Liberal Answer to Everything: Reject Reality

The prime characteristic of Liberals -- their ability to twist reality to conform to their beliefs -- was dramatically illustrated to me a couple of days ago. In the film Hating Breitbart, a documentary about the conservative firebrand, several minutes are devoted to the John Lewis "n-word" controversy.

A refresher on the subject: At one point during the 2010 debates over the Obamacare legislation, Tea Partiers held a rally against the Democrat law in Washington. While approaching the building where Obama was to speak, several black Democrat congressmen, including Lewis, passed through the Tea Party protest. The congressmen subsequently reported that they were repeatedly called "n***er" and spat upon by Tea Partiers. The media, of course, ran with the story as an excuse to blast the Tea Party movement as racist.

Andrew Breitbart, deeply acquainted with the Tea Party movement and rallies, doubted the reports. He offered $10,000 -- later increased to $100,000 -- to anyone who could provide video or audio proof of the n-word being used just once.

In the sea of television cameras and microphones, hundreds if not thousands of cell phones and video cameras held by individuals that day, not a single instance of anyone using the n-word has turned up. Remember, this was not an incident that occurred in a room with a closed door and no one else present. This was as public as it gets.

The bounty is uncollected to this day.

Breitbart analyzed the situation, I think accurately. "I think the press release was written before they walked through the crowd, and the reality of it didn't materialize, but they went ahead with their plan anyway." Regardless of what happened (or didn't) they were claiming Tea Partiers called them names.

Despite the lack of a single shred of evidence or proof, Liberals still believe the story. In Hating Breitbart, Mediaite political editor Tommy Christopher says, "My assumption, especially for someone like John Lewis, uh, is that that guy's not gonna lie......about that." 

So the fact that he agrees with someone politically outweighs anything else, including reality. And that's why arguments against Liberals are essentially pointless. Liberalism is their religion, and anything that refutes or disproves that religion is to be ignored.  

The Liberal Mantra

The Liberal Mantra.

Can I choose a large drink? No, it is not good for you
Can I choose an incandescent bulb? No, it is not good for the environment
Can I choose low cost coal? No, it is not good for the planet
Can I choose to honor God? No, that's offensive 
Can I choose to eat fast food? No, it is unhealthy
Can I choose to own a gun? No, think of the children.
What can I choose? An abortion

(Hat tip to Human Events commenter TripleA60.)

My goal when arguing with a Liberal

"Conan!  What is best in life?"

To crush your enemies,
See them driven before you,
And to hear the lamentation of their women.

Santorum and the Left's attack on America

The most convincing argument so far made for Rick Santorum was expressed in a recent column by Star Parker.  Titled “The Left Fuels Santorum Surge,” Parker's column touts Santorum’s consistency.  “Santorum stands out in the current Republican field in the clarity of his image and identity. There is little doubt about who the man is and there are no glaring inconsistencies between who he says he is today and his past behavior and positions…. So the issue with Santorum is whether you buy what he is selling.”

Parker goes on to commend Santorum for his refusal to shy away from social issues.  The Left, she argues, engages in battle every chance it gets to mold our culture into what it wants. The courts found California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, unconstitutional; the uproar that caused the Susan G. Komen foundation to reinstate its funding of Planned Parenthood; the Obama administration’s insistence that the Catholic church provide contraceptives to its employees.  

“The three high profile left wing victories of recent weeks all touch these key areas.

• End the traditional institution of marriage as a bulwark of our society.
• Continue to promote sex as recreation and relegate the life this activity creates as a trivial byproduct which we allow to be destroyed with ease.
• Destroy the sanctity of private property so government can finance irresponsibility with other people’s money.”

Rick Santorum, Parker says, is the only Republican candidate who has consistently fought against the Left’s deforming of America.

Now I'm reassured about Social Security

Jack Coffee, professor of law and securities law expert at Columbia University, quoted in a story in USA Today:  "Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because it wasn't an intentional fraud."

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going." -- Wikipedia

"Good intentions" seems to be a common excuse for disastrous Liberal Democrat policies.

What Liberals Believe

Andrew Klavan explains the difference between what Conservatives and Liberals believe.

I Didn't Know They Were Still Around

Associated Press: Air America Radio closing, filing for bankruptcy

"LOS ANGELES – Air America Radio, a radio network that was launched in 2004 as a liberal alternative to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators, on Thursday shut down abruptly due to financial woes."

Happy trails, Air America. We hardly knew ye.

Interesting Thoughts

A twofer:

In his column "Fox Fever -- The Latest Pandemic" Larry Elder gives a bit of perspective on the supposed Conservative bias at Fox News.

In her column "Election 2009: Change I Can Believe In!" Ann Coulter makes a pithy observation: "...Conservatives are more popular than Republicans. By contrast, Liberals are less popular than Democrats. When Conservatives take control of the Republican Party, Republicans win. When Liberals take control of the Democratic Party, Democrats end up out of power for eight to 12 years."

Where Racism and Self-Interest Intersect

The Wall Street Journal reports on Democrat Representative Maxine Waters, demonstrating how her own party wants her to keep her nose out of certain financial legislative decisions. This attitude is despite Ms. Waters' position as a member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Why the concern? Because Ms. Waters and her husband have a big stake in "minority" owned OneUnited Bank. Her involvement is complex, from her practice of giving the bank's executives special access to Federal Treasury officials, to the shares, stock options and other benefits she and her husband have in the bank, to her husband's postion as a director of the bank.

Ms. Waters has also been relentless in her efforts to prevent OneUnited from being forced to merge with other, "non-minority" owned banks. At a hearing on minority lending in 2007, Ms. Waters alluded to two banks, Independence Bank of Washington, D.C., and "another bank that was about to be acquired by a major white bank out of Illinois." You know, the special white bank, where only white people can go.

Racism in all its forms is stupid and vile. What's even more stupid and vile is when one party -- the Democrat one -- allows its members to practice racism publicly, without consequence. That those members can use their racism to affect legislation is beyond belief. When it comes to Liberals, however, you can't consider any action too outlandish, too outrageous or too foolish.


[Edit 3/14: Michelle Malkin has a bit more detail on the antics of Maxine Waters. How in the world can she still hold office? Oh, that's right, she's a Democrat. There are no standards for behavior.]

25 Most Influential Media Liberals

Forbes.com has an article detailing who it considers the 25 most influential Liberals in the media. Few surprises as to who is included, (Bill Moyers and Jon Stewart, for example,) with a couple of names that I had never heard of before. Notably missing were the movie and television stars such as Tim Robbins, Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen who always lend their celebrity to Liberal causes.

Treason From the Past and the Distant Past

Ann Coulter wrote a book a few years ago entitled Treason. In this book she demonstrates how Liberals have been on the wrong side of foreign policy in everything from the Cold War to the war on terror.
.

In the course of her arguments, she defends Senator Joseph McCarthy, who has been demonized by the Left for so long that his name has become a code word for unwarranted persecution. McCarthy led hearings and investigations into Communists who had infiltrated America, especially the government. Coulter illustrates that for forty years McCarthy was judged harshly as being wrong -- but that Soviet documents revealed in 1995 that Soviet Communist spies actually did infiltrate the American government, and that McCarthy was right all along. Her thesis is backed up by M. Stanton Evans' book Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies.

.

This long buildup to my point stems from a video clip I saw recently. Coulter was a guest on Bill O'Reilly's TV show, where she was plugging her book. O'Reilly refused to take seriously her argument for McCarthy's correctness, and he argued (O'Reilly style) that she was wrong. The most wonderful exchange was this one:

Coulter: "I'm responding to 50 years of the liberal creation of a myth—turning an honorable American, a great American patriot, Joe McCarthy, into a virtual Nazi."

O'Reilly: "I'm not going with that. I'm not going with that. A guy who used his power to do some good but a lot of bad too."
Coulter: "Like what?"
O'Reilly: "He demonized people who didn't deserve to be demonized."
Coulter: "That's not true. Name one. There is not one."
O'Reilly: "I'll name one—Dalton Trumbo."
Coulter: "He had nothing to do with Dalton Trumbo."
O'Reilly: "Sure he did. It was the House Unamerican Activities Committee. And who was overseeing that?"
Coulter: "He was known as Senator McCarthy. He was in the Senate, not the House."

O'Reilly, it seems, in his desire to portray himself as a "centrist" and paint Coulter as a "right wing nutjob," had bought into the Liberal propaganda without thinking it through.

.

It strikes me how easy it is to dismantle most Liberal arguments with facts. When confronted with facts that they can't refute, Liberals begin blustering and turn their attacks on the messenger (see "Joe the plumber.") Their attitude is My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.

.

Although O'Reilly is no Liberal, he fell apart like a Liberal under facts that contradicted a "truth" he had held for so long. The lesson? Don't accept a Liberal's statements of "fact" until you've done your own research.

Obama's Campaign of Intimidation

This is one you'll want to e-mail people about.

Obama supporters -- like Liberals in general -- not only oppose Obama critics, but also are determined to silence them. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of Obama on the Milt Rosenberg show.
.
Stanley Kurtz is a Conservative (generally) writer whose work often appears in National Review. As part of his research, he has been investigating the relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers (see an earlier post.) In particular he wanted to research papers at the University of Illinois at Chicago detailing Obama's work on the Annenburg Challenge, a foundation of which Obama was the chairman. William Ayers had a position on the board of that foundation. The University at first agreed to let Kurtz do research, then suddenly withdrew their approval. After Kurtz challenged them legally, they relented and allowed him access.
.
Kurtz found information which shows pretty clearly that Ayers was more to Obama than simply "someone who lives in my neighborhood," as Obama said in a debate during the primaries. The video of Obama's comments about Ayers is below, starting at about the :40 mark.




Kurtz emphasizes in his interview that he focused on Obama's relationships in the 90s, not on Ayers's terrorist acts in 1971. Interestingly, no one from the Obama campaign was willing to go on the air to rebut Kurtz live. Instead, they started a campaign of intimidation against WGN for allowing Kurtz on the air at all. For the final hour of the interview, callers were invited to respond, and none of them could disprove any of Kurtz's points. Instead, they followed the talking points from the e-mail they were sent.
..
This is the candidate that the Democrats are so proud of.
..
You can listen to the interview here.

You Might Be A Liberal If...

John Hawkins has a great column today listing indications of "You might be a Liberal if..." It's pretty funny. Some samples:

You might be a Liberal if:

* You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.

* You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states.

* You couldn't care less about what Americans in states like Kansas or Virginia think of you, but you would be greatly upset if a Frenchman gave you a dirty look because you're an American.

Pretty funny.

The Congressmen Who Hate Christmas

LifeSiteNews.com reports on a group of nineteen U.S. Congressmen who voted on a resolution recognizing Islam and the holiday of Ramadan -- then either voted "against" or "present" (meaning they refused to support) a resolution similarly recognizing Christianity and Christmas.


The language of the resolutions is nearly identical. The Congressmen who refused to support Christmas while supporting Ramadan are all Democrats. (Full list on the site.)


Whenever you start to think that maybe Conservatives are getting too "vicious" or too "partisan," remember that there are people like these elected representatives, who hold power over all our lives, who support the beliefs of our enemies more than they support American beliefs and traditions.


Although I disagree with those who are anti-religion, I at least respect their right to believe the way they do. Don't get me wrong, I go to great lengths to defeat such people in arguments -- I don't think a single contemporary person's arguments trump 2000 years of believers in Christianity, for example -- but this is America, etc. etc.


Those who I want to remove from public life completely are those who choose to officially sanction other cultures' beliefs over our own.


When you're debating a Liberal, remember these nineteen Democrats who refused to recognize the worth of Christianity and Christmas, but supported the religion of our enemies. It will put a fire in your belly.

Other People Say Smart Stuff VIII

John Hawkins has a new column entitled "Shattering 3 Myths About Liberals." In this column, Hawkins makes a solid case for the following points:

• Liberals are more racist than Conservatives.
• Conservatives are more compassionate than Liberals.
• Liberals are more "religious" (at least about subjects where the science doesn't support them) than Conservatives.

Check it out.

Language and the Conservative Fight

Rush Limbaugh recently discussed the brouhaha over Ann Coulter's use of the word "faggot" in the same mention as Democrat John Edwards, versus the silence over Bill Maher's recommendation that Vice President Cheney should have been assassinated in Afghanistan.

Initially, according to Rush, Conservative bloggers at the CPAC conference condemned Coulter, but were astounded when their readers unanimously supported her.

From Rush's broadcast:
"I think what people misunderstand about the rank-and-file in the Republican Party is that they're sick and tired of taking it on the chin day in and day out. The mainstream press can assault every one of our icons. The mainstream press, the Drive-By Media and the left, can assault every one of our presidential candidates. They can call George Bush "Hitler." They can write movies on how Bush ought to be assassinated, do movies and produce them; write books on how Bush ought to be assassinated; can say that they wish Cheney had been killed -- and there is no condemnation of it. There are a lot of people in the so-called conservative movement who are fed up with the docileness of Republican leaders in Congress, and even in the White House, who just sit by, don't respond, and just take this stuff.

"So when somebody like Ann Coulter comes along and says what she said, they simply react to it. “All right! Somebody's fighting back! Somebody is saying something in return to these people and pointing out their hypocrisy."

From Ann Coulter's book "How to Talk to a Liberal":

"...you must outrage the enemy. If the Liberal you're arguing with doesn't become speechless with sputtering, impotent rage, you're not doing it right. People don't get angry when lies are told about them; they get angry when the truth is told about them.... Nothing too extreme can be said about Liberals, because it's all true."

Ann Coulter, the Dalai Lama of Conservatism

Heroes with Feet of Clay

I'm a big fan of the Bob and Tom radio show. They're funny, have comedians as guests, and help me start my day with a laugh or two. I've paid for a VIP membership for several years so that I can listen to their show at a more convenient time.

On March 2, they read a news story about Al Gore's rampant energy consumption in his Tennessee mansion (see February 26 blog). However, later in the show they "amended" the earlier story. They dismissively attributed the earlier report to the Drudge Report (with no mention of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, the group who researched Gore's energy use and made the claim.) Tom Griswold then read from the Wall Street Journal, explaining that Gore purchases "carbon offsets" to make up for his energy consumption.

These "carbon offsets" merely mean that you can consume as much energy as you want, as long as you pay someone else to use less. It's the rich Liberal enviro-nazi copout. Again, other people have to pay the price for their actions. (Did it occur to Al Gore and his devotees that he should consume less and invest in the energy projects he now uses as offsets?)

I was horribly disappointed when B&T backed off the Gore story. They caved to political pressure, either from Liberal listeners or Liberal management. Yet again, the Liberal spin machine is allowed to suppress the truth.

Other People Say Smart Stuff VI

Some excerpts from William Rusher's latest column, "The Global Warming Hysterics Strike Again":

"Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the United States paid 'scientists' (mostly in universities) last year to study this or that aspect of global warming? They are raiding this El Dorado with both hands, and you can imagine their attitude toward any colleague who dares to doubt their warnings."

"The latest incitement to panic over global warming is the recently released summary of a 1,400-page report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We won't get to see the actual report till May, but the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, says "I hope this report will shock people."

"Given the media's hype concerning the human causes of global warming, it undoubtedly will. But the actual figures, when compared to those in the IPCC's last report in 2001, are downright encouraging. Christopher Monckton, a British analyst, points out that the new summary "more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches." (Al Gore predicts 20 to 30 feet.) Monckton adds that "The U.N. has cut its estimate of (the human) net effect on climate by more than a third."

"The traditional liberal hatred of "American corporations," ...is mobilized whenever some new misfortune can be laid, however speciously, at their door. All sorts of manufacturing operations emit carbon dioxide, which are thus responsible for some uncertain part of the seven-tenths of one degree Celsius by which the earth's surface temperature rose in the 20th century. Actually, believe it or not, cows emit far more greenhouse gases (from their rear ends) than corporations do, but corporations are easier to hate than cows."

Other People Say Smart Stuff III

I recently read the most enjoyable column on the modern Liberal Left: "All the Old Dudes," written by Jack Langer. His first line tells the tale: "A man could make a fortune selling Geritol to these people." Read the rest of it, though, because it's fresh, fun, and informative.

Liberals and OPM, Part 2

Recently the Congress passed legislation regarding a higher minimum wage. I’ve addressed some of the arguments about this before ("A Zero-Sum Wage" July 28, 2006; "First Post of 2007" January 5, 2007.) This legislative session, however, had a few quirks.

Tunagate
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi represents California’s 8th district, which includes San Francisco. She has pushed hard for the 40% increase in the minimum wage. This federal minimum wage is supposed to affect all U.S. states, territories and possessions.

Segue to Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, the non-voting Democrat representative from Samoa. He requested an exemption for Samoa. It seems that 80% of the employment in Samoa is with two tuna processing plants, one of which belongs to StarKist tuna. The increase in the minimum wage, he said, would be devastating to his country’s economy.

The minimum wage legislation as initially proposed and promoted by Nancy Pelosi included this exemption. No other states, territories or possessions were exempt. Only Samoa.

As it turns out, StarKist tuna is owned by the Del Monte company. And the Del Monte’s company headquarters are in....San Francisco.

There was enough of an uproar by Republicans over this barefaced double standard that Pelosi was forced to back down, and Samoa is now covered by the minimum wage law. Pelosi, however, has been exposed as the fraud she is. She ignored her own arguments about "human suffering" in her zeal to protect the profits of the corporation in her district.

Also, by attempting this piece of underhanded chicanery, she acknowledged that raising the minimum wage is harmful to the economy. If it was bad for Samoa, won’t it be bad for America?

Democrats are eager to take credit for projects and programs that other people pay for. But when there’s a risk that they will have to pick up the tab, they quickly look for a way to change the rules. To Democrats, there’s no such thing as "take home pay" - it all belongs to them. They love OPM.

***
An addendum to highlight how the Democrats work: Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina asked a question of Democrat Barney Frank, who was in the House chair (to temporarily lead the House.) The topic was stem-cell research. McHenry began to ask about the possibility of exempting Samoa from the stem cell bill, but before he could complete his question, Frank interrupted him, and would not allow him to speak. The exchange went on for nearly five minutes, but Frank refused to allow McHenry to speak. (In all fairness, the question was one of parliamentary procedure, but Frank's refusal to let him speak was despotic.)

That's how the party in control of Congress should act. Republicans, pay attention.