Archive for Conservative Nonsense

Ye Cannae Shove Ye Granny Aff a Cliff

For those ignorant of the little ditty:

Oh, you cannot shove your granny off the bus,
Oh, you cannot shove your granny off the bus,
Oh, you cannot shove your granny,
‘Cause she’s your mammy’s mammy.
Oh, you cannot shove your granny off the bus!

And now its relevance:

Two Texas physicians are trying to spark a doctor-led, coast-to-coast push against Obamacare’s takeover of the doctor-patient relationship.

Their initial, self-funded TV ad shows an actor, portraying President Barack Obama, throwing a frightened grandmother over a cliff.

The grandmother say she wants a pacemaker to save her life, but Obama’s voice announces that “maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Obama made that comment at a White House event in 2009, while talking about a 100-year-old woman who got a pacemaker that kept her alive for five years.

“We wanted to give him credit … in his own words,” said Dr. Kristin Held, an ophthalmologist in San Antonio, Texas, and a co-founder of AmericanDoctors4Truth, which favors a more free-market medical system.

The ads are running in Texas and in Virginia, but they’re also prompting other doctors to donate funds for broadcasts in other states, she said: “We’re getting it from individual doctors — [they’re saying], ‘Take $5,000, take $10,000, take $20.’”

Future ads will use other quotes from Obama and will show doctors saving grandmothers from Obama’s health care policies, she told The Daily Caller.

The reference, of course, is to the classy ad the Dems ran depicting Paul Ryan shoving an old lady off a cliff. It’s tit-for-tat, but then Obama is a boob.

Comments (3)

Breitbart

I don’t have a lot to say about Andrew Breitbart, except that I’m always sad when someone dies with a wife and young kids (Osama being the exception that proves the rule). I appreciated much of his work and admired his courage, even if I (maybe especially because I) went about expressing my incoherent rage differently. I think I posted the clip of him screaming at a scraggly group of Occu-poopers to “behave” themselves, and calling them rapists. I was on his side, but they were too pathetic and hopeless to be worthy of his froth-flecked fury.

But if you can judge a man by his enemies, I loved Andrew Breitbart and wanted to have his babies:

As for the impotent rage, it has not stopped with Breitbart’s death. Charlie Sperling of the Washington Examiner reports on some of the lefty dyslogies on Twitter, starting with a relatively tame tweet from Slate’s Matthew Yglesias: “Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead.”

Over at DailyKos.com, one “Misteropus1″ rants: “He was a piece of sh–. Period. Just because he is now dead does not change that fact. At all. . . . He deserves no respect, not while he’s living and certainly not in his afterlife.” Later Mr. O sort of apologizes to Breitbart’s widow and four children, but adds: “Nevertheless, I still feel strongly about how I feel (obviously).”

Over at Esquire Mark Warren has a moment of restraint: “Terrible news, about Andrew Breitbart, who himself could be terrible. No wife, nor any child, deserves such horrendous news. Four kids will grow up without a father, and that is probably the only thing worth saying today.” But he is not even circumspect enough to realize that if you are going to write “that is probably the only thing worth saying today,” you should stop there.

Breitbart, Alinskyite to the end, took this sort of thing with great good humor. We followed him on Twitter, where he was constantly retweeting hate tweets. If dead men could use social media, this would be one of the busiest days of Breitbart’s afterlife.

Instead, it is left to the Daily Caller’s “Jim” “Treacher” to retweet the posthumous hate. Warning: The language is often obscene and the rhetoric hateful. If that offends your sensibilities, don’t click through. But if, like us, you appreciated Breitbart’s ability to drive his detractors crazy, you will find the Treacher retweets oddly comforting.

Whatever life lessons the Left learned in kindergarten, they have become horrible, horrible people.

Comments (4)

God Bless Adam Carolla

I use Glenn Beck’s take because it’s censored and put in context. Do enjoy!

I swear to all I hold holy that I was thinking about envy today while walking the Bloodthirsty Puppy. There’s a reason it’s one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Comments

Call of Booty

Well, what did they expect? You would prefer “junk in the trunk” (or even “waste in the waist”)?

With a lavish home in Florida and a private jet, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t need to dwell in the gutter. But given the classless, hypocritical, low-rent, white-trash, misogynistic behavior of his liberal adversaries, he’s had to keep a pied-a-terre in the gutter for just such occasions as this:

Rush Limbaugh opines on the “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” band playing the song “Lyin’ Ass Bitch” when presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) appeared on the show earlier this week.

Earlier today Bachmann gave her reaction to the incident during an appearance on FOX News. Bachmann accepted an apology from host Jimmy Fallon, however she said if this had happened to Michelle Obama the band would have been disciplined or fired.

“If that had been Michelle Obama, who’d come out on the stage, and if that song had been played for Michelle Obama, I have no doubt that NBC would have apologized to her and likely they would have fired the drummer, or at least suspended him,” Bachmann said.

Rush Limbaugh gave Bachmann’s idea a try and introduced “Michelle Obama” to the song “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mix-A-Lot. If you are unfamiliar with the song, it starts with “I like big butts.

When challenged, Rush conceded:

“I get it. One is true and one is not. That’s the difference.”

I would prefer to keep Michelle Obama’s derrière out of the picture, but Limbaugh’s handling of it is entirely fair. We are forced to use the maneuver all the time. Someone will say something appalling about Israel or Jews, without shame or fear of criticism, and we have to point out how awful it would be if the same thing were said about blacks or American Indians or Lapps or whoever. Even then, they usually don’t get it.

It was NBC that took this into the mud pit. They just didn’t expect to find someone there waiting for them.

More and more, I think Rush’s approach is correct. Liberals will never like conservatives. They will never accept our arguments, no matter how reasoned and based in fact. They will never respect us, or even treat us with a modicum of respect. To an independent observer, our behavior in the face of such insult would look craven. We would appear not to have the courage of our own convictions.

[Bleep] that. I think I’m right and they’re wrong, so why shouldn’t I tell them? (I never bring up politics with friends, family, or acquaintances, believe me, but if they want to play the game, I know the rules and how to break them.) If it hurts their feelings (as the truth often does), I’ll rub their shoulders sympathetically and offer them a tissue, but I’ll counsel them too: “If you didn’t want an answer, why did you ask the question?”

That’s why I cheer Aggie’s assertion in the post below that we should take all liberals as antisemites until proven otherwise. The evidence is overwhelming: the Occupiers; Unitarians; human rights advocates; left-wing Democrats; race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton; community organizers; academics, both faculty and student… the list of Jew-haters does go on, doesn’t it? If anyone espousing conservative views (or who’s ever voted Republican) is taken as a jack-booted storm trooper, we should return the compliment and label any self-identified simple-minded liberal as a Grand Kleagle wannabe with 600-count Egyptian cotton sheets. If they argue, dismiss their protestations as distinctions without a difference.

Move over, Rush. You’re hogging up the sewer.

PS: It ought to be a heck of a Thanksgiving this year!

Comments

How About a Nobel in Totally Awesomeness?

I believe I said at the time (at least pretend that I did) that Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Prize in Chemistry as much or more than he did the Peace prize.

But I have reconsidered. If they haven’t rescinded Yasser Arafat’s prize, they sure as hell shouldn’t touch Obama’s:

After the death of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi at the hands of Libyan rebels, one Republican legislator wondered Saturday whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Prize he won in 2009.

“Well, I’m trying to see what the new criteria is for getting a Nobel Peace Prize. Remember they gave it to President Obama right when he took office,” Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) said on Fox Business Network. “And right now, I mean when you look at the, amount of people he has killed worldwide, you think to yourself, wow, what do they give it for? Maybe a new set of criteria. I don’t know, it amazes me as well.” …

Gadhafi’s death marks the latest foreign policy success for the Obama administration. Obama has also been credited for the killing of Osama bin Laden during a raid by U.S. Navy SEALS on a compound where the al Qaeda leader had been hiding in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The Obama administration has also been successful in killing a number of other high level terrorists.

To paraphrase another parse-imonious Democratic president, I suppose it depends on the meaning of “peace”. I, for one, completely support the concept of peace through strength (as yet another president, Republican, once said). Up to and including peace through blowing the bad guys, all of them and their cousins, to smithereens. To those bumper-stickers that declare “War is not the answer”, I say it depends on the question.

None of Obama’s other broken promises—and they are legion—so becomes him as his “refudiation” (to cite yet another Republican) of the offer of the unclenched fist of friendship extended toward the Muslim world. Of course it’s unclenched: you can’t very well squeeze the trigger with your fingers balled up in a fist.

And if they’re going to start taking away Nobel Prizes from people with a little blood on their hands or stains in their characters, may I suggest they send pre-paid postage to the following recipients (in reverse chronological order), asking for the return of their medals?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. (2007)
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei (2005)
Jimmy Carter (2002)
United Nations (U.N.), Kofi Annan (2001)
Yasser Arafat (1994)
United Nations Peacekeeping Forces (1988)
Desmond Mpilo Tutu (1984)
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (1981, 1954)
Mohamed Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin (1978) [Sorry, but if we're going to be fair, neither Sadat nor Begin were known as men of peace throughout their careers.]
Henry A. Kissinger, Le Duc Tho (1973)
Willy Brandt (1971) [Soviet moles should be disqualified, don't you think?]
Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1919)

Actually, the problem seems to be with the name of the prize, not the winners. If they called it the Nobel Prize for Killing People to Achieve Peace (with an option to slander Israel and spread nonsense), everyone would still qualify, including President Pant-Crease.

Comments (1)

Antisemitism, Michael Moore, Christianity

University of Wisconsin Law Professor has an interesting post about the antisemitism in the OWS protests and the antisemitism backed up by his interpretation of Christianity in Michael Moore’s film, Capitalism.

Long-time readers of this blog, or scholars in the field of antisemitism, know that the original church inspired antisemitism (Jews as Satan, Jews as Money Changers, etc.) morphed into secular expressions of antisemitism. Karl Marx wrote a book called “A World Without Jews” for example. It is rare to find such a clear combination of antisemitism inspired by Christianity and antisemitism inspired by Left-wing thought as Althouse found and wrote about.

I think Moore is seriously motivated by Christianity. He says he is (and has been since he was a boy). And he presented various priests, Biblical quotations, and movie footage from “Jesus of Nazareth” to make the argument that Christianity requires socialism. With this theme, I found it unsettling that in attacking the banking system, Moore presented quite a parade of Jewish names and faces. He never says the word “Jewish,” but I think the anti-Semitic theme is there. We receive long lectures about how capitalism is inconsistent with Christianity, followed a heavy-handed array of — it’s up to you to see that they are — Jewish villains.

Am I wrong to see Moore as an anti-Semite? I don’t know, but the movie worked as anti-Semitic propaganda. I had to struggle to fight off the idea the movie seemed to want to plant in my head.

And, unsurprisingly, “Michael Moore is giddy over Occupy Wall Street.”

My own view is that this information is well-established and over-determined, meaning that there are many different strands of antisemitism which are repeated through the centuries and overlap to form slightly different versions for each instance and era. I own a little book, a paperback, which is a compilation of antisemitic attacks up until 1970, just a list, like the phone book. It is stunning to see the record. One of the saddest realizations of my adult years was that friends and neighbors could simply shrug at the obvious level of antisemitism in the culture – Reverend Wright, Jesse Jackson, the Mead article I quoted yesterday about the Egyptian treatment of the Copts, Helen Thomas, Pat Buchanan, etc. etc. Barack Obama moved happily and easily among the antisemitic throngs, from Reverend Wright to Louis Farrakhan. He won in a landslide. We shrug at our peril, because although it is easy to attack one small minority group, the subsequent targets tend to get bigger.

- Aggie

Comments (2)

I’d Hammer Out Love Between my Brothers and my Sisters

Reader Robert, fatuous liberal that he is (he knows I kid, don’t you Robert?), brought this story to our attention:

Alabama Republican Gov. Robert Bentley is kicking off his first term in office with a bit of controversy, telling a church audience Monday that he only considers Christians to be his “brothers and sisters.”

“Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters,” he told parishioners at a Baptist church in Montgomery Monday shortly after being sworn in. “So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”

“There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit,” Bentley also said, according to the Birmingham News. “But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have, and like you have if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.”

When I first read this, I thought he said if you weren’t his brother or his sister, he didn’t want to be your brother. And I was probably as appalled as Robert, if not more so.

But now that I read it more carefully, I’m less appalled, though I still am, a little.

Christians want more people to be Christians; always have, always will. That’s hardly news. They don’t chop off your head over the issue (anymore), unlike other religions that refer to fellow adherents as brothers and sisters (you Zoroastrians know who you are). Remember the Ann Coulter kerfuffle? It was an inelegant way of saying the same thing. And plenty of Jews came to her defense (Dennis Prager perhaps most notably).

But I still wouldn’t want my governor to talk that way. I can defend Bentley, I can justify what he said—but I can’t tell people made uncomfortable by what he said that they are wrong. There is no such thing as separation of church and state (g’ahead and find the phrase in the Constitution, we’ll wait), but there is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. The guy’s a governor, and he has no power to make laws of any kind, but he is the executive of a sovereign state. I can understand the umbrage.

Comments (5)

Liberal Lies (Rums-) Felled

I liked Donald Rumsfeld more than most, but not unreservedly (as I do Cheney, btw.) He seemed too sure of himself, to the point of antagonizing even people who agreed with him.

But he never shied away from a fight—and now he’s come back to deliver the knockout blow:

I ran into former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at this week’s dinner honoring the American Spectator magazine. He was leaving the reception and skipping the dinner because he told me he was spending most of his waking hours reading large chunks of his upcoming memoir “Known and Unknown” into a microphone so it can be also sold as a book on tape.

Mr. Rumsfeld told me he is most proud of the fact that the book is backed up by reams of previously unseen documents that he will put up on a website that accompanies the book. Among the documents will be never-before seen memos and previously classified documents relating to the Iraq war. “Readers will be able to read the actual document I refer to in the text,” he told me excitedly. “It may not prevent from people from misinterpreting things, but at least they will have no excuse for getting it wrong.”

There is much that the Bush administration got wrong, but the big things they got right. And history is not so smug as journalism. The Democratic-Media Complex (today’s misbegotten son of Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex”) thinks it can win an argument just by saying “Rumsfeld” or “Halliburton”. The likes of Jon Stewart think they can defeat the entire 82nd Airborne with the word “Guantanamo”. But the historical record will weigh all the facts, and will come to a fairer verdict. (Who am I kidding? Historians will argue, too.)

PS: Looks like Bill Clinton will be first in line at the Scarsdale Borders book signing.

Comments

Psst, GOP!

Consider this a warning:

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of likely GOP primary voters hold a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement, while only nine percent (9%) view the smaller government, lower taxes movement unfavorably.

[O]nly 19% of Likely Republican Primary Voters believe Republicans in Congress have done a good job representing the party’s values over the past several years.

Seventy-two percent (72%) say GOP members of Congress instead have lost touch with Republican Party members throughout the nation in recent years.

Take that how you will, Grand Old Partiers, but I detect a distinct contempt for politics as usual, going along to get along, and Democrat-lite policies. If you think of the peasants with pitchforks as your enemies, so they will of you. If you instead embrace them, their politics, their belief in this country as it was founded, they will have your back.

‘S up to you.

Comments

She’s Me

It lacks any substance. If it came from the other side, I’d dismiss it entirely.

But she can be me any time she wants:

Wiccans deserve representation, too, you know.

She may be a laughingstock on the left, but it would not surprise me (much) if she flies her broomstick to Washington come January, and the left is crying in its non-alcoholic beer.

Comments (1)

Toto, We’re Not in Massachusetts Anymore

Hat Tip Legal Insurrection, where you can enlarge the picture and truly appreciate its glory.

PS: And it’s a Toyota! A Prius even!

And speaking of Priuses, Tim Blair noted that even when angered (the New Zealand earthquake), Gaia is still a wickedly funny bitch-goddess:

snapshot-2010-09-05-12-04-28.jpg

Comments (1)

Kandahardy-Har-Har

Kathy Shaidle puts my sentiments into her own sulfuric words:

I remain unconvinced that the Afghan people are worth fighting and dying for.

That they are a bunch of child molesters is something Andrew Sullivan was inconveniently pointing out back in 2002 (before he lost his marbles.)

As I said last year:

Instead of “killing people and breaking stuff,” as they are supposedly trained to do, our troops are dying to build schools in a country that has no history of literacy or high culture. This isn’t Japan or Germany we’re talking about: civilized people whose particular “civilization” briefly mutated into something ugly that threatened, then destroyed, its neighbors.

First we nuked Japan. Twice. THEN we gave them free stuff. We’re doing the Marshall Plan before Dresden this time. How’s that working out?

The Afghans don’t WANT democracy; they want to carry on being opportunistic, ungrateful, drug-dealing, inbred low IQ pagan child molesters.

We are MESSING with their “right” to be backward moon-worshipping pedophiles — hell, you’d be pissed, too.

Yeah, let’s teach them to read. What? The Koran? Genius.

I blame National Geographic. They put that Afghan girl on the cover years ago and now we feel sorry for them.

But other people are not your exotic adorable liberal pets or poster children. They are human beings who sometimes want you dead.

Her post title: “I told you we should have nuked the place”.

To paraphrase Muhammad Ali: ain’t no Taliban ever called me kafir.

And even if they did, what do I care? Seriously, all Mullah Omar ever did was terrorize the populace and blow up some ancient Buddhas. It was his guest, Osama bin Molderin’ who done us wrong.

And we rectified that. How much more rectifying do we need to do? That we can’t do with a Hellfire missile delivered from the safe distance provided by a Predator drone?

My hawkish bona fides are indisputable, and may be inspected by appointment. I was for bombing the snot out of terrorists before bombing the snot out of terrorists was cool. The myth of an indomitable Afghanistan has been busted. It’s building a viable state to govern the [bleep]-hole that’s an impossible waste of time, lives, and money.

But what is the point of (re)proving that we can (re)kick the Taliban’s ass to (re)rescue a (non)country from (re)occupation? It’s re-diculous.

Some here have argued that the Al Qaeda/Taliban axis hurt us before, so we shouldn’t let them return to power. But I don’t buy it. Al Qaeda has been more degraded than Tiger Woods, and Osama has been heard from less than Conan O’Brien. And we’re a little wiser to them than before.

As Red Skelton used to say, “Good night and God bless.”

PS: Speaking of Red Skelton, send the Afghanis this, and have them report back in six months what they’ve learned from it:

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »