PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Ever
by Ray Thomas Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003 at 5:27 PM
editor@sierratimes.com P. O. Box 16247, Denver, CO 80216-0247

Bush isn't a liar, but Liberals keep drumming the message -- he's a liar, stupid and ignorant, the tool of "special interests" and the rich. It will be believed by the least intelligent first.

Subverting American Values in School
They've been working hard for years to subvert American values in our schools by teaching that collectivism is an ideal for which to be striven. That we somehow "need to give back to society" for something they're supposed to have done for us. Which, of course, completely ignores the fact that unless we've been on welfare, or the government has in some other way done something for us we could not have done for ourselves, we don't owe society a single thing.

Only 25% or American students believe that the values of the United States are better than those of other countries. And amazingly, 79% of students think that Western culture is not superior to the 15th Century Arab culture that doesn't even let women drive and are still cutting off people's hands for theft, and diddling with little boys as a "cultural thing."

But That's Changing
Since 9/11, we've seen many signs of a revival of traditional values: appreciation of heroism, love of country, and many others. Of course, this enrages the liberals (Democrats) and they're mounting strong attacks on the institutions they think are most responsible, including President Bush, the conservative media, and organizations like the Heritage Foundation.

The Attack on Bush
They can't just fight a hard honest political campaign. It just isn't in them. Instead of debating policies (which they never do), they've launched a media campaign to convince the public that he's a liar. They say the entire Iraq war was based on lies, but they don't tell us what lies. That's because they can't. They still maintain that Bush said that the only reason we invaded Iraq was because Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction." That, in itself, is a lie. That was only one of the reasons.

The main reason is the same reason we invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban. Saddam was supporting terrorism, both covertly and openly. His giving the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 is well known. But his sponsorship of training bases for Taliban and other terrorist fighters is not as well known to the public, although it is well known to the intelligence community. The same is true of his financial support of the Islamic terrorists.

This is a simple fact the Democrats (liberals) want to ignore: Iraq is just one battle in the war on terrorism!

All you hear from Democrats is how this is "Bush's War," and it wasn't necessary. Hillary said, just the other day in an interview on NBC's "Today" show that her visit to the war zone (in an attempt to draw attention form Bush's visit) was with the civilian American representatives, not with the military, and revealed clearly that "what we're doing now is not an effective strategy."

She told "Today" that success in rebuilding Iraq can only come with the involvement of the United Nations, which has been reluctant to aid U. S. efforts in the country and has reduced personnel in response to a string of terrorist attacks." Which means they are afraid to go there because the Iraqi terrorists attack them, so they tuck their tails between their legs and run, as Clinton did elsewhere. She said further that "We need the legitimacy of the United Nations in order to move forward."

What a load!

The United Nations has no "legitimacy" or credibility. There has never been a time when they were able to stop a local war, and in many cases cooperated in them. They're useless, and a good thing, too. If they were better at what they do, we'd be even now under a world-wide dictatorship headed by the United Nations Secretary General (which she hopes will be herself or Bill). What I want to know is what her credentials as a "military strategist" are, and why she feels she knows more than the professional military strategists.

Bush isn't a liar, but they figure if they keep up the "drumbeat" long enough that he is not only a liar, but is stupid and ignorant, the tool of "special interests" and the rich, it will be believed -- and it is, in many quarters, the least intelligent first. The media picks it up uncritically, and after a while it wears away his support, like water eroding a rock. The good thing is that they no longer control what news we see.

Taking the Money out of Politics
The McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Act" was supposed to "get the money out of politics," but all it did was clear the way for people like billionaire George Soros to buy the Democrat Party. Soros hates Bush with a passion because he has been convicted of insider trading by the government and he is willing to spend his entire fortune to get rid of him if it could be guaranteed. Yes, he can't give his millions directly to the Democrats, but he can give the money to "private organizations" run by the same people who run the Democrat Party. It's the same thing. It promotes the Democrats while stopping the Republications from being able to respond.

Conservative Talk Radio
This is another area that causes liberals to be "beside themselves" with anger. They just don't like people who tell the truth about what they do. They're not used to that, since, until recently, they controlled absolutely what information you could see. It was the rise of people like Rush Limbaugh on the radio that changed all that. Combined with the Internet and people like Matt Drudge, the whole picture was changed.

They suddenly found themselves faced with average people who knew the truth, and were well able to "shut them down" completely in political debates. So they adopted a method of "calling their opponents names" when they were at a loss for an answer. This is known as "labeling." Whenever a liberal starts calling you names, you've won the debate.

One time, during a short stint as a taxi driver (right after I got computered out of my profession), I got into a discussion with an airline pilot about "tax cuts for the rich" as I took him and his colleague to a downtown hotel. I pointed out that his $75,000 to $100,000 salary put him squarely in the "rich" category he hated. So he accused me of getting all my information from Rush Limbaugh. I asked him where he got his. CNN, he responded. I said then, "Nuff said." When we got to the hotel, he jumped out and went right into the hotel without a word, leaving the luggage to his friend. I could smell the smoke from under his collar. His buddy gave me a $20 tip, saying, "I've been wanting to shut him up ever since Los Angeles."

A "Liberal Network"
Now, they want to set up a "liberal network," as if nobody knows that every network and a majority of print media are 90% liberal (by their own admission). They want to "rein in the conservative media," which means Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, one of which (Rush) is really conservative, and the other simply reporting both sides of the news, rather than only the liberal side, as do the other media outlets.

What they really want to do is get rid of both the Internet and Rush Limbaugh and others who delight in "bursting their bubble." They hate Rush almost as much (maybe more) than they hate Bush and Reagan. Why? Because Rush Limbaugh, Bush, and Reagan have been effective in tearing down their house of lies. They don't attack Ragan every day anymore, because he's "out of the game," since he's near death with Alzheimer's.

But they do make a thrust every now and then, as they did with the abominable "The Reagans" mini-series that tried to paint Reagain as an easily-led bumbling fool. That it didn't work is a tribute to the fact that they no longer control the dissemination of news, and people knew what it was before it was released.

Leftist Hendrik Herzberg told the New Yorker magazine that "Right-wing radio is niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive. It succeeds because a substantial segment of the right-wing rank and file enjoys listening, hour after hour, as smug, angry, disdainful middle-aged men spew raw contempt at reified [reified? -RT] enemies, named and unnamed." What a load! People listen to conservative talk radio because it brings them the truth, unvarnished. Unfiltered through liberal editors. They like the Internet for the same reasons, and I'm proud to be part of that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The information on this page is not legal advice. Before carrying out suggestions found here consult your attorney. Ray Thomas, Publisher/Editor of "Sierra Times"

www.sierratimes.com/03/12/23/raythomas.htm

add your comments