Archive for the ‘Unhinged Liberals’ Category

What’s In a Name? – The Story of Hillary

Friday, January 11th, 2008

With the passing of Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to reach the summit of Mount Everest, I’m reminded of one of the great legends of the Clinton years, that Hillary Rodham Clinton was named after the famed mountain climber.

This myth, which was repeated numerous times from 1995 to 2006, relates how Dorothy Rodham, mother of the former First Lady and current presidential candidate, named her daughter after Edmund Hillary – hence the spelling with two L’s, as opposed to the more standard spelling (Hilary).  

The only problem with this story is that at the time of Senator Clinton’s birth (1947), Mr. Hillary was a bee keeper in New Zealand;  it would be another six years before he would climb Mount Everest.

There are only three possible explanations for this:  (1)  Mrs. Rodham thought the surname of an obscure bee keeper was an appropriate first name for her baby daughter; (2) she had amazing powers of predicting the future; or (3) she’s a prevaricator extraordinaire (and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree).

What’s even more amazing is the fact that it took over a decade for Hillary the Younger to finally admit to something that was so patently false.

By the way, did I happen to mention that my mother named me after Curious George?  (It could happen; the first Curious George book came out in 1941 – nine years before I was born.)

Christmas and the Christian faith

Sunday, December 16th, 2007

Yesterday I spent most of the day cruising lib web sites, and saw much lambasting of the recent vote in the House of Reps. recognizing Christmas. What I did’nt know, was that the same had been done for the Muslim holiday of Ramadan and the Hindu holiday of Diwali. I received the following e-mail from David Barton and Wallbuilders yesterday. I think it worth passing on. The vote for the Muslim and Hindu holiday was unananimous. But 9 Democraps vote against Christmas.

————————————————————- 

As Christmas approaches, there are three items I would like to call to your attention.

1. The U. S. House just passed a resolution introduced by Rep. Steve King (IA) recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith (H. Res 847). It is a wonderfully written and powerfully worded recognition not only of the birth of Christ but also of the impact of Christianity in the world and especially in the history of the United States. Click here to read this superb resolution.

2. The above House resolution honoring Christmas passed by a sizeable margin, but the House resolution honoring the Muslim of Ramadan (H. Res. 635) as well as the House resolution honoring the Hindu holiday of Diwali (H. Res. 747) both passed by a larger margin than did the resolution honoring Christmas. In fact, nine Democrats who voted for Congress to join in celebrating Ramadan and Diwali voted against honoring Christmas. The sponsor of the Christmas resolution — Rep. Steve King — had a strongly worded response to those members that also described the positive influence of Christianity in America. Click here to watch his powerful comments (90 seconds).

3. At WallBuilders, we recently obtained an 1844 Christmas sermon that provides great insight into the history of Christmas celebrations, including in early America. Click here to view this sermon.Thanks for your support of WallBuilders, and Merry Christmas!

David Barton

Go Tell The Spartans

Monday, December 10th, 2007

 

Well As often happens with me, I begin one project and end up with something else. I was researching Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and found this. The internet is truely a maze. Anyway this is good stuff and can be found here.  

By Andrew Klaven

By now, dozens of critics have weighed in on the massive box office success of 300, but not one I’ve read has figured out the reason for it. I have: it’s a terrific picture, one of the best in years. When I compare it to the movies that were nominated for Best Picture Oscars last year, it makes them seem to be exactly what they were: watered-down warm milk for liberal baby boomers who want to close the curtains on World War III, and snuggle down under their tie-dyed covers for a long winter’s nap full of tangerine dreams.

They are a weary failure of a generation. Like the British Edwardians before them, they could not live up to the achievements of their elders. So they invented a new set of rules, rules that sounded daring and dangerous and radical, but are in fact puerile, safe and anesthetic. Does western civilization require defense and sacrifice? Well, then ho, ho, ho, western civ has got to go. Does political freedom require responsibility and self-discipline? Well, then we’ll redefine freedom as individual licentiousness. Do other, lesser cultures want to destroy us? Well, then, we’ll join them in blaming America and avoid any unpleasantness. In short, the baby boomers’ leftist philosophy amounts to nothing more than an elaborate rationalization of their own cowardice and a way to dull the pain of the resultant self-disgust.

Now here’s 300, the mythologized story of the battle of Thermopylae, delivering the message of Thermopylae: if you want to be free, men have to be willing to fight and die to stay that way, just as the Spartans did 480 years before Christ. And watch the liberal critics throw their aprons over their faces and run, screaming, “Racist! Fascist!” and the deepest insult of the supposedly gay-friendly left, “Homo-erotic!” The film is none of these things. If white men kill darker men in this story, it’s not because of their color, it’s to stave off their slavish culture, just as we must do today. And what’s fascist about a film that defends freedom? As for homo-erotic – I suspect in this day and age that a celebration of martial virility makes some men so uncomfortable with themselves, they think it must somehow be gay. Nonsense.

300 is directed in the style of the Frank Miller comic that inspired it, but it also borrows heavily from video games like God of War. Among elites, to say a movie is like a video game is supposed to be an insult. It’s not – it’s a compliment. Elite art is a bunch of splotches on a canvas. Video game art creates fresh worlds that both echo and haunt the imagination. Elite films offer us male heroes who look like women and can only be masculine with quotation marks. Video games give us men who act like men. Elite stories preach to us not to glorify war. Video games understand that stories are made to glorify glory, which is sometimes found in war. Give me a film like a video game any day over the sort of films elite critics praise.

But there is one persistent criticism of 300 even among critics who liked it: the film contains no complex ideas. Maybe so. But since when are great movies made of ideas? 300 contains as many ideas as Casablanca does and at least, like Casablanca, the ideas it does contain are actually true – as opposed to, say, the balderdash in Babel or the suppposedly nuanced but, in fact, shallow notions in Flags of our Fathers.

Flags and its sister film Letters from Iwo Jima – though directed by the indubitably great Clint Eastwood – tell us nothing more than that our Japanese enemies in World War II were human beings fighting for their country just like us. Yes, I suppose they were. But the films never once take into account that the countries they fought for stood for different things and that some of those things, like freedom, are good and some, like genocidal tyrrany – well, not so much.

What’s more, Flags tells us that “there are no such things as heroes,” and portrays our celebration of heroism as something ultimately misguided and even destructive.

300 rejects this view and rightly so. The film understands that we celebrate heroes because we dine on the fruits of their sacrifice. The greatest of these fruits is liberty, more precious than life itself. And when we glorify the heroes who defend our liberty with their lives, it reminds us too that we must live in responsibility to them, not only in our actions but in our philosophies as well. Every day that we preserve and cherish our freedom is a monument to them, a sign that they are not forgotten. They are never forgotten.

Go tell the Spartans.

Bernie Ward – A Reminiscence

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

When I read the news today that long-time radio talk show host and self-styled progressive Bernie Ward was indicted on child pornography charges, I was transported back about 15 years when I used to listen to him on KGO in San Francisco (I was living in Monterey, California at the time).

Ward had a Sunday morning show called “Godtalk” that I listened to while getting ready to go to church.  One of the more amusing features on the show was the “Church of the Holy Donut,” of which Bernie was the high priest.  People would call the show and tell him they wanted to join his church.  He would tell them to splash some coffee on their foreheads (in mock baptism by sprinkling) and he would add their names to the church rolls. 

At one point in the history of the show, one of his church members broke away and started his own “Church of the Cruller,” taking some of Ward’s faithful with him.  The whole thing was all in good fun and was in no way sacreligious as far as I was concerned. 

Ward also discussed more serious theological issues.  His background as a former Catholic priest would seem to give him credibility, but I found his bias as a “recovering Catholic” a little hard to take at times.  One thing he said that I tended to agree with was that most people’s religious education was frozen at the elementary school level.

Occasionally, Bernie would substitute for some of the regular evening talk show hosts.  I actually called in once when he was discussing evolution.  I started asking him to comment on the difference between “horizontal evolution” (adaptation within species) and “vertical evolution” (the development of higher life forms from primordial soup).  Before I even got a chance to explain what I meant by the two terms, he cut me off and changed the subject.  That was my first lesson in how a talk show host can control the debate.

After I left California in 1992, Ward went on to get his own evening show on KGO and even had national shows (first on ABC in 1995 and later on Air America).  Always left-leaning politically, he apparently took an even sharper turn to the port side in recent years.

I’m not going to comment on his guilt or innocence regarding the charges against him;  I simply have no way of knowing.  But when I heard the name Bernie Ward, it took me back to a time when talk radio and I were both a lot younger.

Can Diversity Destroy Us?

Thursday, December 6th, 2007
 This is one of the finest commentaries  by Buchanan I’ve ever seen.  As usual The many things that float around inside my mind often come out in the writings of others. I can only wish that I had the talent to express myself so well.  The following truely is all that needs to be said about the problems facing the US today. Problems that in their entirity are the fault of Libs.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

On the Great Seal of the United States, first suggested by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, there was to be emblazoned a new motto: “E Pluribus Unum” – “Out of many, one.”

It was in their unity, not their diversity, that the strength of the colonies resided. So Patrick Henry believed, as he declared, “The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American.”

National identity must supersede state identity for America to survive.

Yet it has lately become fashionable to say that America is great not because she is united, but because she is diverse. It is because America is a multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual nation that she is a great nation. A corollary is that the more diverse America becomes, the better and greater she becomes.

After the Los Angeles riot of 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle was asked by his Japanese hosts if perhaps America did not suffer from too much diversity. “I begged to differ with my hosts,” Quayle retorted. “I explained that our diversity is our strength.”

And so our rulers, marinated in the myths that we “are a nation of immigrants” and “our diversity is our strength,” continue to embrace mass immigration – the more the better. But are the myths true?

America was settled by colonists from the British Isles. In 1789, two centuries after Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, we were 99 percent Protestant. Until the Irish came in 1845, there was almost no immigration. Even during the Great Wave of 1890-1920, the number of immigrants was a fraction of the 38 million here today. And all had come from Europe. By 1960, we were almost 90 percent European and more than 90 percent Christian – of one nationality, American, one language, English, and one culture.

That America is gone forever.

Last week, we learned that in the last seven years 10.3 million people, almost all from the Third World, entered the United States, more than half illegally. The nation that was one-tenth minority in 1960 is now one-third minority. European-Americans will soon be a minority in the nation, as they are today in California, Texas and most large American cities.

And when that day comes, what then will unite us as a people?

Certainly not religious faith, for the last 40 years have seen a large influx of Muslims, the rise of a rabid secularism and the break-up of Christian churches – the Episcopalians most recently – over issues of morality: abortion, civil unions, homosexual bishops, assisted suicide, stem cell research, Darwin, creationism. No longer are we united by a common language, as the fastest growing radio and TV stations are Hispanic. And certainly not culture, as we are in a cultural war over history, heroes and holidays.

And how can we say diversity is a strength, when the most diverse nations of Europe, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, shattered into 22 nations as soon as they became free, and Slovaks and Czechs divorced? Ethnic and linguistic diversity is now pulling Belgium apart, as they tore Cyprus in two.

Since World War II, diversity – racial, religious, ethnic, cultural – has pulled Malaysia, the Indian subcontinent, Pakistan, Indonesia and Ethiopia apart, and is today pulling Iraq, Turkey and Lebanon apart. How, when tribalism is everywhere ascendant, is diversity a strength?

When Islam arose in the 7th century, our world became more diverse. Fourteen centuries of war followed. When Catholic Europe became more diverse with the Protestant Reformation, a century of war followed, ending in a Thirty Years War that carried away a third of all the German people.

There came a new diversity when the English came to the Red Man’s continent in 1607 and Africans were brought as slaves in 1619. From that diversity came the near annihilation of American Indians and a racial divide that led to the American Civil War, bloodiest in the West in the 19th century.

Our racial diversity has ever been the most divisive issue in America – and remains so, as we see daily from Jena, the Imus affair and the Duke rape case.

Britain is more diverse than in the time of Victoria and Churchill. Is Britain a better, stronger nation now that London is Londonistan, madrassas defend the London bombers and race riots are common in the industrial north? If diversity is a strength, why do Scots wish to follow the Irish and secede?

Has Germany been strengthened by the diversity the Turks brought? Is France a stronger nation for the 5 million to 8 million Muslims concentrated in the banlieus? How have the Japanese suffered from their lack of diversity?

The Melting Pot – language, law, culture – worked to make us one nation and one people. But that Melting Pot, cracked and broken, is rejected by multiculturalists as an instrument of cultural genocide, crafted by white Europeans to annihilate native cultures.

This generation is witnessing the Deconstruction of America. Out of one, many.

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

Saturday, December 1st, 2007

It would seem that Michael Savage is right.

My Letter to the Editor

Wednesday, October 10th, 2007

The following is my reponse to Charles Kiker of tulia’s letter to the editor in today’s AGN.

 

Dear Sir,

Congress does not condemn, censure, or remove Mr. Limbaugh’s program from armed forces radio because the talking points parroted by left wing smear merchants do not stand up to scrutiny. Of the few times I listen to talk radio I actually hear this exchange between Rush and a Caller and I knew exactly what was discussed. I did not get my talking points from a George Soros funded, Hillary Clinton created, disingenuous attack machine, either.. The transcripts of what took place, where Rush clarified his remarks immediately after the phony soldiers comment, are out there. Rush was speaking of real phony soldiers like Jesse Mackbeth. Plug that name into your search engine.

The facts are clear and a majority of congress was able to discover them easily. Instead of wasting time on partisan hackery it seem congress decided to move on to more important matters. The only ones outraged are those who willfully ignorant and question nothing their handlers tell them.

Bodacious (I removed my real name)

Yay Monday

Monday, September 10th, 2007

Sorry for not posting anything.  I have taken a great interest in firearms lately and that combined with school starting, my step daughter moving away, and a general distaste for the political climate I have not wanted to post at all.

With General Petraeus being labeled a traitor by the far left and the ensuing fiasco surrounding his briefing to congress combined with Osamma Bin Laden’s lates rant deing debuted I decided to weigh in on the issues.

The far left’s outcry over Petraeus’s findings is of no surprise to me.  With Democrats, only potitics and what is best for them matters.  Remember when “The Surge” was first being talked about Democrats were for it before they were against it.  Not only that, the word of an Army General that the left agreed with was akin to the word of god.  Now that the facts are against them the Democrats can’t wait to shout General Petraeus down.

Business as usual for Democrats.

If you didn’t read this Sunday’s “Get Fuzzy” check it out.

And last but certainly not least:  Britney Spears might be an out of practice nutbag, but she looks good as far as I am concerned.

Coulter, Edwards and Codependency – Part Two

Saturday, August 18th, 2007

Back on July 3, I wrote about the “seemingly endless feud between conservative firebrand Ann Coulter and Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards”:

http://www.ivorydome.us/2007/07/03/coulter-edwards-and-codependency/

At that time, Elizabeth Edwards had called into MSNBC’s “Hardball” to lash out directly at Coulter for all the insensitive remarks she made about her husband.  At the time, I opined that this was a quick way for the Edwards campaign to replenish their coffers just before the quarterly contribution numbers were announced.

Now it appears that Edwards is in need of another boost in campaign funds:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/edwards-calls-c.html

I’ve been out of the loop for a couple of weeks, having had major surgery on August 6 and only now feeling strong enough to sit up long enough to write this.  Did I miss Ann’s latest jibe at Edwards, or is he just trying to resurrect the old feud that got him so much mileage in the past?  I find it amusing that Edwards calls Coulter a “she-devil,” then tries to reclaim the moral high ground:

“We know these people. We know their game plan. They’re going to attack us personally,” Edwards said. “They attacked Elizabeth personally, because she stood up to that she-devil Ann Coulter. … I should not have name-called. But the truth is — forget the names — people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language.”

Another telling line is the third sentence.  “They’re going to attack us personally”?  Is that a prediction or a wishful thinking on Edwards’ part?  The metamessage is clear:  “Please, Ann, please!  If you don’t attack me again, my campaign is sunk!”  If I were Ann Coulter, I would pass on the bait and remain serenely silent until Edwards finally runs out of bogeymen and ultimately, funds.

This reminds of the old joke:  Q:  What did the sadist do to masochist?  A:  Absolutely NOTHING!

Unchecked Extremism from The Left

Tuesday, July 31st, 2007

My sympathies go out to Chief Justice Roberts.  My wife had an unexplained seizure similar to what he had.  Thank goodness he is doing well now.

Another similarity in my situation with my wife and Chief Justice Roberts is that leftists are more than ecstatic at his injury and possible death.  The situations are similar but not exactly alike.  Leftists took joy in knowing that my wife and child had died while Roberts was only put in the hospital and leftists were happy to hear that had happened and were hoping he would die.

You can read a collection of these vile comments here and here.

This is nothing new for leftists and is just one characteristic of their behavior.  If you don’t march lockstep with their beliefs you are not worthy to live and should be locked up until you die.

Even more reasonable leftist who won’t come out and say that people they disagree with should be locked up are happy to do everything in their power to discredit people they disagree with.  Recall the global warming shill wanting to remove credentials of peers she didn’t agree with and then read this email exchange of some environmental experts.

What is the solution to this mental disorder that is extreme liberalism?  Honestly it isn’t that much of an issue.  Everything I have highlighted are the actions of the most extreme leftists out there.  I post this more for entertainment purposes than anything.  However, we must be vigilant.  Unlike extremist conservatives these extreme leftist voices go unchecked in the Democrat party and, in some cases, are heralded. 

Like I have said many times I do not wish to lock liberals away or wish for their demise.  People are free to believe as they choose.  What we as conservatives must do is make people aware of the vile behavior of these leftists, highlight how leftists turn a blind eye to despicable behavior, and denounce any extreme behavior from our side.