Townhall Review: Shrill 'n Snippy Edition
Well, they are not any more shrill than usual, but I'm tired or have iron-poor blood or something, because I found them more irritating and less entertaining than usual -- resulting in me being shrill and snippy. Read what follows at your own risk!
Dennis's column is entitled "Ask Kerry one question: What would Zarqawi be doing if he weren't in Iraq." Its premise is that Democrats have no answers to the questions Dennis just thought of, proving that President Bush is way smarter than you dreamed of.
Yet, in order to believe that the greater number of terrorists in Iraq means the invasion was a mistake, you have to believe one or both of the following -- that were it not for the invasion, the terrorists who are in Iraq would have been engaged in some peaceful work in some other country, or that they are newly minted terrorists who were perhaps selling shoes prior to the war in Iraq.Neither scenario makes sense.
[...]
So here's the question that apparently goes unasked of all the Democrats who are sure it is President Bush who lacks intelligence: What would Zarqawi be doing now if he were not slaughtering people in Iraq? Selling used cars in Amman?
Playing cello in the Berlin Philharmonic?
Probably being a midlevel terrorist in Israel. (I doubt he'd have a fraction of the followers he does now if he didn't have the American invasion of Iraq as a rallying point.) So, Dennis, is your premise that it's worth hundreds of American and Iraqi lives in order to save a dozen Israeli lives . . . ?
The president has said from the beginning that a major reason for invading Iraq was to bring the war to the terrorists, and that if we don't fight them on their soil, we will have to fight them on ours. Therefore, unless one posits that Zarqawi and other Arab sadists would be doing nice things elsewhere, their presence in Iraq seems to vindicate the president entirely -- that they would be busy in the West if they were not kept busy defending their very lives in Iraq.
Hey, maybe they'd be busy in Germany or Saudi Arabia or one of those other countries which you don't like (but which have had terrorist attacks too, you know). If so, does that still vindicate the President?
It is sad that this obvious point is not constantly repeated when Democrats make what they believe is some unassailable point about the influx of terrorists into Iraq.
Dennis, what is sad is that you're allowed to write these columns without having an effing clue.
2. Ben Shapiro
Ben tries his hand at sarcasm. It's a heavy, inept hand, and should be slapped.
I believe! I used to walk in darkness, until one day a savior was born in the west wing of a military hospital in Colorado. [...]Because, you see, John Edwards convinced me, one bright, fine day, that John Kerry could heal. Heal, you hear? “When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again,” the Southern prophet told a group of true believers.
Benny, this is what happens when you get your news from Drudge. See, what Edwards actually said was that Reeves "was a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him." And then he said, "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
But I guess you don't believe in modern medicine and scientific breakthroughs and such, do you Ben? In any case, don't let the facts stop you from putting on your little show.
And so I thought to myself: here am I, a mere columnist, a staunch backer of President Bush, and he hasn’t healed anyone.
He has, however, sent people to their deaths.
He ain’t even got hisself a prophet.
Bush don't need no stinkin' prophets because God tells him directly what wars to start. However, he does have Jerry Falwell:
Falwell declared this summer in his weekly newsletter that the only candidate for "conservative people of faith" is President Bush.Falwell, whose conservative ministry is based in Lynchburg, Va., said that only Christian leaders will protect the United States from terrorism, abortion and gay marriage.
And Bush also has Pat Robertson. Remember back in January when Pat gave us this prophecy?
I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004.
So, I want to remind all "conservative people of faith" that Pat has assured us that the election is in the bag, so there's no need for them to debase themselves by using ungodly voting machines.
But anyway, Benny, you keep working on your writing and someday I'm sure somebody will find you amusing. I mean, when you're trying to be.
3. Brent Bozell
Brent is outraged that, despite all the angry columns, compaints, and petitions he has written, CBS hasn't become an affiliate of the GOP like he told them too. What is sparking his ire this week is that Les Moonves, co-president of Viacom, said that he didn't think the investigation of Memogate should be concluded until after the November election. Moonves, who has no authority over the panel, was only expressing his own preferences; CBS has said that the panel would decide when to release their report -- presumably when their investigation is complete. However, ever since NippleGate, Brent has thought that CBS owes him, and the fact that they are STILL reporting it when Bush screws up really gets Brent's goat.
It's not encouraging that CBS wants to bury its own probe. And it's certainly not encouraging that since CBS appointed Thornburgh and Boccardi, the "news" they put out has been even more hostile to President Bush, even worse than all the other network news operations. CBS is not acting apologetic or defensive. They seem to be sailing full speed ahead with the slogan: We have not yet begun to smear.
Oddly enough, Fox News, which published fake John Kerry quotes, has been even more hostile to John Kerry than all the other news operations, and isn't acting apologetic or defense. They seem to be sailing full speed ahead with the slogan: Fair and balanced is for suckers!
John Kerry wants to beat back terrorism until it's no longer the focus of our lives. Tony thinks that this shows that Kerry is falling under the evil influence of the CIA and the State Dept. -- and those guys HATE George Bush. So, when the State Dept. releases photos of Bush having sex with Condi, you should just ignore them.
It was precisely President Bush's decision to declare and fight an actual, not a metaphorical, war on terrorism that so enraged the CIA and has led them to release damaging leaks against the president at key moments in the election campaign. This same view is held by much of the State Department's Foreign Service Officer corp. It is rumored that sometime in the next three weeks, they, too, will leak some damaging document or information against the president. And it is a fair guess, that Sen. Kerry will be primed to exploit that leak when it comes.
Exploiting damaging information about his opponent's mistakes??? Gad, there are no depths to which Kerry won't sink.
And speaking of fair guesses, what do YOU think the damaging State info will be? Think it involves puking?
Michelle claims that Democrats are being thuggish and malicious, and the media doesn't even care!
Yes, both Democratic and Republican signs have been torn. Yes, there has been juvenile behavior on both sides. But left-wing activists have escalated their campaign attacks to a seemingly unprecedented level. We have gone from simple mischief to open-season malice. And the supposedly objective reporters who are always so willing to connect the dots to expose the politics of hate are now whistling past the smashed windows and flaming signs and bullet holes.
Of course, all of the incidents Michelle related WERE carried by the media (although she might have read about them from sources like Little Green Spitballs and FreeRepublic, the original reports came from the mainstream media). And while somebody reportedly used herbicide to draw a swastika in a lawn and somebody shot into Bush-Cheney headquarters in Knoxville, there's no evidence that the perpetrators were Democrats. In fact, officials say that most incidents of vandalism are committed by teenagers who are just goofing off. But heaven forbid that Republicans don't get to feel like a persecuted minority.
Oh, and I saw a segment about this on the Brit Hume report last night: it seems that there have been about a dozen incidents of vandalism of Democractic headquarters across the nation. But you don't hear anything about them, do you -- maybe because Democrats don't whine about every little thing.
6. Linda Chavez
John Kerry is reserved by nature -- and that's un-American, and evidence that he's hiding something. You know, I bet he's DB Cooper.
He is one of the most guarded, private and aloof presidential aspirants in recent memory -- and he seems intent on keeping it that way. Apart from his four months in Vietnam, Kerry has shared little about his personal biography with American voters. When he throws out a tidbit, you have the sense he's holding back -- or worse, trying to deflect the truth.
Linda means that SHE has that sense. But then, since she apparently lacks basic reading and listening comprehension skills, she relies on her spidey sense to compensate -- and it always lets her down.
When Kerry told viewers in the second debate in response to a question on federal funding of abortion, "I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life, helped lead me through a war, leads me today," it sounded downright weird. Being an altar boy and allowing his Catholic faith to "lead" him today might explain why John Kerry would oppose federal funding of abortion, but he offered those insights to explain why he favors government funding of abortion. It made no sense, rational or political. You had the feeling he was hiding something, namely what he really believes. Either he doesn't want to admit he disagrees with his Church on abortion or that his political ambitions trump his moral convictions.
Or else it meant, like he said, that he believes abortion is morally wrong, but he doesn't get to dictate other people's morals.
Gee, when you read Linda's words you have the feeling that she is trying to hide something: namely her inability to think.
[Matt Bai's New York Times] piece has generated a great deal of attention because Kerry is quoted in it saying, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." Kerry went on to compare fighting terrorism to fighting prostitution, gambling and organized crime. He argued that we need to reduce terrorism to the degree where "(I)t isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."Reading Kerry's words I had the feeling he'd finally said what he really believes. And suddenly I understood why he's so desperate not to reveal himself.
Yeah, because then he won't get the votes from people like the Townhallers and the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, who want terrorism to be the focus of everybody's lives for all of eternity. Too bad he tripped up and finally told somebody his views on something.
Well, that's all I can take of Townhall today. Let's try out a couple of the lesser wingnuts and see if they are more entertaining.
Our friend Rev. Swank can always be counted on to be amusing in his wingnutniness. This column is no exception: it's about how the upcoming Presidential election isn't between Kerry and Bush, but between the forces of darkness and those of light. Really. It's got angels and demons and everything.
Barna Research reports that those who read their Bibles, attend church, agree with the moral principles of Holy Scriptures and have a keen sensitivity to right and wrong are voting for George W. Bush. Not all of them, naturally. But the larger percentage is.Those who are amoral or immoral or other than the Christian faith are voting for John F. Kerry. Not all of them, naturally. But the larger percentage is.Add to that the Communist support for Kerry. Add to that the Muslim support for Kerry. Add to that the Kofi Annan support for Kerry. Add to that the moral relativism Hollywood celeb population for Kerry and you have the amoralists / immoralists in the Kerry camp.
Because, of course, Muslims are all immoral. As are all the rest of the world non-Christians, and also Christians who aren't evangelicals. And hey, the fact that fake Communists said that they were supporting Kerry is proof right there that his supporters are all hell-bound.
That obviously means that if Kerry gets into the Oval Office, the moral foundation of America is in super jeopardy. Down the drain, in other words. That means that the amoral / immoral enthusiasts are going to attempt to push through every sinful agenda going — and the word is "sinful." Outright evil and other dimensions of wickedness.
But won't the moral Republican-controlled House and Senate be able to block Kerry's sinful schemes? Or will he have them all killed on his first day in office, as his inaugural act of outright evil. (Or would that fall into the "other dimensions of wickedness"?)
That brings us once again to realize that we are not so much in a culture war syndrome as a moral versus immoral combat zone. It’s not culture. Those into immoral lifestyles have no idea of culture. Culture is for the refined and sophisticated, the principled individuals who live by the divine code.
Yup, only the religious right is cultured, and everybody else is a depraved sinner who doesn't even deserve to be thought of as human.
Consequently, the forces of light against darkness are at their height. Michael the Archangel is pitting holiness strength against Lucifer and the demons of hell. One can feel it in the air. It’s all around us.
Yes, it's Milton's "Paradise Lost" -- the 3-D version. With John Kerry as Lucifer, George Bush as Michael, and Dick Cheney as God. Coming this November to a polling spot near you!
Mr. Engler is new to our pages, so let's read a bit of his bio:
Robert Klein Engler is an adjuct professor at Roosevelt University in Chicago, and a versatile writer of op-ed articles, poetry, and philosophy.
His piece is called "What's Missing From the Debates: Juana and Her Peanuts"
[....] Juana is a short, old woman. She sells her roasted peanuts for $1 a bag. She doesn't speak English, but holds the bag out in her brown and wrinkled hand as commuters walk through the doorway on their journey home or to a connecting bus. All she can say in her heavy Spanish accent is ''One dollar.'''As Juana smiles, you notice all her front teeth are missing. [And so on, for another paragraph of descriptive detail.]The Bush/Kerry debates have been rather ordinary. I watched both, yet felt something was missing. Something was missing from the questions asked and the answers given. That something was Juana and her peanuts, or more specifically, the issue of illegal immigration.
So, what is the problem that Juana represents? She is supporting herself, is apparently law abiding, and doesn't seem to be hurting anybody. At FIRST! See, she's selling peanuts, and some people are allergic to peanuts. So, unless we do something about illegal immigration, somebody could die from anaphylactic shock!
With the exception of groups like NumbersUSA.com and VDare.com, most Americans and their politicians seem numb to the illegal immigration problem. They will walk right past Juana and not give her a second thought. They never consider how Juana got to Chicago or what she is doing here. Maybe they will buy some peanuts and maybe not. They won't even notice that tomorrow there will be two Juanas at the L station, then next week 4, and the week after that 8, and then 16. All the while, the politicians debate and debate. Peanuts, anyone?
Yes, Juana is cloning herself, and nobody is noticing that she's doubling herself every week. Soon, through geometric progression, there will be billions of her, and she and her peanuts will RULE THE WORLD.
Sol, Townhall and friends. Think of it as the non-sweeps version of "Fox and Friends."
4:05:21 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment