Posts Tagged 'elitist'
Liberal Elitists Believe American People Need Their Wisdom; But THEY'RE The Stupid Ones
What is modern liberalism, a.k.a. progressivism?
It is the mindset that the unwashed masses are too stupid to govern themselves, and therefore need a nanny state to take care of them.
Given that understanding, it turns out that there is a nexus between Democrat Party liberals, liberal intellectuals and mainstream media liberals. It is the idea that "They need us. They need our superior understanding. They need us to tell them what to think."
That attitude has one serious flaw, however.
These people are even dumber in their own way than the very unwashed ignorant masses they seek to manipulate. And whenever the culture becomes ignorant enough, or uncertain enough, that it begins to follow liberals, watch out; because the disaster of "dumb and dumber" is right around the corner.
Ronald Reagan put it best when he said, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
Progressives are people who "know" all sorts of things about American history that simply aren't true. They "know" all sorts of things about our Constitution that simply aren't true. They "know" all sorts of things about our economy that simply aren't true.
From Flopping Aces:
Allegedly unintelligent Republicans make fools of Democrats
Posted by: DrJohn @ 11:35 am
It's been quite the 24 hours.
Liberals just love trying to beat up on Sarah Palin. They repeatedly question her intelligence. And she just wipes the poop off the floor with them.
Mark Hemingway had a glorious article at the Washington Examiner and I am posting the whole thing:
So the Los Angeles Times reported on a recent Sarah Palin event:
Seeking to channel the sign-bearing, flag-waving enthusiasm of the "tea party" movement into ballot-box victories, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told hundreds of supporters Monday they couldn't "party like it's 1773″ until Washington was flooded with like-minded conservatives.
Immediately, Palin's critics leapt into action. Here's The Daily Kos himself on Twitter:
Sarah Palin to supporters: "Don't party like it's 1773 yet". is.gd/g7rRb…. She's so smart.
And here's PBS's Gwen Ifill, moderator of presidential debates, also on Twitter:
Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,
Blogger Cuffy Meigs rounds up all kinds of similar "HAHAHAHAHA! She's so stupid!" reactions to Palin's reference to 1773. So what did happen in 1773? Oh, right.
That, ummm, would be the Boston Tea Party.
Moulitsas and Ifill were in such an orgasm to insult Palin they stuck their feet not only into their mouths but up where the Sun doesn't shine as well. Idiots.
Nicely done, Sarah.
Then there's Christine O'Donnell and her debate with Chris Coons:
WILMINGTON, Del.—Republican Christine O'Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.
Coons responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. … The First Amendment establishes a separation."
But O'Donnell probed again.
She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? … So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"
That's pretty clear. And as any Constitutional scholar should know, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. O'Donnell was right, yet Ben Evans, the author of the piece, characterized the exchange as another controversy to "befall" O'Donnell.
Why is being right something that "befalls" someone? Because she's a Republican?
Point, O'Donnell.
Then Coons tried again to school O'Donnell.
"He noted again the First Amendment's ban on establishment of religion" reported Evans.
(There is no ban on the establishment of religion in the Constitution.)
O'DONNELL: "Let me just clarify, you're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"
COONS: "'Government shall make no establishment of religion'"
O'DONNELL: "That's in the First Amendment?"
For the record, the First Amendment says:
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Then a local law school professor chimed in:
Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, "She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise."
This is something I despise about both academicians and reporters. Liberal bias.
It's pretty obvious that O'Donnell was being literal and it's painfully clear that she was right on both counts. O'Donnell was surprised that Coons, Daly, Evans and the rest of the smug twits in the audience could actually believe that the phrase "separation of church and state" resides in the Constitution and that the Constitution bans the establishment of religion.
Entirely unreported by Evans was O'Donnell's challenge to Coons:
O'Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the "five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment."
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O'Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
"I guess he can't," O'Donnell said.
Game, set, match- O'Donnell.
Another report of the debate went this way:
Ms. O'Donnell likened Mr. Coons's position on evolution to those of "our so-called leaders in Washington" who have rejected the "indispensible principles of our founding."
When Mr. Coons interjected that "one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state," Ms. O'Donnell demanded, "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"
The audience exploded in laughter
One would have to say that an awful lot of law students overpaid for their education and that some law professors are overpaid.
George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. And Thomas Sowell has pointed out that the record of 20th century intellectuals – precisely the period when liberals began to decide that only they properly qualified as "intellectuals" – was especially appalling in this regard.
Whenever a liberal talks – and frankly most of all when that liberal is an "intellectual" – you should listen very closely to whatever he or she says, and then believe the exact opposite.
The foolishness of liberals is literally biblical:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools — Romans 1:22
For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth — Romans 1:18
You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right — Psalm 52:3
But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20
You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2
In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God — 2 Corinthians 4:4
Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths — 2 Tim 4:3-4
Tags:1773, Boston Tea Party, Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnell, Constitution, Economy, elitist, establishment of religion, First Amendment, history, intellectuals, intelligentsia, law school, liberalism, professor, progressivism, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, separation of church and state, unwashed masses
Posted in Conservative Issues, Democrats, Economy, Politics, Religion and Culture | 2 Comments »
John McCain's 7 Houses: Liberals, Nuance, and Hypocrisy
In the aftermath of the Rich Warren's Saddleback debate, conservatives were greeted with a new catchphrase to encompass Barack Obama's windy, cerebral, abstract answers: nuance. Barack Obama's responses to revealed his "nuanced" understanding of a complex, difficult, ambiguous world.
And of course, conservatives are depicted as having only enough "nuance" to kill some poor helpless animal and drag its carcass back to the cave.
The Obama campaign is also involved in a daily complaint session about how the McCain campaign is constantly engaging in lowball politics and "gotcha" attacks while the ephemeral and pure Obama campaign pursues the higher and loftier things.
Well, bogus, and more bogus.
Both forms of "bogii" are revealed in the Obama campaigns handling of John McCain's "house controversy." Aside from the fact that a guy who spent 5 1/2 years being tortured in a Communist hell hole DESERVES to have a life of luxury these days, there are a couple of factors that really turn this issue into another revealing glimpse into the shrivled soul of the Obama machine.
Get Listy summarizes the issue:
Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain was asked Wednesday by a reporter from Politico how many houses he owned. McCain wasn't sure."I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain reportedly said in the interview in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama jumped on McCain's statement and almost immediately turned it into a campaign attack. McCain's camp responded with a responding attack, according to CBS News.
Well, here's the deal: John McCain had a difficult time answering the Politico reporter's question because the answer was NUANCED.
It turns out that wealthy heiress Cindy Hensley McCain – who keeps separate finances (there's even a prenuptial agreement) owns most of the homes. Some of the houses they may not even technically own per se, as they are owned in trusts established by Cindy McCain's LLC. [Click here for an investigation of the seven houses]. And John McCain didn't want to get into the personal and murky issues as to what was owned by his wealthy heiress wife.
John McCain may not actually even own a home of his own. The Obama slam has the merit of being technically correct, but how big of a deal is it with an understanding of the big picture?
Nuance.
That didn't stop Barack Obama from personally jumping all over this. He's stumping on it with speech after speech. His campaign immediately came out with an ad depicting McCain as so elitist and so out of touch that he doesn't even know how many houses he's bought.
Who's the caveman now?
Which brings home the issue of hypocrisy.
Barack Obama will whine and complain about how unfair the McCain campaign is, and how they attack him with trivial side issues even as he simultaneously launches into a barrage of the very sort of thing he's complaining about.
The McCain campaign, for it's part, mentions Obama's $4 million in income last year, and his shady million-plus dollar home bought in cahoots with convicted politician-buying sleazeball Tony Rezko and asks, "Does Obama really want to talk about elitism and real estate?"
Of course, Obama does. The crime isn't about owning seven houses. The crime is rather about not immediately knowing how many houses you "technically" own. You see, for a hypocrite like Barack Obama, appearance is the only thing that really matters.
Remember that the next time he whines about how he's treated.
Tags:$4 million, 7 houses, Barack Obama, Cindy McCain, elitist, Hanoi Hilton, hell hole, Hensely, John McCain, LLC, nuanced, real estate, seven, Tony Rezko, trusts
Posted in Barack Obama, John McCain, Politics | 12 Comments »
Obama's 'English' Comment Yet Another Proof of His Elitism
Barack Obama, campaigning in Georgia, offered the following pearl of wisdom regarding America's lack of foreign language proficiency:
"It's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German," he had said. "And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is 'Merci beaucoup.'
I can't help but remember one of his other critical lectures regarding the ignorance of Americans:
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
I guess you can add "the English language" to that list of things that Barack Obama thinks Americans are bitterly clinging to.
Barack Obama came under a lot of fire for little "bitter" remark. I myself was actually much more upset by the incipient Marxism that Barack Obama revealed in his thinking, but the criticism that stuck was that Barack Obama was arrogant, and an elitist. He went to some bunch-of-money per plate pinky-in-the-air fund raising event in San Francisco, and proceeded to tell a bunch of fellow arrogant elitists what he really thought about those idiot hicks over in Pennsylvania.
The charge of "elitism" has continued to resonate with the voters:
(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama is saddled with a potentially toxic image problem: that he has an elitist attitude.
Well, I really don't want to give the Obama campaign any useful advice, but one thing I'd tell their guy if I were inclined to help him is: "Hey, Barack, if you really truly want to dispel the impression that you're a condescending elitist jerk, please, PLEASE, don't tell us simple-minded Americans we're not as smart as those sophisticated Europeans and then throw out something in French."
Jesse Jackson was completely unfair in claiming that Barack Obama was "talking down to black people."
He talks down to white people too (excepting European white people, of course).
You can say that our first metrosexual candidate for President is an equal-opportunity condescending elitist jerk. He looks down on pretty much everybody.
Obama's right in a narrow sense, of course: Americans for the most part haven't bothered to learn a bunch of other languages. Instead, Americans have occupied themselves with building such a great, such a wealthy, such a powerful, such an influential country, that everybody else in the world found it necessary to learn to speak English.
Unlike Barack Obama, I like the American way better.
On a sheer practical level, one must understand the sheer size of the United States relative to Europe, and the absence of the influence of foreign languages upon American culture.
In terms of size, if you overlay the United States over Europe, the U.S. literally either covers or overlaps Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia Herze-govina, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Turkey, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sweden, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Syria. We don't have anywhere NEAR the constant "international contact" with languages that Europeans routinely have due to the small size of the countries, and we're isolated by two oceans to boot. It's simply ridiculous to expect us to have the same grasp of other languages that people living in countries you can drive through in a few hours have.
In terms of influence, our only foreign language-speaking neighbor – Mexico – is frankly insignificant to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Mexico's economy has been in a perennial state of shambles for over a century now. Apart from being polite, why should Americans learn to speak Spanish?
And related to that last point, just what language should Americans learn? French? (Seriously, WHY!?!?) Chinese? Russian? Maybe we should learn Arabic, so we can better beg them for oil if – heaven forbid – Barack Obama gets elected and cuts off all our domestic oil production?
The simple fact of the matter is that Americans haven't learned foreign languages because we haven't needed to. And if Barack Obama is somehow ashamed of us for that, that's really just his problem, isn't it?
There's another thing about Obama's "English" remark that underscores his arrogance and elitism: he frankly thinks he knows better than an overwhelming majority of Americans on the issue of just what language Americans ought to be speaking in this country.
According to Rasmussen Reports:
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Americans believe that English should be the official language of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults found that only 11% disagree and 4% are not sure.
You know who issued Executive Order 13166 into law requiring multilingualism in federal documents? The last Democrat president we elected. He smuggled this unpopular edict into law in the waning days of his presidency.
That's just the kind of exposure to foreign languages that Americans don't need. And it's just the kind of stuff that Barack Obama – "I know better than you, merci beaucoup" – is going to give us if he's elected President.
The real danger for Obama is that his arrogance and elitism could – and frankly should – become a unifying narrative, where absolutely everything he says or does becomes interpreted through the prism of "elitism."
Charles Krauthammer recently did a rather masterful job of connecting Obama's dismissals regarding his rampant pattern of recent flip flopping with his personal arrogance, for example:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: What impresses me is his audacity. Everybody moves to the center after securing the nomination. There's nothing new under the sun there.
He did it in a particularly spectacular way with the flips that you talked about. There are a couple of others on NAFTA and flag pins, and he does it all within about three weeks. It's sort of unprecedented.
But he goes way beyond that. On each of these he pretends that he has never changed. He says, yes, I said the gun bill was constitutional and I supported it. And now he supports the Supreme Court decision that rules it unconstitutional, and pretends it is the same decision.
But then he goes beyond that, reaching an almost acrobatic level of cynicism here, in which he says, as you indicated, Fred, anybody who believes otherwise, anybody who believes he is not actually a flipper and he hasn't actually changed, is himself cynical, or, as he puts it, "steeped in the old politics," and so cynical that they can't even believe that a politician like him would act on principle.
What non-political no-self-interested reason explains his change on campaign finance other than the fact that he has a lot of money and he would lose it otherwise if he had stuck to his principles?
What non-self-interested reason explains his flip on guns, on FISA, on the flag pins, on everything? But he thinks he–what impresses me is his intellectual arrogance. He thinks everyone is either a fool who would believe all this, or a knave who is somehow distorting his words.
So Barack Obama is pretty much "talking down" to the American people as a matter of routine.
Sadly, too many Americans might just prove to be too dumb to recognize it, which is why Krauthammer ends his above analysis by saying, "I think he will get away with it."
The only thing worse than being "talked down to" is being dumb enough to allow the tactic to succeed.
Tell you what: come November, I hope the American people overwhelmingly vote to say "good bye" to Barack Obama. They can use as many languages to say it as they want: Adios. Au Revoir. Auf wiedersehen. Ciao. Sayonara. Ma'a salaamah. Namasté. Zai jian. And please don't let the door hit your rear end on the way out.
Tags:arrogant, Barack Obama, bitter, elitist, embarassing, English, Europeans, flip flops, French, German, guns, Jesse Jackson, merci beaucoup, multilingualism, official language, religion, talking down
Posted in Barack Obama, Politics | Leave a Comment »