Posts Tagged ‘Daschle’

Demonization And Other Examples Of Liberal Hypocrisy

April 29, 2009

I recall a bit from a Seinfeld episode that involved a bedroom technique known only as “the move.” It was apparently a very potent and successful “move,” indeed:

Elaine: I was with David *Putty* last night.

Jerry: Yeah, so.

Elaine: He did the move.

Jerry: What move?

Elaine: You know…*the* move.

Jerry: Wait a second. *My* move?

[Elaine nods].

Jerry: David Putty used *my* move?

Elaine: Yes, yes.

Jerry: Are you sure?

Elaine: Jerry! There is no confusing *that* move with any other move.

Jerry: I can’t believe it. He *stole* my move.

Elaine: What else did you tell [reaches over to slap Jerry] him. [does it

again] The two of you must have had *quite* a little chat!

Jerry: Oh, it wasn’t like that! I didn’t even mention you. You know, we

were in the garage. You know how garages are. They’re conducive to sex

talk. It’s a high-testosterone area.

Elaine: Because of all the pistons and the lube jobs?

Jerry: Well, I’m going down to that garage and telling him to stop doing it.

Elaine: Well, wait—wait a second.

Jerry: What?

Elaine: Isn’t that a little…rash?

Jerry: No! He stole my move!

Elaine: Yeah, but…*I* like the move.

Jerry: Yeah, but it’s like another comedian stealing my material.

Elaine: Well, he doesn’t even do it exactly the same. He–he–he uses a

pinch at the end instead of the *swirl*!

Jerry: Oh, yeah. The pinch. *I’ve* done the pinch. That’s not new.

Well, with that that long bit of introduction, the Democrats have their very own “move,” – an extremely potent and successful “move” – and they are clearly angry that Republicans are beginning to steal their move.

The Democrat’s “move” – by the way – is demonization.  It’s their move, they’ve used it to great effect for the last twenty years or so, and they don’t want their rivals using it.

Here’s a little story to illustrate the Democrat’s and their “move”:

It Takes One to Know One
“Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, one of the most prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals in the United States, announced yesterday that she would refuse a prestigious award from the University of Notre Dame rather than appear on the same platform on which President Obama is being awarded an honorary degree,” the Boston Globe reports.

The Globe notes that not all Catholics are unhappy with Notre Dame’s plan to give the president an honorary degree:

“There are some well-meaning people who think Notre Dame has given away its Catholic identity, because they have been caught up in the gamesmanship of American higher education, bringing in a star commencement speaker even if that means sacrificing their values, and that accounts for some of this,” said the Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of theology department at Boston College. “But one also has to say that there is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison. Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation.”

Now read this 2006 Associated Press dispatch:

Nearly 100 faculty members at Boston College have signed a letter objecting to the college’s decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree.

The letter entitled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” was written by the Rev. Kenneth Himes. . . .

“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work,” the letter said.

Himes, it seems, is an expert on demonization.

Kenneth Himes lectures us: How DARE you do what I did to you!  There must be something morally WRONG with you!!!  Demonization is “OUR” move, and you can’t steal it!

Well, as Obama folk like to say, “YES, WE CAN!”

Being a liberal means being a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy defines liberals; their shriveled little souls swim in it.  And part of being a total hypocrite means having the pathological ability to be perfectly at home with their own massive contradictions.

For instance, liberals are “tolerant,” which means they lash out and demonize anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them – in the name of “tolerance.”

A few other examples of liberal hypocrisy:

Liberals support high taxes on the rich.  As long as it is understood that they have no expectation to pay such taxes themselves.  Ask pretty much anyone on Barack Obama’s cabinet.  Liberals like “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Nancy Kelleher, and Kathleen Sebelius.  And that doesn’t include Congressional Democrats such as Charles Rangel – who is writing YOUR tax laws even as he cheats on HIS taxes.  And don’t forget the mantra from Rangel’s former fellow member of the House Ways and Means Committee William Jefferson: “FBI sting money hidden in freezers is NOT taxable.”

Liberals claim that it is the rich’s “patriotic duty” to pay a shockingly high percentage of total income taxes while simultaneously pandering to the clearly unpatriotic – by their own standard – 42% of Americans who pay NO federal income taxes at all.

Liberals claim that they are generous and conservatives are stingy; yet the facts demand the exact OPPOSITE conclusion.  The fact of the matter is that conservatives are FAR more “liberal” givers than liberalsConservatives give 30% more than liberals even though liberals earn slightly more.  And religious conservatives give THREE AND A HALF TIMES more of their income to charities than secular liberals.  If you’d like some particular cases, consider the loathsome lack of personal generosity displayed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden relative to the extremely generous conservatives like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and John McCain.

Liberals love racial diversity – as long as they can continue demonizing black conservatives such as Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimahs” or “race traitors.”  Janeane Garafalo is completely free to be a hard-core racist, just as long as the minorities she viciously attacks are conservatives.  Newsweek Magazine –  in wholehearted agreement with Garafalo – literally argued that whites who don’t vote for Obama are racist.

In the same vein, liberals are pro-woman – just as long as “women” are defined as “liberal feminist”; otherwise, they hand out the Sarah Palin treatment (e.g., “Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman”).  Ultimately, of course, Sarah Palin is a “bad mother” for allowing her baby born with Down Syndrome to live.

Liberals stand for the helpless and oppressed victim: as long as that helpless and oppressed victim isn’t a baby having his brains sucked out.  Meanwhile liberals attack conservatives as not caring about the poor, even though – as has already been pointed out – conservatives are in fact FAR more generous than liberals (example 1, example 2).

Liberals continually decry the “rightwing smear machine” even as they have hard-core hate sites such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos – which DWARF anything even remotely compatible on the right.   The primary funding comes from documented Nazi collaborator George Soros, an American-sovereignty-undermining trans-nationalist who has made his billions undermining currencies all over the world – including America’s.  And his friends have been just as bad.  And Soros and friends such as Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler have used their massive fortunes to ensure that NOBODY smears like the left: think “General Betray Us.”

Liberals “interpret” the Constitution to find “penumbras and emanations” that they allege mandate a constitutional and sacred right to abortion on demand, but twist and contort the English language until the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give the people the right to bear arms.

Liberals demand socialized medicine.  Michael Moore made a ton of money demonizing America’s privatized system and claiming that Cuba’s socialized medicine was better; yet when that fat SOB needed heart surgery, he elected to go to Cleveland rather than Cuba.  Even more glaring, Belinda Stronach of the Canadian Parliament opposed even allowing private medicine in Canada; but when she was diagnosed with breast cancer she came to the United States to obtain the very thing she denied her fellow citizens from having.

As to the death penalty for convicted murderers, liberals argue that inserting a hypodermic needle into the vein of a death row inmate constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, yet insist that sucking the  brains out of a viable baby whose head is sticking out of a birth canal is compassionate.

They also say that a 13 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without her parents’ consent, then tell parents that they face jail if they don’t ensure that that same 13 year old girl doesn’t miss school (with attendance being the barometer for public school funding).

Liberals demand that they be able to teach issues such as homosexuality in the guise of open-mindedness and diversity, but come absolutely unglued if any school board so much as suggest that evolution is only a theory rather than a law, let alone present any alternative to evolution whatsoever.

On the subject of evolution as it relates to morality, liberals denounce any dependence on the natural law (grounded in a transcendent Creator God) as the only basis for objective morality, and then impose one utterly subjective moral norm after another.  In so doing, they literally subjective natural law and objectivize their own highly subjective moral preferences.

Liberals demand that all children go to government schools and fight any effort to provide vouchers to parents, and then send their own children to private schools.  For all of liberals’ indignant outrage concerning “the children,” the fact is that the teachers’ unions are far more important than the education of children.   Barack Obama ensured that children like Marquis Greene couldn’t go to his daughters’ Sidwell Friends School.

Liberals take private jets to denounce people for being polluters.

Liberals claim that whether the Antarctic ice sheet grows or whether it shrinks, it still proves global warming.

Liberals lampooned President Bush for his verbal gaffes, and yet idolize the “sublime speaking ability” of a man who can’t so much as say, “Good morning” without reading from a teleprompter screen.  Barack Obama has already used his teleprompter FAR more in just his first 100 days than George Bush did in his entire 8 year term.

Liberals repeatedly (falsely) claimed that Jefferson said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when conservatives attacked their lack of patriotism.  They were terribly upset with any insinuation that they might be unpatriotic – because when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq (QUOTE: “I believe that this war is lost” UNQUOTE) even as our troops were in the field fighting to prevail, he was surrendering as a “patriot.”  And when John Murtha proclaimed Marines who turned out to be innocent of murderous war crimes in Haditha, his demonization of our Marines was “patriotic.” Now, of course, Democrats are all over themselves labeling Republican opposition to their socialist agenda as “unpatriotic.”

As for liberals’ view on patriotism, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words – when that picture is a cartoon drawn by Ted Rall:

ted-rall-hate-military-cartoon

Let’s see: racial hatred directed at white males.  Check.  Cynicism of the patriotism that would make a young man fight for his country.  Check.  Mockery of religion.  Check.  Contempt for America as a country of suicide bombers.  Check.

Or another liberal cartoon.  America as viewed through the warped lenses of the liberal New York Times: the Statue of Liberty swinging a whip at the poor, tired, huddled masses.

statue-of-liberty_whip_ny-times

As liberals now demand that conservatives stop using “their move,” realize that they will NEVER stop using it themselves.  It is simply who they are.  So we might as well sick their own dog on them – and let us make sure that dog is foaming at the mouth when it bites them back.

Advertisements

Obama, Democrats attack of Bush Knesset Speech Reveals Appeasement

May 15, 2008

President Bush gave a speech on 15 May 2008 before the Israeli Knesset that has drawn condemnation and outrage from Democrats. The most “outrageous” position he expressed – in context – is presented here:

Some of the reactions:

Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said, “Obviously, this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It’s quite frankly sad and astonishing that the President of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. … We have come to expect, and seen from this administration over the last eight years, this type of cowboy diplomacy. We’ve come to expect it, but over the past eight years it’s made this country far less safe than we were. … I think people are going to ask themselves in this election, are we safer than we were eight years ago, under this president, and I think the answer is going to be a resounding no” (“American Morning,” CNN, 5/15).

A listing of similar cries of angst and outrage:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

Senator Joe Biden responded with unusual eloquence:

This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”…
“He is the guy who has weakened us,” he said. “He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.

Senator John Kerry said, “[Bush] is still playing the disgusting and dangerous political game Karl Rove perfected, which is insulting to every American and disrespectful to our ally Israel. George Bush should be making Israel secure, not slandering Barack Obama from the Knesset.”

There is no escaping what the president is doing,” said [Dick] Durbin, who supports Obama. “It is an attack on Sen. Obama’s position that we should not be avoiding even those we disagree with when it comes to negotiations and diplomacy.

“I am shocked and, actually, very, very saddened by what the President has done,” [Tom] Daschle said during an interview he gave to Fox News.

“This is an unprecedented political attack that we’ve never seen a president do before.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she, “would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments…

The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

What on earth did the President say? I mean, it must have been really, really awful. He must have said that Democrats were all direct descendants of Satan, or that Barack Obama was secretly in direct communication with Osama bin Laden to plot against the United States or something. I mean, it had to be really despicable to generate such a reaction, right?

Wrong. We are dealing with people who have no moral compass, and think only in terms of self-serving political rhetoric.

Here is the statement that President Bush actually made, in context (the full speech is available online):

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve.

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is the ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

That is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. That is why the followers of

Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is natural. But it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you.

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance, freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all of the world because they are a gift from Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. And societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners for peace.

In an article titled, Appeasement, the Democrats, and Shakespeare, posted Democratic Representatives Jim McDermott (Wash.), David Bonior (Mich.) and Mike Thompson (Calif.) going to Iraq to attack President Bush from foreign soil – in a visit that turns out to have been financed by Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service.

He cites former President Jimmy Carter’s statement from England.

And he cites remarks made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she took it upon her self to go to Syria.

Given the fact that President Bush did not name a single Democrat by name, given the fact that his only allusion to any American political figure was an unnamed American senator back in 1939, and given the fact that Barack Obama claims the remark did not in any way resemble his own foreign policy position, why say anything at all? Why all the outrage?

President Bush didn’t attack Democrats or Barack Obama. They attacked themselves, and blamed him for it.

These Democrats shrilly proclaim that President Bush is beyond contempt for attacking them, when he didn’t, and then demonstrate that they are not in the least beyond launching vicious personal attacks themselves. It’s really a quite remarkable act of hypocrisy.

While watching Fox News with Megyn Kelly interviewing an Obama spokeswoman this afternoon, I heard the Obama camp first claim that Bush’s policy of refusing to talk with our enemies was causing political instability, and then almost immediately thereafter claim that Bush had dialogued with leaders of countries such as Sudan to show that it’s Bush – and not Obama – who is dialoguing with enemies. You wonder how these people’s heads don’t explode trying to contain all the contradictions.

Barack Obama has famously said that he would be willing to have direct dialogue with leaders of state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, without any preconditions. His website says, “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” It was a position that her Democratic rival Hillary Clinton repeatedly pointed to as an example of his inexperience and naiveté. It is a substantial departure from the policy of every American president over the last fifty years.

I point out in an earlier article that:

The Bush administration – like all U.S. presidential administrations before it – had the policy of refusing to directly engage with terrorist states and rogue totalitarian dictatorships. Doing so, they argued, gives these states credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the world while doing little to change their despicable ways.

In other words, by dialoguing with terrorists, we implicitly recognize them, and thereby recognize the acts that they commit. We abandon the belief that some acts are so heinous, and so deplorable, that anyone who commits them should be shunned and reviled instead of being rewarded with recognition and legitimacy. Instead, we tacitly acknowledge that using violence and suffering to advance one’s cause is a valid path to international recognition. Otherwise, we would not have allowed their violent approach to succeed.

In an article detailing Jimmy Carter’s recent visit to the terrorist entity Hamas, Katarina Kratovac wrote the following:

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who brokered Israel’s historic peace agreement with Egypt three decades ago, is on what he calls a private peace mission. He contends the U.S., Israel and other Western states should stop isolating Hamas if they want peace efforts to succeed.

Heading the Hamas delegation in Cairo were Gaza leaders Mahmoud Zahar and Said Siyam. “This meeting is a message to those who don’t recognize Hamas’ legitimacy as a movement,” Zahar said as he left for Egypt, according to Hamas’ Web site.

In Cairo, Hamas spokesman Taher Nuhu told The Associated Press that the purported Thursday meeting would be “a recognition of the legitimacy” of Hamas’ victory in the Palestinians’ parliamentary election in 2006.

Hamas obtained the desired prestige and international attention it wanted, and gave up absolutely nothing in return, which is exactly what American conservatives and Israelies said would happen.

Barack Obama – and prominent Democrat’s – argument that the President of the United States must be willing to talk directly to our enemies because otherwise there will be no communication and no possibility for compromise or peace is simply a straw man. In reality, the United States has constant lines of communications with countries such as Iran through other countries, through lower level diplomats, and through various other “back channel” sources. A meeting with the President of the United States should be reserved as a conditional reward for abandoning behavior harmful to the interest of the United States; not as a reward for engaging in that very behavior we find despicable.

Do you want to know the real reason why all these Democrats are so livid?

Because – in talking about the colossal errors of the past – President Bush showed why liberals are so terribly wrong in the present.

In a speech by Newt Gingrich which I have available on this blog (under the title, “Fighting For Survival Means Fighting For Truth – by Newt Gingrich”), Gingrich, in discussing what he learned from his reading of a book titled, Troublesome Young Men, says, “And we tend to understate what a serious and conscientious and thoughtful effort appeasement was and that it was the direct and deliberate policy of very powerful and very willful people. We tend to think of it as a psychological weakness as though Chamberlain was somehow craven. He wasn’t craven. Chamberlain had a very clear vision of the World, and he was very ruthless domestically.”

Ultimately, Bush wasn’t attacking Barack Obama or any other Democrat for being willing to speak to this leader or that, even without preconditions. Such is the allegation by Democrats attempting to divert attention to what Bush really was criticizing, which was: the historic tendency to dismiss genuine moral evil on the part of leaders of rogue regimes, and the historic tendency to be all-too-willing to appease to such leaders.

If Democrats truly agreed with these two basic positions, they merely had to affirm that they too embrace these ideas, and will be true to them if elected.

In demonizing Bush’ position, they implicitly proclaim that the spirit of appeasement from 1938 is still alive and well in 2008.