Say Anything Blog

Recently on Say Anything, Anna posted the following story about a protest to global warming. The ridiculous call was raised that a vast majority of the signatories were Medical Doctors.

The problem with this logic: none of the signatories professions or degrees were listed.

(more...)

On the Savage Nation (God knows why I still flip in, even on occasion) tonight, Michael Savage opined that “at least in Vietnam, we got to see the last helicopters leaving Saigon. Thank God. When are we going to see the last helicopters leave Baghdad? Five years and we still haven’t finished this mess? When will the helicopters leave?”

It’s amazing to me that any “self professed intellectual” would yearn for a “Saigon moment” in Iraq. Our flight from Vietnam, with South Vietnamese trying to cling to our helicopters is one of the most shameful moments in American history, and the images of that day are heartbreaking. Following our departure, millions were killed, and hundreds of thousands died trying to flee the Communist dictatorships set up in our absense. Our “defeat” in Vietnam has been used by every force that we have faced since as a reason to keep killing our troops even after we have crippled their military (hoping for a civilian retreat).

That bears repeating: Our retreat from Vietnam has directly led to every dead soldier in Iraq today.

The same thing will be true if we flee Iraq. We’ll send American troops back in under the UN (that is unarmed) after real genocide and civil war take place in the middle east. And the next time we have to use the military, it’ll just give the next force we fight a reason to keep killing our troops long after defeat is certain.

Absolutely shameful. What a douche.

Crossposted from Home of the Insane Reindeer

ABC News played a story about who the troops supported this afternoon. Overwhelmingly, those soldiers interviewed supported Barack Obama, with a handful of Clinton supporters. One sole McCain supporter was shown, with the lackluster “Well, the war has paid my bills so far...why not more?” as his answer to why he supported McCain. This is the average makeup of the US military?

Is this why, by CNN’s report (hardly a conservative bastion) voted that military personelle voted nearly 3-2 for Bush over Kerry? 57%-41% a 16% lead? NPR reports that it could swing either way in 2008. IF (and even most liberals admit this is a huge if) the Democrats garner the military vote, it will be by the barest of percentages, and will be more dependant on veterans than active military. The military vote has traditionally always gone Republican. And there’s no shortage of soldiers who are not fond of Democrats, as evidenced by pictures like this.

So then, what are we to make of this nonsense report except that ABC is trying to paint a picture devoid of reality? And what of the lone soldier for McCain who sees war as a pay check? That’s the average Republican soldier? What a vicious slander. Once more the liberal media tries to pretend the military is overwhelmingly Democrat (who just want out of Iraq), while a few knuckle dragging war lovers on the Republican side cheer on the carnage.

But accusing Republicans of liking war or being warmongers is nothing new amongst leftists. Why should we expect anything different around election time?

In years past, the “blood libel” was a dispicible charge, usually against the Jews, that they were a dangerous people who engaged in human sacrifice. Today, the blood libel has reared it’s ugly head, in secular criticism of Christianity. The drum beat of anti-Christian nonsense, labeling Christians as intolerant, dangerous, violent bigots...who we are to be constantly wary of, or else…

Law and Order tonight was a full display of the New Blood Libel. It dreamed up an imaginary Church of jihad loving Christians, who were going to take up “war against the hypocrites”. A young boy is convinced to murder his mother for having an affair, with a Muslim no less, by his preacher. And an entire congregation calls him “God’s warrior”. As the police take the pastor away, you see perhaps a hundred children surrounding the police cars, threatening the cops with charges of “this is war”.

In the video they show, he asks the children, “What do we say to the Muslims who would face us? What do we say to the blasphemers who ruin God’s house?” Again the children chant “this is war!”

What point does this have other than to mock Christianity once more? The entire episode is a slander against good faithful men and women, by forcefully claiming that, not only this church, but the Christian men and women on the jury, sympathize with the pastor’s views, and agree with his inflammatory rhetoric.

The purpose of the blood libel was to convince the masses that a certain group of people were dangerous, couldn’t be trusted, and had to be removed, one way or another, from society. We see nothing less than that today in the relentless assault against Christianity.

Shameful.

Yea, and Pigs Fly

Cross posted from Home of the Insane Reindeer

Further proving just how wrong those filthy rightwingers were about St. Obama, Trinty Church has recently issued a statement about Reverand White:

Mr. Moss invoked the 40th anniversary of the death of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., saying Mr. Wright’s character was being “assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe.”
...
“It is an indictment on Dr. Wright’s ministerial legacy,” Mr. Moss wrote, “to present his global ministry within a 15- or 30-second sound bite.”
He cited Mr. Wright’s development of ministries: “places for senior citizens, day care for children, pastoral care and counseling, health care, ministries for persons living with H.I.V./AIDS, hospice training, prison ministry, scholarships for thousands of students to attend historically black colleges, youth ministries, tutorial and computer programs, a church library, domestic violence programs, and scholarships and fellowships for women and men attending seminary.”

All of this, of course, is a neat little “look over there” trick, designed to deflect criticism.

No one at all is criticizing Wright for his contributions to humanity. They are criticizing him for his anti-Semetic and overtly anti-American remarks. And his seeming anti-white bias has put a couple people off as well.

Let us not forget that it was a 15-30 second video, shot on a phone that brought down Michael Richards, screaming “You can talk, you can talk, you’re brave now motherf**ker. Throw his ass out. He’s a n*gger! He’s a n*gger! He’s a n*gger! A n*gger, look, there’s a n*gger!” No one accused anyone of a hit job on Richards. No one said his remarks were taken out of context. No one demanded we look at how funny he was (or wasn’t) on Seinfeld. His remarks were taken at their racist face value and denounced.

It is not character assassination to point out someone’s own comments. It is not character assassination to show 3 and 4 and 5 minute clips of them talking. In one of these, the man even realizes that he has offended “some white people”, and much like Richards, tells them to get over it. “He’s preaching the Bible”, don’tchaknow? As long as there is no mitigating context that we’re missing, (and in Wright’s case, there clearly isn’t), playing his unaltered comments is nothing more than exposing people to his sermons. To compare him to the late great Dr. King is absolutely dispicible. Whereas King preached tolerance and told the black community to accept their white brothers and sisters (in an age where he was being sprayed with firehoses and attacked by dogs), Wright preaches about the evils of the white society to the black man (while he lives in luxury). The two couldn’t be further apart.

Mr. Moss added that the questioning of Mr. Wright added up to “an attack on the legacy of the African American Church which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world.”

And of course the parting racist shot. If you are against anything we do, you are an unmitigated racist, who just hates the black man.

This further strains Obama’s claim that he had no clue what Wright stood for. The very next minister defends Wright from these charges, echoing Barack Obama’s very same tone. “We can’t judge a 40 year career by a stupid thing said on occasion.” The question is...why not? That’s how we judge people in politics. How often is the assinine “Gays and single mothers helped cause 9/11” comment brought up, even now that the man is dead? It was a sad comment, and it rightfully tarred Falwell. The church simply wants a pass on Wright’s disgusting and reprehensible comments because he’s a black man, and black men, according to seperationist liberation theory, are supposed to stick together against white racist oppression (which this most certainly is...not honest criticism). Being black is the ultimate, get out of stupid free card.

While Trinity church would like to point to Reverand Wright’s years of service to the black community as a way to define him...it’s more appropriate to define him by his deep connections to virulent racist Louis Farrakhan, his support for suicide bombers in Palestine, his characterization of 9/11 as a way for “people of color to remind us they were still around”, and his many trips to state sponsors of terrorism.

Playing the victim card just doesn’t cut it here.

Crossposted:

If there is any area on which modern day liberalism is not willing to compromise its beliefs in order to appease the worst excesses of radical Islam, I have yet to find it. The staunchest defenders of human rights are oddly silent about the most eggregious human rights violations facing Muslims, mainly women and children. To the extent that ANY of them speak about barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation...it is usually to defend such practices.

One of the most grissly recent stories to fit this model is the tale of Yasser Abdul Said who murdered his daughters Amina and Sarah for offending his honor. No stories on DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground. And in a search on yahoo, google, and even ask.com, the first 40 stories are all from right wing blogs, usually linking either to JihadWatch and Robert Spencer, or to Phyllis Chesler. This is a case of TRUE theocratic religious zealots murdering their daughters for impure sexuality (real or imagined) and for religious reasons...yet, there is silence.

As Chesler reports:

[B]ased on extensive interviews that I have done with the female relatives of the murdered Texas teenagers, it is clear that:

a) Amina and Sarah were expected to wear headscarves. Their failure to do so, their “hidden” lives as normal American teenagers, doomed them.

b) Amina and Sarah were expected to enter into arranged marriages against their will to much older Egyptian men whom they had never met. Their refusal to do so doomed them.

c) Amina and Sarah were expected to keep quiet about the horrific sexual, physical, and psychological abuse which was heaped upon them by their father, mother, and brother. Their failure to do so doomed them.

d) Amina and Sarah were not supposed to have “boyfriends.” At the very least, their friends, both male and female, were not supposed to be Christians. The fact that they were friendly with Christian male teenagers doomed them.

e) Amina and Sarah were supposed to learn to hate America and to choose Shari’a law. Their failure to do so doomed them.

These are only some of the “rules” that Amina and Sarah were expected to obey. One of my informants has quoted their brother Islam, who often stalked his sisters, as saying: “They knew the rules. They broke them.” Islam is saying that it is their fault that his father had to kill them.

Thus, whenever you see a woman in a face veil, headscarf, or burqa, it is very likely that these rules also apply to her.

Western feminists, who leap to defend the poor and downtrodden female from having to unfairly look at ultrasounds of their unborn fetus, report to their parents that they need to travel across state lines to have an abortion at the age of 12, or have a 15 cent an hour wage difference from their male counterparts...are shockingly silent about the execution of two beautiful young women by their zealot father for not conforming to his expectations of their lives.

The charge of racism to anyone who brings up such issues is not only irresponsible...it is silly. How is it racist to try and defend women and children of color or minority faith? All those who would defend “the Muslim community against such slander” is defend behaviors that lead to the deaths of young women the world over in such “honor killings”. It’s just a shame that some would rather play victim politics than save lives. That those who would defend western women from the rather minor inconvenience of a wage disparity would not stand up for their sisters who are being executed by a very real patriarchy is a terrible dereliction of duty. And that some would actually defend a patriarchy responsible for such attrocities is disgusting and pathetic.

On this blog, I will occasionally post a side project of mine...what I call “Looking at the Left from the Left: Why Liberal Ideas Don’t Make Sense from a Liberal Worldview”. The point of this project is to show why all liberal thought is deeply and inherently self contradictory, and why it is a deeply reactionary ideology, bereft of any coherent unifying belief system or logical backbone.

No logical, coherent philosophy could produce the thought pattern that a wage gap (real or imagined) is an unacceptable patriachial business world discriminating against women...but that a man who cuts out his daughter’s sexual organs is just a cultural difference we need to understand. No rational person could ever argue that a woman has the unmitigated right to an abortion, yet has no right to smoke, or eat foods made with certain ingrediants. And no intelligent person could rationally expect minority children to succeed in a “deeply racist white boy world” by “acting black” or refusing to speak english.

Even if one tries to accept all Liberal arguments as fact, it doesn’t become long until we start hitting snags. “If it is responsible for a woman to have an abortion if she cannot keep a child, then why is it good for the state to subsidize, and indeed, even incourage, such women to keep the child by having a welfare state?” “If sex is an inherently coersive act...where a man is asserting his dominance over a woman, thereby exploiting her, then why would a company like Planned Parenthod go out of it’s way to hide statutory rape, and further the sexual exploitation of girls by older men?” “If it is violation of the Seperation of Church and State to have the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge, or to have the 10 Commandments in a courtroom...then how can it be remotely Constitutional to force California school Children to take a Muslim name, recite prayers in Arabic, and play jihad?”

It is my belief that these are not minor problems with the liberal worldview, but are emblematic of a deeply irrational worldview.

Over the course of these posts (identified with a LotL or LBL before each title), when I speak about things like “seperation of Church and State”, “right to an abortion”, and other such topics, these are usually not my personal views, but its simply me arguing from a leftist perspective to show the problems with the basic liberal conclusion. Hopefully, this will stop needless arguing when I call waterboarding torture, or refer to our soldiers as killing. If there’s a real question on where I stand, feel free to send me a message, and I will clarify my actual position.

I’m certainly up to examining any topic that I’m asked to. And I’m open to any real criticism or additions to the project.


http://www.theleftfromtheleft.blogspot.com

While he expounds on each problem, and the different views to it, we’ll just skip to Obama’s solutions:

Obama’s solution (to our disagreements about taxes): Shared sacrifice. If your last name begins with A through E, Obama will continue the Bush tax cuts. If your last name begins with F through L, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. If your last name begins with M through Z, Obama will raise your taxes. Now the following fiscal year, those with last names beginning A through E face a tax increase. The F through L’s get the Bush tax cuts. And the L through Z’s will have their tax cuts expire. The next fiscal year, Obama will rearrange the cuts, depending, of course, on your last name, and will continue this rotation every year of his administration.
...
Obama’s solution(on Iraq): Withdraw all troops by the year 2009. Then send them back in 2010, followed by their return to America in 2011, with another redeployment to Iraq in 2012. These on/off, every-other-year rotations would continue throughout his presidency. This satisfies those who want the troops home immediately. But it also appeases those who consider our national security dependent upon a military presence in Iraq. This policy also confuses our enemy, since they never know whether we are coming or going.
...
Obama’s solution (on health care): Provide universal health insurance to those without it. Allow those happy with their current health-care policies to retain them. Who pays for the uninsured 47 million? Tax Canada.
...
Obama’s solution (on global warming): Force Lutz to square off on pay-per-view against Al Gore in an Ultimate Fighting Championship no-holds-barred death match. The winner gets to decide America’s policy on climate change.
Hopefully this comforts the naysayers who doubt whether Barack Obama can, indeed, bring us together.

Read the whole thing. Elder demonstrates just why those who believe Obama can “bring us all together” are absolute idiots.

By recreating the recent Democratic Debate:

(more...)

Or a derivation thereof. On a recent show he made the comment that (paraphrased) “Of course, we don’t expect Bush and them to serve. They’re too old. They’re not good age for the military. But why aren’t their children serving? Why are’t Bush’s daughters over there fighting the war? Why don’t any of the supporters of the war send their children over there?”

(more...)

After reading several threads on Say anything about how Barack Obama is the “inevitable candidate”, I felt I needed to point something out. If the trends continue as they have been, Hillary Clinton will become candidate.

Clinton and Obama will probably split the Texas delegates, 93-90 (Obama) and the Ohio delegates 70-56 (Clinton, some undecided-most likely to go to Clinton).

Given that the superdelegates have been going to Hillary at a rate of between 4-5 to Obama’s 3, Hillary is still the nominee given any way you look at the polls.

If the super delegates continue to vote the same way they have been, Obama doesn’t have a chance unless he starts beeing Hillary in 70-30 margins.

After watching almost a month of Conan and Leno without the writers, and not being subjected to the tripe they put on SNL, the return of the writers was as much of a shock as drinking a gallon of bleach. Leno was ten times funnier without his writers, and Conan spinning his ring was funnier than anything his writers ever came up with for him. Not a funny skit on SNL tonight.

Time for them to go back on strike.

For over a year now, we’ve heard about the evils of water boarding from anti-war left. So surely, when given a chance to walk the walk, we could count on our two leading Democratic candidates to vote yay on a measure to ban such interrogation?

From Malking:

Neither Clinton or Obama could be bothered to vote on the issue. This after both candidates have made it clear how immoral this process is and how it needs to be stopped immediately.

Worthless. The both of em.

From Moonbattery

Equivalents would be Heinrich Himmler’s face on a Nazi flag, Felix Dzerzhinsky on a Soviet flag or Honcho Nuon Chea on the flag of the Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia. None of these socialist sociopaths was more aggressively evil than Guevara. Humberto Fontova documents some of the dark deeds of Fidel Castro’s chief executioner.

Yet the mainstream media doesn’t seem to find this worth mentioning.

Leftists constantly worship socialist monsters who left nothing but suffering and daed bodies in their wake. But it’s those right wingers who are the bad guys don’tcha know?

From Michelle Malkin:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is reminding law-enforcement officials of the increased use of female suicide bombers worldwide, and warning that women terrorists might hide explosives in devices “that mimic the look of a pregnant woman.”

The unclassified DHS threat assessment, released Monday and obtained by NBC News, shows photographs of “pregnancy prosthetics,” hollowed-out devices that could hold explosive devices. The report says “female suicide bombers have used devices that make them appear pregnant to hide explosive devices.”

The DHS report states that terrorists are using female bombers more frequently, in part because these attacks generate “more widespread media exposure.” It adds: “Continued use of female suicide bombers-the most recent example being a 3 February 2008 attack at the main railway station in Colombo, Sri Lanka-indicates that terrorists judge this tactic as effective in increasing defenses and thwarting security measures.”

Making suicide bombers look pregnant as a way of avoiding detection is despicable. It’s just one more sign of what vicious monsters our enemies are, and yet another reminder that our enemies aren’t doing this because they’re poor or mistreated, but downright evil.

Anyone who would use their child to hide a bomb, recruit the mentally retarded, or begin teaching infants and little kids to martyr themselves is part of a virulent culture of death...one that must be eradicated before it spreads.