What, you didn’t know they could be beyond the pale sometimes, too?

This is like…a “worst ever” list. But only penciled-in. In very light pencil. I know I’ll recall other examples, later on, richly deserving of being added in.

1. President (at the time) William Jefferson Clinton, May 1, 1993: “Did you like the way [Rush Limbaugh] took up for Janet Reno the other night on his program? He only did it because she was attacked by a black guy.”

2. Joe Biden:

“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent. I’m not joking.”

No, nobody really is too sure what he was trying to say there. But it couldn’t have been anything good.

3. I’m not entirely sure what the intended point is here, either.

4. Colbert…

5. Maher, who yeah I know, is probably not a democrat…whatever. He’s a left-wing dipwad. And I know he was trying to be poignant, not necessarily funny, but it makes the cut. It showed off what filth and ugliness was between his ears back then — and is still there now as far as I’m concerned.

The world needs to be reminded.

We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.

6. Via Rick, we learn of this innovative way some guy named “Smooshie” has of letting us know he (or she) is not a Palin fan:

7. That Bush assassination film…

Just trying to get a clear idea here where the boundaries are. I keep hearing about how McCain, Palin, and some of the folks who appear at McCain’s rallies are “over the line.” So there’s a line somewhere. You figure out where it is, you let me know. M’kay?

Also, as you can infer from the footage in a previous post, it is near-undeniable that Obama’s getting some votes from people who don’t give a rat’s ass what he’s going to do once he’s our next President. They just, as the cliche goes, “want to be a part of this thing.” I guess if you vote for The Chosen One it just goes to prove you’re a Good Person^TM.

Well you know, it’s a funny thing about people.

They have a pressing, urgent need to “prove” things that they know aren’t really true. Really. If you’re strong, confident, sure of your own good character, and you see that donating to a worthy cause will support some principles in which you really believe and help out people you think are deserving of it…you aren’t going to be talking about it too much. You’ll start bragging about it when you don’t really believe in your own little gimmick — and its value to you exists in the capability it has to fool people into perceiving altruistic motives within you that you don’t really have.

Some democrats, it should be noted, are really decent people.

They just don’t understand that much what our country’s history is with enacting certain policies, and getting results from them that fall short of — or directly contradict — what was intended.

But there’s a lot of democrats that aren’t decent people at all. They’re hideous monsters. They need their gimmicks, to fool people into perceiving altruistic motives about ’em that they don’t really have. And when they go grasping for “humor” to show off what good people they are, sometimes that ugliness comes out.

That explains why they do it. Why the rest of us let ’em get away with it, is something I’m going to have to have explained to me by someone who understands better.

Don’t miss Michelle Malkin’s roundup. It’s got more examples than you think.

H/T: Jammie Wearing Fool, via Cas.

There are several reasons why, already. This one is just icing on the cake, but all by itself it would be sufficient cause: They are not held to standards. Of any kind. Ethical, character, effectiveness, purity of motive…”truthiness”…sanity.

Seriously. Republicans are bludgeoned into stepping down because of teaspons of scandal, while democrats regularly imbibe gallons and barrels of the same stuff and manage to limp onward. It’s become such a regular event nobody bats an eyelash over it anymore.

The latest factor is that last one in my list, the sanity. The lack thereof. The becoming “unhinged.” Things are expected of conservatives that are not being expected of our liberals — but what else is news?

Leftist hypocrisy and the championing of same by the media

Glenn Reynolds, with brevity and brilliance:

So we’ve had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers’ bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it’s a sign that anger is out of control in American politics? It’s nice of McCain to try to tamp that down, and James Taranto sounds a proper cautionary note — but, please, can we also note the staggering level of hypocrisy here? (And that’s before we get to the Obama campaign’s thuggish tactics aimed at silencing critics.)

The Angry Left has gotten away with all sorts of beyond-the-pale behavior throughout the Bush Administration. The double standards involved — particularly on the part of the press — are what are feeding this anger. (Indeed, as Ann Althouse and John Leo have noted, the reporting on this very issue is dubious). So while asking for McCain supporters to chill a bit, can we also ask the press to start doing its job rather than openly shilling for a Democratic victory? Self-control is for everybody, if it’s for anybody…

Blogger pal Rick goes on to observe, with linky goodness…

I continue to see the ignoring of Barack Obama’s past associations while those same people unashamedly focus on Sarah Palin’s.
:
It’s enough to set anyone’s teeth on edge and yet, no matter how upset or angry I might get, you’ll not see me wishing for the kinds of things the left have wished on Bush and Cheney now for the better part of 8 years.

Conservatives are simply tethered to a shorter leash. Liberals want it that way, so we give ’em what they want and then call it balanced thinking.

You know how we get here? The ripcord that puts all this machinery in motion, is an elite group claiming an exclusive privilege to whine. The feminists got it going first. Thirty years ago, they “backlashed” against any mens’-rights advocate by broadbrushing any objections to the radical feminist movement, as “whining.” They asked men to be intimidated by accusations of whining…men, not wanting to be accused of whining, complied. Now it’s three decades later. The feminist movement fails sometimes, succeeds at other times, but throughout it all nobody who possesses a high profile or a reputation worth defending, will ever call them out on their crap.

And so — if you’re getting divorced and you’re a dude, you can lose custody of your kids just for…nothing. Heck, you should want to lose custody of your kids because “kids are better off with the mother.” But if you’re a chick, you have to be engaging in some pretty hard drugs to lose custody of your kids. It’s about the most uneven playing field our society has, and it’s still going strong. Shows no signs of leveling out…not soon…not in my lifetime…not ever.

Who can blame liberal democrats for wanting to try the same thing?

And so conservative Republicans, if they dare utter a peep of protest about how things are getting covered in the media, are “whining.” Therefore any double standard that comes down the pike is allowed to stand. Oh sure, it’s criticized here-and-there in the “blogosphere” but by and large, the double standard survives unscathed. And so, a conservative Republican politician cheating on his wife is a scandal, potentially a career-ending one. Probably a career-ending one. Liberal democrats can cheat all they want…they get a scandal, maybe…they act like they’re suffering…but at the end of it their approval numbers go up.

The same goes for being unhinged. Some group comes out with a death threat, and suddenly we have to wring our hands together and indulge in platitudinous bullshit about “well, we don’t know for sure that’s connected with the Obama campaign…” Do we behave the same when someone, somewhere, says something “beyond the pale” about a democrat candidate? No, we don’t. Republicans have to apologize for everything, everywhere, all the time. It’s all connected together by implication.

My favorite example: George W. Bush’s campaign, and specifically Karl Rove, was behind this rumor that John McCain conceived a black child out of wedlock. So far as I’ve come to be aware, nobody knows about that. One way or t’other. In 2008, that is being reported as a fact, that the Bush campaign was behind it.

Somebody does something ugly to advance the liberal-democrat cause, and all of a sudden nothing is connected to anything else.

They are standard-less. They are no-accounts. What may be even worse is, they are no-accounts because that is what they want to be. What may be even worse than that is…they want to be unaccountable, because they want to win. And they say so little about what it is they want to do after they win.

We should just fire every single one right now, just for being one. In a country that prides itself on holding powerful public officials up to high standards — that was founded on the principle that it should do this, always, all the time, unrelentingly — they simply have no place here.

Thing I Know #237. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between being held accountable to a higher standard, which is an act of love, and being staked to the ground by a shorter leash, which is an act of hate. There aren’t too many ways to distinguish these things. I do know of one: Love is reserved for individuals. A class can’t be loved.

Interesting article linked by Boortz: All these shrewd strategists who’ll move mountains to get The Chosen One elected, have been monitoring the effectiveness of this talking point in which McCain would be just another term for George Bush.

And it ain’t workin’.

The biggest arrow in the Democrats’ quiver is cut from an old, wooden meme that asks Americans to transfer their visceral hatred of President George W. Bush onto John McCain. If there’s a way to link the Arizona senator to the lame duck president, you better believe the Democrats have thought of it. Voting record? Bush and McCain agree ninety percent of the time. Economic issues? Just “more of the same.” Those adoring hugs between McCain and the president? They’re the kicker of every Obama ad.

But so much for that. After four months of stagnating and ultimately drooping support for Barack Obama among the anti-Bush independents, it’s time to concede that the strategy isn’t working. More than half the country considers McCain a legitimate “agent of change,” according to a September Gallup poll. In key blocs such as independents and Americans making more than $75,000, he’s tied with Obama within the margin of error.

How can Americans consider McCain an agent of change when Democrats keep reminding them that he’s just like President Bush? To amend a line from Obama’s convention speech: It’s not because Americans don’t get it; it’s because average American doesn’t care.

By the way, it appears in that hardcore right-wing Bush-bot redneck publication — The Atlantic. Heh.

Know what I think? They’ve been burned by their own poorly worded poll questions. Do you agree with President Bush’s performance/policies. Know what? I’m among the majority in that…I’m going to answer toward the negative. That whole bit with illegal aliens doing the work Americans won’t do, will go down in history as one of the dumbest sound bites ever uttered by anyone in high office, anywhere, anytime.

But I agree with every single word blogger friend Buck wrote on 9/11:

God Bless America, and God Bless and Keep President Bush. We owe many for the fact these United States have not been attacked in the seven years since 9/11/2001, but of all those whom we owe a debt of gratitude and thanks… there are none more deserving than the president. History will vindicate him and the actions he has taken in the face of incredible opposition over these past seven years… and future generations will honor him in the manner he deserves. It can’t come soon enough, in my eyes.

He speaks for me. And yet — you ask me if the country is headed in the right direction, I’m gonna give as my answer a big fat NO. We’re not building a wall to keep the illegal aliens out, and we’re spending too much money.

But when you compare McCain to Bush, the first thing that pops into my head is truckloads of crispy fried smokin’ terrorists bodies.

I’m alone in this dichotomy? Really? Apparently not. Actually, I’m sorry the left-wingers finally caught on. Don’t know why I’m posting it here. I’m glad nobody really reads this blog.

To caboosify something is to kill something off, slowly, while lying about your intentions. This is accomplished by consistently and steadfastly insisting that other things be prioritized in front of it — by establishing a moral code that nothing is ever to take a back seat to your designated target. In this way, you starve it to death without taking responsibility for doing so.

Via Rick, we have our latest example: The liberal who “questions” — read that, as “denies” — McCain’s campaign slogan of “Country First.” With a phony halo shimmering over his head, the pious liberal makes his innocent rhetorical query, phony eyelashes batting over his phony dinner-plate-sized eyeballs…our “country” should come in somewhere behind God, shouldn’t it?

First up, Mike Todd:

As followers of Jesus, we should not and cannot put country first. Our allegiance is to the King and the Kingdom, not the president and the country.

…

As a believer my God comes first. Then, I would suggest comes family and/or community, depending on whether or not you view those two terms as separate or not. After that might come country.

Then comes Mike’s hero, Jim Wallis, my favorite pretender:

Should country be put ahead of faith, too? I kept wanting to yell back at the people yelling at me about putting the country first and say, “No, not me, I’m a Christian.” Because we as Christians simply can’t put our country first, ahead of God, ahead of Jesus Christ, ahead of the body of Christ (remember the worldwide body of Christ), and even family and friendship. Especially when our country is wrong, and when most of the rest of the body of Christ around the world thinks so.

It’s a big ol’ plate of bovine feces and I’m having absolutely none of it at all:

This is NOT about which comes first. And I can prove it: These “God Before Country” liberals are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the secular types who want to expunge any tincture of recognition of any Higher Power from anything in public view…e.g., Moses from the Supreme Court building; any facsimile of the Ten Commandments within; “In God We Trust” from our money.

If it was really all about “God Before Country” there would be at least the hint of some schism within the left-wing side, about whether such an exuberant and energized campaign of sanitization is appropriate. Or, if it’s appropriate, whether it should be made a priority. There is no such schism so far as I can see. So ends the “Which Comes First?” argument. It’s a phony charade, nothing more.

No, the Todd/Wallis camp is just proving Ann Coulter correct. Maybe that’s the proper rejoinder — hey, you just proved Ann Coulter right.

Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position.

It isn’t about prioritization; it’s about destruction, plain and simple. Prioritization is just the excuse.

Alice The Camel has been noticing what I’ve noticed, but she found a much more eloquent way of pointing it out. You know what they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Here’s two thousand fourteen words.

If your internet connection will handle it, try turning both clips on at once…

My wireless connection was up to the task, and the effect was spectacular.

What a funny god this liberal god must be. He went and made us…but he doesn’t believe we really exist until our mothers have completed the gestational process. Up until then we’re just tissue and we aren’t human yet. When we cross that vaginal finish line, we have a whole smorgasbord of “rights” which are ours even if they come at the expense of others who have also crossed the vaginal finish line — therefore, a right to property is not included in the smorgasbord. And then the smorgasbord of rights, where it needs definition, is defined by a crude, mob-rule majority of us — if fifty-one percent of us say something is so, it’s an obligation of the other forty-nine to convert or die; if they don’t do either one, then the fifty-one should follow ’em around screaming the words “the majority of” at the top of their longs, along with “kill kill kill.”

Most suspicious of all — this god doesn’t want us to do anything specific. He just wants us to “sacrifice” for the “greater good.”

But like I said, it’s a big sham. There is no god for these people. They want to destroy. Their “god” is simply an excuse — something to toss ahead of the caboose, so you can caboosify it properly, and starve it to death.

I hear Sarah Palin is a cynical pandering ploy, tossed out there to reach across and steal the identity-politic female votes from the democrats — and that it ISN’T GONNA WORK! And yet, someone must be worried; since she was announced as the pick, there are all these little tidbits about left-wingers finding some sort of “god.” How plain do things have to be? They want to convert the Christian-fundie types of folks into voting democrat; ooh, look at me, I’m a democrat, with my hair all polished and slicked to one side of my head, on my way to Sunday School with my Bible tucked under my arm. But listen to that guy identify the relationship between people and his god, as he closes the DNC convention. Think about that. Does this sound like a god who would bother to create people in the first place, as anything besides an exercise in simple entertainment?

They’re trying to believe in a god that made humans, without recognizing that humans might have a purpose in their existence. It is ultimately a train of thought customized for the mind easily distracted; it is a train of thought that would have to be abandoned. For if pursued too long, it is forced to contradict itself. Ultimately, it insists god is nothing more than a little boy with an ant farm, fiddling around with it, toward the fulfillment of no great, important or worthy objective. The little boy is pleased with the ants, or he is displeased with the ants — and our reason for being ends right there.

Update: I had made a mental note to work in Leslie’s link, which is Rev. C.J. Conner’s post addressing this, because I read it top to bottom and was favorably impressed. I got too carried away with my own thoughts and didn’t stick to my knitting.

One world view fosters a culture of service and love, the other a culture of entitlement and bitterness. One world view cultivates a culture of humility and graciousness, the other a culture of audacity and self-centered selfishness.

John McCain’s motto has become “Country First.” It occurs to me that sincere Christians will resonate with him because we put God first, and in putting God first we live our lives expressly for the purpose of serving our neighbor, our community, our country.

This is, the way I see it, a further indictment against the “doesn’t God come before country?” question. It’s a false question because it pre-supposes a mutually-exclusive incompatibility that may not exist, and if one accepts that Creation has a thread of consistency permeating throughout it, probably does not. God puts you on the plane of reality. God puts an object on the plane, within your line-of-sight. You look upon the object and jump to the conclusion that it doesn’t belong there, that God wants you to get rid of it, or to undertake the cleansing and purification that He somehow couldn’t work into His schedule, or perhaps forgot to scribble down into His day-timer in the first place — from where do you get this notion?

It’s not at all unlike your body making the incorrect decision to reject a transplant. Sure, you can argue that God gave you the body and the surgeon gave you the transplant…but God created the surgeon. In the same way, God created the country. Liberals seem to have it in common that they jump to the conclusion the country’s gone all bollywonkers, and it’s up to them as God’s children to reform it, and recruit the rest of us into helping them.

This stuff that the truly pious refer to as “humility,” might have a useful purpose in putting a damper on that kind of codswallop and nonsense. Maybe it’s time our liberals started practicing some of it.

I wanted to have a copy of this fable filed away, for my own purposes, in complete form. This is the best version I’ve seen so far.

The Foolish Old Man Removes the Mountains

The Taihang and Wangwu Mountains, which had a periphery of seven hundred li and were a hundred thousand feet high, originally lay south of Jizhou and north of Heyang.

The Foolish Old Man of the North Mountain, nearly ninety years of age, lived behind these mountains. He was unhappy about the fact that the mountains blocked his way to the south and he had to walk round them whenever he went our or came back, so he called the whole family together to talk about the matter. ” What would you say,” he said to them,”if I suggest that all of us work hard to level the two mountains, so as to open a way to places south of Yu Prefecture and the Han River?” Many voices said they agreed to the idea.

But his wife had her doubts. “With your strength,” she said, “you could hardly remove a small hill like Kuifu. What could you do with the Taihang and Wangwu Mountains? Besides, where could you deposit the earth and rocks.?”

“Carry them to the shores of the Bohai Sea and north of Yintu,” said several people.

The old man, helped by his son and grandson who could carry things, began to break rocks and dig earth, which they carried in baskets and dustbins to the shores of the Bohai Sea. The seven-year-old son of a widow named Jingcheng, one of the old man’s neighbours, came running up to offer his help. One trip to the sea took them a long time: they left in winter and came back in summer.

The Wise Old Man at the River Bend stopped the old man. He laughed and said, “How unwise you are! At your age, old and feeble as you are, you cannot even remove one hair on the mountain, let alone so much earth and so many rocks!”

The Foolish Old Man of the North Mountain heaved a long sign and said, “You are so conceited that you are blind to reason. Even a widow and a child know better than you. When I die, there will be my sons, who will have their sons and grandsons. Those grandsons will have their sons and grandsons, and so on to infinity. But the mountains will not grow. Why is it impossible to level them?” The Wise Old Man at the River Bend could not answer him.

The Old Man’s words were heard by a god with snakes in his hands. He was afraid that the old man would really level the two mountains, and reported the whole thing to the Heavenly God. Moved by the old man’s determination, the Heavenly God ordered the two sons of Kua’ershi to carry the two mountains on their backs and put one east of Shuo and the other south of Yong. After this, there were no more mountains between Jizhou and the Han River.

from Lie zi (Writings of Lie Yu Kou)

This is the essence of modern liberalism: Sacrifice your individual hopes, dreams, ambitions, and visions of yourself, for the sake of joining some vast dynasty laboring endlessly toward some goal that will not be visible in your lifetime. Become ant-like.

It’s the essence of communism as well. That isn’t my opinion, it’s a hard fact. As I pointed out in passing a month ago on Cassy’s blog, it was noted in a speech given by Mao-Tse Tung in 1945 to Seventh National Congress.

There is an ancient Chinese fable called “The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains”. It tells of an old man who lived in northern China long, long ago and was known as the Foolish Old Man of North Mountain. His house faced south and beyond his doorway stood the two great peaks, Taihang and Wangwu, obstructing the way. He called his sons, and hoe in hand they began to dig up these mountains with great determination. Another graybeard, known as the Wise Old Man, saw them and said derisively, “How silly of you to do this! It is quite impossible for you few to dig up those two huge mountains.” The Foolish Old Man replied, “When I die, my sons will carry on; when they die, there will be my grandsons, and then their sons and grandsons, and so on to infinity. High as they are, the mountains cannot grow any higher and with every bit we dig, they will be that much lower. Why can’t we clear them away?” Having refuted the Wise Old Man’s wrong view, he went on digging every day, unshaken in his conviction. God was moved by this, and he sent down two angels, who carried the mountains away on their backs. Today, two big mountains lie like a dead weight on the Chinese people. One is imperialism, the other is feudalism. The Chinese Communist Party has long made up its mind to dig them up. We must persevere and work unceasingly, and we, too, will touch God’s heart. Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?

What’s awkward about this fable is the ending. It would be a much better recruitment tool for communism if that part were left out, for as it is, the old man does not reproduce recursively into an unforeseeable future with quasi-infinite numbers of descendants laboring away at the mountains one bucket at a time. The angels take care of everything!

There is a real weakness there, for it creates an ambiguity about how things are supposed to be getting done. And this affects our modern liberals, it seems to me. What exactly are they trying to do? To achieve, on a secular plane of existence, a mighty goal through incrementalism? Or to tug at the heartstrings of some deity who will then plunge in and get ‘er done, so they can stop working? Some combination of those two, perhaps?

Our liberals themselves don’t seem to know for sure. If the goal is to work entirely within the secular plane of existence and toil away at Plan A the way the Foolish Old Man said — it really wouldn’t matter whether these bucket carriers are good people or bad people, would it? Racists, sexists…whatever. As long as they’re slinging away at those buckets.

But our liberals are engaged in a constant endeavor, often needlessly, of declaring this guy good and that other guy inferior. That guy has expressed doubts about evolution. That other guy doesn’t believe in global warming. This one was a fighter pilot who dropped bombs on people. And she is a traitor to her own sex who doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose…

…it’s as if they’re showing off for some deity. It’s as if they’re going for Plan B, waiting for those angels to pick up the mountains. Which, of course, could only arouse their passions if they had exhausted all optimism about Plan A.

…and Don Fowler cackles with glee.