Juan Williams, longtime NPR news analyst, was fired after a discussion he had on FNC's "The O'Reilly Factor" with host Bill O'Reilly.
Williams said he feels "nervous" if he gets on an airplane and sees people in Muslim garb, who "are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims."
This is because Muslims all over the world have repeatedly used their religion as a basis for attacks -- both verbal and physical -- against innocent people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Williams qualified the statement with the contention that people should not blame all Muslims for "extremists."
So NPR fired Williams for offering his opinion, on an opinion show. He didn't say anything hateful, he didn't advocate intolerance or violence, but he got fired anyway.
If you are not familiar with Williams, let me just say this: He often appears on FNC and offers a more liberal opinion than many of the analysts on the network. The difference between Williams and other liberal commentators is that Williams uses logic, not name-calling or misstated "facts" to support his arguments.
He is a good, even-handed commentator.
Also, it should be noted that the firing comes right after NPR received a HUGE "donation" from George Soros, mastermind and financier of liberal media outlets. Soros, who funds groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, both blatant left-wing propaganda outlets, is going on a rampage against Fox News because FNC is the only place on TV that actually tells the American people who is funding the propaganda machine.
Roaches don't like the light, and if they could cut the power, they would.
I want you to read these materials for yourself, not take my word for it. Here are some reading links, and you should Google them to get other versions of the story and other tidbits:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/national-politically-correct-radio_511450.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/george-soros-fox-glenn/2010/10/20/id/374340
http://www.dronetek.net/dronetek/george-soros-gives-npr-money-and-buys-reporters
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737&ps=cprs
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Consumers Have Power
These days, more and more people are complaining about capitalism. They argue against price increases, executive compensation and corporate greed. But what they fail to realize is the true power consumers have to get things to go their way.
True, some businesses make it nearly impossible to negotiate, leaving the consumer with a choice of "take it or leave it." An good example is Comcast Cable. In my neck of the woods, the only choice I have for cable TV and Internet service is digital cable through Comcast or satellite TV with DSL Internet access. Cable beats DSL, so if I want that service, I pretty much have to pay whatever price Comcast sets. If I feel the price is too high, I can call and argue for a decrease, which I have done, but ultimately my choice is either pay or not get the service.
But when it comes to retail, consumers seem to ignore how much power they have, how much they can manipulate corporate greed to their advantage. A greedy business knows that any profit they can get from you is better than nothing, and often will negotiate with you if the entire sale -- and possibly future sales -- is on the line.
I have two stories about this in two days:
(1) Amazon.com
In July, I ordered an electric guitar from Amazon.com. The item was not even in stock, and had an estimated shipping date between September and December. The $500 guitar was on sale for $150 with free shipping, as long as I was willing to wait months to get it.
Of course I was, for that kind of deal. (Such a sweet guitar, too!) I've scoped them out used and, being somewhat hard to find, the same guitar sells used for $250-$300. So to get a brand new one for $150 shipped was worth the wait.
But in early September, I got an e-mail from Amazon telling me that since they were unsure of when the item would be in stock, they were canceling the order, even though I was willing to wait almost indefinitely in order to get that ridiculously low price.
At that point, Amazon took the product off their site, and showed it as only available from a third party for $439 plus shipping.
I called Amazon, and after some wrangling, the customer service rep told me he would add a note to the account and to check the site periodically, and that if Amazon did put the item back up for sale themselves, I would be allowed to order one for $150, regardless of the current price.
Then today, I checked Amazon, and they again were offering the guitar for sale from Amazon for $200 plus shipping, albeit still with a "you'll get it when we have it" shipping date. But, again, for that price, I can wait. I put it in my cart and called Amazon to get the price reduced to the original $150 total cost.
This time, the CSR told me that they were unaware of any note on my account, and that the $200 plus shipping was the best they could do, seeing as it was so far reduced already.
BS, right? I actually asked the CSR, "So, when the other rep told me they would note the account that I could get this item for $150, they were lying?" The CSR apologized and repeated that I could get it for $200 plus S&H. I asked to speak to a manager/supervisor, because I couldn't believe that the CSR would just feed me a line of crap, knowing that at some point, I would be back expecting the deal he promised.
I spoke to an alleged manager, Mark, and within less than a minute, he had adjusted the price of the item in my cart to $149.99 shipped.
I didn't yell, I wasn't rude. All I did was politely tell him what I had been told by the first CSR, and that if it was not honored, I would no longer patronize Amazon.com, because they are not exclusive sellers of anything, so I would gladly pay more elsewhere out of principle. Looking at my account, he could see that I give Amazon a fair amount of business, and realized immediately that any cut in profit he would have to take in order to appease me this one time was far outweighed by the amount of profit he would make from me in the long run.
(2) Citizens Bank
I had an RBS Mastercard. They changed over a month ago to Citizens Bank, and sent me a new card and fee schedule. But things were different.
For some reason, my interest rate went from 13% to 18.5%.
I had no issues with the account, wasn't ever late or anything like that. The bank just assumed they could raise the rate and I would accept it.
Nope.
So I called the 800 number and had a very short conversation with the CSR. I explained my concerns, that with excellent credit and a perfect track record with RBS, I couldn't understand why my interest rate would jump after 5 or 6 years of 13%. He told me that the bank simply was "going by new federal regulations" and that my options were to accept the new rate or cancel the account.
I told him to cancel the account.
I was transferred to the department to close the account, and they asked why I was closing it, so I told them the same thing I told the first CSR. They informed me that if the interest rate was an issue, they certainly could negotiate that. I told them the choice the first CSR gave me, and this CSR was not impressed by that and said the first CSR
Within a minute or two, my new card was activated at 13%.
Again, no yelling, no cursing. Just a reminder that the bank had made money off me the past few years, and could either continue to make that amount or nothing at all, seeing as there are plenty of banks looking for profits.
---------------------------------------------
I realize that you may have read all this and are really angry that it was so long, and so dull. But it's important for people to realize that, if you're willing to sacrifice convenience or savings, you can make a stand as a consumer. A business cannot survive without customers (unless it's in bed with the government, then it can make money for doing nothing, but that's another post!). Switch the choice onto them: Do they want the business you offer them, or none at all?
You have to be willing to do without, though, so be prepared. Comcast again is a great example.
They offer a bundle (phone, Internet and TV) for $100 a month, but only for a year. After the year, the price goes to a little more than $140. For several years, I have been able to keep paying only $100, because when they raise the price, I call and tell them I simply will do without cable and will go to satellite/DSL; I know the service is not as good, but it's a matter of principle -- $100 a month to get e-mail, watch regular cable TV (no pay stations here) and make a couple of phone calls is simply the max I am willing to pay.
What usually happens is that they tell you to take it or leave it. Tell them you'll leave it. When they transfer you over to the "retention department," suddenly it IS possible for them to extend the $100 promo price -- "but just for one more year."
That was about 4 years ago. At some point, they may be willing to lose a customer, and that's when it's on you, the consumer, to stand on principle, and show them that $100 a month is better than nothing.
So that's it, as long-winded as it was. Do it, and tell your friends to do it, too. You can't bitch about corporate greed if you willingly let them get away with it. Just make sure you're ready to carry out your threats. You may lose some convenience, like I would hate to not shop at Amazon, but if you let yourself be victimized by bad business, then it's more your fault than it is the businesses'.
True, some businesses make it nearly impossible to negotiate, leaving the consumer with a choice of "take it or leave it." An good example is Comcast Cable. In my neck of the woods, the only choice I have for cable TV and Internet service is digital cable through Comcast or satellite TV with DSL Internet access. Cable beats DSL, so if I want that service, I pretty much have to pay whatever price Comcast sets. If I feel the price is too high, I can call and argue for a decrease, which I have done, but ultimately my choice is either pay or not get the service.
But when it comes to retail, consumers seem to ignore how much power they have, how much they can manipulate corporate greed to their advantage. A greedy business knows that any profit they can get from you is better than nothing, and often will negotiate with you if the entire sale -- and possibly future sales -- is on the line.
I have two stories about this in two days:
(1) Amazon.com
In July, I ordered an electric guitar from Amazon.com. The item was not even in stock, and had an estimated shipping date between September and December. The $500 guitar was on sale for $150 with free shipping, as long as I was willing to wait months to get it.
Of course I was, for that kind of deal. (Such a sweet guitar, too!) I've scoped them out used and, being somewhat hard to find, the same guitar sells used for $250-$300. So to get a brand new one for $150 shipped was worth the wait.
But in early September, I got an e-mail from Amazon telling me that since they were unsure of when the item would be in stock, they were canceling the order, even though I was willing to wait almost indefinitely in order to get that ridiculously low price.
At that point, Amazon took the product off their site, and showed it as only available from a third party for $439 plus shipping.
I called Amazon, and after some wrangling, the customer service rep told me he would add a note to the account and to check the site periodically, and that if Amazon did put the item back up for sale themselves, I would be allowed to order one for $150, regardless of the current price.
Then today, I checked Amazon, and they again were offering the guitar for sale from Amazon for $200 plus shipping, albeit still with a "you'll get it when we have it" shipping date. But, again, for that price, I can wait. I put it in my cart and called Amazon to get the price reduced to the original $150 total cost.
This time, the CSR told me that they were unaware of any note on my account, and that the $200 plus shipping was the best they could do, seeing as it was so far reduced already.
BS, right? I actually asked the CSR, "So, when the other rep told me they would note the account that I could get this item for $150, they were lying?" The CSR apologized and repeated that I could get it for $200 plus S&H. I asked to speak to a manager/supervisor, because I couldn't believe that the CSR would just feed me a line of crap, knowing that at some point, I would be back expecting the deal he promised.
I spoke to an alleged manager, Mark, and within less than a minute, he had adjusted the price of the item in my cart to $149.99 shipped.
I didn't yell, I wasn't rude. All I did was politely tell him what I had been told by the first CSR, and that if it was not honored, I would no longer patronize Amazon.com, because they are not exclusive sellers of anything, so I would gladly pay more elsewhere out of principle. Looking at my account, he could see that I give Amazon a fair amount of business, and realized immediately that any cut in profit he would have to take in order to appease me this one time was far outweighed by the amount of profit he would make from me in the long run.
(2) Citizens Bank
I had an RBS Mastercard. They changed over a month ago to Citizens Bank, and sent me a new card and fee schedule. But things were different.
For some reason, my interest rate went from 13% to 18.5%.
I had no issues with the account, wasn't ever late or anything like that. The bank just assumed they could raise the rate and I would accept it.
Nope.
So I called the 800 number and had a very short conversation with the CSR. I explained my concerns, that with excellent credit and a perfect track record with RBS, I couldn't understand why my interest rate would jump after 5 or 6 years of 13%. He told me that the bank simply was "going by new federal regulations" and that my options were to accept the new rate or cancel the account.
I told him to cancel the account.
I was transferred to the department to close the account, and they asked why I was closing it, so I told them the same thing I told the first CSR. They informed me that if the interest rate was an issue, they certainly could negotiate that. I told them the choice the first CSR gave me, and this CSR was not impressed by that and said the first CSR
Within a minute or two, my new card was activated at 13%.
Again, no yelling, no cursing. Just a reminder that the bank had made money off me the past few years, and could either continue to make that amount or nothing at all, seeing as there are plenty of banks looking for profits.
---------------------------------------------
I realize that you may have read all this and are really angry that it was so long, and so dull. But it's important for people to realize that, if you're willing to sacrifice convenience or savings, you can make a stand as a consumer. A business cannot survive without customers (unless it's in bed with the government, then it can make money for doing nothing, but that's another post!). Switch the choice onto them: Do they want the business you offer them, or none at all?
You have to be willing to do without, though, so be prepared. Comcast again is a great example.
They offer a bundle (phone, Internet and TV) for $100 a month, but only for a year. After the year, the price goes to a little more than $140. For several years, I have been able to keep paying only $100, because when they raise the price, I call and tell them I simply will do without cable and will go to satellite/DSL; I know the service is not as good, but it's a matter of principle -- $100 a month to get e-mail, watch regular cable TV (no pay stations here) and make a couple of phone calls is simply the max I am willing to pay.
What usually happens is that they tell you to take it or leave it. Tell them you'll leave it. When they transfer you over to the "retention department," suddenly it IS possible for them to extend the $100 promo price -- "but just for one more year."
That was about 4 years ago. At some point, they may be willing to lose a customer, and that's when it's on you, the consumer, to stand on principle, and show them that $100 a month is better than nothing.
So that's it, as long-winded as it was. Do it, and tell your friends to do it, too. You can't bitch about corporate greed if you willingly let them get away with it. Just make sure you're ready to carry out your threats. You may lose some convenience, like I would hate to not shop at Amazon, but if you let yourself be victimized by bad business, then it's more your fault than it is the businesses'.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Howard Dean is a Liar
Here is a story about Howard Dean's appearance on "Fox News Sunday," in which he flat-out lies.
The crime is that the only way you can know he is lying is if you actually WATCH Fox News. So everyone that doesn't watch Fox would likely just take what Dean says at face value because he is a party big-shot, and would then be walking around misinformed -- intentionally lied to.
Dean is following the typical lib playbook: If someone is right and you're wrong, you can still beat them by slinging mud; and no mud is as tasty to a liberal as a charge of racism.
I watch Glenn Beck's show. He's irritating sometimes, and a little too emotional at other times. But I will tell you this with certainty: I have never heard him call for violence, I have never heard him say or endorse anything racist. I've asked people, after they tell me Beck is a racist, to find me the clips. But they haven't, because there are none.
POLITICO: Dean: Fox News “racist” - POLITICO Live - Dean: Fox News “racist”
The crime is that the only way you can know he is lying is if you actually WATCH Fox News. So everyone that doesn't watch Fox would likely just take what Dean says at face value because he is a party big-shot, and would then be walking around misinformed -- intentionally lied to.
Dean is following the typical lib playbook: If someone is right and you're wrong, you can still beat them by slinging mud; and no mud is as tasty to a liberal as a charge of racism.
I watch Glenn Beck's show. He's irritating sometimes, and a little too emotional at other times. But I will tell you this with certainty: I have never heard him call for violence, I have never heard him say or endorse anything racist. I've asked people, after they tell me Beck is a racist, to find me the clips. But they haven't, because there are none.
POLITICO: Dean: Fox News “racist” - POLITICO Live - Dean: Fox News “racist”
Friday, June 25, 2010
Who Decided Paul McCartney Knows Anything?
Paul McCartney has a lot to say about American issues lately.
He started by mocking a former U.S. president during a visit to the White House to accept an award, something I find offensive as an American.
Now, he's popping up in the news with strident support for President Obama, complete with the standard American liberal rhetoric.
(Standard liberal rhetoric: Talk about unrealistic, impossible liberal goals, then blame conservatives for reality not being that way.)
That he's ultra-liberal isn't really the problem.
What I don't understand is why his political and social opinions merit worldwide broadcast.
To me, he's a singer, so if it's not a song coming out of his mouth than I have no interest in it.
Why should I? Aside from really good songs and music, who is Paul McCartney? He's just a super-rich, old, white liberal. He's got really socially progressive views, and wants to influence American politics in that direction.
And he's not a U.S. citizen.
So to come to America, to the White House, and insult not only a former president, but the half of America that voted for that president -- twice -- is just poor behavior.Classless.
And Obama is classless for not chastising McCartney. It's called pride in your country.
He started by mocking a former U.S. president during a visit to the White House to accept an award, something I find offensive as an American.
Now, he's popping up in the news with strident support for President Obama, complete with the standard American liberal rhetoric.
(Standard liberal rhetoric: Talk about unrealistic, impossible liberal goals, then blame conservatives for reality not being that way.)
That he's ultra-liberal isn't really the problem.
What I don't understand is why his political and social opinions merit worldwide broadcast.
To me, he's a singer, so if it's not a song coming out of his mouth than I have no interest in it.
Why should I? Aside from really good songs and music, who is Paul McCartney? He's just a super-rich, old, white liberal. He's got really socially progressive views, and wants to influence American politics in that direction.
And he's not a U.S. citizen.
So to come to America, to the White House, and insult not only a former president, but the half of America that voted for that president -- twice -- is just poor behavior.Classless.
And Obama is classless for not chastising McCartney. It's called pride in your country.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Obama Administration Needs Dictionary
Simply put: "Illegal" means "not legal."
How can anyone say, with a straight face, that people in this country illegally are entitled to anything? It would seem to me that if someone's very presence in this country is a violation of law, then the only thing they are entitled to in America is a ride back to their homeland.
The left wing loves illegals, because most illegals are Hispanic, so then the party can say it's protecting Hispanics, and then the Hispanics are supposed to be obligated to vote Democrat. It's really disgusting.
Illegal immigration is bad for the country, bad for legal Americans and bad for the illegal immigrants themselves. An unsecured border is terrible for a country, Americans have to foot extra bills, and illegals have to live substandard lives because their being here is a criminal act.
But Democrats exploit this, they keep it going for the votes, for the power and control, and in doing so keep a huge number of people -- the illegals -- as modern-day slaves.
Obama Labor Chief: Illegals Have a Right to Fair Wages | The FOX Nation
How can anyone say, with a straight face, that people in this country illegally are entitled to anything? It would seem to me that if someone's very presence in this country is a violation of law, then the only thing they are entitled to in America is a ride back to their homeland.
The left wing loves illegals, because most illegals are Hispanic, so then the party can say it's protecting Hispanics, and then the Hispanics are supposed to be obligated to vote Democrat. It's really disgusting.
Illegal immigration is bad for the country, bad for legal Americans and bad for the illegal immigrants themselves. An unsecured border is terrible for a country, Americans have to foot extra bills, and illegals have to live substandard lives because their being here is a criminal act.
But Democrats exploit this, they keep it going for the votes, for the power and control, and in doing so keep a huge number of people -- the illegals -- as modern-day slaves.
Obama Labor Chief: Illegals Have a Right to Fair Wages | The FOX Nation
Obama Analysis from Washington Examiner
This isn't a partisan hit piece, but rather a reasoned explanation of some of the Obama administration's mistakes.
Finding links between politicians and people who give those politicians money is always intriguing to me, especially when those links seem to influence policy to go against the interest of the nation in favor of those links, because it shows the need for (a) removal of such politicians from office and (b) the need for campaign finance reform.
If we want the government to act in the interests of the common man, then we need common men in charge. It really is that simple. There are so many smart, honest, trustworthy people out there in our great country that will never have a chance to lead simply because of their circumstances.
And the onus is on us. We technically are still in control; it's just a matter how how and if we act on it.
Obama's thuggery is useless in fighting spill | Washington Examiner
Finding links between politicians and people who give those politicians money is always intriguing to me, especially when those links seem to influence policy to go against the interest of the nation in favor of those links, because it shows the need for (a) removal of such politicians from office and (b) the need for campaign finance reform.
If we want the government to act in the interests of the common man, then we need common men in charge. It really is that simple. There are so many smart, honest, trustworthy people out there in our great country that will never have a chance to lead simply because of their circumstances.
And the onus is on us. We technically are still in control; it's just a matter how how and if we act on it.
Obama's thuggery is useless in fighting spill | Washington Examiner
Sunday, June 20, 2010
The Intolerance of the Left, Part XXI
This is a well written story about a man who does not agree with liberal policy, so he put up a sign.
Unlike so many similar stories, this one does not try to paint the man as a rabid Republican or white supremacist, just a hardworking man with a valid opinion.
However, people who disagree with him lit his sign on fire, twice, as well as his farmhouse. The story does not say how the police came to the conclusion that it was political beliefs that brought the arson incidents, versus a general firebug, but such reaction from the left is all too common. From book signings to college auditoriums to street corners, conservatives are repeatedly shut down by the left.
Ask Karl Rove, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh how polite liberals are when faced with speech they disagree with.
It seems that the people preaching tolerance the loudest are the most intolerant; the ones who cry the most about civil liberties are the first ones to take them away from others.
Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire - KansasCity.com
Unlike so many similar stories, this one does not try to paint the man as a rabid Republican or white supremacist, just a hardworking man with a valid opinion.
However, people who disagree with him lit his sign on fire, twice, as well as his farmhouse. The story does not say how the police came to the conclusion that it was political beliefs that brought the arson incidents, versus a general firebug, but such reaction from the left is all too common. From book signings to college auditoriums to street corners, conservatives are repeatedly shut down by the left.
Ask Karl Rove, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh how polite liberals are when faced with speech they disagree with.
It seems that the people preaching tolerance the loudest are the most intolerant; the ones who cry the most about civil liberties are the first ones to take them away from others.
Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire - KansasCity.com
Monday, April 26, 2010
Obama Wants You -- Unless You're a White Male
Facing growing opposition from surveyed Americans, President Obama and the Democratic machine are gearing up for the 2010 elections, with Obama calling for the votes of the "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008," even as new polls reveal growing displeasure for the administration's "accomplishments."
The Democratic National Committee Monday released a video clip of Obama touting the administration's achievements in health care reform and economic recovery, urging the first-time voters recruited in the 2008 election to return to the polls to fight those who, Obama says, are looking to "put their allies back in power" -- "insurance companies, Wall Street banks and special interests."
With immigration, health care and government spending to be among the top issues in upcoming elections, new poll results seem to show disconnect between the administration and the American public, however.
According to national survey results released Monday by Rasmussen Reports, 58 percent of those surveyed favor repealing the hastily-passed health care reform bill, with only 38 percent against repeal. While Obama's video told viewers of the progress being made to improve conditions in the country, the poll found that, overall, 52 percent of respondents feel the current health care reform bill will be bad for the country, with only 39 percent feeling it will be good.
It comes as no surprise that the Obama administration is looking for the so-called "surge" voters from 2008 to reappear in 2010: Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Monday showed only 29 percent of voters strongly approve of the way the administration is performing, versus 41 percent who strongly disapprove. Generally, according to the poll, 47 percent somewhat approve of the job the president is doing, while 52 percent disapprove.
The largest demonstration of disapproval seems to be coming from tea party activists, a movement growing in power throughout the country. While mass protests have sprung up in major cities across the nation, drawing thousands of supporters, the movement has been vilified by congressional Democrats, liberal talk show hosts and mainstream news outlets for its supposed lack of black and Latino participants, which, when coupled with Obama's specific call to those groups for support, suggests that dividing the country through race and ethnicity may be the administration's only viable strategy when policy alone cannot garner enough support to keep Democrats in power.
The Democratic National Committee Monday released a video clip of Obama touting the administration's achievements in health care reform and economic recovery, urging the first-time voters recruited in the 2008 election to return to the polls to fight those who, Obama says, are looking to "put their allies back in power" -- "insurance companies, Wall Street banks and special interests."
With immigration, health care and government spending to be among the top issues in upcoming elections, new poll results seem to show disconnect between the administration and the American public, however.
According to national survey results released Monday by Rasmussen Reports, 58 percent of those surveyed favor repealing the hastily-passed health care reform bill, with only 38 percent against repeal. While Obama's video told viewers of the progress being made to improve conditions in the country, the poll found that, overall, 52 percent of respondents feel the current health care reform bill will be bad for the country, with only 39 percent feeling it will be good.
It comes as no surprise that the Obama administration is looking for the so-called "surge" voters from 2008 to reappear in 2010: Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Monday showed only 29 percent of voters strongly approve of the way the administration is performing, versus 41 percent who strongly disapprove. Generally, according to the poll, 47 percent somewhat approve of the job the president is doing, while 52 percent disapprove.
The largest demonstration of disapproval seems to be coming from tea party activists, a movement growing in power throughout the country. While mass protests have sprung up in major cities across the nation, drawing thousands of supporters, the movement has been vilified by congressional Democrats, liberal talk show hosts and mainstream news outlets for its supposed lack of black and Latino participants, which, when coupled with Obama's specific call to those groups for support, suggests that dividing the country through race and ethnicity may be the administration's only viable strategy when policy alone cannot garner enough support to keep Democrats in power.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
He Who Shall Not Be Named (Quiet Terrorism)
So, the Comedy Central show "South Park," an animated show that mocks celebrities, religion, politics and pop culture, has been censored by the network after receiving death threats from an Islamic group.
The show's creators are no longer allowed to say "Muhammad" or to depict him in any form, including the simple insinuation that he might be in a disguise -- so they can't show a cardboard box if they say that he might be in the box.
So you know, one of the show's recurring characters is Jesus Christ; Saddam Hussein is Satan's gay lover; Barbra Streisand is a 200-foot-tall robotic Godzilla-like creature; and the school's black chef has a cookie recipe for "chocolate salty balls."
One of the main characters is constantly harangued for being Jewish, while the schoolteacher has a gay bondage-slave lover, fittingly named "Mr. Slave," who actually is a very nice guy.
Paris Hilton was featured in a "whore-off" contest, Sally Struthers is a Jabba the Hutt character who steals food from starving African children, one of which is named "Starvin' Marvin."
And yet the show, which not only aired an episode based entirely on how many times the characters could utter the word "shit" but also brought the insult "douche" into the mainstream, is not allowed to do anything that could offend fanatical, violent Islamic terrorists.
There are episodes mocking gingers, the mentally retarded, alcoholics and addicts, Scientologists, illegal aliens, gays, priests, cops ... but Muslims are now off-limits.
Why?
The answer is frighteningly simple: Because followers of the so-called "religion of peace" answer anything they dislike with the threat of violence and murder, and they have proven the threats credible, as in the case of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad.
Every freedom we enjoy in America, and in other countries, seems not to apply if Muslims say it does not. Parker and Stone have the freedom to say what they want on their show -- unless the Muslims object. Van Gogh was free to make any film he wanted, until the Muslims decided against that. Newspapers were free to print editorial cartoons about any topic they wished, until violent Muslims threatened editors with death.
We think of terrorism as an event -- a bombing or a 9/11-style suicide mission. But this Muslim censorship is the epitome of terrorism, when one lives in a state of fear, modifying freedoms so as to avoid becoming a target of the fanatics.
Our government is far too silent on the subject, out of fear as well. Presidents and politicians will warn of American extremists from the far left or far right, from anarchistic groups to supremacy groups, but they refuse to confront the extremists that actually act upon their threats.
The the war on terrorism is no longer in Afghanistan or Iraq or Israel, it is here on our soil. When free people lose freedoms because of the threat of violence from one group, we are no longer free; we are only as free as the radical Muslims allow us to be.
How long will it be before a non-Muslim country sees neighborhoods under Muslim control? When "free" citizens of an American or British city are given the choice to follow Muslim law or be killed, what will happen?
Muslims long ago declared jihad, holy war, against America and non-Muslims; unfortunately we seemingly refuse to believe them. Our greatest asset, our compassion and understanding for every type of human, may prove to be our biggest weakness.
The show's creators are no longer allowed to say "Muhammad" or to depict him in any form, including the simple insinuation that he might be in a disguise -- so they can't show a cardboard box if they say that he might be in the box.
So you know, one of the show's recurring characters is Jesus Christ; Saddam Hussein is Satan's gay lover; Barbra Streisand is a 200-foot-tall robotic Godzilla-like creature; and the school's black chef has a cookie recipe for "chocolate salty balls."
One of the main characters is constantly harangued for being Jewish, while the schoolteacher has a gay bondage-slave lover, fittingly named "Mr. Slave," who actually is a very nice guy.
Paris Hilton was featured in a "whore-off" contest, Sally Struthers is a Jabba the Hutt character who steals food from starving African children, one of which is named "Starvin' Marvin."
And yet the show, which not only aired an episode based entirely on how many times the characters could utter the word "shit" but also brought the insult "douche" into the mainstream, is not allowed to do anything that could offend fanatical, violent Islamic terrorists.
There are episodes mocking gingers, the mentally retarded, alcoholics and addicts, Scientologists, illegal aliens, gays, priests, cops ... but Muslims are now off-limits.
Why?
The answer is frighteningly simple: Because followers of the so-called "religion of peace" answer anything they dislike with the threat of violence and murder, and they have proven the threats credible, as in the case of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad.
Every freedom we enjoy in America, and in other countries, seems not to apply if Muslims say it does not. Parker and Stone have the freedom to say what they want on their show -- unless the Muslims object. Van Gogh was free to make any film he wanted, until the Muslims decided against that. Newspapers were free to print editorial cartoons about any topic they wished, until violent Muslims threatened editors with death.
We think of terrorism as an event -- a bombing or a 9/11-style suicide mission. But this Muslim censorship is the epitome of terrorism, when one lives in a state of fear, modifying freedoms so as to avoid becoming a target of the fanatics.
Our government is far too silent on the subject, out of fear as well. Presidents and politicians will warn of American extremists from the far left or far right, from anarchistic groups to supremacy groups, but they refuse to confront the extremists that actually act upon their threats.
The the war on terrorism is no longer in Afghanistan or Iraq or Israel, it is here on our soil. When free people lose freedoms because of the threat of violence from one group, we are no longer free; we are only as free as the radical Muslims allow us to be.
How long will it be before a non-Muslim country sees neighborhoods under Muslim control? When "free" citizens of an American or British city are given the choice to follow Muslim law or be killed, what will happen?
Muslims long ago declared jihad, holy war, against America and non-Muslims; unfortunately we seemingly refuse to believe them. Our greatest asset, our compassion and understanding for every type of human, may prove to be our biggest weakness.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
A Must-Read for Blumenthal Fans -- and Foes
Here's a great Times story about Conn. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's Senate quest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/nyregion/15blumenthal.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/nyregion/15blumenthal.html
Buying Booze for the Bums
Taxpayers foot State Department's stiff liquor bill - Washington Times
This is not a new problem, as the article states. My question is, why do we keep giving the thieves in Washington more of our money?
On this Tax Day, ask yourself what would happen if no one paid.
Would the government -- could it -- find and prosecute everyone?
We need representatives that know how a person lives when there is a money shortage.
This is not a new problem, as the article states. My question is, why do we keep giving the thieves in Washington more of our money?
On this Tax Day, ask yourself what would happen if no one paid.
Would the government -- could it -- find and prosecute everyone?
We need representatives that know how a person lives when there is a money shortage.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
More to Come
I haven't posted anything on this blog in a while.
I got tired of people at work reading it and then harassing me about it, from my social views to my religious beliefs.
It seems that, no matter how loudly liberals call for tolerance of every deviation under the sun, the only things they find deplorable are conservatives and Christians.
Yes, I'm a straight, white, conservative Christian male. I believe in honesty, hard work and responsibility. The posts that are to come will reflect such beliefs.
I do not believe in political correctness, and I cherish my right as an American to have my own opinion. I welcome comments and dialogue. But be warned --I like to argue.
I got tired of people at work reading it and then harassing me about it, from my social views to my religious beliefs.
It seems that, no matter how loudly liberals call for tolerance of every deviation under the sun, the only things they find deplorable are conservatives and Christians.
Yes, I'm a straight, white, conservative Christian male. I believe in honesty, hard work and responsibility. The posts that are to come will reflect such beliefs.
I do not believe in political correctness, and I cherish my right as an American to have my own opinion. I welcome comments and dialogue. But be warned --I like to argue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)