Ideological Tolerance and Acceptance

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

I have a few hard line stances to which I am pretty much a hard stay.

Most people are cool with the difference of opinion.

Two groups who, ironically, preach tolerance/love/acceptance have been the ones most often and most likely to hold these opinions against me.

1. Fundamentalist Christians
2. Hard Left Liberals

I have a few people who hold a hardcore dislike for me or who love to “preach” their message but do everything that they can to NOT hear any other message.

All of these people fall into the category of Fundamentalist Christian or Hard Left Liberal.

For instance, I do not think that Palestine will ever be “democratic.”  Yet, there are a group of liberals whom I have known who attend rallies, meetings and such with the goal of a “free and democratic” Palestine.  When I tell them that this is impossible, they automatically think that I am for the status quo in Palestine and that I am pro everything Israel.  However, that could not be further from the truth.

I believe that Israel is the author of many of the woes of Palestine.  I believe that Israel has become an offensive fraud who preaches democracy, yet, oppresses a whole class of people based upon fear and greed.

I, also, believe that the Arab Nations share guilt in this endless conflict.  All of the Arabs.  Iraq, Saudi Arabia (most guilty and most hypocritical), Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan and Palestine.  These people are as great a problem and sticking point as the Israelis.

That said, no Palestinian State that emerges at this time will be democratic.  It will be another Islamic Despotism based on the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Liberal fallacies and fantasies about freedom and democracy in the region are naught but dreamy intentions paving the way to hell for Arab Christians and Muslims in Palestine.

I also have my Fundie Christian detractors.  Those purveyors of hellfire and brimstone who “innocently” imply that I am on the path to hell and can’t quite understand how such a belief would offend anyone.   These people have told me countless times that morality can not exist without Christianity.  For them, there is no morality without Christ.

I, on the other hand, look at the history of Christianity and think that if that is morality, I’d rather be immoral.

When I refute their claims, they claim that I am blaspheming their religion.  They tell me that I am disrespecting their beliefs.  They tell me that I should be more tolerant.

That bewilders me.  The thought that I should be “tolerant” of a belief that condemns me to hell.  The idea that I should be more respectful of a religion that believes that I will burn for eternity because I do not pay lip service or believe in their system of intellectual and emotional servitude to a capricious deity who on the one hand orders genocide and on the other preaches faith, hope and love BUT only if you believe in him, his son and their plan for salvation.

If I deign not to believe, I shall burn in hell for eternity.

And I’m the disrespectful, intolerant one?

Inconceivable.

Yet, that I have the audacity to make it clear that I think Palestinian Democracy or Salvation at the hands of a vengeful, judgmental God or whatever pet project a Fundamentalist Christian or Hard Left Liberal might have is based on fallacy, I am the intolerant one.

These folks are absolutist.  There is no room for difference with these folks.  I will admit that I might be wrong.  I fully and freely admit that I do not know all.

But there is no room for doubt with these folks.  Therefore, I become the enemy.  The hated one.

They preach.  They give their story.  They’ll demand that you listen, that you give them your time.  When you attempt to give your side, they will not listen.  Their minds close as tightly as their eyes, ears and hearts.

And then I become the evil one.

Tolerance?  Acceptance?

For most of these people, these are mere tools with which they bash the opponent.  You are required to tolerate and accept their ideas.  They require that you dismiss yours.

Firemen, Police and Teachers, Oh My!!!

rush-limbaugh

“As nice as they are to have, teaching jobs, fireman, policeman, they are all paid for with money out of the private sector. They are paid for with tax revenue from citizens. They cut into the amount of money left for private sector jobs, they don’t grow the number of private sector jobs, they reduce them. Now, I’ve gotta to be very careful here because no one is against teachers or fireman or cops, but those are public sector jobs.”

“They aren’t private sector jobs, they do not contribute to economic growth. Their purpose is otherwise. They have an entirely different purpose. Public safety, public education, but there’s no growth in the economy if you add those jobs. If there aren’t other types of private sector jobs added, while at the same time were adding to the fire rolls, the cop rolls and the teachers, we are reducing the size of the private sector. This is Marxism 101.”

These are two quotes from Rush Limbaugh.   These comments were made during the recent run up to Election 2012.

Now, I have a couple of questions:
1.  If we hire teachers, police and firemen, do we not pay them?

2.  If we hire teachers, police and firemen, do we not provide them with equipment?

The government will purchase vehicles, firearms, radios and other equipment.  Does this not contribute to the economy?  Do these people not serve a purpose in ensuring that the economy of the United States drives on.  Firemen keep fires from spreading and destroying homes, businesses, etc.  Police serve as a deterrent to crime and to indirectly protect private and commercial property.  They also keep the peace to a degree.

Though, it is a given that the police do cross the line at times and serve to disturb the peace nearly as much as they keep the peace.  Especially when they are utilized by  Politicians as jackbooted thugs which seems to be growing all too common these days.

Teachers serve or at least many attempt to produce intelligent citizens who can enter the job market and contribute to the economy.  This is arguable at times as many teachers are as worthless as teats on a boar hog but, for the most part, teachers serve their purpose and pump out young adults who do enter the job market and are, for the most part, literate.  Though this effort is stifled by outdated notions of job security for even the most inefficient scum who suck off of the government parasitically while producing nothing in the way of improvement in the minds of our youth.

With all of that in mind, each of these positions do, in fact, contribute to the economic growth of the nation.  Yet, they simultaneously curb the private sectors ability to introduce funds into the economy.  Where would those funds better serve the economy?  That could be debated endlessly.

Rush Limbaugh, as usual, is wrong and only running his mouth with the hyperbolic fervor that has made him a millionaire.  That is, after all, his goal.  Talk loud, spin everything, keep empty heads nodding and spending money to support him and his personal economy.

Has there ever been a greater moron with a greater following of foolish sheep in the history of radio/cable TV?  I don’t know.  Maybe Glenn Beck gave him competition.  The morons at Huff Post give the Dittoheads a good run for their money.

Rush-Limbaugh-funny-idiot

Rush Limbaugh is another of those partisan hacks whom I find to be so treasonous.  He’s as dangerous a character as any James Wilkerson or Benedict Arnold in American History.  He does more damage than good by keeping the nation divided and unfocused on real issues or, more importantly, solutions.  He’s simply a tool of the partisans of the GOP.

The fat bastard should be deported to Saudi Arabia where he can serve as the mouthpiece for Islamic lunacy and the Saudi Oil interests.

Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President: A Feminist View of her Candidacy

A Feminist’s Argument for McCain’s VP

By Tammy Bruce

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Whether we have a D, R or an “i for independent” after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they’ll realize it’s not up to them any longer.

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it’s about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It’s that simple.

The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as “terribly sexist” and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.

Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, “I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,” and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, “Fatal Attraction,” noting, “Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career…”. These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was “Bros Before Hoes,” to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.

The campaign’s chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women’s Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.

There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women’s rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton’s “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?

Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters – pro-choice women and gays to be specific – would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us – but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake – the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party’s increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That’s why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

They are deciding women’s rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.

Palin’s candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.

The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.

It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line – the abortion card – where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.

The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats – a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don’t count.

Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions – the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin’s focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.

On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin’s comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she’s voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman – who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.

Tammy Bruce is the author of “The New American Revolution” (HarperCollins, 2005) and a Fox News political contributor. She is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter.

This article first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Another interesting Palin article from the Brits

This is an election that will be decided by identity politics more so than any other Presidential race since the election of Kennedy.  Obama will more than likely get upwards of 95% of the Black vote.  Much of it simply because of his race.  But how will Palin play into this?  How many cross party votes will she bring based upon her gender.  How many women will vote for her based on gender.  How many men?  Will this affect Black women enough for them to vote with their gender?  Will Black women seek to elevate a woman as opposed to a Black male.

If the McCain/Pallin ticket wins, she is the likely candidate for 2012 as McCain has stated that he will run for office one time.  At his age, I don’t think he was using the line as a soundbite.

Sarah Palin (Alaska Governor) selected as McCains VP.

https://i2.wp.com/www.newsday.com/media/photo/2008-08/41940673.jpg

Will Palin Stand Up to Scrutiny?

August 29, 2008 11:33 AM ET | John Aloysius Farrell | Permanent Link

DENVER—James Carville told reporters last week that his advice for potential presidents is to pick a vice presidential candidate who will make the opposition strategists retch with worry. Well, he said it more pungently than that, but you get the idea.

Sarah Palin fulfills that criterion. The poor Obama folk—they had about 12 hours to enjoy and rest, after putting on a successful and historic convention, and they get up this morning to this stomach-churning bit of news.

There is one important caveat: Palin is an unknown. In 1988, for many of the same reasons that Palin looks good now, Dan Quayle was the surprise veep pick who came bounding across the stage to George H. W. Bush like a big Labrador puppy on the eve of the GOP convention. He was almost immediately revealed as a shallow and disastrous choice.

So, Palin has to survive the vetting she’ll be getting from the national media and all those nasty liberal bloggers. She’d better not have a tangled financial history, or a spouse with questionable investments, like Geraldine Ferraro had in 1984.

And the Ferraro example gives us one more little splash of cold water: Even a historic vice presidential choice won’t help you much if, like Walter Mondale, you’re losing the argument with the other presidential candidate.

That said, Palin is a brilliant choice.

First and foremost, she does well what other alternatives did not—reinforce McCain’s claim to be a maverick, while not upsetting the conservative base. You can’t say too much about this. It is what choosing her says about McCain that is important.

Though I believe it is vastly overrated, Palin can tap what resentment there is among middle-aged women over Hillary Clinton’s loss. The GOP presidential field looked like a lot of aging white guys. Here’s a sign that the Republicans actually do have a future in our diverse democracy.

And though she comes from far-off Alaska, she will help—big time—in Montana, Colorado, and other western states that McCain has to lock up quickly. She can talk guns, and energy, and wildlife, and make conservative dogma sound reasonable.

So, a tip of the hat to John McCain. And can someone get a trash can, quick, for David Axelrod?

From what I’ve read, Governor Palin is an excellent choice for McCain.  She’s cleaned up Alaska Republican politics.  She seems to live the values that Republicans espouse as opposed to those who give lip service to those values.  She’s anti-abortion.  She’s just as maverick as he as she has taken on the old school GOP powers in the state.  She sounds like a strong candidate for VP despite her relative inexperience.

But,  Mr. Farrell says it better than I.  So I’ll leave it at that.

Congratulations Governor Palin.  Do us proud.

Hopefully, she’ll do well enough to be the first female VP and go on to become the first female President in her own right.

https://i1.wp.com/www.vicepresidents.com/files/u41/palin.jpghttp://livingalaska.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/sarah_palin2.jpg

A fairly comprehensive article on the Bloomberg website.

http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/palin-in-the-car.jpg

Sarah Palin from a Femiinists point of view.

Senator Obama off kilter without teleprompter.

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez

No Contest

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election ’08: Last weekend’s McCain-Obama protodebate made it clear why Obama won’t keep his promise to debate McCain “anywhere, anytime.” McCain, with a robust resume and details at his fingertips, won big.


Read More: Election 2008 | Religion


It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain “anywhere, anytime.” But in June, Obama said no to McCain’s challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings.

After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.’s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama’s Achilles’ heel. Whether or not you like the idea of such events being held in religious venues, the plain-and-simple method of questioning used by Saddleback pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren revealed fundamental differences between these two men.

“It’s one of those situations where the devil is in the details,” Obama said at one point. He could have been referring to his own oratorical shortcomings when a teleprompter is unavailable. We learned a lot more about the real Obama at Saddleback than we will next week as he delivers his acceptance speech in Denver before a massive stadium crowd.

The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, “in parents who have viciously abused their children.” According to the Democrat, we can’t really erase evil in the world because “that is God’s task.” And we have to “have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil.”

For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must “defeat” evil. If al-Qaida’s placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn’t evil, he asked: “You have to tell me what is.”

Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. McCain pointed to Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq’s scourge of the surge; Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who “had his skull fractured” by white racists while protesting for civil rights in the 60s; plus Internet entrepreneur Meg Whitman, the innovative former CEO of eBay.

When Warren inquired into changes of mind on big issues, Obama fretted about welfare reform; McCain unashamedly said “drilling” — for reasons of national security and economic need.

On taxes, Obama waxed political: “What I’m trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code.” McCain showed an understanding of what drives a free economy: “I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don’t believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth.”

To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama’s shallowness juxtaposed with McCain’s depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.

It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez

Newt Gingrich on the Islamic Threat

He is totally correct here. The American people and especially those on the left will not wake up to the threat of Islam until we lose a city.

New York.

Chicago.

Washington D.C.

Los Angeles.

Houston.

The Islamic radicals will finally find success in their evil endeavors. It is almost inevitable.

Why?

America refuses to take the threat seriously. I give it ten years. It matters not if we are successful or a failure in Afghanistan, Iraq or both. My opinion. One city in America gets nuked. Mekkah should be the first retaliatory target. If that doesn’t get them the message.

Teheran.

Damascus.

Any belief system that employs children as suicide bombers is unworthy of existence. Period. The Saudis expect the United States of America to sit and take lectures on tolerance when you can’t find one Church, one Temple or one Synagogue on Saudi soil?

And we sit silently and take it because of OIL.

I don’t want to hear it from Democrats. It was a Democratic President who signed the deal with the devils in the first place. His name was FDR. And every President since, no matter party affiliation, has continued to suck at the teat and bend at the knee to the House of Saud. All of you Brits can keep silent as well. Mossadegh was taken out by the CIA at the request of none other than Winston Churchill. France. Everyone knows the cowardly history of French Colonialism. Russia is no better than anyone else. China and India will soon learn.

FDR, Truman, Ike, Camelot and his family of Mafioso wannabes, LBJ, Tricky Dicky, Jimmah the Peacemaker, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and our current Bushie.

By my count that is 6 Democrat Presidents and 5 Republicans. For most of that period, we had a Democratic Congress.

NOT ONE DEMOCRAT should say a word about oil wars or kissing the Royal and Gilded Saudi buttocks.

Newt Gingrich — Nine Acts of Real Change That Could Restore the GOP Brand

Here are nine acts of real change that would begin to rebuild the American people’s confidence that Republicans share their values, understand their worries, and are prepared to act instead of just talk. The Republicans in Congress could get a start on all nine this week if they had the will to do so.

  1. Repeal the gas tax for the summer, and pay for the repeal by cutting domestic discretionary spending so that the transportation infrastructure trust fund would not be hurt. At a time when, according to The Hill newspaper, Senator Clinton is asking for $2.3billion in earmarks, it should be possible for Republicans to establish a “government spending versus your pocketbook” fight over cutting the gas tax that would resonate with most Americans. Lower taxes and less government spending should be a battle cry most taxpayers and all conservatives could rally behind.
  2. Redirect the oil being put into the national petroleum reserve onto the open market. That oil would lower the price of gasoline an extra 5 to 6 cents per gallon, and its sale would lower the deficit.
  3. Introduce a “more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill” as a replacement for the Warner-Lieberman “tax and trade” bill which is coming to the floor of the Senate in the next few weeks (see my newsletter next week for an outline of a solid pro-economy, pro-national security, pro-environment energy bill). When the American people realize how much the current energy prices are actually a “politicians’ energy crisis” they will demand real change in our policies.
  4. Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009. The American people are fed up with politicians spending their money. They currently believe both parties are equally bad. This is a real opportunity to show the difference.
  5. Overhaul the census and cut its budget radically. The recent announcement that the Census Bureau could not build an effective hand-held computer for $1.3 billion and is turning instead to 600,000 temporary workers to do a paper and pencil census in 2010 is an opportunity to slash its budget, shrink its bureaucracy, and turn to entrepreneurial internet-based companies to build an information-age census. This is an absurdity that cries out for bold, decisive reform (see my YouTube video “FedEx versus federal bureaucracy” for an example of what I mean).
  6. Implement a space-based, GPS-style air traffic control system. The problems of the Federal Aviation Administration are symptoms of a union-dominated bureaucracy resisting change. If we implemented a space-based GPS-style air traffic system we would get 40% more air travel with one-half the bureaucrats. The union has stopped 200,000,000 passengers from enjoying more reliable air travel to protect 7,000 obsolete jobs. This real change would allow the millions of frustrated travelers to have champions in congress trying to help them get places better, safer, faster.
  7. Declare English the official language of government. This real change is supported by 87% of the American people including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Latinos. It is an issue of national unity that brings Americans together in a red, white, and blue majority.
  8. Protect the workers’ right to a secret ballot. The vast majority (around 81%) of Americans believe that American workers have a right to have a secret ballot election before they are forced to join a union. Last year the House Democrats passed a bill that would strip American workers of the secret ballot. A new bill should be introduced reaffirming that right, and it should be brought up again and again until marginal Democrats are forced to vote with the American people against the union power structure.
  9. Remind Americans that judges matter. Senate Republicans should mount an ongoing fight (including a filibuster of other activities if necessary) to get the American people to realize that liberals want to block all current judicial appointments in order to maximize the number of left wing radical judges they can appoint if they win the White House. This issue has three advantages. It reminds people that judges matter and that a leftwing radical Supreme Court would be bad for the values of most (70 to 90 percent, depending on the issue) Americans. It shows the Democrats are not engaged in fair play. It arouses the activism of those who have been disappointed by Republicans and have forgotten how bad a liberal Democratic Presidency would be.

Excerpt from My Plea to Republicans: It’s Time for Real Change to Avoid Real Disaster by Newt Gingrich

This is something that I can get behind. America, please open your eyes. Please do not make the mistake of voting for Obama or Bill’s estranged wife.