My column today can be found at the Republican Jewish Coalition website. 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the lesson is that liberty equals life.
http://www.rjchq.org/Blog/blogdetail.aspx?id=523e91cf-db4d-4b79-b045-0b0352732902
eric
This entry was posted on Monday, November 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am and is filed under POLITICS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
16 Responses
This blog has been customized by
Hotweazel.com
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
November 9th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I just went thru a lengthy debate on pot legalization with a moonbat who equates the legalization of pot in America to the removal of the Berlin wall.
Priceless.
Maybe that should give us all a little insight to the workings of the liberal mind.
“Afghanis hate the Taliban. They want to be free. Will we stand up?”
Right now it sure doesnt look like it, does it ?
Any more than it seems like Obama doesnt get the relevance of this event.
Either that or hes not going because the celebration represents a defeat to his comrades.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
There are two kinds of people - realists and dreamers. Dreamers think Ronald regan actual tore down that wall by saying “tear down this wall.” Realists understand that the Soviet Union was long failing empire, a large poor country dominating a bunch of small poor countries, and when they all went broke, the empire collapsed. It was happening long before Reagan came along and would have happened with or without him. Dreamers believe we can “bring liberty” to any place in the world we choose. Realists understand that even if we could, and we can’t, many of those people in the world would gladly vote away that very liberty first chance they got, if the chance is even real in the first place. Liberty does not always beget liberty. Dreamers always believe they are following in the footsteps of the great realists of history. They are not. They are just dreaming. It makes them feel good.
I was listening to Bibi Netanyahu today on C-Span (you know, that place where realists get their real news). He said something that really made me snicker. He pointed out how important it is to Israeli security that the industrialized world bring an end to it’s dependence on oil. He pointed out that we need to make oil as obsolete as possible in order to diminish the power of the real threats to “liberty” and peace in the Middle East - the monarchies, theocracies, and juntas. Israel, he pointed out, was too small to indefinitely fight every threat in the region forever. But together, with the rest of the free world, if we could end this heroine-like addiction to oil, we could finally end this awful situation in the Middle East with ever firing a shot! Too bad American “conservative” jews find it so easy to conveniently leave that argument out of their “support” for Israel.
Liberty, my $#@. The only liberty conservatives care about is the liberty to pursue the superior moral justification for selfishness.
JMJ
November 9th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I asked a friend the other day, who is very philosophical about most
everything, and is a true conservative Jew, ( nothing moderate about
him, unlike me), what if, what if the psychiatrist were a Jew named
Goldberg or some modification like Lewis or Fein?
I told him that the guy who massacred 13 at Fort Hood,
could very well have killed more had he been laden with a suicide belt (like those he so admires) and walked next door to a graduation exercise
attended by 600 people. He only had clips and ammo belts (holding 20 shells), no explosive belt with an asst of nails, screws, etc, to inflict
higher casualties).
He answered that whether Jew or Muslim or Christian…the murderers
religion didn’t really matter in public opinion. But the news does reveal
some people focused on the fact that he was a Muslim.
We argued back and forth. I claimed he was simply deranged..mad
at going to Iraq, after treating so many emotionally damaged soldiers. That his anger at some prejudice was irrelevant. Racism is part of
the military (just ask soldiers who fought during WW2 up to the Vietnam War ( you know, the minorities went “point”).
His response was, yes, but he killed BECAUSE he was a Muslim.
Anyway, it will be most interesting to follow this and learn (from him)
why he did what he did? Was it caus he was a Muslim and believed the US was at war with the Muslim world? Was he upset caus the US is providing
arms and support to Israel, to defend itself against the “Final Jihad”, the “Mother of all battles”, “Drive drive them into the sea”, “They are the sons of monkeys and apes, as descried in the Koran”.
Did he believe the Arab lies that the Jews stole Palestine (there were Jews in the area much longer than the later migration of Arabs). The only
Palestinians were Jews…the Romans gave them that name..recall the
Philistines?
We discussed how the liberal Roosevelt did nothing while 6m of our
people perished..years before the so-called Wall ( in Berlin ) was built
by the victors over the losers..the old Soviet Union vs the Reich.
I advised him that 200,000 Russians were killed taking Berlin, where
Hitler finally killed himsel and that 25m Soviets were murdered during WW2, a war which if Germany had won..would have taken the lives
of tens of millions of more Rusians. ( Hitler had plans to starve them out
replaced by ethnic Aryans (blond haired, blue eyed, German savages).
It was called “living space”.
Yes and BTW, Germany also planned to defeat the US and England,
and once defeated, emulate his occupation of France, using local
bobbies and police..(Something we often forget about when we
admire the East Germans for their bravery against the ruthless
Soviets or the Hungarians who revolted even though Hungarian
SS divisions were active in Russia, the Ukraine and in the 20,000 “camps”.
But that was then and now is now folks, the instant problem is
the socialization of the US, (thanks Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and Waxman).
We read in the LA Times that there are many roadblocks to making
all of US equal in the eyes of the Democrats.
For example, to cover all 97% Americans..the insurance companies
will have to charge higher premiums for older people..perhaps less for
younger members. You see, older Americans have more health problems and incur the highest costs the last 2 years of their lives.
The idea is to get everyone on board, to pay something..to allow this
plan.
Of course many people will simply drop out so to speak, and NOT join.
Then, their accounts will be turned over to a collection agency, sort of like the IRSS., which will have power to levy, lien, seize, and prosecute for
failure to pay and sign up. They do it now..it’s called “voluntary compliance”. Either you volunteer or live in a Federal prison for a few years to reflect on your relunctance.
In my home State of California, a vote was taken of people’s attitudes
towards prop 13, and changng the vote needed to increase taxes
and the budget (overall).
The majority is agin changes..liking it as it is now. I believe their
may in fact be a GOD.
Do you hear that Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and Wasman..they don’t want
your idea of CHANGE.
On foreign policy, a newspaper in Iran is reporting that Iran made a counter offer…it’s enriched uranium in two shipments for Russias
enriched ore…
I don’t believe it.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
There are those who speak the truth and then there are those who pull stuff out their rump to make a non existent argument by saying :
“Dreamers think Ronald regan actual tore down that wall by saying “tear down this wall.”
Watching C span for an eternity will never resolve this condition.
No. Us who are not so partisan that we can actually see where we are going know that using the arms race Ronald Reagan played a strategy of running the Soviets broke, ushering that process along, that led to that collapse.
Only a fool would make the arguement that anyone thinks those few words is what actually took the wall down.
Yeah right Jersey.
We all sat here telling ourselves that Gorbachev was trembling at the sound of Reagans voice and submitted.
Many of us give Gorbachev credit for seeing the inevitable. Reagan just made it happen quicker. Reagan wasnt just some insignificant pawn in the whole event as you so unrealistically would have anyone believe simply because you’re a rabid partisan moonbat.
Liberals talking bout selfishness…
The kings of gimme gimme gimme
Priceless.
Any freeking loon can have a bunch of great ideas and no money to pull any of them off.
You guys aint all that to think that taxing is always the answer.
“Yeah, the whole country is as broke as ever, will be for at least another decade, but hey lets shove trillions of dollars of debt down our kids and grandkids throats and take half of the healthcare for seniors away. ruin small businesses for a decade because we are so caring and giving”
“many of those people in the world would gladly vote away that very liberty first chance they got”
Which is why more people on earth immigrate to America more than any country on the planet.
Of course liberals would demand such a thing if it served their interest.
“Take this freaking healthcare wether you like it or not, its for your own good.”
“Liberty, my $#@. The only liberty conservatives care about is the liberty to pursue the superior moral justification for selfishness.”
Yeah, I saw a guy at the foodbank yesterday who said much the same thing until I told him I >>> the guy dropping off all the food<<<is a conservative.
By the way.
Did you know that most addicts are liberals ? Most of those seeking psychological help are liberals ?
They always had this feeling the world was so unfair to them.
Or the other half of the time its a narcissitic ploy to look sensitive and caring.
When I went conservative ( grew up and gave up that childish whimpering) dropping the habit was easier than ever.
“This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
November 9th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
There are two kinds of people -
1) People who are old enough to remember the history,
and
2) Those who today want to re-write it:
> Realists understand that the Soviet Union was long failing empire, a large poor country dominating a bunch of small poor countries, and when they all went broke, the empire collapsed. It was happening long before Reagan came along and would have happened with or without him.
BWAAAAAAAhahahahhahaaa.
I was THERE you nit. I remember all the crap that was being said before Reagan came along — that the “winning” of the Soviet Union was INEVITABLE. That The West could not compete with Soviet “Efficiency”, Soviet “Will”, Soviet “Determination”.
Reagan stood up and said “BITE ME!” to all that.
The Soviets were raising on a busted flush and Reagan CALLED them on it.
No, Reagan didn’t just CALL them on it, he put forth the Star Wars program — He RAISED them. And THAT is what happened in the 1980s you re-writing apologist idiot.
The Soviet Union would, indeed, *eventually* have failed, but only after BILLIONS more endured decades more of the misery and wonder that was Soviet oppression, Soviet incompetence, and Soviet “paradise”.
> many of those people in the world would gladly vote away that very liberty first chance they got, if the chance is even real in the first place.
Yeah, just like the Iraqis have. Some “realist”. A case of that which you speak right in front of you and you *won’t* even see it.
Can you impose liberty on a people who isn’t ready for it? No. Does that mean you should reject the desires of liberty, as Obama has, for the people of Iran? Does that mean a people who has been oppressed for decades can’t be freed and allowed the chance to learn and develop their sense of liberty, or that, having had that taste but failing, they won’t seek it again a decade or two later, and again after that, until they do finally achieve it — as Iraq has and may manage to keep?
Funny how liberal “consideration and selflessness” involves giving moral support to those who would oppress others and kill our soldiers like the craven cowards they are.
Funny how liberal “consideration and selflessness” always manages to look the other way when it comes to paying the costs of actually Doing The Right Thing.
Where was all that liberal “consideration and selflessness” when it was revealed that Saddam had inarguably committed genocide, and killed not less than 300,000 Kurds? When film surfaced of his gas attacks killing men, women, and children, mothers dying huddled in abject fear with their babies in their arms?
At THAT point, do you think, maybe, that they might reverse course and acknowledge, “You know, maybe we were wrong, maybe taking Saddam out of power WAS a good thing…”
Nawww. That would be too considerate. Too honest. And Too Selfless. They STILL can’t friggin’ admit it. Because when it really comes down to it, they are none of those things. They just TALK about them because that makes them FEEL morally superior. And that’s all it is. TALK. At its heart, 95% of all liberals don’t give a damned about anyone but themselves.
=====
> Which is why more people on earth immigrate to America more than any country on the planet.
Damn Straight —
Bill Whittle. Rafts:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060801000000-20061201235959/http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000132.html
The best damned political essayist on the planet.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
> At its heart, 95% of all liberals don’t give a damned about anyone but themselves.
Allow me to provide an example of this:
I remember a 20/20 episode some years ago. An elementary school teacher got a “great idea” (the kind so typical among liberals) — She would create a class project, and get other classes involved. They would collect monies which would be used to buy the freedom of modern slaves in Africa.
Hey, what could be wrong with that?
Reality is what’s wrong with that. True Reality, not “realist” reality. The big bad world intervened with its well-known concept of Supply and Demand (something liberals really, really can’t get their tiny little minds wrapped around, which is why they so hate Free Trade) — Increase the demand, you increase the supply.
So the net effect of the teacher’s efforts? More people were turned into slaves so she could feel good for having freed them.
Yep — 20/20 followed the money chain and showed how all that happened was that more people were enslaved than previously, solely so our teacher and her kids could “feel good” about what they’d done. The same number of people were slaves after the fact, the only effect was that more people endured the process of enslavement and the indignity of being sold.
Now, at this point, I’m still not incensed. I mean, stupid, ignorant, downright imbecilic it may be, it’s still possible it comes from a good heart. Still bad, but it’s not EVIL, perhaps.
No, what happened next belied that possibility –
The teacher was informed of what the results of her efforts had actually produced, instead of her intentions. They showed her the facts, and the conclusions that inevitably followed.
The reporters then asked her what **she intended to do**.
She indicated that she would have to think about it, but she thought the program should continue, because “it made the kids feel good about themselves”.
For about 10 seconds I just boggled. I assumed I’d somehow misheard her reply. But she kept talking about it. And it was clear she was serious. Needless to say, *I* got pissed. I wanted to reach right through the screen and bitch-slap this self-absorbed HO, who thinks it’s ok to enslave people so she and her @#%#%^$#^ students can “feel better about themselves”.
Yeah, that’s “consideration and caring” all right. Such a deep and thoughtful outpouring of love and kindness of the type that should drown everyone who experiences it. And I don’t mean metaphorically.
>:-/
November 9th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Yes, liberals are so generous that even though only 46 million need insurance ( used to be 36 million, wa happen ?) they want to give it to everyone in the country, and then the world with Obamas poverty tax.
And they’ll do it all with everyone elses money except their own.
Thats how generous they are.
Its hard to argue with morals like that.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I’m trying to reply, Micky, but having no luck with my comment posting. Perhaps I hit a button?
JMJ
November 9th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I also notice that Dan Lev has nothing to say about Bibi’s speech today. LOL! So much for you “drill baby drill” “pro-israel” conservatives! LOL!
JMJ
November 9th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
What ?
More Jersey delusions ”
Because Dan didnt respond to your liking you say “so much”?
Someone needs to put a pin in your chest and let out all that hot air buddy.
Were all supposed to walk in lockstep like liberals behind everything every conservative says ?
No one on the right denies that we need to end our dependence on oil.
How far up your rump did you have to reach to pull that one out ?
Dont tell me you’re so delusional that you think ending our need for oil will stop the radicals from hating us and Israel ?
I doubt Netanyahu was saying anything of that sort.
========================
Erics blog has some of the weirdest tech anomilies going on at times.
Just restart.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:23 am
I just think it’s funny how you conservatives march in lock step with whatever your leaders tell you even when it flies in the face of other things you supposedly believe.
JMJ
November 10th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Right Jersey.
If you’re all so righteous and have no superior moral justification for selfishness then why is it that when only 46 million people need healthcare you’re imposing the requirement for everyone to have it ?
According to the last bill, the one that just passed the house, small business owners are going to be required to purchase insurance for their employess. Should they choose not to they will have to pay additional taxes, a fine. If we as Americans protest what is clearly unconstitutional by not paying we can go to jail for up to 5 years.
Never in our history has the federal government required us to purchase anything for ourselves or anyone else.
That provision in this bill will more than likely not appear in that form by the time it reaches the sentate because there will be enough outcry that you guys will never get away with it.
So please, dont tell me that liberals are not looking for some moral justification to be selfish when they are willing to impose unconstitutional jail sentences on Americans for the sake of power.
” just think it’s funny how you conservatives march in lock step with whatever your leaders ”
Nice try, but even you have admited that right now we have no leadership to follow.
Were actually capable of thinking on our own without some head of the collective spewing marching orders from generated speech on a teleprompter.
Right now you guys are looking at one of the greatest failures of a president weve ever seen whos broken umpteen promises, done exactly what he said he wouldnt do, screwed you all in so many ways its not even funny and yet you cling to him like your messiah anyways.
You all follow the marching orders of your PC doctrines to the point that as soon as you open your yaps its possible to identify you immediately.
You all support a healthcare bill for simple expedience sake because its what you’re supposed to do…
and yet you dont even know whats in it, you havent even read the damn thing, but hey, a dem wrote it and thats all that counts.Right ?
And by the way, if everything Obama has said hes going to do is as screwed up and late as everything so far we are going to have to drill baby drill.
Until you guys can get you crap together and actully produce a viable reliable alternative energy source that doesnt destroy the country were going to need some oil til then.
Sure as hell wouldnt hurt to have some laying around at the rate you guys are going at.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Yes Bloody Hell.
No doubt, liberals are all about intentions.
Everything else takes a back seat.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
> I just think it’s funny how you conservatives march in lock step with whatever your leaders tell you even when it flies in the face of other things you supposedly believe.
I just think it’s funny how liberals make bald-faced claims like this but fail to substantiate them with any sort of actual data to support it.
Makes “debating” things a lot easier, don’t it? When you can just make up anything you want to and blurt it out?
I hear your mother once had sex with a gorilla. Is it true?
(I have no evidence of any kind to support that statement, but… hey, what the heck? If that’s the kind of “factless debate” you want, it can be arranged.)
What say, next time, you stick to demonstrable facts instead of stupid baseless accusations, and also offer some support of the facts you claim?
Or is that too much work for a liberal genius-with-a-’y’ like yourself?
November 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
> why is it that when only 46 million people need healthcare you’re imposing the requirement for everyone to have it ?
Actually, Mickey, they backed off on this count — it’s 30 mil or thereabouts last I checked because the 46 uncovered number includes the illegal aliens who they were always claiming would not be covered.
Oh, and, as far as the “lockstep” crap, the best sign of this is the signs at a protest rally. You get a few thousand liberals together, what happens? You get a protest march with half-a-dozen of the same signs professionally made by “community organizers”.
Put a real million man march together, and you see almost all hand-made signs done by obvious non-professionals, with a vast and widely disparate (i.e., “diverse”) collection of expressions.
Oleg Atabashian, an immigrant from Russia, comments on the march in two articles:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/america-awakes-reflections-on-912/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/america-awakes-reflections-on-912-part-ii/
Atabashian’s take, having lived in the USSR, is of particular interest — he has a number of other pieces here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/olegatbashian/
And here are pictures of the “lockstep” crowd:
http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/08/pelosi-astroturf-healthcare/#more-3412
(contrast the one shot of the pro-Pelosi crowd with the anti-Pelosi crowd. WHO is supposedly in lockstep, again? The one with professional organizers or the one that’s actually made up of a real grass roots protest?)
You find some professionally printed signs here, but, they’re doctors, they can afford to send something off to the printer. And there’s plenty of non-professional signs:
http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/09/doctors-against-obamacare-rally-in-d-c/
November 12th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
> Until you guys can get you crap together and actully produce a viable reliable alternative energy source that doesnt destroy the country were going to need some oil til then.
Mickey, there IS no “viable alternative energy source” The reason they remain unviable despite over 30 years of massive subsidies is that the energy is too dispersed. It is literally idiotic to think that solar power can be anything other than a fraction of specialty power, usually in places where it’s too expensive to run wires and not large enough to build a generation system.
I do some back of the envelope calculations, careful to err on the side of generosity over on No Oil For Pacifists some months ago, for a guest piece:
Solar: Flat out wrong for all time.
The key fact is that, if you want to generate all of the US power grid’s power from solar, you will need to cover a surface area of not less than 4/5ths of the entire state of Delaware with either “little blue cells” or reflecting surface (for solar thermal).
A STATE.
A small one, yeah, but… A STATE.
Even the “20%” call means we only need to cover 1/5 of Delaware? Yeah, like the greens would not SCREAM bloody murder at that idea.
That area is based on the actual solar energy falling to earth at the surface, is not something based on “current limitations” but presumes some pretty spectacular improvements on the tech just to get that much. In other words, it’s not something that can be “jiggered”, “tricked”, “outsmarted” — it’s based on absolute numbers which are as inviolate as the speed of light in a vacuum. That’s the best you can hope for — 4/5ths of DELAWARE.
There is exactly one solar energy option which has any possibility of providing power in a serious, rational way, and it’s the one that very little money actually goes to — it’s called Ocean Thermal, or OTEC — which works basically by using the vast surface of the ocean as a collector. There are substantial problems with developing this, but it might be done.
In reality, the only thing which can supplant oil in an effective manner is Nuclear — and it’s clear that that would work and could be done, but the Greens reveal their true agenda by rejecting this, too — their goal is to eliminate power usage, effectively destroying society. Greens, and Postmodern Liberalism, is a suicidal meme which has at its heart the destruction of modern civilization. I don’t think most of them grasp that, but that is the only possible outcome of their ideas and ideals.