Archive for the ‘Showcases of Liberal Dishonesty’ Category

They Question War…Again and Again and Again – and Again? … Not So Much!

Friday, March 19th, 2010

Today marks the seventh anniversary of the “invasion and occupation of Iraq.”  A local anti-war group called Question War Amarillo used to commemorate this date with a peace vigil and march.  Their last such event took place on March 19, 2008. Here’s a link to a blog post about that event, entitled “We Question War…Again and Again and Again.” 

Well, it’s been two years since Question War Amarillo has “questioned the war.”  Why the lack of resolve?  What’s changed since 2008?  I think the answer can be found in this photo, taken at one of their rallies a in April 2006: 

say-no-to-war

The person in the middle is none other than our own Bodacious.  If you can’t make out his sign, it reads:  “Say NO TO WAR!  Unless a Democrat Is President.”

So, let’s see… 2006 – Republican in the White House – peace vigil and march.

2007 – Republican in the White House – peace vigil and march.

2008 – Republican in the White House – peace vigil and march.

2009 – Democrat in the White House - NO peace vigil and march.

2010 – Democrat still in the White House – still NO peace vigil and march.

Yep.

USA Consistently Dominates Olympics

Sunday, February 21st, 2010

A local blogger posted a cartoon from a newspaper that effectively calls American’s fat lazy slobs.  The comparison was made by showing a Canadian Curler and an American hyper-obese couch potato eating cheese curls.  The blogger was probably projecting, but I have been following the medal count and the USA is dominating with the total number of medals.

This also got me thinking, how many medals have been won by the USA across all of the Olympic games?  The results my come as shock to America haters, but the USA consistently dominates the Olympic games, by a relatively wide margin, too.

Here is an interactive table of the various medal counts.

Read it ad weep, liberals.  America produces the best athletes the world has ever known.

How Filthy the Left Really Is

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

Remeber back during the ‘04 and ‘06 elections the liberals would always throw around some ghastly number about how many people had died in Iraq.  Well, it turns out that the guy who came up with those number is a fraud.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A prominent group of polling researchers has accused the lead author of a 2006 study suggesting massive civilian deaths in Iraq of violating the polling profession’s codes and ethics. 

The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research said Dr. Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins University professor, had repeatedly refused to cooperate with an eight-month investigation into his research on the Iraqi death toll that made headlines in October 2006 when it was published by The Lancet, a British medical journal. 

The widely publicized study headed by Burnham contended that nearly 655,000 Iraqis had died because of the U.S.-led invasion and war in Iraq. 

“When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused,” the council said in a statement. It noted that the group’s Code of Professional Ethics and Practices calls for researchers to disclose their methodology when survey findings are made public so they can be independently evaluated and verified. 

“Dr. Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research,” said Mary Losch, chair of the association’s Standards Committee. 

The group made no judgment on whether Burnham’s findings were accurate but said his refusal to fully cooperate with the probe “violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research.” 

Burnham is the co-director of the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He could not be reached for comment. 

Tim Parsons, a spokesman for the school said: “We are disappointed AAPOR has chosen to find Dr. Burnham in violation of the organization’s ethics code. However, neither Dr. Burnham nor the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health are members of AAPOR.” 

Burnham’s research was based on interviews of households and not a body count. It found that about 600,000 Iraqis had died from violence, mostly gunfire. It also found a small increase in deaths from other causes such as heart disease and cancer. 

He contended that as of the date of his study, deaths were occurring in Iraq at a rate more than three times higher than before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. 

Burnham’s research, released just weeks before congressional midterm elections, was immediately questioned by some experts who said the figures appeared too high. An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group put its rough estimate at the time of Burnham’s study closer to 50,000. 

Burnham said at the time that his estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports. 

The Association for Public Opinion Research said it began investigating Burnham’s findings in March 2008 after one of its members complained. It said it had several times formally requested basic information about the survey, including the wording of questions asked and instructions and explanations given to respondents. It said Burnham refused to provide the information. 

Burnham is not a member of the group, which says it has nearly 2,200 members from government agencies, colleges and universities, nonprofit organizations, media corporations and commercial polling firms.

Seems liars like this are almost always elevated to lofty positions and hardly every questioned.  If they are questioned they lie, deny, and obstruct.  What a wonderful 4 years we have coming up!

Obama Analysis

Monday, February 11th, 2008

While browsing our local blogosphere I discovered a large movement in Amarillo “metroplex” that supports Barack Obama.  Curious to see who these people were I sought out thier information on Barack’s website.  The largest group is “Amarillo Texas for Obama!!!”

Everyone who is associated with the group has a profile that lists where they live, birthdate, whether or not they are registered to vote, why they support Obama, and what issues they care about.  Everyone of the 15 or so profiles of Amarillo area persons I clicked on cares about civil rights or civil liberties.  Being that a vast majority of Democrat’s agenda is to thwart civil liberties I was curious how all of these people could care so much about the civil rights issue and support someone like Barack Obama, so I did some research on the guy.

I haven’t given two thoughts about Barack until I read about a rally here in Amarillo, so I know very little about him.  There isn’t much to know about person’s aligned with the Democratic party.  I went to On The Issues.org to find out what his positions were. 

Most curious is Barack’s support of the Patriot Act.  If you recall, every time a democrat moans about civil liberties it has to do with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, or something about Gitmo.  What kind of logic allows these people to say they care about civil liberties and then support someone who voted to curtail civil liberties by voting for the Patriot Act?  I am guessing it is a total lack of logic.

Furthermore, Barack’s record on supporting the 2nd ammendment is attrocious.  There is another civil liberty that local supporters say they care about but their leader doesn’t.

Despite denying it Obama has supported a single payer healthcare system, that is to say he supports nationalized healthcare, be it controlling insurance companies or the gov footing the bill.  Without getting into the costs of such a farce and considering some of the other positions Obama has we can easily see that this violates several civil liberties. 

Obama supports banning smoking and the government doing something about obesity on the basis of supporting his nationalized healthcare agenda.  The gov would regulate smoking and eateries across the nation in an effort to keep all citizens healthy.  How is this going to be accomplished?  Are they going to do like they tried in Missouri to tell restaurants that they can’t serve food to fat people?

How transparent is it that Obama cares about civil rights?  I could right a book on all the exploits the democrats have done to subvert civil rights.  Woops, someone beat me to it.

 Read the above linked page about Obama on the issues.  I will never support him for several reasons, primarily his stance on the 2nd Ammendment, but also his support for partial birth abortions and his subversion of the war effort.

On the above linked pages the local Obama supporters talk about a rally they recently had to shout at passing cars.  They say they are going to do it again and I am sure the event will show up on the Obama website.  I just may show up with the following sign:

Obama Supports
Partial Birth Abortion

abortion.jpg

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

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.

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)

Showcases of Liberal Dishonesty: Skewing Views on Self Defense

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007

One thing that grinds my gears is the seemingly intentional misrepresentation of conservative’s position that gun-free zones should not exist on college campuses and other areas.  The conservative position is that individuals who posses a concealed carry license should be allowed to carry on campus.  Some conservatives go so far as to say that it should be mandated that Teachers be armed.

Liberals, such as Greg Sagan, misrepresent this position.  They think that when I say gun-free zones shouldn’t exist that I mean all students and teachers should be issued a firearm for carrying on campus.  If that were the case I would agree with the liberal assertion that campuses would be more dangers, but being that the liberal interpretation of my position is a falsehood I think my actual position would make the campus safer.

Persons with a concealed carry license, in Texas at least, are required to have 10 hours of training with the handling of firearms and Texas laws on concealed carry and use of deadly force.   Whether or not that much training is adequate for people to be relied upon to act responsibly in high stress situation is debatable.  I would say they need more training.  This situation is kind of like how an individual can take a course and get their motorcycle license but they are not ready to be among the traffic, safely riding a motorcycle.

I believe, with adequate training, people should be able to carry almost anywhere they choose.  I agree that some places should be off limits such as in the courtroom as Sagan suggested.  I am undecided on whether or not to allow concealed carry in a 51% type place.  I would imagine someone carrying concealed would be disallowed to consume alcohol, but how is a bartender to know? 

Where I think the law should change would be to allow people with adequate training be allowed to carry their concealed firearms onto educational institutions.  Texas law forbids this currently.

Mr. Sagan does need to bone up on his handgun laws, however.  He asserts that Churches and hospitals should be a sanctuary and “must be free of everyone’s gun.”  (Wasn’t VT a “sanctuary” before that terrible Monday last April?  As I have asserted here and elsewhere, that kind of thinking gets people killed.  Yes, those places will be sanctuaries from other law abiding citizens, but unless people are allowed to protect themselves lunatics will prey on sanctuaries)  Anyway, Texas Law says people can carry concealed into a church, hospital, or amusement park unless a special sign is posted stating otherwise.

So not only does Sagan not want people with adequate training be responsible for themselves but also for handgun laws to be more restrictive than they already are.

Showcases of Liberal Dishonesty

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007

One thing our local liberals love to bash me for is because I admitted I don’t mind being dishonest if I can stick it to the liberals.  I know that is a low position to take and I shouldn’t “stoop to their level” but the way I see it if you don’t get your hands dirty you aren’t going to get things done; if you don’t get in the ring with the mudslingers the bell won’t sound.  I know that doesn’t justify my behavior and I know two wrongs don’t make a right.  Shame on me.  I bet I could say I was joking with the time I was being dishonest, but alas, I am not liberal and that cop out won’t work with me.

I like to highlight liberal dishonesty because, well, they are dishonest about it.  If a liberal catches me on an intentional spin on a subject I am happy to say, “got me” and leave it alone.  There is a great deal of commentary I choose not to peddle because it is dishonest (Pelosi and her jet to get home).  I don’t like being dishonest the way I do but if it furthers my agenda the so be it.  If the liberals can do it, why can’t I?  Maybe I am dishonest in the same manner as liberals to highlight their double standard.  The difference between liberals and me, however, is that I will take responsibility for my dishonesty whereas liberals cover it up.

Over the past few weeks I have noticed two shining examples of liberal dishonesty that have to do with the illegal immigration problem and Fox News.

The illegal immigration debate is purposefully mischaracterized as an immigration debate.  The brave “minute men” who voluntarily patrol our border and turn in illegal border crossers are not only mischaracterized as vigilantes but attacked as being anti-immigration.  A lot of conservatives are also attacked being anti-immigration for simply speaking out against illegal immigration.  I wish I could cite this but I can only share what I heard on Colmes’, of Hannity and Colmes, radio show as well as past personal experiences of witnessing liberals in illegal immigration debate.

I am all for legal immigration.  As I have learned in my studies immigrants help our country a great deal.  Only the best and brightest of immigrants can make it in our country with having to deal with language barriers and culture shock.  As a result these immigrants are some of the greatest minds and workers our country has.

Illegal immigration, however, is a cancer on our nation.  Liberals will peddle that they are hard workers, pay taxes, and our country needs them to work jobs our citizens won’t and to fund social security.  Saying those things is sugar coating a turd.  The welfare used by illegal immigrants, medical and otherwise, combined with the money sent back to their home countries is the problem.  Other problems are refusal to integrate into our society, employers illegally employing illegal immigrants, and not deporting illegal immigrants who are repeat criminals.

I can’t even begin to have a solution to the entire illegal immigration debate.  I believe something needs to be done about the border to stop the influx of illegals.  That should be our first priority but doesn’t solve the whole problem.  The remainder is what to do with the illegals that are here already, some 11 million of them.  I have a real problem with deporting all of them.  Not only would it be too costly, but tearing people’s families apart is ridiculous.  My personal opinion is that they should be felonised and then some.  Illegal immigrants already here don’t have to go to jail straight away but they shouldn’t be able to vote, own firearms, consume alcohol, can only have a special driver’s license, must pay a fine, and complete all the necessary steps a regular immigrant has to and all of this must be completed within 3 years of enactment, otherwise they are deported or jailed.  Once they have completed their duties they are a full citizen. I know a lot of people will disagree with me but that is the only way I know to punish the law breaking illegals but not destroy their lives at the same time.

The second example of liberal dishonesty I witnessed this past week was in regards to fox news.  I read a headline on digg that had to do with a segment on The O’Reilly Factor I happen to catch this past Friday.  At the link you can watch the video.

Now I don’t mind people criticizing O’Reilly, there is a lot to criticize.  Where the dishonesty comes in is the text of the caption of the headline.  In the caption the question is asked, “Can anyone argue with a straight face that FOX doesn’t engage in pure agenda journalism?”

Here is a news flash to you liberals: The O’Reilly Factor isn’t a news program and doesn’t pretend to be.  Bill O’Reilly is a commentator and says so, that’s why it’s The O’Reilly Factor and not News at 7 with Bill O’Reilly.

If you read along in the comments the hatred for Fox news comes out big time.  Liberals are intentionally skewing the line between commentary and journalism to attack fox news.  I would venture to guess that if the same comparison were made of MSNBC and Countdown with Keith Olberman, that Olberman’s program was news and not commentary, the liberals would come out of the woodwork shouting down those who disagreed with them. 

I am curious why liberals are doing this.  Do they pursue this cause in order to attack and attempt to destroy those they disagree with and shatter the marketplace of ideas?  What purpose does attacking Fox in this manner serve?

Again, if anyone wants to point out me being dishonest and I am, I will say so.  I won’t defend a lot of talking points out there that are dishonest, either, like attacking Pelosi saying she requested a plane for her family from the west coat to DC when it was really some department official who requested it.  I could characterize the department official as the fall guy for Pelosi, but that would be dishonest.