Numerous Obamaniacs faulted former President Bush for engaging America's enemies militarily instead of diplomatically. They believed that if only their Messiah had the opportunity to speak to hostile nations and their leaders, then peace, prosperity and utopia would soon follow. Recent events have demonstrated the folly of believing conversations will end anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and terrorism.
Obama strode into the Summit of the Americas with the self-assurance of an actor on the red carpet of the Oscars, anticipating his impending plethora of awards and plaudits from the Academy. Apart from an opus of Ameriphobic rubbish from Hugo Chavez, a deceitful diatribe from Daniel Ortega and some empty rhetoric about political prisoners from Raul Castro, Obama left empty-handed. In fact, he lost the few remaining strands of his cloak of invincibility by his attendance. The phony Messiah revealed more glaringly his unwillingness to the defend the honor of the country that elected him. Additionally, his incapability of speaking without a script showed as he could only offer anemic responses to Ortega's "Blame the U.S.A. for Everything Wrong in Central America" speech. Even Obama's conversations with the Marxist leader of Venezuela resulted from Chavez slyly orchestrations to bolster his amount of time in front of the cameras, not Obama's efforts to take charge of the agenda of the Summit of the Americas and actually accomplish something of note.
At the recent United Nations' Summit on Racism, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again displayed his Islamic brand of lunacy. He reinforced his previously expressed delusions about the historical reality of the Nazis' efforts at genocide directed at the elimination of Jews. He blamed the U.S. and Western Europe for "occupying" a country referred to as "Palestine", which never existed prior to its invention as a part of a plot to deny the existence of Israel. Some people have suggested that Ahmadinejad only needs to see videos and photographs of the death camps; others have proposed his meeting with survivors. Clearly, this Islamist has fully stepped through the looking-glass so any view of reality would become so distorted beyond all recognition. So what could Obama utter that would enlighten this Jew-hating snake? Such a task would prove Herculean, even for the Messiah and his magical teleprompter.
While Obama' administration continues to exceed the ineptitude of the Carter Administration, his devotees continue to hope for change. They spin his every word and deed as obviously successful then point to the next opportunity to awe the enemies of liberty. Much like other adherents of Stalin, Mao and other demagogues, paradise lies always just around the corner, if only the lackeys continue to believe and submit to the party's agenda. Unfortunately, the pervasive Ameriphobia and threatening jihad will not cease by their warm and fuzzy fantasies.
21 April 2009
17 April 2009
Tea-ed off Critics
Since Wednesday, various leftist media members have taken swipes at the Tea Parties across the U.S.A. Unaccustomed to viewing protesters peacefully gathering instead of vandalizing businesses and battering opponents, the Lefties seemed confused initially. How could thousands of people congregate for an issue other than the corruption of marriage, the legal right to murder babies or the support of totalitarians bent on destroying capitalism and democracy? Quickly, they recovered to fire off tawdry remarks and dismissive comments.
On Keith Olbermann's show, Janeane Garofalo accused the protesters of "racism" because they demonstrated anti-Obamania yet she failed to indicate what was racist about their signs, statements, chants and so forth. One can only assume that she meant that any negativity directed toward Obama by Whites is inherently racist. Such an attitude shows her narrow-mindedness and cerebral atrophy. That explains her erroneous description of herself as an "actor". Is she betraying gender identity issues?
The clip of Susan Roesgen proselytizing to the protesters has widely circulated throughout the Internet. She bared her Obamania while attempting to argue with protesters in Chicago. At least she exposed less of herself on this occasion.
When she was at WDSU, New Orleans' NBC affiliate, in the 1990s, she was covering the parades on Fat Tuesday. One of her breasts was exposed through her costume while she was on camera. She may have bought into the urban legend that all women exhibit themselves during Carnival. She was so mortified that she left the day-long broadcast, ahead of public ridicule of her meager mammary.
Anderson Cooper, on his show, 360, stated, "It's hard to talk when you're teabagging" with the air of master of such activity. The glee on his face could have been viewed unaided from the moon. Finally, Cooper had the opportunity to discuss a hobby without outing himself publicly. Perhaps, in the future, Cooper will find another occasion to spout his insider's double entendres if another group of protesters uses fudge as a prop.
Keith Olbermann further justified his Outstanding TV Journalism Segment award from a homosexual alliance against criticism in March of this year. His proudly displayed his knowledge of teabagging, interspersing references to the practice throughout his rants. Considering Olbermann's apparent lack of testicles since he never invites any guests who disagree with him, one must assume that he has been on the receiving end in order to have acquired his plethora of expertise.
Rachel Maddow could not contain her revulsion at the whole topic of teabagging. Maybe she was simply upset about missing a women's softball league game in order to cover a bunch of capitalist-oriented protesters. She gave every indication that she would have preferred to slip into her finest flannel shirt and sandals then partake in some bearded clams. Sadly, she finds herself in that annual lull between the end of the NCAA women's basketball tournament and the season opener of the WNBA.
As much as the Lefties denigrated the Tea Parties, they fear the rise of an activist movement among Conservatives allied with Libertarians. The continued decline of the American economy and the rise of socialism touted by the Obama Administration and Democratically-controlled Congress will lead to change. However, it will not consist of the type demanded by Obamaniacs. Numerous heated Congressional races will occur, especially if entrenched incumbents receive credible challengers next year. By then, the American people will have discovered if these tea parties were only a one-time fad.
On Keith Olbermann's show, Janeane Garofalo accused the protesters of "racism" because they demonstrated anti-Obamania yet she failed to indicate what was racist about their signs, statements, chants and so forth. One can only assume that she meant that any negativity directed toward Obama by Whites is inherently racist. Such an attitude shows her narrow-mindedness and cerebral atrophy. That explains her erroneous description of herself as an "actor". Is she betraying gender identity issues?
The clip of Susan Roesgen proselytizing to the protesters has widely circulated throughout the Internet. She bared her Obamania while attempting to argue with protesters in Chicago. At least she exposed less of herself on this occasion.
When she was at WDSU, New Orleans' NBC affiliate, in the 1990s, she was covering the parades on Fat Tuesday. One of her breasts was exposed through her costume while she was on camera. She may have bought into the urban legend that all women exhibit themselves during Carnival. She was so mortified that she left the day-long broadcast, ahead of public ridicule of her meager mammary.
Anderson Cooper, on his show, 360, stated, "It's hard to talk when you're teabagging" with the air of master of such activity. The glee on his face could have been viewed unaided from the moon. Finally, Cooper had the opportunity to discuss a hobby without outing himself publicly. Perhaps, in the future, Cooper will find another occasion to spout his insider's double entendres if another group of protesters uses fudge as a prop.
Keith Olbermann further justified his Outstanding TV Journalism Segment award from a homosexual alliance against criticism in March of this year. His proudly displayed his knowledge of teabagging, interspersing references to the practice throughout his rants. Considering Olbermann's apparent lack of testicles since he never invites any guests who disagree with him, one must assume that he has been on the receiving end in order to have acquired his plethora of expertise.
Rachel Maddow could not contain her revulsion at the whole topic of teabagging. Maybe she was simply upset about missing a women's softball league game in order to cover a bunch of capitalist-oriented protesters. She gave every indication that she would have preferred to slip into her finest flannel shirt and sandals then partake in some bearded clams. Sadly, she finds herself in that annual lull between the end of the NCAA women's basketball tournament and the season opener of the WNBA.
As much as the Lefties denigrated the Tea Parties, they fear the rise of an activist movement among Conservatives allied with Libertarians. The continued decline of the American economy and the rise of socialism touted by the Obama Administration and Democratically-controlled Congress will lead to change. However, it will not consist of the type demanded by Obamaniacs. Numerous heated Congressional races will occur, especially if entrenched incumbents receive credible challengers next year. By then, the American people will have discovered if these tea parties were only a one-time fad.
07 April 2009
More Than a Bow
President Barrack Hussein Obama's obvious bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia at the G20 Summit has caused much discussion. His inner circle has denied what the video images clearly showed: a fully horizontal bending at the waist with his head down while standing in front of Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud. The Obamaniacs in the media and at-large attempted to downplay his act of submission as a mere sign of respect. They conveniently ignored the fact that he did not bow to the Queen of Great Britain. So one may conclude that Obama only respects absolute monarchs from totalitarian kingdoms. On the other hand, he may disdain monarchs who only perform ceremonial functions in an otherwise representative democracy.
The egregious display of kowtowing to the leader of particularly oppressive Islamic regime served as the most visible sign of Obama's latest endeavor. Obama's tour of Europe and the Middle East evidently comprise part of his challenge of former President Jimmy Carter's world record in the category of denigrating the United States in the most locations across the world. Granted, Obama has not quite reach Nobel Peace Prize standards for backstabbing. Nevertheless, he is on the verge of shattering this mark following his whirlwind tour of Ameriphobic strongholds.
Obama secured some halal points with Islamists and their useful idiots in Europe. Obama apologized for the U.S.A's toppling of a fascist regime in Iraq. He lamented the detainment of jihadis involved in violent attacks on Americans and others. His expressions of guilt for American supremacy in military and financial matters soothed the egos of Mohamadans and Marxists alike. His obfuscation of the inherent Islamic underpinning of terrorism yielded smiles of willful denial of reality. His intention to yield to their demands, no matter how detrimental to American security or economy, earned for him numerous rounds of applause and glowing media coverage.
Obama did let some scoring opportunities slip through his grasp. He failed to decry American influence with proliferation of fast-food restaurants around the world. He could have at least thrown rock through a window of a McDonald's location; Euro-trash tradition mandates this custom whenever a meeting involving financial matters occurs. He did not beg their pardon for their adolescents' obsession with music, films and television series written and produced by Americans. His omission of regret for the continued American indifference toward soccer stands out as another missed chance to add to the ledger of pusillanimity. His teleprompter will have to shoulder the blame for those since his cult of personality insists that he never commits any errors.
Since Obama needs another display of cravenness to solidify his grasp on the title of "Most Dhimmified Lackey of the Year", an obvious option has presented itself. The Somali jihadis engaging in piracy off the east coast of Africa could certainly use a bailout. The global economic recession has curtailed the number of ships loaded with goods for them to plunder. Of course, they would demand a Sharia-compliant, interest-free loan that would be eventually forgiven without ever paying back a penny.
This price to pay to please the Islamic Bloc will continue to grow expediently. In this case, it is the dignity and self-respect of the United States of America.
The egregious display of kowtowing to the leader of particularly oppressive Islamic regime served as the most visible sign of Obama's latest endeavor. Obama's tour of Europe and the Middle East evidently comprise part of his challenge of former President Jimmy Carter's world record in the category of denigrating the United States in the most locations across the world. Granted, Obama has not quite reach Nobel Peace Prize standards for backstabbing. Nevertheless, he is on the verge of shattering this mark following his whirlwind tour of Ameriphobic strongholds.
Obama secured some halal points with Islamists and their useful idiots in Europe. Obama apologized for the U.S.A's toppling of a fascist regime in Iraq. He lamented the detainment of jihadis involved in violent attacks on Americans and others. His expressions of guilt for American supremacy in military and financial matters soothed the egos of Mohamadans and Marxists alike. His obfuscation of the inherent Islamic underpinning of terrorism yielded smiles of willful denial of reality. His intention to yield to their demands, no matter how detrimental to American security or economy, earned for him numerous rounds of applause and glowing media coverage.
Obama did let some scoring opportunities slip through his grasp. He failed to decry American influence with proliferation of fast-food restaurants around the world. He could have at least thrown rock through a window of a McDonald's location; Euro-trash tradition mandates this custom whenever a meeting involving financial matters occurs. He did not beg their pardon for their adolescents' obsession with music, films and television series written and produced by Americans. His omission of regret for the continued American indifference toward soccer stands out as another missed chance to add to the ledger of pusillanimity. His teleprompter will have to shoulder the blame for those since his cult of personality insists that he never commits any errors.
Since Obama needs another display of cravenness to solidify his grasp on the title of "Most Dhimmified Lackey of the Year", an obvious option has presented itself. The Somali jihadis engaging in piracy off the east coast of Africa could certainly use a bailout. The global economic recession has curtailed the number of ships loaded with goods for them to plunder. Of course, they would demand a Sharia-compliant, interest-free loan that would be eventually forgiven without ever paying back a penny.
This price to pay to please the Islamic Bloc will continue to grow expediently. In this case, it is the dignity and self-respect of the United States of America.
02 April 2009
G20: A Microcosm of Maladies
Rarely does a confluence of all that threatens the Free World openly and shockingly display its true intentions. This week's G20 Summit has provided such an opportunity. The images of the dregs of Europe in the streets of London sufficiently offends the visual sensibilities; fortunately, given the aversion of these types to showering and usage of deodorant, smell-o-vision is not yet available.
Whenever a publicly announced conference involving economic matters takes place, Marxists eagerly gravitate to it like flies to freshly deposited feces. This meeting of the G20 was no exception. Socialists, Stalinists, Maoists, Leninists, Trotskyites, Liberation Theologists and the other sects of Marxists set aside their dogmatic differences for a brief interlude of obstructing traffic, smashing windows, screeching obscenities and additional forms of barbarism. They demanded "economic justice", a Newspeak term meaning "stealing from productive members of society without facing criminal prosecution". They decried "fascism", which they define as "refusal to continue to give them government-subsidized housing, free food allocations and checks for refusing to work". These groups claimed a right to even more money from the remaining productive citizens. This additional financial support will allow these professional leeches to continue their self-designated "important" tasks like destroying storefronts of McDonald's, Starbucks and other successful enterprises while complaining that greedy capitalists refuse to hire them.
Additionally, Islamists made their regular public expositions among the crowds. Their denouncements included the recurring targets of their rage: democracy, freedom of speech, Christianity, Israel, the Free World's defense of itself against jihadist attacks, women not hiding themselves under oppressively suffocating clothing and other un-Mohamadan concepts. They boasted about the impending end of the United Kingdom and its replacement by the new Caliphate. Then, they retired to their homes in the land that they vehemently condemn instead of returning to the Third World hellholes where their ideology reigns supreme.
Among the multitudes of sluggards engaging in mayhem in London, self-proclaimed anarchists appeared. The fact that those who claim to hate governmental regulations and societal limitations partnered with the groups of totalitarianists like Marxists and Islamists reeks of self-serving hypocrisy. Perhaps, the anarchists needed a few more hands to assist them in denying others the freedom to engage in legal commerce and walk the streets without being threatened or assaulted. How else are they supposed to demonstrate their desire for liberty?
Eventually, the accumulated mass of these parasites on the backs of the industrious people within British society will exceed their weight-bearing capacity. Then Atlas will shrug. The whole world will feel these tremors. At that point, will the other nations of the world heed the warning signs?
Whenever a publicly announced conference involving economic matters takes place, Marxists eagerly gravitate to it like flies to freshly deposited feces. This meeting of the G20 was no exception. Socialists, Stalinists, Maoists, Leninists, Trotskyites, Liberation Theologists and the other sects of Marxists set aside their dogmatic differences for a brief interlude of obstructing traffic, smashing windows, screeching obscenities and additional forms of barbarism. They demanded "economic justice", a Newspeak term meaning "stealing from productive members of society without facing criminal prosecution". They decried "fascism", which they define as "refusal to continue to give them government-subsidized housing, free food allocations and checks for refusing to work". These groups claimed a right to even more money from the remaining productive citizens. This additional financial support will allow these professional leeches to continue their self-designated "important" tasks like destroying storefronts of McDonald's, Starbucks and other successful enterprises while complaining that greedy capitalists refuse to hire them.
Additionally, Islamists made their regular public expositions among the crowds. Their denouncements included the recurring targets of their rage: democracy, freedom of speech, Christianity, Israel, the Free World's defense of itself against jihadist attacks, women not hiding themselves under oppressively suffocating clothing and other un-Mohamadan concepts. They boasted about the impending end of the United Kingdom and its replacement by the new Caliphate. Then, they retired to their homes in the land that they vehemently condemn instead of returning to the Third World hellholes where their ideology reigns supreme.
Among the multitudes of sluggards engaging in mayhem in London, self-proclaimed anarchists appeared. The fact that those who claim to hate governmental regulations and societal limitations partnered with the groups of totalitarianists like Marxists and Islamists reeks of self-serving hypocrisy. Perhaps, the anarchists needed a few more hands to assist them in denying others the freedom to engage in legal commerce and walk the streets without being threatened or assaulted. How else are they supposed to demonstrate their desire for liberty?
Eventually, the accumulated mass of these parasites on the backs of the industrious people within British society will exceed their weight-bearing capacity. Then Atlas will shrug. The whole world will feel these tremors. At that point, will the other nations of the world heed the warning signs?
23 March 2009
Method behind the Madness
The National Collegiate Athletic Association Division One Men's Basketball Tournament has emerged over the past twenty years as the most prominent multi-day sporting event in the United States. Granted, it lacks the all-consuming focus of a single day as does the preeminent athletic competition, the Super Bowl. Nevertheless, in some aspects, it draws in spectators in ways that the Super Bowl and other highly popular events lack.
First of all, the appeal of the underdog comes to the forefront. How is it that thousands of fans attending the games and millions watching them on television become enamored with lowly seeded teams from relatively unknown programs? Invariably, perhaps instinctively, those not affiliated with the higher seeded squad openly cheer for the underdog, the level of support inversely commensurate with how far down in the seedings the underdog is located. Does this appeal find its roots in the era when Americans were a fledgling yet disrespected country facing dominant and disdaining super-powers? Can this phenomenon be traced to a Judeo-Christian influence of the tale of the protagonist, a perceived hopelessly overmatched David versus the antagonist, an overwhelming favorite Goliath? Is this a manifestation of class warfare leading to antipathy toward the perceived pomposity of perennial powers? Attendees at these venues and public locations where the games can be viewed will commonly hear statements along the lines of this: "I can't stand Blueblood University with its fifteen thousand seat arena and millions of dollars in apparel sales. I hope Podunk State beats those arrogant (expletive)s!"
Secondly, March Madness has morphed into an excuse to dabble in gambling. Bracket pools among co-workers have developed into a tradition on par with the nondescript "holiday" party in December or monthly birthday cakes for employees. People who would only ever enter a casino to partake in the buffets eagerly fill out bracket sheets, even if they rarely, if ever, watch college basketball games during the regular season. Uninterested for most of the season, some Americans suddenly develop an affinity for teams based on curious qualities as "cute mascot", "pretty color scheme" or "location in a loved or detested state".
Additionally, Americans love drama filled immediacy and pressure. The "win or leave" format of the tournament heightens the tension among the players, coaches and fans. The NCAA Tournament can be contrasted with the National Basketball Association's seven games playoff series in which a prohibitively favored team can sleepwalk through three games yet still manage to win the series to advance to the next round. The collegiate squads possess no such luxury. A highly acclaimed team might be unable to focus on a match played at the hour when the players typically have breakfast or are asleep. A dominant, towering center could spend a significant portion of the game on the bench after an early accumulation of fouls. A leading scorer with consistent accuracy might fall into an inexplicable slump. A team of outstanding free throw shooters can fire nothing but bricks and air-balls. With such occurrences, teams with less experience, depth, height and accuracy can and do pull off upsets. These allow the underdogs to advance while the higher seeds ponder what went awry.
Foreigners have frequently stated words to the effect that what Americans do best is overdo everything. The arrangement of the NCAA Tournament lends itself to that stereotype. For the initial days of the tournament, on Thursday and Friday, four sites host four games each. The gluttony of games commences at midday, local time of the venue, and concludes at or near midnight. Even the second round, with half the number of games, extends from noon to well into prime time viewing hours in most of the country. After a respite of three days, concurrent double-headers take place in the evenings of the following Thursday and Friday. Nation-wide twin billings on the next two days determine the Final Four. Of course, a five day lag until the next round happens to allow time for another time-honored American tradition: media overexposure of the participants.
The Madness concludes with one team hoisting a trophy after proving itself as the undisputed national champions. Considering the widespread interest in this playoff among the American people, one might contemplate another mystery: Why is there no similar resolution to the Division 1-A college football season?
First of all, the appeal of the underdog comes to the forefront. How is it that thousands of fans attending the games and millions watching them on television become enamored with lowly seeded teams from relatively unknown programs? Invariably, perhaps instinctively, those not affiliated with the higher seeded squad openly cheer for the underdog, the level of support inversely commensurate with how far down in the seedings the underdog is located. Does this appeal find its roots in the era when Americans were a fledgling yet disrespected country facing dominant and disdaining super-powers? Can this phenomenon be traced to a Judeo-Christian influence of the tale of the protagonist, a perceived hopelessly overmatched David versus the antagonist, an overwhelming favorite Goliath? Is this a manifestation of class warfare leading to antipathy toward the perceived pomposity of perennial powers? Attendees at these venues and public locations where the games can be viewed will commonly hear statements along the lines of this: "I can't stand Blueblood University with its fifteen thousand seat arena and millions of dollars in apparel sales. I hope Podunk State beats those arrogant (expletive)s!"
Secondly, March Madness has morphed into an excuse to dabble in gambling. Bracket pools among co-workers have developed into a tradition on par with the nondescript "holiday" party in December or monthly birthday cakes for employees. People who would only ever enter a casino to partake in the buffets eagerly fill out bracket sheets, even if they rarely, if ever, watch college basketball games during the regular season. Uninterested for most of the season, some Americans suddenly develop an affinity for teams based on curious qualities as "cute mascot", "pretty color scheme" or "location in a loved or detested state".
Additionally, Americans love drama filled immediacy and pressure. The "win or leave" format of the tournament heightens the tension among the players, coaches and fans. The NCAA Tournament can be contrasted with the National Basketball Association's seven games playoff series in which a prohibitively favored team can sleepwalk through three games yet still manage to win the series to advance to the next round. The collegiate squads possess no such luxury. A highly acclaimed team might be unable to focus on a match played at the hour when the players typically have breakfast or are asleep. A dominant, towering center could spend a significant portion of the game on the bench after an early accumulation of fouls. A leading scorer with consistent accuracy might fall into an inexplicable slump. A team of outstanding free throw shooters can fire nothing but bricks and air-balls. With such occurrences, teams with less experience, depth, height and accuracy can and do pull off upsets. These allow the underdogs to advance while the higher seeds ponder what went awry.
Foreigners have frequently stated words to the effect that what Americans do best is overdo everything. The arrangement of the NCAA Tournament lends itself to that stereotype. For the initial days of the tournament, on Thursday and Friday, four sites host four games each. The gluttony of games commences at midday, local time of the venue, and concludes at or near midnight. Even the second round, with half the number of games, extends from noon to well into prime time viewing hours in most of the country. After a respite of three days, concurrent double-headers take place in the evenings of the following Thursday and Friday. Nation-wide twin billings on the next two days determine the Final Four. Of course, a five day lag until the next round happens to allow time for another time-honored American tradition: media overexposure of the participants.
The Madness concludes with one team hoisting a trophy after proving itself as the undisputed national champions. Considering the widespread interest in this playoff among the American people, one might contemplate another mystery: Why is there no similar resolution to the Division 1-A college football season?
06 March 2009
Who is in Charge?
In many nation-states, more than one person is regarded as the leader of a respective country. One person serves as a monarch due to his/her familial relation or elected official with little to no legal power. This figure has merely ceremonial duties such consenting to have his/her image printed on currency and addressing the citizenry on occasions. This figurehead is ascribed as the de jure leader of the country or head of state.
In contrast, a different person has true executive, possibly dictatorial powers. This official assumed office typically by plebiscite although inheritance or violent usurping have occurred and still do in some areas. This leader is considered the head of government, also known as the de facto leader. Just as role can be divided between nominal and effectual leaders, such arrangements exist among those in charge of political parties and movements.
Can someone not holding a political office and has never done so actually dominate a major political party? Perhaps, if this person hosts a talk-show with millions of loyal fans. Additionally, this host/hostess, an opinionated millionaire who openly expresses political opinions and preferences, contributes financially large sums of cash. This celebrity of enormous fame regularly spouts socio-political opinions on the air and invites guests who parrot them. Therefore, the people of the United States of America might rightfully conclude that a media mogul serves as the true leader of one of its two major parties. With that said, the chatter about Oprah Winfrey and her grasp on the reins of power within the Democratic Party should inevitably dissipate.
Media coverage of last week's Conservative Political Action Conference has spawned an overblown controversy regarding who is the leader of the Republican Party.
On this subject, an important distinction must be stated. Michael Steele has been chosen as the de jure leader of the Republican Party. Who is the de facto head of the Republican Party seems less obvious. With the absence of any clearly influential and prominent Republican politician in Congress, the debate will rage among those touting various Senators, members of the House of Representatives, governors and others who have held one or more of those positions in the past in addition to Steele's supporters.
Rush Limbaugh has been widely regarded as the leader of the conservative movement for more than a decade. That role does not necessarily coincide with directing the Republican Party. Although a definitive standard for determining the undisputed chief of conservatism does not exist, Limbaugh has maintained a high-profile among the right-wing of American politics for nearly twenty years. Granted, he has detractors within the various factions on the right; some questioning his consistency and commitment over various positions taken on issues in the past. However, no one since the passing of William F. Buckley has continually and persistently championed conservatism as Rush Limbaugh has done.
Only time will tell if Steele will claim Limbaugh's title or if Limbaugh will continue to hold , in the minds of many, the rank that Steele nominally possesses.
In contrast, a different person has true executive, possibly dictatorial powers. This official assumed office typically by plebiscite although inheritance or violent usurping have occurred and still do in some areas. This leader is considered the head of government, also known as the de facto leader. Just as role can be divided between nominal and effectual leaders, such arrangements exist among those in charge of political parties and movements.
Can someone not holding a political office and has never done so actually dominate a major political party? Perhaps, if this person hosts a talk-show with millions of loyal fans. Additionally, this host/hostess, an opinionated millionaire who openly expresses political opinions and preferences, contributes financially large sums of cash. This celebrity of enormous fame regularly spouts socio-political opinions on the air and invites guests who parrot them. Therefore, the people of the United States of America might rightfully conclude that a media mogul serves as the true leader of one of its two major parties. With that said, the chatter about Oprah Winfrey and her grasp on the reins of power within the Democratic Party should inevitably dissipate.
Media coverage of last week's Conservative Political Action Conference has spawned an overblown controversy regarding who is the leader of the Republican Party.
On this subject, an important distinction must be stated. Michael Steele has been chosen as the de jure leader of the Republican Party. Who is the de facto head of the Republican Party seems less obvious. With the absence of any clearly influential and prominent Republican politician in Congress, the debate will rage among those touting various Senators, members of the House of Representatives, governors and others who have held one or more of those positions in the past in addition to Steele's supporters.
Rush Limbaugh has been widely regarded as the leader of the conservative movement for more than a decade. That role does not necessarily coincide with directing the Republican Party. Although a definitive standard for determining the undisputed chief of conservatism does not exist, Limbaugh has maintained a high-profile among the right-wing of American politics for nearly twenty years. Granted, he has detractors within the various factions on the right; some questioning his consistency and commitment over various positions taken on issues in the past. However, no one since the passing of William F. Buckley has continually and persistently championed conservatism as Rush Limbaugh has done.
Only time will tell if Steele will claim Limbaugh's title or if Limbaugh will continue to hold , in the minds of many, the rank that Steele nominally possesses.
02 March 2009
Modern Oracle?
One of the stars of the recent Conservative Political Action Conference and those CPACs in years past has been Ann Coulter. Though Miss Coulter has carved a prominent niche in the edifice of punditry in the United States, comparisons to feminine forerunners inevitably occur. An observer might compare her to Phyllis Schlafly, the early pioneer of social conservatism. Some people may notice a literary resemblance between Ann Coulter and Ayn Rand, the vocal proponent of unadulterated capitalism, as kindred commentatrices and acclaimed authoresses. Those willing to recollect historically might find some commonality with Saint Joan of Arc: apologetically nationalist, openly supportive of her country's military and devoutly Christian. Another, more ancient woman seems an interesting basis of comparison.
This woman in question received the moniker Pythia after being chosen as the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Although numerous women filled the role of the Pythia over the course of several centuries, the all of them conformed to a template before assuming the role. If one delves into the backgrounds of both the Pythia and Ann Coulter, the similarities manifest themselves. The Pythia grew up in a rustic village in Greece; Miss Coulter was raised in a bucolic suburban town in Connecticut. The Pythia adhered to the cult of Apollo, an influential sect in her nation; Miss Coulter practices evangelical Protestant Christianity, a prominent denomination in her country. The priestess dwelled in the warm and humid climate along the slope of Mount Parnassus, overlooking the Pleistos Valley in Greece; the pundit resides in a tropical area, along the Atlantic coast of Florida. A requirement to remain a virgin prohibited the Pythia from being married; inability to choose among exceedingly high number of lovelorn suitors or fear of devastating them by choosing a groom appears to explain her single status. The priestess' pronouncements were motivated by emissions of noxious gases such as methane, ethylene and hydrogen sulphide; the pundit's statements often occur after emissions from obnoxious gasbags such as MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York, Times and Washington Post. The priestess uttered mysterious and troublesome predictions that confounded her elite recipients into asking for interpretation by priests; the pundit declares sarcastic and biting observations that affront her elitist targets into seeking consolation from their psychotherapists. If one believes in reincarnation, pondering the possibility that Ann Coulter previously toiled in ancient Greece as prophetess does not seem as totally implausible.
The influence of the Pythia has been established and recorded for posterity's sake. Ann Coulter's contemporary celebrity looms prominently and has grown steadily for more than fifteen years. Whether Ann Coulter's legacy will endure as long as that of the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi remains to be determined.
This woman in question received the moniker Pythia after being chosen as the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Although numerous women filled the role of the Pythia over the course of several centuries, the all of them conformed to a template before assuming the role. If one delves into the backgrounds of both the Pythia and Ann Coulter, the similarities manifest themselves. The Pythia grew up in a rustic village in Greece; Miss Coulter was raised in a bucolic suburban town in Connecticut. The Pythia adhered to the cult of Apollo, an influential sect in her nation; Miss Coulter practices evangelical Protestant Christianity, a prominent denomination in her country. The priestess dwelled in the warm and humid climate along the slope of Mount Parnassus, overlooking the Pleistos Valley in Greece; the pundit resides in a tropical area, along the Atlantic coast of Florida. A requirement to remain a virgin prohibited the Pythia from being married; inability to choose among exceedingly high number of lovelorn suitors or fear of devastating them by choosing a groom appears to explain her single status. The priestess' pronouncements were motivated by emissions of noxious gases such as methane, ethylene and hydrogen sulphide; the pundit's statements often occur after emissions from obnoxious gasbags such as MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York, Times and Washington Post. The priestess uttered mysterious and troublesome predictions that confounded her elite recipients into asking for interpretation by priests; the pundit declares sarcastic and biting observations that affront her elitist targets into seeking consolation from their psychotherapists. If one believes in reincarnation, pondering the possibility that Ann Coulter previously toiled in ancient Greece as prophetess does not seem as totally implausible.
The influence of the Pythia has been established and recorded for posterity's sake. Ann Coulter's contemporary celebrity looms prominently and has grown steadily for more than fifteen years. Whether Ann Coulter's legacy will endure as long as that of the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi remains to be determined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
