Roger Ebert Sinks To Liberal Depths, Comes Up With The Bends.

Ebert's new litmus test for "crimes against America" is "silence" if you fail to wail and flog yourself Ashura-style when he claps his fat. If that's the case, I wonder if he'll apply it to certain religious communities who are eerily silent when cartoonists have Somali nutcases attack them with hatchets...

What happens when you go down the liberal rabbit hole too far? You turn into angry, deranged malcontents like Roger Ebert and John Cusack. Most liberals venture though a few Alice in Wonderland type doorways of progressivism, partake in some weird sexual acts, experiments with drugs, and economic absurdity—enough so, that when they resurface and interact with the real world, they come across as naive-but-well-intentioned public policy clowns.

Roger Ebert? He’s went to the liberal depths of the earth without adequate scuba gear, came up too fast, and the bends did some weird things to his mind. As it stands, he only gets excited for movies like The Woodsman, and heroes like Hit Girl scare him. He also calls it a “crime against America” for radio hosts and pundits to ignore…a non issue:

Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh must join, or let their silence indict them. Limbaugh in particular must cease his innuendos and say, flat out, whether he believes the President is a Muslim or not. Yes or no. Does he have evidence, or does he have none? Yes or no.

To do anything less at this troubled time in our history would be a crime against America.

Rush Limbaugh doesn’t think Barack Obama is a Muslim. However, it’s completely legitimate to wonder about someone who thinks dialogue is possible with Holocaust denying loons like Ahmadinejad.  And it’s very rational to have concerns about a president who essentially goes on an American apology tour to start off his term.  Anyone who remembers when President Obama said “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism,” understands why conservatives question his judgement.  American Exceptionalism is REAL, and President Obama openly stated that he doesn’t believe in it. That’s scary.

But back to the point: The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators weren’t flying airlines filled to the brim with jet fuel into large metropolitan areas. The last time I checked they weren’t threatening to kill the creators of South Park or Facebook over the jihad excuse de jour. And the last time I checked they weren’t advocates of stoning.

With that said, there is one group of people who are largely silent when it comes to real, concrete, in-your-face instances of “crimes against America.” If Roger Ebert wants to play that game, I’m more than happy to do so while ignoring the nuances of the real world. If “silence” is now an indictment for conservative talk show hosts who don’t wail and moan and beat themselves with chains, Ashura-style, when Roger Ebert claps his fat, then I suggest applying that logic to all religious communities that have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fans within their ranks.

Roger Ebert may not be a supporter of George Bush, but I am. And always will be.  When it came to protecting the United States in the face of danger, he was crystal clear where he stood.  He was a man of integrity. You may not agree with George Bush on a number of fronts, but anyone who hasn’t delved too far down the rabbit hole knows he’s a man of conviction.

Roger, if you’re reading this, I’ll let you go. I know you have an appointment to watch The Woodsman again, and perhaps to stew over the state of the world some more.



The Kilmeade Doctrine: Unwittingly Dancing with Devils.

Glenn Beck is spot on, and Brian

Brian wants to turn the Constitution into toilet paper to wipe a little shahzad away. Too bad much more might get flushed with it. Stop smiling like Marvel's Mephisto, Brian. You're scaring me.

Kilmeade shows us that he doesn’t even realize he has an incredibly scary side. At a minimum, this is why sports guys are not constitutional lawyers…

Beck: “He’s a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and The Constitution on citizens.”

Kilmeade: “He’s a threat to the country, that’s different.”

Beck: “So are a lot of citizens of the country…he has all of the rights under the Constitution.”

Kilmade: “How about he tried to blow up a city block in the last 48 hours?”

Beck: “We don’t shred the Constitution when it is popular. You do the right thing.”

Kilmeade: “If he knows information that can wipe out some of your friends and family, you don’t want that?”

Brian Kilmeade should be ashamed of himself for resorting to purely emotional drivel to try and convince people that it’s okay to suspend the rights granted to US citizens when it’s politically expedient.

But it’s okay, Brian, because Joey Liebs is on board with stripping US citizenship from those who sip from the al Qaeda crazy juice too!

Perhaps I’m wrong, but shouldn’t we just charge inadvertent Islamic Terrorist Candid Camera participant Faisal Shahzad with terrorism and then if convicted…ummm—kill him? Brian Kilmeade’s attempt to portray Glenn Beck as a heartless fool who would rather see his friends and family die instead of getting actionable intelligence out of terrorist is the kind of intellectual bilge Janeane Garofalo would pull. If you watch the video you can almost see the condescension. And that’s sad, because that’s the sort of thing I expect from Keith ““Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist” Olbermann.

I can completely understand the urge to beat the Shahzad out of Shahzad in order to get information that would lead to the arrest of other terrorists and jihad-sympathizing bottom feeders. Perhaps doing so would even result in the apprehension of an Adam Gadahn or two or three…(who, again, I wouldn’t mind being tried for treason and executed if convicted).

However, the long-term threat to the nation by being able to strip US citizens of the rights afforded to them by the Constitution because they’re deemed a terrorist, far outweighs any short-term gains The Kilmeade Doctrine would provide.

We live in a world where the left is itching to tar Tea Party participants terrorists, (i.e., YOU). Because of this, I think it’s time to reflect on the wisdom of Friedrich Hayek:

“The very magnitude of the outrages committed by the National Socialists has strengthened the assurance that a totalitarian system cannot happen here. But let us remember that 15 years ago the possibility of such a thing happening in Germany would have appeared just as fantastic not only to nine-tenths of the Germans themselves, but also to the most hostile foreign observer,” (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom).

If you don’t think the United States could fall victim to the same totalitarian nightmare that has engulfed most of the world throughout its history, you haven’t studied history.  Granted, I think such forces would have one heck of a fight on their hands after having seen the Tea Party activists in action…but it’s still something that is a very real, very plausible threat. I’m not keen on giving a group of Congressmen intent on creating a Nanny State on Moral Relativist Steroids the power to strip anyone of their rights as a US citizen.

I’m sure that some of my regular readers are irate with me right now, but I can’t help it. I look at a world filled with Neal Gabler Moral Relativist Mole Men and I know that when they’re in power, things get dicey. And The Kilmeade Doctrine would only tease out the worst—not just in them—but all men.

Convince me otherwise. I’m open to intelligent arguments.