So Obama botched the whole toasting-the-queen thing in London this week. It’s not exactly breaking news, and it’s ultimately very unimportant to policy-making. But the reaction to his gaffe by liberals in the American media is more proof of their ongoing love-affair with our sitting president.
In case you haven’t heard, President Obama was in the middle of giving a toast to the queen when the Royal Band started playing “God Save the Queen.” He had asked everyone to rise (According to the “English rules”, that means it’s time for the national anthem.), and British Royal protocol says to wait until after the national anthem has finished playing before toasting. Despite the fact that the music had started playing, Obama continued with his prepared speech and then raised his glass to give a toast to the queen. Embarrassingly enough, however, he was the only one with his glass in the air. Everyone else, including the Queen who was sitting next to him, was still standing at attention for the National Anthem. When Obama realized his mistake, he set his glass down and awkwardly listened to the rest of the song. Finally, when the anthem was over, everyone raised their glasses in a toast to the Queen.
It’s been interesting to watch how everyone in the media decided to cover this. They’re saying the band misinterpreted the cue from President Obama. They’re suggesting the band should have waited till after Obama was finished speaking before they played the national anthem. Many of them criticized the queen for not helping Obama out, for not lifting her glass so he didn’t look stupid for being the only one in the room with his glass in the air.
Let me make this clear. I am criticizing the media here, not Obama. In all reality, could this have happened to anyone? Sure. Is a gaffe like this important to national or international relations? Probably not. Do I hope my fellow conservatives don’t take advantage of this opportunity to make a mockery of our president by lowering themselves to the level of the liberal media every time something like this ever came close to happening to Bush? Absolutely.
It’s the media that doesn’t make sense here. If Obama really is the amazing president they believe him to be, why should they have to make excuses for him? Shouldn’t he be able to dust himself off on his own every time something like this happens? If he’s so amazing, shouldn’t he be able to whip out a good joke and laugh at himself like Reagan would have done? According to their own larger-than-life view of him, he should be able to handle it. He’s a big boy. He can take care of himself. He’s more than a big boy. He’s the president of the free world, the president who has the power to usher in hope and change. Why should the queen or the people of England (who were simply following custom and tradition) have to help him out?
You’d think, right? The problem is that Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, etc. all invested everything into Barrack Obama. They raised him up and supported him and helped him get elected by not only voting for him but by ignoring any and all stories that suggested he was anything less than the greatest president this country would ever see.
The liberal media’s relationship to Barrack Obama reminds me of parents who refuse to believe there is anything wrong with their kid. Whether it’s poor grades, disruptive behavior, bullying, etc., some parents get defensive when a teacher, coach, church leader, or someone else tells them their kid has problems that need to be addressed. The parents don’t want to believe the truth, because it hurts. They’d rather have the short-term satisfaction of ignoring a problem than enjoy the long-term fruits of being humble enough to listen to constructive criticism that others lend them.
There’s nothing inherently bad about a kid acting up in class at school, just as there’s nothing inherently bad about Obama toasting the queen too early. Mistakes are part of life. But if you ignore your own or those of someone you love, you’re not doing anyone a favor. If the media really had Obama’s long-term interest as a president in mind, they would report the objective truth about these gaffes he seems to find himself in. Their “mother hen” status is really starting to show through. It’s showing through them, and it’s showing through Obama’s followers, from academia to Hollywood. They’re all beginning to realize (as they look at the economy, the war on terror, immigration, his handling of natural disasters, etc.) that he’s not the superhero they thought he would be. And they’re scared of what it means for them and their careers.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Obama’s Birth Certificate: Old News, Timeless Lesson
Tonight, I want to address the controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding Barrack Obama’s birth certificate. I realize this may be old hat for many people. Once again, I am writing about an issue long after it may have already died (or at least after it has been buried temporarily). Seriously, though, I think we conservatives can take a few lessons from this issue.
First of all, one of the biggest problems with modern-day politics in general is that people of all viewpoints accept the logical fallacy that they need to believe every bad rumor or theory about a politician with whom they disagree on policy. They think anything less than doing so equals disloyalty to their respective movement or party. However, to a certain extent, believing that represents a degree of disloyalty to such a party or movement. Let me explain:
Several weeks ago, a woman called Rush Limbaugh’s show to chide him for not putting more pressure on Obama and left-leaning media to release his birth certificate. This was right around the time that more people, led by Donald Trump, were pressuring Obama to release his birth certificate. And, as we all know, the Whitehouse did release a more detailed version of Obama’s birth certificate than the one the Obama than they had before.
Anyway, this woman was irate with Limbaugh (given his influence on the media and national politics) for not demanding that Obama release his birth certificate. Mr. Limbaugh then did this woman a huge favor in how he defended himself. He told her that she was living in a fantasy world to think that simply removing a bad president from office was going to solve the country’s problems.
I will be honest here. I can relate to this woman’s frustration. During the 90’s, when we conservatives mistakenly thought we’d seen the worst U.S. president ever (in the form of William Jefferson Clinton), I remember thinking how convenient it would be if he just magically disappeared. But now that I’ve stepped back and looked at everything, I realize that such a wish is just that: a wish. It’s not reality.
The sitting president of the United States may have a lot of power but at the end of the day, his election simply reflects the sentiment of the country at the time he was elected. And the sentiment of the country is formed by the thoughts, emotions, and the logical and sometimes not so logical conclusions of its people. The president is just one person. And when it comes to American politics, somebody always steps up to the plate to take advantage of the sentiment of the country. At the end of 2008, America was disillusioned by the War in Iraq, worried about the economy, and the liberal media had convinced them that they needed a president from the opposite party. The mood of the country was such that if Obama had not become president, Hillary Clinton would have. If not her, someone else. If not that someone else, then another someone else, and so on and so forth.
The birthers, to put it bluntly, need to wake up and start talking about the actual issues if they want to save this country from its Constitutional demise. Don’t get me wrong. I would not be the least bit surprised, given the way the liberal media covered Barrack Obama’s campaign in 2008 and the way they’ve tried to protect him and his bad policies since then, if there are a lot of skeletons in Obama’s closet that simply sound like conspiracy theories right now.
However, if these birthers really want to change the long-term future of the country, if they want conservatism to win, they will stop putting all their energy into finding short-term solutions, if you can even call them that. They will stop putting all their eggs into one basket. They will stop banking all their energy and hope on what is simply, excuse the pun, a “Trump” card for saving America.
If the birthers want long-term conservative victory in this country, they need to join ranks with fellow conservatives by arguing about the merits of their policy-oriented ideas. They need to engage in a war of ideas and principles, rather than wasting much needed energy on political strategies that may or may not work and will do little, if not nothing, to help solve this country’s problems.
First of all, one of the biggest problems with modern-day politics in general is that people of all viewpoints accept the logical fallacy that they need to believe every bad rumor or theory about a politician with whom they disagree on policy. They think anything less than doing so equals disloyalty to their respective movement or party. However, to a certain extent, believing that represents a degree of disloyalty to such a party or movement. Let me explain:
Several weeks ago, a woman called Rush Limbaugh’s show to chide him for not putting more pressure on Obama and left-leaning media to release his birth certificate. This was right around the time that more people, led by Donald Trump, were pressuring Obama to release his birth certificate. And, as we all know, the Whitehouse did release a more detailed version of Obama’s birth certificate than the one the Obama than they had before.
Anyway, this woman was irate with Limbaugh (given his influence on the media and national politics) for not demanding that Obama release his birth certificate. Mr. Limbaugh then did this woman a huge favor in how he defended himself. He told her that she was living in a fantasy world to think that simply removing a bad president from office was going to solve the country’s problems.
I will be honest here. I can relate to this woman’s frustration. During the 90’s, when we conservatives mistakenly thought we’d seen the worst U.S. president ever (in the form of William Jefferson Clinton), I remember thinking how convenient it would be if he just magically disappeared. But now that I’ve stepped back and looked at everything, I realize that such a wish is just that: a wish. It’s not reality.
The sitting president of the United States may have a lot of power but at the end of the day, his election simply reflects the sentiment of the country at the time he was elected. And the sentiment of the country is formed by the thoughts, emotions, and the logical and sometimes not so logical conclusions of its people. The president is just one person. And when it comes to American politics, somebody always steps up to the plate to take advantage of the sentiment of the country. At the end of 2008, America was disillusioned by the War in Iraq, worried about the economy, and the liberal media had convinced them that they needed a president from the opposite party. The mood of the country was such that if Obama had not become president, Hillary Clinton would have. If not her, someone else. If not that someone else, then another someone else, and so on and so forth.
The birthers, to put it bluntly, need to wake up and start talking about the actual issues if they want to save this country from its Constitutional demise. Don’t get me wrong. I would not be the least bit surprised, given the way the liberal media covered Barrack Obama’s campaign in 2008 and the way they’ve tried to protect him and his bad policies since then, if there are a lot of skeletons in Obama’s closet that simply sound like conspiracy theories right now.
However, if these birthers really want to change the long-term future of the country, if they want conservatism to win, they will stop putting all their energy into finding short-term solutions, if you can even call them that. They will stop putting all their eggs into one basket. They will stop banking all their energy and hope on what is simply, excuse the pun, a “Trump” card for saving America.
If the birthers want long-term conservative victory in this country, they need to join ranks with fellow conservatives by arguing about the merits of their policy-oriented ideas. They need to engage in a war of ideas and principles, rather than wasting much needed energy on political strategies that may or may not work and will do little, if not nothing, to help solve this country’s problems.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
GOP in 2012: Not Enough Just to Win
This might seem like old hat to some of you, but I want to address something that occurred to me tonight while discussing politics with friends. It’s not the biggest thing in the news right now, but a lot of us Republicans are curious to see the GOP frontrunners for 2012 make their formal announcements. I still don’t know who I would support; they all seem to have their strengths and weaknesses. However, I do want to attack a premise that, contrary to popular belief, I think is actually hurting the GOP, and the conservative movement in general.
A lot of the more recent buzz about potential candidates was generated by the speeches of potential candidates at C-PAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference held in Washington, D.C. every February. People like Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, and even Donald Trump were all testing the waters. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels created some buzz with his speech. I listened to his speech, and liked most of what he said. Something he said, though, bothered me then and still does now.
He said something to the effect that, “To win in 2012, we’re going to need people who never tune in to Talk Radio.” At first, I didn’t think much of it; it seemed like a practical thing to say. This is a common belief that you have to be able to appeal to the moderates in the middle in order to win an election.
Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I was bothered by this part of his speech, especially that verb need. Let me make one thing clear: Mitch Daniels seems like an awesome governor. I’m very happy that the people of Indiana have somebody with the guts to tackle their state’s budget, like he has. So, I can’t judge what he intended to say. I can only judge his speech by what he did say.
People forget history, and sadly too many of those people are conservatives and Republicans. They forget that Conservatism works. It provides jobs at full employment (Most, if not all of the current recession we find ourselves in came from liberal, big government policies. Sadly, some of them were pushed and passed by none other than President George W. Bush—a good, principled, classy, and gracious man who still took a less than conservative approach when tackling a lot of domestic issues.), it keeps America safe from enemies abroad, and it allows Americans the freedom to live their lives in peace. And people respond well to conservatism. Reagan’s landslide elections in the 80’s, the rapid emergence of the Tea Party, and the 2010 Midterm Elections are just some examples of how well people respond. But, too many Republican leaders forget this. They either forget that it worked in the 80’s, or else they lack the confidence in its ability to work in modern-day politics.
Therefore, if Conservatism works, why should candidates have to shy away from talking or being less than conservative? A typical response to this might be, “they can’t shut off the moderates.” Well, if that is really the concern of Romney, Daniels, Gingrich, and others, why don’t they simply take the approach of Ronald Reagan-the man they’re obviously trying to emulate?
See, Reagan was a smart man. He understood how unreasonable it was to expect every member of his party to be homogenous, robot, Conservatives, who don’t think, act, and live for themselves? (Honestly, I think that is a common and at times even warranted criticism of Rush, Sean, Glenn, Laura, and others. If any Republican is less than completely conservative, he or she is branded by these talking heads as a traitor to Conservatism, as someone who cannot be trusted.) Reagan knew, as anyone knows that we are a diverse country with diverse ideas and diverse life experiences. He understood that people’s philosophical and political views are usually a reflection of that.
But, Reagan also knew that Conservatism works. And he didn’t apologize or back down from his confidence in it. So, to keep the middle and flank of the party with him, he did something that no Republican before or since him, to their own detriment, has tried. He issued his “Big Tent” Invitation to anyone who wanted to be with him and the Party. He, in effect, said to all of America: “We’re going to move this country back to the principles it was founded on. And you’re all welcome to join us, whether you agree with fifty, eighty, or one hundred percent of our agenda.”
If the potential candidates, both those in the limelight as well as those who still have yet to come out of the woodwork, would realize that they can be conservative and still win elections, they could win in 2012, and they could ultimately change the direction of the country for the better, as long as they stay conservative while in office. If we want to end the recession, stop the tsunami of wasteful spending domestically, win the war on terror, and restore the American Spirit (Sounds like Reagan’s goals, huh?), we need to remember that Conservatism works, and people respond to it positively—both on the campaign trail and afterward. It’s not enough to just switch the control of our federal government from Democrat to Republican hands. It’s not enough to push even harder on the car breaks of our economy sliding quickly downhill, and thereby simply postpone the inevitable crash at the bottom. We have to shut the ignition off completely before we can turn the car around and start driving back up the road. Conservative solutions work. They are what Americans have always needed, and they are what they need now. Somehow, each of the GOP candidates need to get that through his or head; and they need to get it through their heads even before they make any kind of formal announcements.
A lot of the more recent buzz about potential candidates was generated by the speeches of potential candidates at C-PAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference held in Washington, D.C. every February. People like Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, and even Donald Trump were all testing the waters. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels created some buzz with his speech. I listened to his speech, and liked most of what he said. Something he said, though, bothered me then and still does now.
He said something to the effect that, “To win in 2012, we’re going to need people who never tune in to Talk Radio.” At first, I didn’t think much of it; it seemed like a practical thing to say. This is a common belief that you have to be able to appeal to the moderates in the middle in order to win an election.
Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I was bothered by this part of his speech, especially that verb need. Let me make one thing clear: Mitch Daniels seems like an awesome governor. I’m very happy that the people of Indiana have somebody with the guts to tackle their state’s budget, like he has. So, I can’t judge what he intended to say. I can only judge his speech by what he did say.
People forget history, and sadly too many of those people are conservatives and Republicans. They forget that Conservatism works. It provides jobs at full employment (Most, if not all of the current recession we find ourselves in came from liberal, big government policies. Sadly, some of them were pushed and passed by none other than President George W. Bush—a good, principled, classy, and gracious man who still took a less than conservative approach when tackling a lot of domestic issues.), it keeps America safe from enemies abroad, and it allows Americans the freedom to live their lives in peace. And people respond well to conservatism. Reagan’s landslide elections in the 80’s, the rapid emergence of the Tea Party, and the 2010 Midterm Elections are just some examples of how well people respond. But, too many Republican leaders forget this. They either forget that it worked in the 80’s, or else they lack the confidence in its ability to work in modern-day politics.
Therefore, if Conservatism works, why should candidates have to shy away from talking or being less than conservative? A typical response to this might be, “they can’t shut off the moderates.” Well, if that is really the concern of Romney, Daniels, Gingrich, and others, why don’t they simply take the approach of Ronald Reagan-the man they’re obviously trying to emulate?
See, Reagan was a smart man. He understood how unreasonable it was to expect every member of his party to be homogenous, robot, Conservatives, who don’t think, act, and live for themselves? (Honestly, I think that is a common and at times even warranted criticism of Rush, Sean, Glenn, Laura, and others. If any Republican is less than completely conservative, he or she is branded by these talking heads as a traitor to Conservatism, as someone who cannot be trusted.) Reagan knew, as anyone knows that we are a diverse country with diverse ideas and diverse life experiences. He understood that people’s philosophical and political views are usually a reflection of that.
But, Reagan also knew that Conservatism works. And he didn’t apologize or back down from his confidence in it. So, to keep the middle and flank of the party with him, he did something that no Republican before or since him, to their own detriment, has tried. He issued his “Big Tent” Invitation to anyone who wanted to be with him and the Party. He, in effect, said to all of America: “We’re going to move this country back to the principles it was founded on. And you’re all welcome to join us, whether you agree with fifty, eighty, or one hundred percent of our agenda.”
If the potential candidates, both those in the limelight as well as those who still have yet to come out of the woodwork, would realize that they can be conservative and still win elections, they could win in 2012, and they could ultimately change the direction of the country for the better, as long as they stay conservative while in office. If we want to end the recession, stop the tsunami of wasteful spending domestically, win the war on terror, and restore the American Spirit (Sounds like Reagan’s goals, huh?), we need to remember that Conservatism works, and people respond to it positively—both on the campaign trail and afterward. It’s not enough to just switch the control of our federal government from Democrat to Republican hands. It’s not enough to push even harder on the car breaks of our economy sliding quickly downhill, and thereby simply postpone the inevitable crash at the bottom. We have to shut the ignition off completely before we can turn the car around and start driving back up the road. Conservative solutions work. They are what Americans have always needed, and they are what they need now. Somehow, each of the GOP candidates need to get that through his or head; and they need to get it through their heads even before they make any kind of formal announcements.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Self-made Haves freely giving to the Have-Nots...You better believe it means something!
I was at work a while back when, during the course of a political discussion, I remarked that people don’t realize how much money wealthy and successful Americans give to charity. The responses of my significantly liberal co-workers went something like this: “So? They can afford it! That doesn’t mean anything!”
If I were better at responding under pressure, I would have said the following: Yes, it does mean something. It very much means something, especially when it’s coming from their own pockets. Many CEO’s and affluent conservatives in this country quietly donate much of their income to charities and humanitarian organizations. They do it, because they believe in the freedom to be able to give it. They do it, because they believe God (not Government) is the one who will and should hold them accountable if they fail to “clothe the naked, feed the hungry, help the sick and afflicted.” They believe they have a duty to feed the hungry, on top of the jobs they already create for them. They do it to show thanks to God, and demonstrate that it is He (not government) who has blessed them, and that all they have belongs to him, not to the government. Their wealth is His to give, and His to take away. When it comes to “helping” the poor, their Judeo-Christian beliefs is a much more powerful moral compass than any Washington-based threat that says they’ll be stripped of everything if they fail to fund welfare and entitlement programs to help the economically disadvantaged.
Yes, it does mean something when our president and many of our elected officials do not live this way themselves. They do not use their own money to help the homeless and the hungry. They do not donate anywhere near as much of their own income as rags-to-riches Christian-living Americans. They want us to pay for it, legally. They want to take our money and give it to those who do not have it. Their version of compassion involves stealing money from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. They got to the top through government programs, not through American hard work and ingenuity. If the poor cannot have a beautiful house, the rich should not be able to either. The “compassion” that many liberal politicians say motivates them in public service is really a mask for the shallow and hollow jealousy that actually drives them. Instead, they use our money to go on extravagant vacations to reward themselves for how hard they are working for us.
To my friends at work, I say: you better believe it means something that self-made Americans freely give to the have-nots. The freedom to give to those in need and the freely given gift itself represent all that is good and right about America. It means more than just anything or something. It means everything. And the fact that fewer in my generation understand how much it means scares me. It scares me bad.
If I were better at responding under pressure, I would have said the following: Yes, it does mean something. It very much means something, especially when it’s coming from their own pockets. Many CEO’s and affluent conservatives in this country quietly donate much of their income to charities and humanitarian organizations. They do it, because they believe in the freedom to be able to give it. They do it, because they believe God (not Government) is the one who will and should hold them accountable if they fail to “clothe the naked, feed the hungry, help the sick and afflicted.” They believe they have a duty to feed the hungry, on top of the jobs they already create for them. They do it to show thanks to God, and demonstrate that it is He (not government) who has blessed them, and that all they have belongs to him, not to the government. Their wealth is His to give, and His to take away. When it comes to “helping” the poor, their Judeo-Christian beliefs is a much more powerful moral compass than any Washington-based threat that says they’ll be stripped of everything if they fail to fund welfare and entitlement programs to help the economically disadvantaged.
Yes, it does mean something when our president and many of our elected officials do not live this way themselves. They do not use their own money to help the homeless and the hungry. They do not donate anywhere near as much of their own income as rags-to-riches Christian-living Americans. They want us to pay for it, legally. They want to take our money and give it to those who do not have it. Their version of compassion involves stealing money from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. They got to the top through government programs, not through American hard work and ingenuity. If the poor cannot have a beautiful house, the rich should not be able to either. The “compassion” that many liberal politicians say motivates them in public service is really a mask for the shallow and hollow jealousy that actually drives them. Instead, they use our money to go on extravagant vacations to reward themselves for how hard they are working for us.
To my friends at work, I say: you better believe it means something that self-made Americans freely give to the have-nots. The freedom to give to those in need and the freely given gift itself represent all that is good and right about America. It means more than just anything or something. It means everything. And the fact that fewer in my generation understand how much it means scares me. It scares me bad.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The Media, The NAACP, and liberal logic... if you can call it that -Part 2
Okay, this one’s coming on the tails of an issue that’s on the back burner for now, but I want to go ahead and say it, since it comes up constantly anyway. The leaders of the NAACP have a choice when it comes to how they view the world. They could rejoice in the freedom and opportunity they won from the Civil Rights Movement. They could use the opportunities that they, their parents, and their grandparents earned from protesting and marching with Martin Luther King and other great leaders to actually promote and build up America. They could use their freedom to promote the American ideals that gave them and their families the courage to fight for their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness during the 50’s and 60’s. They could use their freedom to go after the American Dream, and encourage others to do the same. They could use their freedom to defend America at home and abroad. Instead of using their freedom to promote freedom, however, they use their ancestry and the few bad experiences of other Black Americans today to promote a kind of 21st Century slavery. Every time they accuse the Tea Party or Fox News or Talk Radio of being in line with this dark and shameful part of American History, they are saying, “we’re not gonna’ let you use your freedom of speech to criticize President Obama and our party until we’ve milked this victimhood status for all its worth. We’re not gonna’ get even with your ancestors through you. We’re gonna’ completely discredit you while we harm this country with irreversible policies and an irreversible form of big government that will make your ancestors wish they had stayed in Europe and never discovered America.” Regardless of their intentions, that’s the very message their words send.
Think about it for a minute. We all hate racism, and want to clamp down on it. Why do we hate it so much? Because it represents the darkest and worst that is in us as human beings. To harm someone, either physically or verbally, based on physical appearance is inexcusable. The very idea should, and for many of us does, make us wish we could rewind the tape (or DVD in today’s case) of history to start things all over again.
The NAACP uses this national shame that we all share to distract us from the destructive agenda of the president they support. Of course, the liberals in the media are not any better; they look at the Civil War and the Jim Crow laws and segregation and they too use these things to push Obama’s agenda. Rather than wipe their foreheads with relief and say, ”Phew…I’m glad we [America] learned from that,” they jump at the opportunity to shut down and discredit anyone who is critical of Obama’s policies. It’s one thing to disagree with someone; it’s something else entirely to completely discredit that person because you disagree with them.
Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech still echoes very powerfully through the corridors of history. Yet, contrary to popular belief, it seems to resonate more with today’s conservatives than it does with today’s liberals. When Martin Luther King says, “I Have a Dream”, today’s Conservatives say, “so do we. Let’s take our country back.” Yet, when today’s liberals hear the same words, they silently but powerfully say, “Sorry Dr. King. You may have a dream, but we have an axe to grind.”
Think about it for a minute. We all hate racism, and want to clamp down on it. Why do we hate it so much? Because it represents the darkest and worst that is in us as human beings. To harm someone, either physically or verbally, based on physical appearance is inexcusable. The very idea should, and for many of us does, make us wish we could rewind the tape (or DVD in today’s case) of history to start things all over again.
The NAACP uses this national shame that we all share to distract us from the destructive agenda of the president they support. Of course, the liberals in the media are not any better; they look at the Civil War and the Jim Crow laws and segregation and they too use these things to push Obama’s agenda. Rather than wipe their foreheads with relief and say, ”Phew…I’m glad we [America] learned from that,” they jump at the opportunity to shut down and discredit anyone who is critical of Obama’s policies. It’s one thing to disagree with someone; it’s something else entirely to completely discredit that person because you disagree with them.
Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech still echoes very powerfully through the corridors of history. Yet, contrary to popular belief, it seems to resonate more with today’s conservatives than it does with today’s liberals. When Martin Luther King says, “I Have a Dream”, today’s Conservatives say, “so do we. Let’s take our country back.” Yet, when today’s liberals hear the same words, they silently but powerfully say, “Sorry Dr. King. You may have a dream, but we have an axe to grind.”
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Media, The NAACP, and liberal logic... if you can call it that -Part 1
Okay, I know this is getting old fast, but I cannot let this whole thing with the NAACP and the Tea Party become history without giving my own two cents on it. As we all know, these Tea Parties attract a number of right-wing wacko’s. I’ve never personally seen any racism at these rallies, but I have seen people there with extreme ideas and suggestions such as petitioning to impeach the president or ascertain the validity of his birth certificate. I don’t align myself with either of these suggestions and find them to be a distraction from an open and candid discussion of Obama’s policies.
And yes, as we have all seen on TV, some tea party-goers have thrown out racist remarks at some of these rallies, such as those hurled at Representatives John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver during the last major Health Care Protest on March 21st of this year.
Yet, based on a few sporadic instances, the left-leaning media and institutions like the NAACP have undergone an outrageous attempt to paint the entire Tea Party movement as racist. The thing that I can’t get over is how they keep going back and forth. First of all, the liberals do the same thing they acuse us conservatives of doing: they paint our entire movement with a broad brush that’s based off the bad experiences of a few people. Yet, whenever anyone tries to call them out on it, these liberals back down and say, “we’re not saying the entire movement is racist. We’re just trying to make Conservatives and Republicans more aware of the racist elements within their own party.” Then these liberals continue to make comments that suggest that they do, in fact, believe the Tea Party to be racist. They make comments without any kind of concession, without acknowledging how few and sporadic these instances really are. And, the back and forth continues.
Whenever liberals say that they don’t believe the racist elements within the Tea Party represent the entire movement, I say bull crap! You should either have the guts to say what you really think, or else don’t bring up the issue in the first place! If they didn’t really believe that we’re racist, why do they keep talking about it? Why do they continue to say that the Tea Party is not all racist while insinuating that the bigots within it represent all members of it? The answer is fairly simple: those who consciously put forward these kind of stories and try to make them bigger than they really are are simply interested in using race for their own benefit. They are bending over backwards to victimize themselves, and they are doing it to promote their own political agenda. Nobody is proud of America’s past regarding slavery and discrimination towards people of color. Yet, that is still no excuse for these people to turn the tables on America and use a dark part of our history to accuse today’s conservatives of racism.
And yes, as we have all seen on TV, some tea party-goers have thrown out racist remarks at some of these rallies, such as those hurled at Representatives John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver during the last major Health Care Protest on March 21st of this year.
Yet, based on a few sporadic instances, the left-leaning media and institutions like the NAACP have undergone an outrageous attempt to paint the entire Tea Party movement as racist. The thing that I can’t get over is how they keep going back and forth. First of all, the liberals do the same thing they acuse us conservatives of doing: they paint our entire movement with a broad brush that’s based off the bad experiences of a few people. Yet, whenever anyone tries to call them out on it, these liberals back down and say, “we’re not saying the entire movement is racist. We’re just trying to make Conservatives and Republicans more aware of the racist elements within their own party.” Then these liberals continue to make comments that suggest that they do, in fact, believe the Tea Party to be racist. They make comments without any kind of concession, without acknowledging how few and sporadic these instances really are. And, the back and forth continues.
Whenever liberals say that they don’t believe the racist elements within the Tea Party represent the entire movement, I say bull crap! You should either have the guts to say what you really think, or else don’t bring up the issue in the first place! If they didn’t really believe that we’re racist, why do they keep talking about it? Why do they continue to say that the Tea Party is not all racist while insinuating that the bigots within it represent all members of it? The answer is fairly simple: those who consciously put forward these kind of stories and try to make them bigger than they really are are simply interested in using race for their own benefit. They are bending over backwards to victimize themselves, and they are doing it to promote their own political agenda. Nobody is proud of America’s past regarding slavery and discrimination towards people of color. Yet, that is still no excuse for these people to turn the tables on America and use a dark part of our history to accuse today’s conservatives of racism.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Arizona Shrugged, Part 2
Two Weeks Later…
So, let me go into the second part of what I was going to say two weeks ago. When the story of Pierce’s letter was brand new, I was going to say that it wouldn’t surprise me if the liberals in the media try to twist this story and make it sound like Arizona is doing something unjust and un-American. Now, the story has obviously died down quite a bit. It seems like Arizona and L.A. are kindof’ at a standstill on this. I don’t know if L.A. really has implemented their threatened boycott.
From what I’ve heard, the media hasn’t done much commenting on this story (Maybe the liberals in the media are too embarrassed to see the irony behind this whole tension between the two states–I don’t know). Yet, it would be completely in line with their childish mentality of making choices without accepting the consequences. Too many liberals in this country make decisions without thinking of the consequences. When the consequences bite them in the back, they have a temper tantrum and try to make someone else look like the bad guy. It’s the same thing with abortion. They call it “a women’s right to choose.” (Note: When I say abortion, I am not referring to the small minority of cases where women become pregnant from rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. I feel like my views on when abortion should be allowed legally are in line with the position of the LDS Church. In this case, I’m talking about the women who abort their babies because they are simply unwilling to accept the consequences of sex. Of course, it takes two to tango and it’s a shame that there’s no physical consequence for the male who impregnates the girl. But, of course, there’s not really much that can be done about that given the nature of everything.)
The simple truth is that you can’t make choices without accepting the consequences and that’s what’s going on here with everyone trying to boycott Arizona. I’ve heard there’s a buy-cott going on out there of people buying things that are only made in Arizona, or going there on vacation. Maybe I’ll do both this year. Who knows?
So, let me go into the second part of what I was going to say two weeks ago. When the story of Pierce’s letter was brand new, I was going to say that it wouldn’t surprise me if the liberals in the media try to twist this story and make it sound like Arizona is doing something unjust and un-American. Now, the story has obviously died down quite a bit. It seems like Arizona and L.A. are kindof’ at a standstill on this. I don’t know if L.A. really has implemented their threatened boycott.
From what I’ve heard, the media hasn’t done much commenting on this story (Maybe the liberals in the media are too embarrassed to see the irony behind this whole tension between the two states–I don’t know). Yet, it would be completely in line with their childish mentality of making choices without accepting the consequences. Too many liberals in this country make decisions without thinking of the consequences. When the consequences bite them in the back, they have a temper tantrum and try to make someone else look like the bad guy. It’s the same thing with abortion. They call it “a women’s right to choose.” (Note: When I say abortion, I am not referring to the small minority of cases where women become pregnant from rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. I feel like my views on when abortion should be allowed legally are in line with the position of the LDS Church. In this case, I’m talking about the women who abort their babies because they are simply unwilling to accept the consequences of sex. Of course, it takes two to tango and it’s a shame that there’s no physical consequence for the male who impregnates the girl. But, of course, there’s not really much that can be done about that given the nature of everything.)
The simple truth is that you can’t make choices without accepting the consequences and that’s what’s going on here with everyone trying to boycott Arizona. I’ve heard there’s a buy-cott going on out there of people buying things that are only made in Arizona, or going there on vacation. Maybe I’ll do both this year. Who knows?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)