Townhall 7/7: The Number of the Conservative Beast
Mike Adams
Mike writes a letter to himself, telling him how much he likes his new book. He also recounts his life history: it seems that the dirty, smelly, barefoot hippies who constituted the students and the professors at his university betrayed him by brainwashing him, just because he was stupid. Thank God for Mike's book and Sean Hannity, which helped him realize that liberals are evil!
I mentioned previously that I have been feeling incredibly frustrated the past few days. However, I believe angry or enraged might be more appropriate. It is very clear that liberal biases have overtaken most college and university campuses across our country, and the more I think about that fact and the effects it had on me, the more betrayed I feel. I was, as many have been and will continue to be, taken advantage of by the university. Instructors and administrators took advantage of the fact that I was immature and quite impressionable, and they used that to satisfy their own agenda, which was ensuring no student leaves the university as a conservative.
Michelle Malkin
Michelle tells about four donors to the Democratic party to make the point that Democratic donors are all rich communist/socialite/non-caucasians.
So, let us hail the diversity of everyday Democrat donors: The pardon-pushing socialite. The Communist-coddling corporate sellout. The reckless Asian-American rainmaker. And the nicotine-stained heiress/almost-felon who keeps on giving.
It's a bankroll that looks like America. Really.
Just for fun, let's look at a few off the top contributors to the Republican Part in 2000 and 2002, courtesy of Open Secrets:
2000
Bristol-Myers Squibb $1,556,471
Pfizer Inc $1,435,322
Enron Corp $1,296,690
GlaxoSmithKline $906,185
2002
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $2,944,287
Bristol-Myers Squibb $1,072,217
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $1,069,746
It's a bankroll that looks like the groups that are getting favorable breaks from the Bush administration. Really.
Terence Jeffrey
Kerry's statement that he believes that life begins at conception really ticks off Terence, because everyone already knows that life begins at conception; it's a basic fact of biology. But Terrence is even more irate because Kerry said that he can't legislate his Catholic faith onto others who don't share his beliefs, because this country should be a theocracy, as long as Terrence's version of God rules.
If you take Kerry seriously here, it raises questions about the quality of his thinking. His logic appears to be: 1) When human life begins is not a scientific fact but an "article of faith" determined by one's denomination; 2) we have separation of church and state in America; and 3) therefore, prohibiting abortion is legislating a religious doctrine and is thus forbidden.
But following through on this logic could make it impossible to enact legislation prohibiting the abortion of any human being at any age. A religious denomination -- or a cult of atheists -- could declare that life begins at 2 or 92. Would Kerry enforce his "article of faith" on them? How could he justify it?
If you take Terence seriously here, it raises questions about the quality of his thinking. Because while it is a biological fact that life begins at conception, there's no universally agreed-upon objective moral principle about when that life becomes a human being (or is given a soul, to use a religious concept). While some believe that this happens at conception, other faiths don't believe it occurs until the fetus "quickens" or until it is viable; others hold that it's not until the child is born. (And some people don't believe in religion at all, and yet are still allowed to live in this country, and the President represents them, and everybody else, too.) If Terence doesn't know this, he really isn't qualified to write about the subject, is he?
Yes, the objective moral principle here comes from God -- as does "Thou shalt not steal," which protects the basic right of private property -- but it does not belong to any religious denomination. It is universal and precedes them all. It applied when Cain killed Abel; it applies when each American president puts his hand on the Bible and takes the oath of office.
Because Terrence believes that the Cain and Abel story is a historical occurrence (and is about stealing), then everyone in America is bound by his views on abortion. Because he can quote God.
Jonah Goldberg
Because Kerry chose Edwards, a non-hawk, for his running mate, this proves that he isn't serious about terrorism.
Simply put, if Kerry really thought the war on terror was as big a deal as Bush does, there's no way he would pick John Edwards. Edwards is simply not qualified to be one heartbeat from the presidency in the world George Bush describes.
Hey, George Bush isn't qualified to be one heartbeat from the presidency in the world George Bush describes, but there he is -- and if Cheney's heart does give out, heaven help us all.
(And speaking of VP picks, Dick Cheney chose Dick Cheney, a hawk with defense experience, and look how well THAT worked out. Arguably the world would be a safer, less scary place if Dick had chosen somebody who hadn't come into the job with the burning desire to invade Iraq. Proof that George Bush isn't serious about sanity.)
Linda Chavez
Kerry spoiled the Democratic Surprise Party by announcing his VP choice early. But since the Democrats don't have any policies except hating Bush, their convention won't be much of a party anyway. And Edwards isn't good at attacking the opposition, which is part of the VP job requirements, so he's like Dan Quayle, except that he can probably spell "potato." But nobody will vote for Kerry anyway, since President Bush is doing a great job, as demonstrated by the fact that productivity keeps improving, al Qaeda hasn't killed anybody on American soil since 9/11, and his lies all have plausible deniability. So, in conclusion . . . um, what were we talking about?
Most public opinion polls show the race neck and neck, with few undecided voters. Events -- a terrorist attack that took a large number of American lives in Iraq or, worse, in the United States, a big jump or decline in jobs, or an embarrassing revelation about one of the candidates -- might change things before Election Day. But chances are, the margin in this election will remain razor thin right up to Nov. 2.
Is a terrorist attack supposed to help Bush or Kerry? I keep forgetting if it would make us vote for Bush, because he's serious about terrorism (see above), or if it would make us vote for Kerry, because he would welcome our new insect overlords. (As a trusted TV personality, he could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.)
Tony Blankley
Tony is bored to booze by Kerry's choice of running mate.
The political class' Edwards huffing is like a summer heat rash -- it is mildly irritating but should subside in about a week. Wear loosely fitting clothes, keep out of the heat, and ease your way through an adequate provision of gin, tonic, limes and bitters. Tropical drinks served with little umbrellas are acceptable substitutes
Tony claims that the political campaigns of both parties don't matter anyway, since everybody is too drunk to care. No, wait, maybe that's just Tony.
Thomas Sowell
Immigrants are jerks, and we should stop letting them into our country.
At a soccer match between Mexico and the United States a few years ago, the stands were full of Mexican flags. The fans booed when "The Star-Spangled Banner" was played and those few fans who raised American flags were pelted with debris, as were the American soccer players.
This would have been rotten behavior if it had taken place in Mexico City. But it took place in Los Angeles. So it's scary.
We already have enough homegrown America-haters in this country without importing any more, whether from Mexico or the Middle East. But neither political party has the guts to put a stop to it.
Whoever comes up with a plan to force people to love America and to only root for American soccer teams will get Thomas's vote.
One of the reasons many Americans will not take many low-paying or arduous jobs is that the welfare state makes it unnecessary for them to do so. But get those Americans off the gravy train, and take away employers' supply of cheap foreign labor, and Americans would resume doing jobs that they did for centuries.
Yes, Americans will gladly become ditch diggers, farm hands, beggars, and child prostitutes once that welfare gravy train has left the station and the foreign competition has all been killed. Thomas gets their kidneys.
Super Bonus! Two Free Pundits
I found the Townhall folks rather lackluster today, so I followed Thomas's advice and imported some cheap foreign labor from Restore America to give the Townhallers some healthy competition, thus lowering wages for all opinion "journalists."
Jan Ireland
Screw George Bush and John Kerry -- the REAL contest is between Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton. (While Ronnie death puts him at a disadvantage in the live debates and baby kissing events, the fact that Hillary is a Communist and a Satanist may put off some voters.)
In the coming presidential election America has a clear choice: Mrs. Clinton and universal socialism versus Ronald Reagan and universal freedom. George Bush has Ronald Reagan's fire of freedom. John Kerry must bow to the Clintons, though his personal record certainly is socialist.
The rapacious Mrs. Clinton wants to empower the government to take what it wants. We see her proclivities in the monstrous HillaryCare attempt ("It's time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals"), in the idea that the "village" (state) should raise the child, in the greedy timing of the eight million dollar book advance, in the shrill escalating rant similar to Dean's and Gore's. (Socialists always exempt themselves from the restrictions they place on others.)
Wow, Hillary really is evil! I'm especially appalled at the way that she got that $8 million book advance in a free-market economy -- truly the sign of a hard-core commie.
Now, I'd like to introduce Jon Alvarez ("He taught 8th grade U.S. History before embarking on a career in sales"), my new discovery, and the hottest new conservative writer on the Web ... except TBogg already introduced him last summer, and I don't actually know how hot he is (although his bio does give us some hints). Anyway, here he is with a piece called "The Treason of Michael Moore":
Jon Alvarez
Michael Moore should be charged with and tried for treason. His latest film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is pure anti-American propaganda and is nothing more than a fictitious-based, political assassination piece. The intent of this film is for it to be the equivalent of Spain's 3/11 terrorist attack.
To kill a bunch of people on a train.
Director Moore has admitted as much on numerous occasions, citing his opposition to the War on Terror and his desire to destroy the Bush Presidency. He has even gone so far as to praise the terrorists who are killing America's soldiers, likening them to our nation's Revolutionary forefathers. Michael Moore's film seeks to not only alter the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election, but to also undermine our nation's war effort. That, in and of itself, fits the very definition of treason.
Sure, the Ann Coulter definition of treason ...
Merriam-Webster defines treason as "a betrayal of trust" and "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family. Michael Moore's "documentary" fits all of those definitions.
I give Jon points for actually consulting the online dictionary, but I have a few questions about his statement that Fahrenheit 9/11 fits the definitions:
1. What position of trust does a movie hold?
2. Since when does attempting to encourage people to vote for a rival presidential candidate constitute "attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government"?
3. Do films actually owe allegiance to a state?
4. Can a movie kill or personally injure somebody?
5. George Bush is our sovereign???
Until Jon can answer those questions fully and completely (and also tell us just how many card-carrying Communists there actually were in the State Department), I'm afraid that the D.A. won't be able to prosecute Moore on that treason charge.
So, are you ready to fire those lazy, pampered Townhall pundits and replace them with illegal immigrants from Renew America who will work for just pennies an hour (or for free)?
But wait, don't answer yet! Because you also get Emily the Intern:
Too boyish for me
I think that John Edwards has a boyish look to him, however I don't find that particularly attractive. He looks a bit prissy for me. I prefer a rustic man, a guy who's not afraid to get his hands dirty. For me, Edwards doesn't cut it.
[12:33 PM 06-Jul-04 | Emily Shaheen]
NOW how much would you pay?
6:56:39 AM 
|
