their own citizens from violent deaths at the hands of illegal immigrants.
What failing in your life caused you to vote for Barack Obama?
Were you simply ignorant?
Ask yourself, Obama voters, did you see the footage his pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, lambasting his own country on multiple occasions? Regarding 9/11, he said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Did you see the footage of Mr. Obama telling a group of his backers that he had a burning desire to witness the eventual passage of universal healthcare?
Did you hear him say he wanted to radically transform the United States of America, and, if so, what did you think he meant?
Did you see footage of him telling Joe the Plumber that he planned to spread the wealth?
If all of this is new to you, ignorance was your downfall.
Perhaps you didn't believe one man could so radically change such a resilient nation. Hopefully your eyes are now wide open, and, before casting your next ballot, you will take the time to read every word, and listen to every speech of the man or woman who has won your political heart. Because the footage and the words of Mr. Obama were available to anyone interested.
Perhaps you underestimated the importance of your vote. "Everything will basically remain the same regardless of who resides in the White House," you may have said to yourself. Maybe that’s why you're so reticent to believe health care rationing is on the horizon, or why you won't admit that Mr. Obama has a deep-seated hatred for his own country.
But now you must face reality. Mr. Obama said he could fix the economy, yet he has failed miserably. He didn't say, "Mr. Bush has so badly ruined the financial system that, two years after I take office, it will remain in shambles." He told you he could fix it, but the truth is he doesn't want to fix it; because economic chaos leads to uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to the election of people who run on platitudes. It was obvious to those of us who did our homework that, once Mr. Obama's agenda came to fruition, America would begin losing her luster. Well, it's official; her luster has been lost. We'd need at least a thousand coats of luster to return to pre-Obama levels.
Don't let liberals make you perennially ignorant. They want you to immediately dismiss the words of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter without giving the substance of their statements a single thought. While you brush aside traditional conservative talk, claiming it's from the mouth of evil hate-mongers, you consider the words of MSNBC hosts and other far-leftists, like Howard Dean, mainstream. But ask yourself, what group of people most closely resemble our founding fathers? By being a good little soldier in the liberal army, you don't realize that you’re actually saying, "Any criticism of Obama is racist, we should nationalize healthcare, social justice is the key to our future, and America is inherently evil."
It's never too late to start reading. It's never too late to begin listening to talk radio and watching Fox News, where you would have learned much of the information I've provided.
You should have known that you're not required to blindly follow conservative talkers. You can dissect their words and come to your own conclusions. But, by allowing the liberal media to convince you that listening to those to the right of Chris Matthews is akin to absorbing a speech by Adolf Hitler, you let them brainwash you so severely that Joseph Goebbels himself would applaud their ingenuity.
By the time the 2012 Presidential election rolls around, about of a quarter of the American people will likely approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing. Instead of business as usual, why don't we start a national, "Where did we go wrong," campaign? Into video cameras, ordinary citizens could tell the story of why they made the decision to vote for Mr. Obama and how, had they spent a few minutes each day taking in vital information; they would have clearly seen the light. They could then upload the footage to YouTube or Facebook.
Where did you go wrong?
Did you vote for Mr. Obama simply because he promised, "hope and change"?
Did you vote for Mr. Obama because the media had you convinced he was a centrist?
Did you vote for Mr. Obama because you saw an internet video of Tom Hanks asking you to, and you really like Tom Hanks?
Did you vote for Mr. Obama because every member of the uber-cool celebrity panel Bill Maher gathered for his HBO program, Real Time, was a staunch Obama-backer, and you've always wanted to run with the cool crowd?
Did you vote for Mr. Obama because the economy was hurting and you assumed Republicans were at fault?
Did you decide to cast your vote for Mr. Obama early in the campaign, but, if asked, would not have been able to tell the inquirer one pertinent fact about the man in regards to why he was your choice to run our country for a whopping four years?
Stupidity is difficult to overcome. Ignorance is not.
If you were ignorant, wise up. It's as simple as that.
Like a football player often follows a careless play with a foolish penalty out of instinctive frustration, please don't compound your error by again voting for a progressive. Realize that, in order to win your precious vote, Mr. Obama mislead you regarding his true intentions. He didn't tell you he would ignore the polls and force through health care. He didn't tell you that he would set up several slush funds for the express purpose of keeping his loyal backers happy. He didn't tell you that he would handcuff states so they couldn't protect their citizens against violent illegal immigrants. He didn't tell you he would take Air Force One to every corner of the world and apologize for the sins of the United States.
Had he told you these things, you wouldn't have voted for him. He played you.
Yet, many of us knew the words he used while debating Senator McCain were empty. We had seen footage, often grainy, of him speaking about his true intentions for the United States of America, and knew those words contradicted the ones he used while speaking to the masses.
We weren't fooled.
Why were you?
Please, learn from your mistake.
Don't be embarrassed.
Don't be ashamed.
We all have stories of how one unwise act led to many future decisions thoughtfully based on extensive fact gathering.
Perhaps your story could help someone refrain from erring similarly.
Please, our country hangs in the balance.
The Liberal Mentality
The fact that liberals dominate the entertainment industry is amusing.
Mention conservatives to a showbiz professional and they'll likely throw a hissy fit.
Yet, when you compare behavior they consider acceptable with the policies of conservatives...
Let's take David Letterman... The supposedly monogamous Mr. Letterman used his immense power and fame to sleep with many young female underlings, while, during his nightly chat-fest, routinely criticizing Republicans for being disgraceful enough to attempt to lower the taxes of gainfully employed Americans attempting to raise their children while not letting money issues become a burden on their faithful relationships.
The liberal says, "I'm for policies that help the poor. Tax the rich! Damn the swine who feel otherwise! Now, please have someone from HR line up the most well endowed female interns because I have the house to myself for the majority of the evening as my domestic partner is planning to spend the next few hours back-to-school shopping with our kid."
To liberals, no behavior that directly hurts a fellow human being is wrong. Cheating on your wife is not necessarily a sin in the eyes of the liberal. However, when everyone is left to fend for themselves, they find utterly unacceptable the pain that eventually finds underachievers.
The liberal says, "With counseling, my wife will get over the few games of grab-ass I played with at least one dame from every school in the Southeastern Conference, but forcing a couch potato to watch his go-getting neighbor drive a fancy car is an injustice by which I cannot abide!"
Liberals believe that admitted statutory rapist Roman Polanski should be cleared of all charges despite the fact that he has never been punished for the vile act he committed upon a child.
Their attitude indicates liberals would eagerly endorse a plan to parade a group of prepubescent teens and low-level employees in front of comedians, directors, actors and Hollywood executives so that the industry giants may have their way with them.
If any of you perverts out there ever get nabbed in a Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator sting, your best bet is to answer Chris Hansen's questions regarding the audacity of your actions with, "For most people, soliciting sex with an underage girl is morally reprehensible, but I direct really well."
Liberal elites believe that as long as they stand up for policies that assist an overwhelming majority of the population, it’s okay to use a few as sex slaves.
It's like how Al Gore sees nothing wrong with flying around in private jets while telling us to read in the dark.
As long as Mr. Letterman champions policies that will help the everyday slacker focus every waking moment on "World of Warcraft," liberals deem it okay for the one-time-funnyman to make sexual advances to recent college grads whose fathers didn’t dream their little girls would have been safer taking a job traveling around Tijuana on a Girls Gone Wild bus asking the daughters of drug kingpins to lift up their shirts for the camera.
I don't see why anyone would proudly stand with Democrats when no sane parent would allow their teenage daughter within a hundred yards of most male leftists. Not ones in the entertainment industry, or the political arena.
Because of his nefarious relationship with an intern, not Bill Clinton.
Due to his alleged propositioning of multiple masseuses, not Al Gore.
Because he enjoys sleeping with young underlings, not David Letterman.
Because he has trouble making connections with women his own age, not Roman Polanski.
It's sad to say, but if I were forced to allow my teenage daughter to fraternize with one male liberal for an extended period of time, I would probably choose William Ayers. At least it's been a few years since he tried to blow up a police officer...
Mention conservatives to a showbiz professional and they'll likely throw a hissy fit.
Yet, when you compare behavior they consider acceptable with the policies of conservatives...
Let's take David Letterman... The supposedly monogamous Mr. Letterman used his immense power and fame to sleep with many young female underlings, while, during his nightly chat-fest, routinely criticizing Republicans for being disgraceful enough to attempt to lower the taxes of gainfully employed Americans attempting to raise their children while not letting money issues become a burden on their faithful relationships.
The liberal says, "I'm for policies that help the poor. Tax the rich! Damn the swine who feel otherwise! Now, please have someone from HR line up the most well endowed female interns because I have the house to myself for the majority of the evening as my domestic partner is planning to spend the next few hours back-to-school shopping with our kid."
To liberals, no behavior that directly hurts a fellow human being is wrong. Cheating on your wife is not necessarily a sin in the eyes of the liberal. However, when everyone is left to fend for themselves, they find utterly unacceptable the pain that eventually finds underachievers.
The liberal says, "With counseling, my wife will get over the few games of grab-ass I played with at least one dame from every school in the Southeastern Conference, but forcing a couch potato to watch his go-getting neighbor drive a fancy car is an injustice by which I cannot abide!"
Liberals believe that admitted statutory rapist Roman Polanski should be cleared of all charges despite the fact that he has never been punished for the vile act he committed upon a child.
Their attitude indicates liberals would eagerly endorse a plan to parade a group of prepubescent teens and low-level employees in front of comedians, directors, actors and Hollywood executives so that the industry giants may have their way with them.
If any of you perverts out there ever get nabbed in a Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator sting, your best bet is to answer Chris Hansen's questions regarding the audacity of your actions with, "For most people, soliciting sex with an underage girl is morally reprehensible, but I direct really well."
Liberal elites believe that as long as they stand up for policies that assist an overwhelming majority of the population, it’s okay to use a few as sex slaves.
It's like how Al Gore sees nothing wrong with flying around in private jets while telling us to read in the dark.
As long as Mr. Letterman champions policies that will help the everyday slacker focus every waking moment on "World of Warcraft," liberals deem it okay for the one-time-funnyman to make sexual advances to recent college grads whose fathers didn’t dream their little girls would have been safer taking a job traveling around Tijuana on a Girls Gone Wild bus asking the daughters of drug kingpins to lift up their shirts for the camera.
I don't see why anyone would proudly stand with Democrats when no sane parent would allow their teenage daughter within a hundred yards of most male leftists. Not ones in the entertainment industry, or the political arena.
Because of his nefarious relationship with an intern, not Bill Clinton.
Due to his alleged propositioning of multiple masseuses, not Al Gore.
Because he enjoys sleeping with young underlings, not David Letterman.
Because he has trouble making connections with women his own age, not Roman Polanski.
It's sad to say, but if I were forced to allow my teenage daughter to fraternize with one male liberal for an extended period of time, I would probably choose William Ayers. At least it's been a few years since he tried to blow up a police officer...
What to Exchange for American Lives
Some things are worth exchanging for American lives. It's acceptable that many of our beloved countrypersons have nobly paid the ultimate price in exchange for us retaining the ability to live in homes that are not searched daily by uniformed members of the military.
Despite the feelings of liberals, American lives are not worth sacrificing in exchange for Arab men retaining their ability to quickly pass through airport security without irrationally feeling violated by having to spend five extra minutes with members of the TSA.
Rational Arab men understand that because the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by those with similar vibes, extra scrutiny at security checkpoints is a good thing, for they too want to make it home to see their families.
Liberals have decided American lives are worth sacrificing in exchange for illegal immigrants retaining the peace of mind that comes with police officers being powerless to expel them from the land in which they have no right to be.
Most legal immigrants understand that because illegal immigration is a tremendous burden on our resources, and has led to the violent deaths of many honorable citizens, it desperately needs to be stopped.
Liberals who oppose Arizona's new immigration law are pretending that Hispanic looking individuals will be harassed by police at random when the law clearly states the preceding action is illegal and immigration status will only come into play if another crime is being investigated. In other words, liberals can't even be truthful when the lives of innocent Arizonans are in constant jeopardy.
There are countless examples of liberals putting the lives of their countrymen at risk in exchange for the rights of criminals; regardless of whether the criminal has illegally crossed the border seeking a better life, or is plotting to murder thousands of innocent children.
"Because the policies of America led to the oppression of the undocumented criminal or Al-Qaeda member, we should make great sacrifices so that they can achieve their goals," the liberal proudly states knowing that the odds of anyone in their family being killed are astronomically small.
Regarding the lawsuit brought by the Obama Administration seeking to stop Arizona's new immigration law; a law implemented by the Grand Canyon State in an attempt to simply enforce what's already on the Federal books, let's look at best case scenarios...
If Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is victorious and her new immigration law is enforced, fewer illegal aliens will cross our border and, because immigration status will be questioned during the investigation of crimes, more illegal aliens who commit crimes other than crossing the border illegally will be deported. Therefore the chances of innocent Arizonans being killed decrease.
If President Obama wins the lawsuit and Arizona's new immigration law is struck down, criminal illegal aliens will have a much greater chance of remaining in the country. Therefore the odds of innocent Arizonans being killed increase - such as the rancher recently gunned down on his own property by an illegal alien.
To liberals, innocent Americans are like insects in the homes of vile criminals. We must be squashed so they can exist in comfort.
Despite the feelings of liberals, American lives are not worth sacrificing in exchange for Arab men retaining their ability to quickly pass through airport security without irrationally feeling violated by having to spend five extra minutes with members of the TSA.
Rational Arab men understand that because the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by those with similar vibes, extra scrutiny at security checkpoints is a good thing, for they too want to make it home to see their families.
Liberals have decided American lives are worth sacrificing in exchange for illegal immigrants retaining the peace of mind that comes with police officers being powerless to expel them from the land in which they have no right to be.
Most legal immigrants understand that because illegal immigration is a tremendous burden on our resources, and has led to the violent deaths of many honorable citizens, it desperately needs to be stopped.
Liberals who oppose Arizona's new immigration law are pretending that Hispanic looking individuals will be harassed by police at random when the law clearly states the preceding action is illegal and immigration status will only come into play if another crime is being investigated. In other words, liberals can't even be truthful when the lives of innocent Arizonans are in constant jeopardy.
There are countless examples of liberals putting the lives of their countrymen at risk in exchange for the rights of criminals; regardless of whether the criminal has illegally crossed the border seeking a better life, or is plotting to murder thousands of innocent children.
"Because the policies of America led to the oppression of the undocumented criminal or Al-Qaeda member, we should make great sacrifices so that they can achieve their goals," the liberal proudly states knowing that the odds of anyone in their family being killed are astronomically small.
Regarding the lawsuit brought by the Obama Administration seeking to stop Arizona's new immigration law; a law implemented by the Grand Canyon State in an attempt to simply enforce what's already on the Federal books, let's look at best case scenarios...
If Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is victorious and her new immigration law is enforced, fewer illegal aliens will cross our border and, because immigration status will be questioned during the investigation of crimes, more illegal aliens who commit crimes other than crossing the border illegally will be deported. Therefore the chances of innocent Arizonans being killed decrease.
If President Obama wins the lawsuit and Arizona's new immigration law is struck down, criminal illegal aliens will have a much greater chance of remaining in the country. Therefore the odds of innocent Arizonans being killed increase - such as the rancher recently gunned down on his own property by an illegal alien.
To liberals, innocent Americans are like insects in the homes of vile criminals. We must be squashed so they can exist in comfort.
We're Proud Weaklings
It doesn't amaze me that most Europeans are weak.
It doesn't amaze me that most Europeans curtsy to radical Muslims in hopes said show of respect will allow them to survive another day.
What amazes me is that most Europeans take great pride in their cowardice.
Many Europeans insist that Muslims, who have taken up residence in their land, be allowed to ignore the laws of their specific countries in favor of the strict Muslim law of Sharia.
I bet most Europeans favor Muslim immigrants having the right to abide by Sharia wherever their travel takes them; regardless the religion of the person with whom they're dealing.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear a European male say to his Muslim peer, "If you abide by Sharia and my wife has the audacity to look you in the eye with her face uncovered, you have the right to beat her like the dog that she is."
Of course America has her share of individuals who desire a fundamental transformation of their country in hopes of appeasing radical Muslims who behave in ways that would otherwise disgust them to their very core.
"They treat women as second class citizens and execute homosexuals; how repulsive... Oh, they're members of an underdog religion hailing from lands with a standard of living well below ours, why let's assist them in spreading their lifestyle across the entire world," the American liberal says.
Who knows whether their weakness stems from a desire to stay alive, or from a desire to break down anyone who has achieved success through merit...
I can't imagine being proud of my willingness to bow down to those who live lives of disgrace. Radical Islamists have only one desire, and that is to convert every human being in the world to their religion. Christian conservative Americans joke about converting all Muslims to Christianity in order to further world peace and are therefore labeled hate mongers, yet we're supposed to actively work to understand why Muslim extremists have the desire to spread their religion throughout humanity and even help them achieve their wicked goals.
U.S. President Barack Obama built his administration around weakness. Europeans respect his frailty as evidenced by his high approval rating across the pond. They respect a world leader who bows at the feet of his peers because they too look for ways to publicly display their spinelessness. They respect a world leader who shows admiration for a fellow president that calls for the annihilation of Israel because they too believe in the destruction of countries that promote liberty and defend their own borders from harmful intruders.
Europeans respect anyone lacking self-respect.
Going to bed at night with a feeling of pride due to the tasks I've accomplished is one of the greatest joys I regularly experience in life. I can't understand how satisfaction arises from thoughts of how you've allowed people, whose behavior you deem inappropriate, to dictate your agenda.
I suppose when you have no desire to achieve success, you are prone to allowing others to run your world. "As long as you keep the funds coming, I'll do anything you ask," is the stance taken by most Europeans. Now that the money has dried up, and the amount of funds has been reduced, and the amount of work required to receive said funds has been increased, those same Europeans are showing their displeasure by smashing bricks through storefront windows.
Most Europeans are children. "We'll do our chores for an allowance. If the allowance is reduced or you add washing windows to our itinerary we will embarrass you horrifically next time we visit the supermarket."
Most Europeans are cowards. "Because I allow people, who make it their mission in life to kill the children of folks who follow a different religion, to be my moral compass, I proudly declared that wrong is right."
It doesn't amaze me that most Europeans curtsy to radical Muslims in hopes said show of respect will allow them to survive another day.
What amazes me is that most Europeans take great pride in their cowardice.
Many Europeans insist that Muslims, who have taken up residence in their land, be allowed to ignore the laws of their specific countries in favor of the strict Muslim law of Sharia.
I bet most Europeans favor Muslim immigrants having the right to abide by Sharia wherever their travel takes them; regardless the religion of the person with whom they're dealing.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear a European male say to his Muslim peer, "If you abide by Sharia and my wife has the audacity to look you in the eye with her face uncovered, you have the right to beat her like the dog that she is."
Of course America has her share of individuals who desire a fundamental transformation of their country in hopes of appeasing radical Muslims who behave in ways that would otherwise disgust them to their very core.
"They treat women as second class citizens and execute homosexuals; how repulsive... Oh, they're members of an underdog religion hailing from lands with a standard of living well below ours, why let's assist them in spreading their lifestyle across the entire world," the American liberal says.
Who knows whether their weakness stems from a desire to stay alive, or from a desire to break down anyone who has achieved success through merit...
I can't imagine being proud of my willingness to bow down to those who live lives of disgrace. Radical Islamists have only one desire, and that is to convert every human being in the world to their religion. Christian conservative Americans joke about converting all Muslims to Christianity in order to further world peace and are therefore labeled hate mongers, yet we're supposed to actively work to understand why Muslim extremists have the desire to spread their religion throughout humanity and even help them achieve their wicked goals.
U.S. President Barack Obama built his administration around weakness. Europeans respect his frailty as evidenced by his high approval rating across the pond. They respect a world leader who bows at the feet of his peers because they too look for ways to publicly display their spinelessness. They respect a world leader who shows admiration for a fellow president that calls for the annihilation of Israel because they too believe in the destruction of countries that promote liberty and defend their own borders from harmful intruders.
Europeans respect anyone lacking self-respect.
Going to bed at night with a feeling of pride due to the tasks I've accomplished is one of the greatest joys I regularly experience in life. I can't understand how satisfaction arises from thoughts of how you've allowed people, whose behavior you deem inappropriate, to dictate your agenda.
I suppose when you have no desire to achieve success, you are prone to allowing others to run your world. "As long as you keep the funds coming, I'll do anything you ask," is the stance taken by most Europeans. Now that the money has dried up, and the amount of funds has been reduced, and the amount of work required to receive said funds has been increased, those same Europeans are showing their displeasure by smashing bricks through storefront windows.
Most Europeans are children. "We'll do our chores for an allowance. If the allowance is reduced or you add washing windows to our itinerary we will embarrass you horrifically next time we visit the supermarket."
Most Europeans are cowards. "Because I allow people, who make it their mission in life to kill the children of folks who follow a different religion, to be my moral compass, I proudly declared that wrong is right."
1930's German Version of Bill O'Reilly: Jews in Ovens, You're Crazy Beck!
If you're a conservative who watches Fox News, you've probably grown frustrated with Mr. Bill O'Reilly and his habit of always giving Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt.
During his regular appearances on The Factor, poor Glenn Beck attempts to inform Mr. O'Reilly of the devious plan President Obama has for the United States of America. Despite Mr. Obama saying, before he took office, "We are a few days away from radically transforming this country," Mr. O'Reilly doesn't believe the president has any desire to make significant changes to the structure of America.
The fact that a known communist was appointed to a prestigious White House position has no impact on the longtime Factor host. Mr. O'Reilly still believes our president is an average Joe who leans slightly to the left.
If Glenn Beck appeared on a late 1930's German version of The O'Reilly Factor, I can hear him warn, "Bill, you don't understand what Hitler has planned for the Jews. He erroneously blames them for all the problems of Europe and will wipe them out by the thousands!"
"I don't see it, Beck," Mr. O'Reilly would respond.
"But Bill, in a speech they won't show on (the late 1930's German version of) MSNBC, Hitler said, 'Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!' Bill, he's telling you that he is going to kill Jews by the millions!"
"You're crazy, Beck. How would Hitler kill that many Jews? There are no mechanisms with which to carry out such an elaborate plan. And come on Beck, do you really think our fellow Germans will just sit back and watch their Jewish neighbors get carted off to the killing fields. And once the Jews are gone, are you under the impression that the non-Jew Germans will steal the businesses that were established by said Jews! I suppose you're next going to tell me that the few Jews lucky enough to survive Hitler's master plan will come back and attempt to reclaim their livelihood, but will instead be murdered by the looters who'd taken everything for which the returning Jews had spent their lives working? Is that the crazy scenario you're proposing?"
"Yes; that's certainly a possibility, Bill!"
"Get real, Beck! Hitler was just trying to rally his base. I tell you what, if he kills even one Jew, I'll owe you a dinner."
"A dinner!? Bill, we're talking about the mass murder of..."
"Sorry, Beck, but regardless of how much irrefutable evidence you present, I refuse to label Hitler a pinhead just yet. As always, I'll let the viewers decide. We're out of time, but please stay tuned for viewer telegrams."
I'm not insinuating Barack Obama is planning genocide, but retaining the belief that everything will basically remain the same, no matter how radical the person is who occupies the Oval Office, is the exact reason those with radical agendas succeed.
Many of our fellow countrymen are either ignorant to the goals of the Obama Administration, or believe that somehow, someway, the current trends will be reversed. Our massive debt will be reduced, the wasteful spending will stop, and the White House will all of a sudden refrain from assaulting entrepreneurial spirit on a daily basis. Because we've never lived through a depression or genocide, and because we've never been led by a ruler who retains power by brutally murdering dissidents; why it must mean that we will never see a massive reduction in freedom and our friends will never mysteriously disappear after speaking ill of the government.
A positive outcome never awaits a nation full of apathetic and ignorant citizens.
During his regular appearances on The Factor, poor Glenn Beck attempts to inform Mr. O'Reilly of the devious plan President Obama has for the United States of America. Despite Mr. Obama saying, before he took office, "We are a few days away from radically transforming this country," Mr. O'Reilly doesn't believe the president has any desire to make significant changes to the structure of America.
The fact that a known communist was appointed to a prestigious White House position has no impact on the longtime Factor host. Mr. O'Reilly still believes our president is an average Joe who leans slightly to the left.
If Glenn Beck appeared on a late 1930's German version of The O'Reilly Factor, I can hear him warn, "Bill, you don't understand what Hitler has planned for the Jews. He erroneously blames them for all the problems of Europe and will wipe them out by the thousands!"
"I don't see it, Beck," Mr. O'Reilly would respond.
"But Bill, in a speech they won't show on (the late 1930's German version of) MSNBC, Hitler said, 'Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!' Bill, he's telling you that he is going to kill Jews by the millions!"
"You're crazy, Beck. How would Hitler kill that many Jews? There are no mechanisms with which to carry out such an elaborate plan. And come on Beck, do you really think our fellow Germans will just sit back and watch their Jewish neighbors get carted off to the killing fields. And once the Jews are gone, are you under the impression that the non-Jew Germans will steal the businesses that were established by said Jews! I suppose you're next going to tell me that the few Jews lucky enough to survive Hitler's master plan will come back and attempt to reclaim their livelihood, but will instead be murdered by the looters who'd taken everything for which the returning Jews had spent their lives working? Is that the crazy scenario you're proposing?"
"Yes; that's certainly a possibility, Bill!"
"Get real, Beck! Hitler was just trying to rally his base. I tell you what, if he kills even one Jew, I'll owe you a dinner."
"A dinner!? Bill, we're talking about the mass murder of..."
"Sorry, Beck, but regardless of how much irrefutable evidence you present, I refuse to label Hitler a pinhead just yet. As always, I'll let the viewers decide. We're out of time, but please stay tuned for viewer telegrams."
I'm not insinuating Barack Obama is planning genocide, but retaining the belief that everything will basically remain the same, no matter how radical the person is who occupies the Oval Office, is the exact reason those with radical agendas succeed.
Many of our fellow countrymen are either ignorant to the goals of the Obama Administration, or believe that somehow, someway, the current trends will be reversed. Our massive debt will be reduced, the wasteful spending will stop, and the White House will all of a sudden refrain from assaulting entrepreneurial spirit on a daily basis. Because we've never lived through a depression or genocide, and because we've never been led by a ruler who retains power by brutally murdering dissidents; why it must mean that we will never see a massive reduction in freedom and our friends will never mysteriously disappear after speaking ill of the government.
A positive outcome never awaits a nation full of apathetic and ignorant citizens.
The Justice Brothers and Their Unlikely Association with the KKK
When I was a younger man, I remember watching all kinds of normally light-hearted programs that took the time to alert viewers to the evils of racism.
I vividly recall seeing a man rebuke George Jefferson on the sitcom The Jefferson's simply because Mr. Jefferson was African-American. The racist character on the show was a straight-up bigot. He wasn't made out to be a bigot because he disagreed with George on matters pertaining to politics; rather he was a bigot because he was disgusted by Mr. Jefferson solely due to the color of Mr. Jefferson's skin. Mr. Jefferson saved the life of the bigot by administering CPR. Upon hearing the news that he was resuscitated by an African-American, the bigot said, "You should have let me die."
Nowadays, those who disagree with President Obama are associated with the fictional character that was so repulsed by the proprietor of Jefferson Cleaners that he would have sacrificed his life in order to avoid physical contact.
Those who pretend their enemies are racist when their enemies haven't a single bigoted bone in their bodies are akin to members of the Ku Klux Klan. The Reverends Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton use race to incite hate. They make claims without the backing of facts in order to pit one race against another.
What; you think it nobler to falsely claim conservative Caucasians are racists than to openly declare your hatred of individuals whose skin pigmentation vastly differs from your own?
Used to be; people, like the producers of The Jefferson's, nobly attempted to display true racism. As hard as it was for those of us born into decent families to believe, they told us there were still people in existence who judged others solely based on skin color.
The Justice Brothers, Rush Limbaugh's nickname for the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, aren't interested in exposing true racism. Their only concern is making it appear as if fair-minded individuals who disagree with their point-of-view are hateful bigots.
Despising a person solely based on the color of his or her skin is indescribably despicable. But can we really elevate The Justice Brothers, or any of the many Democrats who have accused Obama opponents of racism, above those who refuse to look into the eyes of minorities just as fundamental Islamists refuse to look into the eyes of uncovered women?
Conservative opponents of President Obama have the ability to prattle on for hours, as the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh does on a daily basis, regarding the reasons they deduce Mr. Obama's policies will eventually run the United States of America into the ground.
No matter, say The Justice Brothers; if said conservatives disagree with the anointed one, they are racist.
In other words, the only way The Justice Brothers would have refrained from calling Mr. Limbaugh and his ilk bigots would be if conservatives from coast to coast had declared every word spoken throughout their entire careers to be completely misguided.
Because, by preaching their mantra of small government and individual responsibility, they were accused of racism by people who posses the ability to secure airtime on MSNBC with the snap of their fingers, the only words conservatives could have uttered in order to stave off the racist label are, "Despite what I've been saying for 20+ years, I all of a sudden declare my ardent support for social justice, spreading the wealth, and large government. Now to what address do I send this sizable donation to the DNC?"
If you're a baseball fan who opposes the regular use of instant replay, as does Caucasian commissioner Bud Selig, would it make you racist if you continued your opposition to the practice when an African-American successor to Mr. Selig implemented large scale instant replay upon taking office?
Just as members of the KKK hate all minorities, the Justice Brothers aren't concerned with learning whether the conservative they label racist has character. They say, "I don't care what's in the heart of that conservative, I despise him because he disagrees with me politically and I will therefore portray him as a racist despite facts which reveal the exact opposite."
Justice Brother Al Sharpton will likely be burning a metaphorical cross on the Fox News Channel during his next appearance on the O'Reilly Factor; because, by giving the Reverend Sharpton a forum to spew his vile hate, Mr. O'Reilly is looking out for you.
Or you could turn your television to a normally light-hearted situation comedy that alerts children to the evils of racism via a character that shows his wicked side by disagreeing with the fiduciary stance of the African-American man elected to govern the land in which he lives.
I vividly recall seeing a man rebuke George Jefferson on the sitcom The Jefferson's simply because Mr. Jefferson was African-American. The racist character on the show was a straight-up bigot. He wasn't made out to be a bigot because he disagreed with George on matters pertaining to politics; rather he was a bigot because he was disgusted by Mr. Jefferson solely due to the color of Mr. Jefferson's skin. Mr. Jefferson saved the life of the bigot by administering CPR. Upon hearing the news that he was resuscitated by an African-American, the bigot said, "You should have let me die."
Nowadays, those who disagree with President Obama are associated with the fictional character that was so repulsed by the proprietor of Jefferson Cleaners that he would have sacrificed his life in order to avoid physical contact.
Those who pretend their enemies are racist when their enemies haven't a single bigoted bone in their bodies are akin to members of the Ku Klux Klan. The Reverends Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton use race to incite hate. They make claims without the backing of facts in order to pit one race against another.
What; you think it nobler to falsely claim conservative Caucasians are racists than to openly declare your hatred of individuals whose skin pigmentation vastly differs from your own?
Used to be; people, like the producers of The Jefferson's, nobly attempted to display true racism. As hard as it was for those of us born into decent families to believe, they told us there were still people in existence who judged others solely based on skin color.
The Justice Brothers, Rush Limbaugh's nickname for the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, aren't interested in exposing true racism. Their only concern is making it appear as if fair-minded individuals who disagree with their point-of-view are hateful bigots.
Despising a person solely based on the color of his or her skin is indescribably despicable. But can we really elevate The Justice Brothers, or any of the many Democrats who have accused Obama opponents of racism, above those who refuse to look into the eyes of minorities just as fundamental Islamists refuse to look into the eyes of uncovered women?
Conservative opponents of President Obama have the ability to prattle on for hours, as the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh does on a daily basis, regarding the reasons they deduce Mr. Obama's policies will eventually run the United States of America into the ground.
No matter, say The Justice Brothers; if said conservatives disagree with the anointed one, they are racist.
In other words, the only way The Justice Brothers would have refrained from calling Mr. Limbaugh and his ilk bigots would be if conservatives from coast to coast had declared every word spoken throughout their entire careers to be completely misguided.
Because, by preaching their mantra of small government and individual responsibility, they were accused of racism by people who posses the ability to secure airtime on MSNBC with the snap of their fingers, the only words conservatives could have uttered in order to stave off the racist label are, "Despite what I've been saying for 20+ years, I all of a sudden declare my ardent support for social justice, spreading the wealth, and large government. Now to what address do I send this sizable donation to the DNC?"
If you're a baseball fan who opposes the regular use of instant replay, as does Caucasian commissioner Bud Selig, would it make you racist if you continued your opposition to the practice when an African-American successor to Mr. Selig implemented large scale instant replay upon taking office?
Just as members of the KKK hate all minorities, the Justice Brothers aren't concerned with learning whether the conservative they label racist has character. They say, "I don't care what's in the heart of that conservative, I despise him because he disagrees with me politically and I will therefore portray him as a racist despite facts which reveal the exact opposite."
Justice Brother Al Sharpton will likely be burning a metaphorical cross on the Fox News Channel during his next appearance on the O'Reilly Factor; because, by giving the Reverend Sharpton a forum to spew his vile hate, Mr. O'Reilly is looking out for you.
Or you could turn your television to a normally light-hearted situation comedy that alerts children to the evils of racism via a character that shows his wicked side by disagreeing with the fiduciary stance of the African-American man elected to govern the land in which he lives.
I Can't Wait to Never Grow Up
Maybe I shouldn't be such a stickler when it comes to freedom.
Maybe it's good the government blesses me with the ability to perennially live as I did for the first seventeen-plus years of my life.
Sure, being a child had what we thought of as negatives. When we got in the car, we were forced to buckle up. We couldn't smoke or drink. We couldn't eat the foods we craved. Once we were of age to be granted a drivers license; it was out of our control as to which steering wheel we got behind.
But, when we needed some spending money, by turning on the charm, we could usually convince mommy and daddy we were deserving of a hand out.
Are you recalling your pre-teen years in order to relate to the above; or a week ago last Thursday?
You remember a week ago last Thursday... the evening on which you got into your environmentally friendly car and then started down the highway littered with billboards reminding you to, "Click it or ticket."
After you made it safely to your favorite restaurant, you requested a nice juicy steak - just the way you like it.
"The government deemed the way you like it detrimental to your health," the waiter responded to what was once considered an, "order," but, due to governmental intervention, is now merely considered a "suggestion."
"We can prepare it close to the exact way you'd like it," the waiter continued. "Of course we'd like to cook it just the way you like it, and obviously you'd like to eat it just the way you like it, but the law states that our likes and dislikes are irrelevant when it comes to the illegality of food preparation."
While waiting for the meal you'd somewhat enjoy, you noticed a couple of non-smoking signs that reminded you how much you were going to miss your usual post-meal cigar.
Used to be, when we left the nest at 18, we'd have to make it on our own. We had the freedom to sink or swim.
Now we can only float.
Looking back though, weren't those the wonder years? Among our only concerns were which pair of jeans we'd wear to school on Friday and at which hang-out we'd spend Saturday night.
Nowadays I'm too busy to put much thought into my wardrobe, and am always so tired from working all week that I'm asleep three hours before the time at which I used to depart the house on a typical Saturday night.
Wouldn't it be great to only worry about such trivial matters throughout our entire adulthood?
Not to mention retirement. The government takes our hard earned money when we're young and gives it back when we're old. The time spent deciding the best investment opportunities to meet our long term financial goals can instead be allocated to reading movie reviews so we're sure to escort our sweethearts to the moving pictures that most put them in the mood.
"As kids, we never had to make an appointment with the doctor, and now we do," you cynically remind me.
Not to fear; because as soon as Obama's healthcare plan is implemented, the government will tell us where and when to go for all our medical related needs. No more pressing 2 for the scheduling desk, making copies of our insurance card, etc.
Soon they'll be just like the days in which our mom said, "Be outside the school directly after the bell rings so I can pick you up and drive you to your appointment with Dr. Frasier at 4:00."
I'm not sure the healthcare bill mentions this specifically, but maybe one or two pages detail the number of ice cream scoops we'll receive after exhibiting the minimum amount of bravery required to visit terrifying doctors who, before Mr. Obama took office, needlessly amputated limbs and removed vital organs.
You can't really blame our Founding Fathers for irresponsibly granting us so much freedom; for they had the misfortune of living prior to the birth of the Great and Honorable Barack H. Obama. Had they access to his staggering intellect, the U.S. Constitution would have undoubtedly been peppered with catch phrases like, "social justice," and "spread the wealth."
Thankfully their short-sidedness has now been corrected and we will forever live without that pesky freedom which led to the United States of America being the only stain on an otherwise immaculate globe.
Maybe it's good the government blesses me with the ability to perennially live as I did for the first seventeen-plus years of my life.
Sure, being a child had what we thought of as negatives. When we got in the car, we were forced to buckle up. We couldn't smoke or drink. We couldn't eat the foods we craved. Once we were of age to be granted a drivers license; it was out of our control as to which steering wheel we got behind.
But, when we needed some spending money, by turning on the charm, we could usually convince mommy and daddy we were deserving of a hand out.
Are you recalling your pre-teen years in order to relate to the above; or a week ago last Thursday?
You remember a week ago last Thursday... the evening on which you got into your environmentally friendly car and then started down the highway littered with billboards reminding you to, "Click it or ticket."
After you made it safely to your favorite restaurant, you requested a nice juicy steak - just the way you like it.
"The government deemed the way you like it detrimental to your health," the waiter responded to what was once considered an, "order," but, due to governmental intervention, is now merely considered a "suggestion."
"We can prepare it close to the exact way you'd like it," the waiter continued. "Of course we'd like to cook it just the way you like it, and obviously you'd like to eat it just the way you like it, but the law states that our likes and dislikes are irrelevant when it comes to the illegality of food preparation."
While waiting for the meal you'd somewhat enjoy, you noticed a couple of non-smoking signs that reminded you how much you were going to miss your usual post-meal cigar.
Used to be, when we left the nest at 18, we'd have to make it on our own. We had the freedom to sink or swim.
Now we can only float.
Looking back though, weren't those the wonder years? Among our only concerns were which pair of jeans we'd wear to school on Friday and at which hang-out we'd spend Saturday night.
Nowadays I'm too busy to put much thought into my wardrobe, and am always so tired from working all week that I'm asleep three hours before the time at which I used to depart the house on a typical Saturday night.
Wouldn't it be great to only worry about such trivial matters throughout our entire adulthood?
Not to mention retirement. The government takes our hard earned money when we're young and gives it back when we're old. The time spent deciding the best investment opportunities to meet our long term financial goals can instead be allocated to reading movie reviews so we're sure to escort our sweethearts to the moving pictures that most put them in the mood.
"As kids, we never had to make an appointment with the doctor, and now we do," you cynically remind me.
Not to fear; because as soon as Obama's healthcare plan is implemented, the government will tell us where and when to go for all our medical related needs. No more pressing 2 for the scheduling desk, making copies of our insurance card, etc.
Soon they'll be just like the days in which our mom said, "Be outside the school directly after the bell rings so I can pick you up and drive you to your appointment with Dr. Frasier at 4:00."
I'm not sure the healthcare bill mentions this specifically, but maybe one or two pages detail the number of ice cream scoops we'll receive after exhibiting the minimum amount of bravery required to visit terrifying doctors who, before Mr. Obama took office, needlessly amputated limbs and removed vital organs.
You can't really blame our Founding Fathers for irresponsibly granting us so much freedom; for they had the misfortune of living prior to the birth of the Great and Honorable Barack H. Obama. Had they access to his staggering intellect, the U.S. Constitution would have undoubtedly been peppered with catch phrases like, "social justice," and "spread the wealth."
Thankfully their short-sidedness has now been corrected and we will forever live without that pesky freedom which led to the United States of America being the only stain on an otherwise immaculate globe.
Don't Do what I'm Doing or You'll Destroy the Planet
What if Al Gore declared eating ice cream to be extremely harmful to our precious environment? (Due to the unrefined behavior of cows, he may already have made such a declaration. Who can keep track of the plethora of activities he claims are bad for the planet?)
Mr. Gore would stand next to you, eating a huge bowl of fresh-from-the-freezer Cookies 'n Cream, and say that it's imperative you refrain from opening your tub. "For the love of god, don't do it," he'd scream in opposition of you eating ice cream. "If you dig your spoon into that huge chunk of cookie atop the creamy vanilla we'll all die."
"Sure, Mr. Gore," would be the response. "You were Vice President of the United States, so even though common sense tells me your claim has no merit, you must be trustworthy. But I feel it my duty to respectfully alert you to the fact that, as we speak, you're eating ice cream."
"I know," Mr. Gore would respond. "I like ice cream."
"Well, sir, by looking at you it's pretty obvious that you have a massive sweet tooth. But if eating ice cream will kill us all relatively soon, why are you still doing it?"
"I already told you," Mr. Gore would retort. "I like ice cream. So I'd rather convince everyone else to stop eating ice cream. That way I get my fix and humanity will continue existing."
"But, sir, it's difficult to cease a desired action, based on your warning, when you're doing the exact thing you claim will have disastrous consequences. If you said a meteor was heading our way and told me to run, then hastily scampered off, I would probably follow. If you told me about the meteor, and then stood perfectly still, chances are I would doubt the existence of an impeding meteor strike. Does that make sense?"
"Don't eat that ice cream," Mr. Gore would then repeat.
"You didn't answer my question. Doesn't my meteor analogy make perfect sense?"
"That's a good question."
"And..."
"I don't answer good questions. If you ask me about the things you can do to stop the planet from being destroyed, I will oblige you with an extended answer I'll claim has the backing of science."
"But you can't only answer questions formulated by yourself!"
"Sure I can; how do you think I've managed to stay married for so many years!?"
"But, like how you're ice cream eating while claiming that ice cream eating will destroy the planet; your refusal to answer difficult questions does not give me confidence in your assertion. Anyone who makes a claim, then says, 'The only other words I'll utter regarding the matter are words which basically mean the same thing as the words I just uttered,' should not be taken seriously."
"Don't eat that ice cream!" Mr. Gore would once again repeat.
Mr. Gore says high levels of electricity consumption and the flying of airplanes will destroy the environment. But he doesn't give up rides on private jets and recently purchased a gigantic home which runs on, you guessed it, electricity.
Mr. Gore won't debate anyone with a differing opinion regarding global warming.
Per the usual; a Democrat is advancing his or her agenda by lying to the world. If he was telling the truth, he would welcome questions from all dissenters. If he was telling the truth, he'd say, "Bring on the doubters; I'll convince them with facts and logic until none remain standing."
And this particular Democrat is making a fortune off his fellow partisans who happily purchase the manure he proudly slings.
"Thank you sir, may I have another," should be the perennial slogan of the Democrat Party.
Mr. Gore would stand next to you, eating a huge bowl of fresh-from-the-freezer Cookies 'n Cream, and say that it's imperative you refrain from opening your tub. "For the love of god, don't do it," he'd scream in opposition of you eating ice cream. "If you dig your spoon into that huge chunk of cookie atop the creamy vanilla we'll all die."
"Sure, Mr. Gore," would be the response. "You were Vice President of the United States, so even though common sense tells me your claim has no merit, you must be trustworthy. But I feel it my duty to respectfully alert you to the fact that, as we speak, you're eating ice cream."
"I know," Mr. Gore would respond. "I like ice cream."
"Well, sir, by looking at you it's pretty obvious that you have a massive sweet tooth. But if eating ice cream will kill us all relatively soon, why are you still doing it?"
"I already told you," Mr. Gore would retort. "I like ice cream. So I'd rather convince everyone else to stop eating ice cream. That way I get my fix and humanity will continue existing."
"But, sir, it's difficult to cease a desired action, based on your warning, when you're doing the exact thing you claim will have disastrous consequences. If you said a meteor was heading our way and told me to run, then hastily scampered off, I would probably follow. If you told me about the meteor, and then stood perfectly still, chances are I would doubt the existence of an impeding meteor strike. Does that make sense?"
"Don't eat that ice cream," Mr. Gore would then repeat.
"You didn't answer my question. Doesn't my meteor analogy make perfect sense?"
"That's a good question."
"And..."
"I don't answer good questions. If you ask me about the things you can do to stop the planet from being destroyed, I will oblige you with an extended answer I'll claim has the backing of science."
"But you can't only answer questions formulated by yourself!"
"Sure I can; how do you think I've managed to stay married for so many years!?"
"But, like how you're ice cream eating while claiming that ice cream eating will destroy the planet; your refusal to answer difficult questions does not give me confidence in your assertion. Anyone who makes a claim, then says, 'The only other words I'll utter regarding the matter are words which basically mean the same thing as the words I just uttered,' should not be taken seriously."
"Don't eat that ice cream!" Mr. Gore would once again repeat.
Mr. Gore says high levels of electricity consumption and the flying of airplanes will destroy the environment. But he doesn't give up rides on private jets and recently purchased a gigantic home which runs on, you guessed it, electricity.
Mr. Gore won't debate anyone with a differing opinion regarding global warming.
Per the usual; a Democrat is advancing his or her agenda by lying to the world. If he was telling the truth, he would welcome questions from all dissenters. If he was telling the truth, he'd say, "Bring on the doubters; I'll convince them with facts and logic until none remain standing."
And this particular Democrat is making a fortune off his fellow partisans who happily purchase the manure he proudly slings.
"Thank you sir, may I have another," should be the perennial slogan of the Democrat Party.
Think of the Consequences, People
Nancy Pelosi is in favor of universal healthcare and massive entitlement spending. Why? So people can spend their lives as unemployed artists. Ms. Pelosi never stops to think about the fact that the nation cannot succeed if everyone chooses a career path that leads to the production of absolutely nothing beneficial to society.
"What do you mean you're out of Burrito Supremes?" the customer asks a Taco Bell cashier.
"Well, our tortilla supplier decided he much preferred life as an unemployed artist specializing in depicting the brutality of the Peloponnesian War though watercolor."
Many Republicans say big business needs cheap labor to be competitive, yet they don't stop to think about the fact that the illegal immigrants are coming to our country with no intention of assimilating.
A similar situation is occurring in Europe where Muslim communities are filled with folks who refuse to fit in with the current culture. Of course these communities produce terrorists who threaten to murder anyone speaking ill of their religion.
And because illegal immigrants, employed by big business, will eventually see to it that they are granted the right to vote; many districts throughout the United States will one-day soon have Nancy Pelosi-types representing them in Congress. These Pelosi clones will then pass so much anti-capitalist legislation that the very same businesses, which once claimed a great need for illegals, will be destroyed. I hope the owners of these entities will appreciate the irony of being forced to permanently close their doors due to the voting habits of the same illegal immigrants they once hired to keep them open.
Being pro-business, I understand the need for reasonably priced labor, but you can't say anything goes when trying to keep your business afloat.
So the basic problem with politicians and so-called community leaders on both sides of the political aisle is their, "sacrifice future generations in order to ensure my own success," mentality.
The economic collapse is unfortunately not causing these people to reconsider their positions. Instead it's causing them to blame the other side and insist that if we went further in their direction, every problem would be solved miraculously.
But in reality the solution is stunningly simple. If everyone were to abide by the law and the government were to get out of our way, prosperity would soon follow.
"What do you mean you're out of Burrito Supremes?" the customer asks a Taco Bell cashier.
"Well, our tortilla supplier decided he much preferred life as an unemployed artist specializing in depicting the brutality of the Peloponnesian War though watercolor."
Many Republicans say big business needs cheap labor to be competitive, yet they don't stop to think about the fact that the illegal immigrants are coming to our country with no intention of assimilating.
A similar situation is occurring in Europe where Muslim communities are filled with folks who refuse to fit in with the current culture. Of course these communities produce terrorists who threaten to murder anyone speaking ill of their religion.
And because illegal immigrants, employed by big business, will eventually see to it that they are granted the right to vote; many districts throughout the United States will one-day soon have Nancy Pelosi-types representing them in Congress. These Pelosi clones will then pass so much anti-capitalist legislation that the very same businesses, which once claimed a great need for illegals, will be destroyed. I hope the owners of these entities will appreciate the irony of being forced to permanently close their doors due to the voting habits of the same illegal immigrants they once hired to keep them open.
Being pro-business, I understand the need for reasonably priced labor, but you can't say anything goes when trying to keep your business afloat.
So the basic problem with politicians and so-called community leaders on both sides of the political aisle is their, "sacrifice future generations in order to ensure my own success," mentality.
The economic collapse is unfortunately not causing these people to reconsider their positions. Instead it's causing them to blame the other side and insist that if we went further in their direction, every problem would be solved miraculously.
But in reality the solution is stunningly simple. If everyone were to abide by the law and the government were to get out of our way, prosperity would soon follow.
The New Real World
The new real world is a strange place for individuals who believe in living up to their potential.
The real world was once a term used to describe the often harsh reality young slackers would face once they left the nest.
Now, the real world means something completely different.
Now, the real world is a magical place.
Today it's considered politically incorrect; but in the past, were an individual to say something colossally stupid, a sane person would respond, "Are you some kind of moron!?"
Now you can't ask such rhetorical questions.
The real world prevents it.
In the new real world; no one lacks intelligence. In the new real world; no one goes without the finer things in life because they choose not to work.
The new real world incentivizes young people to remain in the home of mommy and daddy until they're approaching 30 years of age. The new real world looks at people who work their way up the corporate ladder as thieves and oppressors.
The old real world taught us there was great value in proving to business leaders we possessed qualities similar to theirs.
The old real world taught us that life wasn't fair, and setbacks should only push us harder. The new real world teaches us that an oppressor is responsible for every one of our failures, and the sheer volume of oppressors makes moral success impossible.
In the new real world, only wealthy individuals who use their money to support the passage of policies that make it impossible for future generations to duplicate their achievement are considered moral. "I got mine, but it's not fair I leave you with the ability to get yours," they say.
In the new real world, recreation is honorable. Used to be, "I sat on the couch watching television all day," was an admission that would have been met with the same scorn present day Americans face after saying, "I put in thirteen hours at the office on Friday and plan to go in over the weekend."
In the old real word, a person's passion typically led to the betterment of society for all. In the new real world, the productivity of ones desired activities is irrelevant.
The old real world was responsible for creating the greatest country in the history of civilization.
The new real world is causing its collapse.
The real world was once a term used to describe the often harsh reality young slackers would face once they left the nest.
Now, the real world means something completely different.
Now, the real world is a magical place.
Today it's considered politically incorrect; but in the past, were an individual to say something colossally stupid, a sane person would respond, "Are you some kind of moron!?"
Now you can't ask such rhetorical questions.
The real world prevents it.
In the new real world; no one lacks intelligence. In the new real world; no one goes without the finer things in life because they choose not to work.
The new real world incentivizes young people to remain in the home of mommy and daddy until they're approaching 30 years of age. The new real world looks at people who work their way up the corporate ladder as thieves and oppressors.
The old real world taught us there was great value in proving to business leaders we possessed qualities similar to theirs.
The old real world taught us that life wasn't fair, and setbacks should only push us harder. The new real world teaches us that an oppressor is responsible for every one of our failures, and the sheer volume of oppressors makes moral success impossible.
In the new real world, only wealthy individuals who use their money to support the passage of policies that make it impossible for future generations to duplicate their achievement are considered moral. "I got mine, but it's not fair I leave you with the ability to get yours," they say.
In the new real world, recreation is honorable. Used to be, "I sat on the couch watching television all day," was an admission that would have been met with the same scorn present day Americans face after saying, "I put in thirteen hours at the office on Friday and plan to go in over the weekend."
In the old real word, a person's passion typically led to the betterment of society for all. In the new real world, the productivity of ones desired activities is irrelevant.
The old real world was responsible for creating the greatest country in the history of civilization.
The new real world is causing its collapse.
I Demand You Change Your Law Based on My Ignorance: A Letter from Steve Nash
If Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns drafted a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in protest of Arizona's new immigration law, it would probably go a little something like this...
Dear Governor Brewer,
My name is Steve Nash and I am a professional sports hero here in Phoenix. I know my opinion is valued over ordinary Arizonans because I dribble well. I dribble very well. I'm probably the most adroit dribbler Canada has ever produced.
I, with the backing of the entire Phoenix Suns organization, demand you not enact the controversial new Arizona law which specifically calls for the profiling of all Hispanic looking people simply because they are different.
Though I have not read a word of the bill, the media and internet have used scary words in describing hypothetical situations where people with dark skin are hunted down in the streets of Arizona.
If my sincere appeal, which I have thoughtfully based on vague information learned from watching MSNBC, surfing the Huffington Post, and speaking with our Stanford educated backup center Jarron Collins while playing Wii, is not enough to stop you from doing the right thing, Arizona is in deep peril.
I understand that a majority of Arizonans support this deranged new law, and that fact deeply saddens me. However, a majority of southerners once claimed slavery was morally just. In passing this law, you make the pro-slavery crowd resemble ardent supporters of the ACLU.
Only a little bit, does wearing a "Los Suns" jersey ease the discomfort I feel in playing in front of mostly bigoted fans. I am beginning to confuse Arizona with 1940's Germany. Sometimes, when I look to the upper deck, I expect to see Nazi clad spectators staring back at me. I have an inherent desire to advise all Jewish fans in the front row to flee the arena. After I swish a free throw, instead of cheering, I half-expect to hear 18,000 people shout in unison, "Heil Hitler!" On the way home, I expect to see a sign indicating Scottsdale is 20 miles ahead and the Arizona branch of Auschwitz is only another 10 down the road.
So please listen to someone who has not actively sought out any specific details contained in the bill and disregard the will of the Arizona people. I know they get upset at hearing that fellow Arizonans have been gunned down by Mexican drug dealers on their own property, but those incidents usually happen a couple hundred miles away from the condo in which I reside during the season. Besides, you don't think my eyes swell with tears after hearing fabricated tales about Hispanic fathers and sons terrorized by police while enjoying a couple scoops at their local ice cream parlor? So, Governor Brewer, please allow the horrific illegal immigration problem that's bankrupting Arizona to persist by preventing the implementation of this bigoted law.
I know it may seem strange to run a state based on the advice of someone who possesses only a modicum of knowledge regarding the thing on which he is advising, but how can a land run on advice from the compassionate be filled with anything other than peace and harmony?
With More Tolerance in My Pinky Finger than You Have in Your Entire Pasty Body,
Steve Nash
Point Guard - Los Suns
Dear Governor Brewer,
My name is Steve Nash and I am a professional sports hero here in Phoenix. I know my opinion is valued over ordinary Arizonans because I dribble well. I dribble very well. I'm probably the most adroit dribbler Canada has ever produced.
I, with the backing of the entire Phoenix Suns organization, demand you not enact the controversial new Arizona law which specifically calls for the profiling of all Hispanic looking people simply because they are different.
Though I have not read a word of the bill, the media and internet have used scary words in describing hypothetical situations where people with dark skin are hunted down in the streets of Arizona.
If my sincere appeal, which I have thoughtfully based on vague information learned from watching MSNBC, surfing the Huffington Post, and speaking with our Stanford educated backup center Jarron Collins while playing Wii, is not enough to stop you from doing the right thing, Arizona is in deep peril.
I understand that a majority of Arizonans support this deranged new law, and that fact deeply saddens me. However, a majority of southerners once claimed slavery was morally just. In passing this law, you make the pro-slavery crowd resemble ardent supporters of the ACLU.
Only a little bit, does wearing a "Los Suns" jersey ease the discomfort I feel in playing in front of mostly bigoted fans. I am beginning to confuse Arizona with 1940's Germany. Sometimes, when I look to the upper deck, I expect to see Nazi clad spectators staring back at me. I have an inherent desire to advise all Jewish fans in the front row to flee the arena. After I swish a free throw, instead of cheering, I half-expect to hear 18,000 people shout in unison, "Heil Hitler!" On the way home, I expect to see a sign indicating Scottsdale is 20 miles ahead and the Arizona branch of Auschwitz is only another 10 down the road.
So please listen to someone who has not actively sought out any specific details contained in the bill and disregard the will of the Arizona people. I know they get upset at hearing that fellow Arizonans have been gunned down by Mexican drug dealers on their own property, but those incidents usually happen a couple hundred miles away from the condo in which I reside during the season. Besides, you don't think my eyes swell with tears after hearing fabricated tales about Hispanic fathers and sons terrorized by police while enjoying a couple scoops at their local ice cream parlor? So, Governor Brewer, please allow the horrific illegal immigration problem that's bankrupting Arizona to persist by preventing the implementation of this bigoted law.
I know it may seem strange to run a state based on the advice of someone who possesses only a modicum of knowledge regarding the thing on which he is advising, but how can a land run on advice from the compassionate be filled with anything other than peace and harmony?
With More Tolerance in My Pinky Finger than You Have in Your Entire Pasty Body,
Steve Nash
Point Guard - Los Suns
I've Been Waiting My Entire Career to Hassle Minorities
Unless you've been living under a rock, you're aware of the fact that Arizona just passed a new law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.
In response to the laws passage, as leftists usually do, President Barack Obama told a tale so far fetched that, upon hearing it, the producers of 24 sarcastically suggested, "It's called reality, Mr. President; you may want to look into it."
Mr. Obama informed us of a nonexistent Hispanic-American man who took his child to an ice cream parlor where he was roughed up by the cops for no reason other than that his skin was brown.
Had Mr. Obama time to elaborate, the story would have gone something like this... "While the Hispanic-American father and his son enjoyed their delicious ice cream, two crooked white cops entered the establishment specifically looking to harass minorities. Immediately, their cold eyes locked onto the eyes of the ice cream consuming father. The police didn't like anything about the man, but they particularly loathed his smile, for they hated to see a Hispanic man enjoying himself in their country. Noticing the rogue policemen, the Hispanic-American man immediately sensed trouble and began trembling in fear. After spitting out a wad of chewing tobacco, the lead cop hiked up his trouser-pants and marched over to the American citizen of Hispanic descent and his son, who by that point had the most adorable little ice cream mustache atop his upper-lip, which perfectly complemented his beautiful brown eyes, which, until that day, had been shielded from our country's inherent racism. 'You look like one-dem eee-legals. You got yo papers, boy?' Crooked Cop number one then asked the father. 'No, sir; I didn't think I'd need any identification seeing as how I'm simply taking my son out for a little ice cream. As you can see, I'm enjoying a scoop of rocky road topped with M&M's while Junior here chose two scoops of chocolate in a waffle cone. My home is two blocks away - I will take you there and show you that I am a law-abiding American.'"
Seconds later, according to our esteemed Commander in Chief, the barrel of a gun is digging into the temple of the Hispanic-American father.
In telling a condensed version of the above story, Mr. Obama first assumes all officers of the law are vile creatures, incapable of anything other than evil.
Any rational human being understands that, prior to the passage of the new Arizona law; officers were not driving around in their cruisers fantasizing about a day on which they could needlessly harass minorities. A partner was not saying to his brother in uniform, as they waited at a stoplight, "Joe, I wish to god there was a law allowing me to exit this vehicle, jump across the hood, and then tackle that Hispanic man teaching his child how to ride a bicycle. Like you, harassing minorities is the sole reason I chose law enforcement as a vocation."
Will there be genuinely immoral police officers who don't abide by the actual law (a law that DOES NOT allow for the questioning of individuals simply because they are non-Caucasian) and racially profile certain Arizonans? Perhaps there will be. But such cops have likely already figured out a way to disregard protocol and dispense their own personal brand of justice.
And, when drafting legislation, you can't factor in fear that an extremely small percentage of the police force may act inappropriately.
By that logic, if a crooked cop framed someone for murder, we'd have to make murder legal. By that logic, we'd have to make everything legal.
Remember when President Obama called the Cambridge Police "stupid" mere seconds after admitting he didn't know specific details regarding their interaction with belligerent Harvard Professor, Henry Louis "Skip" Gates?
Well, any man who automatically stands against law enforcement does not look at new laws in terms of how they'll protect the innocent. Instead, the anti-police look at new laws in terms of how they'll "unjustly" burden criminals.
Opposition to the new Arizona law simply proves that liberals have the desire for millions of foreigners to enter America and immediately be granted the right to vote due to the fact that 98% of said foreigners would vote Democrat.
Liberals don't think about the fact that America can't adequately support six billion individuals. They don't think about the fact that laws are vital to the stability of any society. Leftists don't think about anything other than what deplorable actions are needed to increase the amount of power they wield.
In response to the laws passage, as leftists usually do, President Barack Obama told a tale so far fetched that, upon hearing it, the producers of 24 sarcastically suggested, "It's called reality, Mr. President; you may want to look into it."
Mr. Obama informed us of a nonexistent Hispanic-American man who took his child to an ice cream parlor where he was roughed up by the cops for no reason other than that his skin was brown.
Had Mr. Obama time to elaborate, the story would have gone something like this... "While the Hispanic-American father and his son enjoyed their delicious ice cream, two crooked white cops entered the establishment specifically looking to harass minorities. Immediately, their cold eyes locked onto the eyes of the ice cream consuming father. The police didn't like anything about the man, but they particularly loathed his smile, for they hated to see a Hispanic man enjoying himself in their country. Noticing the rogue policemen, the Hispanic-American man immediately sensed trouble and began trembling in fear. After spitting out a wad of chewing tobacco, the lead cop hiked up his trouser-pants and marched over to the American citizen of Hispanic descent and his son, who by that point had the most adorable little ice cream mustache atop his upper-lip, which perfectly complemented his beautiful brown eyes, which, until that day, had been shielded from our country's inherent racism. 'You look like one-dem eee-legals. You got yo papers, boy?' Crooked Cop number one then asked the father. 'No, sir; I didn't think I'd need any identification seeing as how I'm simply taking my son out for a little ice cream. As you can see, I'm enjoying a scoop of rocky road topped with M&M's while Junior here chose two scoops of chocolate in a waffle cone. My home is two blocks away - I will take you there and show you that I am a law-abiding American.'"
Seconds later, according to our esteemed Commander in Chief, the barrel of a gun is digging into the temple of the Hispanic-American father.
In telling a condensed version of the above story, Mr. Obama first assumes all officers of the law are vile creatures, incapable of anything other than evil.
Any rational human being understands that, prior to the passage of the new Arizona law; officers were not driving around in their cruisers fantasizing about a day on which they could needlessly harass minorities. A partner was not saying to his brother in uniform, as they waited at a stoplight, "Joe, I wish to god there was a law allowing me to exit this vehicle, jump across the hood, and then tackle that Hispanic man teaching his child how to ride a bicycle. Like you, harassing minorities is the sole reason I chose law enforcement as a vocation."
Will there be genuinely immoral police officers who don't abide by the actual law (a law that DOES NOT allow for the questioning of individuals simply because they are non-Caucasian) and racially profile certain Arizonans? Perhaps there will be. But such cops have likely already figured out a way to disregard protocol and dispense their own personal brand of justice.
And, when drafting legislation, you can't factor in fear that an extremely small percentage of the police force may act inappropriately.
By that logic, if a crooked cop framed someone for murder, we'd have to make murder legal. By that logic, we'd have to make everything legal.
Remember when President Obama called the Cambridge Police "stupid" mere seconds after admitting he didn't know specific details regarding their interaction with belligerent Harvard Professor, Henry Louis "Skip" Gates?
Well, any man who automatically stands against law enforcement does not look at new laws in terms of how they'll protect the innocent. Instead, the anti-police look at new laws in terms of how they'll "unjustly" burden criminals.
Opposition to the new Arizona law simply proves that liberals have the desire for millions of foreigners to enter America and immediately be granted the right to vote due to the fact that 98% of said foreigners would vote Democrat.
Liberals don't think about the fact that America can't adequately support six billion individuals. They don't think about the fact that laws are vital to the stability of any society. Leftists don't think about anything other than what deplorable actions are needed to increase the amount of power they wield.
This Just in: Operation Iraqi Freedom was a Slam Dunk
One of the benefits to being a conservative is that you aren't required to lie in order to win political arguments.
But let's pretend for a second that President George W. Bush was forced to lie to the American people as frequently as the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And let's pretend the media went with it...
After all, Mr. Obama claims the bailout bill is not a bailout bill. Despite grainy video evidence where he states the exact opposite, Mr. Obama now insists he does not support a single-payer healthcare system. Do the media question Mr. Obama about these and other discrepancies?
Not for one second.
From 2001 - 2009, what would the media have reported if W. possessed the same hypnotic power?
Not only would they have reported lies as the truth, they would have gone out of their way to campaign for the already-elected president.
Matt Lauer would have undoubtedly announced to millions of early risers, "The United States has officially conquered Iraq and Afghanistan. Though minor skirmishes continue, our military was able to accomplish this awesome feat the very same day on which we attacked each country. Mr. Bush is doing everything in his power to limit the number of civilian causalities and the toppling of Saddam Hussein statues throughout Iraq prove our brave soldiers are viewed as liberators."
Later, on MSNBC, a teary-eyed Chris Matthews would elaborate. "The tingle currently running up my leg is the result of seeing our troops boldly enter Iraq, and the reality that these heroic men and women are inspired by their fearless Commander in Chief."
The mainstream media would have reported that the war in Iraq was won long before Mr. Bush arrived with his infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner. Regardless of their aggression level, Code Pink and other anti-war protesters would have been labeled by the media as lunatics on the verge of violence. "After the break, we'll ask Dick Morris if Code Pink founder Madea Benjamin could be the next Timothy McVeigh," are words Bill O'Reilly would have used to tease the Factor audience.
The media would have bent over backwards to blame 9/11 on anyone other than George W. Bush, going as far as openly wondering whether or not his political adversaries had anything to do with heinous attacks.
"Though his short stay in the White House makes him blameless for the attacks on America, George W. Bush still had the guts to invade two countries. Of course the international community, whom we protect militarily, will unjustly criticize Mr. Bush for what they deem unnecessary aggression. He didn't start the war on terror, but he'll put his butt on the line to finish it. This is exactly the type of man we need leading America," New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman would have informed his readers.
Of course, with the exception of the "fair and balanced" Mr. O'Reilly, these pundits despised Mr. Bush, making the above scenarios laughably unbelievable. Yet the enthusiasm contained within each fabricated snippet mirrors the actual vigor with which the real mainstream media supports President Barack Obama.
As a conservative, the last thing I want is for the American media to behave in an overtly partisan manner, even if my side benefited as a result.
I just want them to tell the truth.
But let's pretend for a second that President George W. Bush was forced to lie to the American people as frequently as the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And let's pretend the media went with it...
After all, Mr. Obama claims the bailout bill is not a bailout bill. Despite grainy video evidence where he states the exact opposite, Mr. Obama now insists he does not support a single-payer healthcare system. Do the media question Mr. Obama about these and other discrepancies?
Not for one second.
From 2001 - 2009, what would the media have reported if W. possessed the same hypnotic power?
Not only would they have reported lies as the truth, they would have gone out of their way to campaign for the already-elected president.
Matt Lauer would have undoubtedly announced to millions of early risers, "The United States has officially conquered Iraq and Afghanistan. Though minor skirmishes continue, our military was able to accomplish this awesome feat the very same day on which we attacked each country. Mr. Bush is doing everything in his power to limit the number of civilian causalities and the toppling of Saddam Hussein statues throughout Iraq prove our brave soldiers are viewed as liberators."
Later, on MSNBC, a teary-eyed Chris Matthews would elaborate. "The tingle currently running up my leg is the result of seeing our troops boldly enter Iraq, and the reality that these heroic men and women are inspired by their fearless Commander in Chief."
The mainstream media would have reported that the war in Iraq was won long before Mr. Bush arrived with his infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner. Regardless of their aggression level, Code Pink and other anti-war protesters would have been labeled by the media as lunatics on the verge of violence. "After the break, we'll ask Dick Morris if Code Pink founder Madea Benjamin could be the next Timothy McVeigh," are words Bill O'Reilly would have used to tease the Factor audience.
The media would have bent over backwards to blame 9/11 on anyone other than George W. Bush, going as far as openly wondering whether or not his political adversaries had anything to do with heinous attacks.
"Though his short stay in the White House makes him blameless for the attacks on America, George W. Bush still had the guts to invade two countries. Of course the international community, whom we protect militarily, will unjustly criticize Mr. Bush for what they deem unnecessary aggression. He didn't start the war on terror, but he'll put his butt on the line to finish it. This is exactly the type of man we need leading America," New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman would have informed his readers.
Of course, with the exception of the "fair and balanced" Mr. O'Reilly, these pundits despised Mr. Bush, making the above scenarios laughably unbelievable. Yet the enthusiasm contained within each fabricated snippet mirrors the actual vigor with which the real mainstream media supports President Barack Obama.
As a conservative, the last thing I want is for the American media to behave in an overtly partisan manner, even if my side benefited as a result.
I just want them to tell the truth.
Living for Others
Ask a Democrat what kind of country they want... If they're being honest, they'll tell you that they dream of a land in which everybody lives for everybody else.
"After a visit to the supermarket, you would transport your groceries to the dwelling of someone less fortunate. Then, after returning home, you would discover that an individual with greater means had stocked your pantry full of sustenance."
Conservatives are labeled hateful and cruel simply because we have a burning desire for accountability.
We believe the reason God blessed humanity with freewill is so that everyone could have a chance for success based on their ability and willingness to work.
Finally, after centuries of oppression, there is a country that grants each of its citizens the freedom to achieve greatness. Though this country's foundation has led to unprecedented prosperity, we're vilified for wanting to retain its foundation.
If one person earns a single cent more than his or her fellow citizens, liberals believe the unmatched wealth must have resulted from a broken and unfair system. This is the prevailing wisdom among Democrats despite the fact that Americans who achieve are much more charitable than citizens of countries whose leaders impose laws of utmost fairness.
To the far left, fairness is not achieved until the last person can act without consequence. If you succeed in life, then everyone is rewarded. If you fail, your stability will remain equal to that of individuals who have reached their lofty expectations.
But when the result of success and failure are equal, incentive to strive for greatness is nonexistent, thus resulting in a stagnant society.
The only way America can retain its superpower status is simply by ensuring that each of its citizens has the ability to retain what they produce. That's it. Just allow people to retain what they produce. Though this philosophy sounds too good to be true; it is labeled as disgusting cruelty.
President Obama and his ilk are forcing us to live for those with far less ambition. They are forcing us to hand over our hard-earned money to the government; an entity far less able to use it productively when the goal is assisting others.
President Obama demands our cash, which he will either lose via fraud and inefficiency, or use as a drug to keep the downtrodden coming back for more.
If left in our own bank account, we could carefully choose charitable organizations that help people forever fend for themselves.
And I'm not guessing that, if a majority of our tax burden was lifted, the less fortunate would still have a place to seek help. Americans have proven time and time again that their giving is unmatched.
But like pointing to thousands of countries where socialistic policies have failed miserably; informing Democrats of historical facts has absolutely no impact on their desires.
To them, socialism should work because it sounds good.
But to rational persons on the right, socialism not only sounds horrible; it has proven most ineffective.
Why else would rulers of socialist countries be required to govern using deadly force?
"After a visit to the supermarket, you would transport your groceries to the dwelling of someone less fortunate. Then, after returning home, you would discover that an individual with greater means had stocked your pantry full of sustenance."
Conservatives are labeled hateful and cruel simply because we have a burning desire for accountability.
We believe the reason God blessed humanity with freewill is so that everyone could have a chance for success based on their ability and willingness to work.
Finally, after centuries of oppression, there is a country that grants each of its citizens the freedom to achieve greatness. Though this country's foundation has led to unprecedented prosperity, we're vilified for wanting to retain its foundation.
If one person earns a single cent more than his or her fellow citizens, liberals believe the unmatched wealth must have resulted from a broken and unfair system. This is the prevailing wisdom among Democrats despite the fact that Americans who achieve are much more charitable than citizens of countries whose leaders impose laws of utmost fairness.
To the far left, fairness is not achieved until the last person can act without consequence. If you succeed in life, then everyone is rewarded. If you fail, your stability will remain equal to that of individuals who have reached their lofty expectations.
But when the result of success and failure are equal, incentive to strive for greatness is nonexistent, thus resulting in a stagnant society.
The only way America can retain its superpower status is simply by ensuring that each of its citizens has the ability to retain what they produce. That's it. Just allow people to retain what they produce. Though this philosophy sounds too good to be true; it is labeled as disgusting cruelty.
President Obama and his ilk are forcing us to live for those with far less ambition. They are forcing us to hand over our hard-earned money to the government; an entity far less able to use it productively when the goal is assisting others.
President Obama demands our cash, which he will either lose via fraud and inefficiency, or use as a drug to keep the downtrodden coming back for more.
If left in our own bank account, we could carefully choose charitable organizations that help people forever fend for themselves.
And I'm not guessing that, if a majority of our tax burden was lifted, the less fortunate would still have a place to seek help. Americans have proven time and time again that their giving is unmatched.
But like pointing to thousands of countries where socialistic policies have failed miserably; informing Democrats of historical facts has absolutely no impact on their desires.
To them, socialism should work because it sounds good.
But to rational persons on the right, socialism not only sounds horrible; it has proven most ineffective.
Why else would rulers of socialist countries be required to govern using deadly force?
More Appeasing of the Irrational
The problem with liberals is that they never stop trying to convince insane individuals to accept reality. It's an extreme case of the blind leading the blind.
The latest claim by those on the left says that if leaders of the United States proudly declare they are concerned about violent action perpetrated by homegrown right-wing militia groups more than they are about another attack from radical Islam, non-terrorist Muslim rulers worldwide will all of a sudden devote legions of men to aid America in the fight against terror.
But all rational people on earth know America has never been at war with non-terrorist Muslims.
The left talk as if President Bush instructed the Secret Service to pick off all followers of Muhammad that came within 100 yards of the White House. They talk as if, under Bush, the waterboarding of typical American Muslims was carried out with such frequency it became the new driving while black.
President Bush didn't care what religion the terrorist were. He justifiably had a "You come after us, we'll come after you," mentality.
Rational people understand the United States military is not stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq because Iraq and Afghanistan are nations filled with Muslims.
But if a few Muslims are unable to differentiate between radical Islam and Islam, there is no hope of intellectually convincing them of anything rational. It's not difficult to understand that if you put "radical" before the description of a person or "extremist" after the description of a person, it means you're not equating them with run of the mill people who fit that description.
It would be the equivalent of, during World War II, a German, who adamantly opposed the vile Nazis, hearing Franklin D. Roosevelt declare the United States was at war with Hitler and his radical German regime, and therefore picking up a weapon for use against the allies. "Yes, I despise Hitler, but since President Roosevelt uttered the word 'German' in describing the enemy of his country, I must fight alongside those whose cruelty is unmatched. I will toss aside a lifetime of kindness and decency and kill all Americans because their president didn't wisely choose the words with which he described his adversary!"
Attempting to talk sense into the irrational is an exercise in futility, but is nevertheless the backbone of liberal foreign policy.
They honestly believe that the appeasement of child-killing terrorists will immediately convince said evildoer to drop his weapon and do the whole 9-5 thing. With great anticipation, the New York Times awaits the day on which they can quote a terrorist as having said, "Now that America is acting in accordance with my worldview, I will put down my grenade launcher and erect a white picket fence in my front dirt pit, purchase a hybrid automobile and exchange the dynamite vest strapped to the chest of my teenage daughter with a Girl Scout burqa that, Allah willing, will soon display many badges related to her ability to avoid eye contact with men."
Liberals believe that if you meet every demand of a terrorist, the killer of innocence will cease to have another violent thought. In reality, if every demand of a terrorist were met, the evildoer would quickly expand his list of demands.
Liberals believe terrorists can be taken at their word while conservatives are rotten liars.
A liberal thinks, "Republicans are so hard to please; terrorists on the other hand..."
I suppose it's irrational of me to put so much thought into why irrational people wholeheartedly believe irrational people are rational when there is little mystery to the phenomenon.
The latest claim by those on the left says that if leaders of the United States proudly declare they are concerned about violent action perpetrated by homegrown right-wing militia groups more than they are about another attack from radical Islam, non-terrorist Muslim rulers worldwide will all of a sudden devote legions of men to aid America in the fight against terror.
But all rational people on earth know America has never been at war with non-terrorist Muslims.
The left talk as if President Bush instructed the Secret Service to pick off all followers of Muhammad that came within 100 yards of the White House. They talk as if, under Bush, the waterboarding of typical American Muslims was carried out with such frequency it became the new driving while black.
President Bush didn't care what religion the terrorist were. He justifiably had a "You come after us, we'll come after you," mentality.
Rational people understand the United States military is not stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq because Iraq and Afghanistan are nations filled with Muslims.
But if a few Muslims are unable to differentiate between radical Islam and Islam, there is no hope of intellectually convincing them of anything rational. It's not difficult to understand that if you put "radical" before the description of a person or "extremist" after the description of a person, it means you're not equating them with run of the mill people who fit that description.
It would be the equivalent of, during World War II, a German, who adamantly opposed the vile Nazis, hearing Franklin D. Roosevelt declare the United States was at war with Hitler and his radical German regime, and therefore picking up a weapon for use against the allies. "Yes, I despise Hitler, but since President Roosevelt uttered the word 'German' in describing the enemy of his country, I must fight alongside those whose cruelty is unmatched. I will toss aside a lifetime of kindness and decency and kill all Americans because their president didn't wisely choose the words with which he described his adversary!"
Attempting to talk sense into the irrational is an exercise in futility, but is nevertheless the backbone of liberal foreign policy.
They honestly believe that the appeasement of child-killing terrorists will immediately convince said evildoer to drop his weapon and do the whole 9-5 thing. With great anticipation, the New York Times awaits the day on which they can quote a terrorist as having said, "Now that America is acting in accordance with my worldview, I will put down my grenade launcher and erect a white picket fence in my front dirt pit, purchase a hybrid automobile and exchange the dynamite vest strapped to the chest of my teenage daughter with a Girl Scout burqa that, Allah willing, will soon display many badges related to her ability to avoid eye contact with men."
Liberals believe that if you meet every demand of a terrorist, the killer of innocence will cease to have another violent thought. In reality, if every demand of a terrorist were met, the evildoer would quickly expand his list of demands.
Liberals believe terrorists can be taken at their word while conservatives are rotten liars.
A liberal thinks, "Republicans are so hard to please; terrorists on the other hand..."
I suppose it's irrational of me to put so much thought into why irrational people wholeheartedly believe irrational people are rational when there is little mystery to the phenomenon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)