Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Media: Pope coverage too flattering

Here’s a link to a story on how the media views the coverage of the Pope’s life and death. In summary, the media thinks the coverage is too favorable, and that the Pope (like Reagan) was incredibly controversial and should be examined as such.

They refer to how Reagan was a “polarizing” figure. Well, maybe it was my modest Southern upbringing or the fact that I attended Florida State University instead of Columbia or Yale, but I guess I’m just not that bright…I thought when Reagan won 49 of 50 states in 1984 (and coming within 4,000 votes of winning Mondale’s MN for the clean sweep), that kinda shot the “polarizing” myth all to Hell. What could I have been thinking?

As for the Pope, he problem (if you listen to the media elite…and I don’t) is that he was “too conservative.” What?!? That’s part of the cluelessness that liberals have towards religion!

See, the Pope didn’t condone abortion, homosexuality, pre-marital shack-ups, etc., as being consistent with Christian dogma as outlined in the Bible. For those of you in blue states, the Bible was a book written a long time ago that Christians believe contains (among other things) rules that God wants us to live by. For those same blue staters, God is the supreme Creator of the universe. But I digress…

Liberals think that “progress” is accepting of all of the aforementioned behaviors that the Pope refused to condone. While society may, in whole or in part, accept these signs of “progress”, the Pope understood that Christianity does not change with the times…it is what it is, and it is what it says. And while I have strayed numerous times from the Word of the Bible (and continue to do, on a daily basis), never once have I said “Well, that Pope guy is just gonna have to get with the times…everybody else is doing what I’m doing!”

Advertisements

April 7, 2005 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Tennessee Democrat sees Hillary threat

My home state of Tennessee (a red state) has a Democrat governor, Phil Bredesen. And from what I understand, he’s pretty popular there. He’s not a liberal, because like most other Southern Democrats, he understands that modern liberalism is a failed philosophy that has no traction in the South (due to Southerners’ love for God, country, military, and Bill of Rights…and willingness to express that love). Heck, I have family members that voted for him two years ago…and few people in my family ever vote for a Democrat!

Anyway, he was recently quoted by a London paper as saying something less than flattering about Her Highness (not the Queen of England, but the Queen of New York…Shrillary Clinton). According to the article:

Southern Democrats are growing increasingly restless over the prospect of having Hillary Clinton head their party’s presidential ticket in 2008 – and at least one of them is speaking out.

“I sure hope there are other people who would step forward,” Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen told the London Times over the weekend. “People love [Clinton] or they hate her, and I don’t know in the end how all that plays out.”

While surveys conducted by Northeastern pollsters continue to show that Clinton is her party’s odds-on presidential favorite, Bredesen said the voters he knows are “kind of dissatisfied” with all the current Democratic 2008 prospects.

The column does go on to say that he backpedaled just a bit when he got back to the states (and no doubt caught hell from the national party elite). He said he wasn’t disparaging her…just pooh-poohing her chances in 2008.

Bredesen himself may have eyes on 2008. He’s up for re-election in ’06, and though it’s way too early and things could change, he looks in good shape to be re-elected. If he is, he would get serious consideration for president in ’08 (since, unlike the last politician from Tennessee who ran for President, he would actually win his home state and compete in other Southern states).

That is, of course, unless the national party thinks for the second presidential election in a row that it would be a good idea to recruit a haughty, effete New England liberal like Shrillary. After all, Kerry told us in early 2004 that Dems don’t need the South to win the Presidency (despite the fact that no Dem has ever been elected without at least one Southern state). DNC elites may agree. Time will tell. Never underestimate the stupidity of the Democratic Party.

April 7, 2005 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Our tax dollar$ at work

From Neal Boortz:

Every year the Citizens Against Government Waste publishes their annual list of federal pork-barrel spending. It’s called the Congressional Pig Book. To get an idea where your hard-earned tax dollars are going, it’s worth taking a look at what made this year’s list.

In a list of some 14,000 pork projects, supported by politicians of both parties, the total tab for this year’s spending is $27.3 billion. With a national debt in the trillions and an annual deficit of hundreds of billions, this is all the more outrageous because it’s borrowed money. So not only are politicians buying votes with pork-barrel spending, but they’re financing it. So now future generations will pay interest on today’s pork.

At any rate, here are some of the projects that made the list:

  • $3,000,000 for the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation. That’s interesting…I thought foundations were for private, charitable foundations. And since when is Cal Ripken’s dad hurting for cash?
  • $1.7 million for the International Fertilizer Development Center. With all the crap in Washington, you’d think they’d have all the free fertilizer they need.
  • $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation. Tiger Woods was the highest-paid athlete in the world last year, with earnings of $80 million. Why you and I need to kick in a hundred grand for his foundation is beyond me.

    The list goes on and on. There are some that are outraged at the list of wasteful spending, but just pause and ask yourself. Do you expect your Congressman or woman to “bring home the bacon?” Perhaps you’re part of the crowd that thinks government spending is free money, and everyone should get their “fair share.”

    Oh, and when it comes to government spending, there no longer is any difference between Democrats and Republicans. In fact, George Bush and the Congressional Republicans are the biggest spenders in this nation’s history.

  • This segues with a piece I wrote a couple of weeks ago, about the spending spree that the GOP has gone on. I thought Republicans were for smaller government? This is proof that irrespective of party, whomever runs Congress grows the federal government bigger and bigger each year.

    Consider Libertarian. Because in the end, we get the government we deserve.

    April 7, 2005 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment