Sunday, January 29

Sunday reading

Please go read David Limbaugh's latest column entitled "Enough with the Distortions". Short read, yet very thought-provoking. He puts into concise words what I'm sure all of us have been wondering about in regards to not only the double-standards laughably trotted out by liberals, but the out-and-out lies and fabrications we hear daily.


More recently, they've latched on to the administration's eavesdropping of Al Qaeda without a warrant, which they insist on misportraying as the president's "domestic spying program." They intend to leave the impression that the "power-mad" president has a perverse interest in monitoring private communications between innocent citizens.

Can someone please tell me what motive President Bush would have -- other than laudably trying to prevent further terrorist attacks -- to listen in on private citizen's phone calls? Can they produce just one innocent victim of the NSA surveillance program?

Better yet, can anyone explain why the administration should need to demonstrate probable cause to listen in to a suspected terrorist's communications when time is of the essence? Do we really want to hamstring our intelligence agencies when
going after the enemy in war -- as opposed to pursuing suspected criminals for
law enforcement purposes?

More importantly, does anyone really believe Democratic leaders oppose the blanket practice of monitoring Al Qaeda, and, if so, why? Or are they just grandstanding, as usual, to score political points?

These double standards remind me of what I was thinking about yesterday when I happened to catch "E News Weekend" and saw (liberal) stars enjoying fabulous, expensive, over-the-top lifestyles. Can anyone please explain to me why Republicans are the so-called "party of the rich" when 98% (or more) of celebrities who make $10-20 million a movie are liberals and that's okay? Why is liberal wealth and excess somehow different or...better than a Republican's? Why are they entitled to the debauchery and 15,000 square foot mansions and ultra-expensive, custom automobiles, and a Republican is scoffed at for being "wealthy"? (even though a lot of us are middle-class hard working people...FAR from "wealthy")

And don't tell me that liberals are better philanthropists. That it makes it okay for them to revel in their wealth while making fun of a Republican's success. Republicans are just as generous - if not more. However, the difference is that Republicans believe in "teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime" instead of the liberals' "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day". So we're seen as hard-hearted because we believe people should help themselves and not depend on government handouts?

Many Republicans that have money that I know or have heard of have worked for it. Hard. They're entrepreneurs, hard-working executives or creative inventors. Hollywood liberals, by contrast, are pampered, spoiled, values-challenged talking heads - paid to say someone else's lines in movies that lately nobody even wants to see. They're given expensive gifts by product manufacturers' marketing gurus in the hopes that they'll wear it or use it so the rest of us in fly-over country will buy it too. Because supposedly we want to be like them, right?

Why? I've become more and more disgusted with it all. It all hit me upside the head yesterday watching that entertainment "News" show. Why is it okay for people like Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn and Tim Robbins to bash our President and complain about Republicans when she's surrounded by wealth and power - everything she makes fun of Republicans for? Why are we the close-minded puritans and that's bad? Is it so much better to be a close-minded, ignorant heathen?

And why do they need us in any way anyway? Why are they trying to market sunglasses and Louis Vuitton purses to us when they don't care what we really DO want? Movies that nobody wants to see (Brokeback Mountain for example) are marketed to death in the hopes that we'll go to see it. Their revenues are going down the tubes but they don't get it. They sit around and give each other awards and congratulate themselves and their brilliance while the rest of the country rolls their collective eyes in exasperation.

I could go on and on about how liberals (especially Hollywood liberals) go out of their way to sneer at our values while foisting theirs on us, but I'm sure you've all heard it before. People say "well, we should do it back to them. Make up a lie and repeat it over and over and over until they forget what the truth is". But frankly, I would expect more of us. We've continually taken the high road, in the spirit of our President, and I think we should continue. We know what the truth is - and I suspect most liberals do, too.

Like Mr. Limbaugh said: Enough with the distortions.

A side note: In the spirit of the caterwauling and history-revising surrounding the McCarthy hearings and the findings that a LOT of the Hollywood types and media types were, in fact, communist sympathizers...what do you think the chances are that the wailing about wiretapping is because they have something to hide?

Is it too much of a stretch? We know that many "reporters" and news types have given aid and comfort to the enemy...I wonder what HUAC would find were it functioning today?

UPDATE: Our ever-alert ExPreacherMan has kindly pointed out an error in the above post. Honest mistake, yet it needs to be corrected. Allow me to quote from EPM himself:
When we were active in politics in the 60's "McCarthy era" McCarthy was our friend, the communists whom he investigated were our enemies all just as you said.

However, you fell into the trap as did so many friends and enemies. The correct acronym was/is HCUA, not HUAC. The Liberals deliberately started calling it that because you could say the word "HUAC" and it sounded grating. They proclaimed the committee was un-American to investigate their friends the Commies. The right one HCUA became the misused acronym HUAC, universally and many times intentionally misused by the left.

Compare the two:
Wrong -- HUAC House Un-American Activites Committee -- (Nothing un-American about the activities of the Committee!)
RIGHT -- HCUA House Committee on Un-American Activities (Everything the Committee investigated was right.)

The right acronym, HCUA, House Committee on Un-American Activities is definitely the good guy, because they were not Un-American but a committee investigating un-American Activities. Old Joe McCarthy, the committee chairman, hunted the lib's un-American activities relentlessly and everywhere, especially in Hollywood.

In those days it was easy to spot liberals by their misuse of the acronym.


Oops. Thank you, sir, for setting us straight. :)

links to this post