Hugo Chavez and Oliver Stone were spotted hanging out together, smiling all the way.
Stone hates George W. but loves Hugo Chavez. Liberalism is so confusing to me.
I’m gonna miss watching Any Given Sunday. Oliver Stone and Sean Penn should just go ahead and move to Venezuela. You’re not countrymen of mine.
The unpleasant truth is perhaps the biggest enemy of the liberal. I should say, the kool-aid drinking liberal, whether Republican or Democrat or whatever. Ann Coulter does go out of her way to say things that will offend, but you will be hard-pressed to disprove any of it, as the cast of The View found out. If you avoid the facts, then you are avoiding the debate. There are a few points to cover, but the main issue is when she talks about race.
She points out that both Barack Obama and Halle Barry chose to brag about their black heritage while ignoring or downplaying their white heritage. This is a valid, factual observation that should be addressed, yet the hostesses have no interest. They never really get their statements out, but it sounds like they’re basically gonna say since you are not Barack or Halle, you have no right to comment on how they racially identify themselves. NONSENSE! The fact that Obama wrote a biography where the title mentions the father that had nothing to do with raising him is extremely relevant and telling. Ann details a strong pattern, deviated by few if any other than Tiger Woods, of partially black celebrities only talking about how black they are. It is pseudo-self-victimization to paint one’s self as the underdog because of partial-DNA. You wanna talk about your black heritage: fine, but you should occasionally mention your white heritage as well. These celebrities don’t, other than Obama who is occasionally forced to, and then even talks in the third person (grandmother is a “typical white person”). Hey Barack… you’re white! So are you Halle. I’m sorry it’s less interesting to you, but it’s a fact.
How dare a white woman critique the racial comments of a black woman! This kind of knee-jerk nonsense has to stop. Coulter even points out that when you take single-motherhood out of the equation, crime rates of blacks and whites are equal. WHAT AN AMAZING STATISTIC!!! You’d think she’d be praised for finding and pointing out something like this. Even though our society has progressed way beyond a racism to be concerned with, people still “know” that blacks go to jail more than whites. The numbers she cites seem to show that it isn’t because of a race, but because of single-parenthood. Ann is attacking a subgroup of single-mothers, but because it may include good people, the hostesses only focus on the attack, not the root problem.
Ann: “Its selfish for a single mother to have a baby without a father.”
Just because there are a significant number of single mothers who produce healthy productive citizens does not mean that it isn’t selfish to force a child to grow up without a father. Children do better in a two-parent home for obvious logistical reasons. Two people can do a job better than one can. Ann is only talking about those single mothers who choose on their own to be single, not those that are forced to because of abusive or addict fathers, etc. Just those that do it cuz they “wanna.” That is selfish. That is putting your wants ahead of the needs of the baby. You are entitled to be selfish in a free society, but don’t tell us it isn’t selfish. “What about single women who want to have children?” Note the word WANT. What about what the child wants? Let me re-iterate, I’m not saying, and neither is Ann, that single-motherhood should be banned. This is a free country, and people are free to not give away their money and free to selfishly have kids in a single-parent home.
The basic point of the “View” hostesses, including Hasselbeck, is that Ann Coulter is a meanie. I think Ann would agree 100%. She doesn’t concern herself with being sensitive. She is only about discussing unpleasant truths, and doesn’t seem to find any opponents who want to engage her on substance. We need more people who stop worrying about whose feelings get hurt when serious issues should be discussed.
The media is out of control. The gap between a reporter and shock jock is narrowing FAST, and in some cases is non-existent. The latest knee-jerk reaction to statements by Will Smith is the perfect example.
In an interview in conjunction with his new movie, I am Legend, the interview steered towards his easy-going nature. Prior to the comment concerning Hitler, Will explained why he was so easy-going:
“Well, if I understand the problem then I don’t get annoyed. People driving past in the car and giving me the finger annoys my wife but it’s because they think you did something to them. They think you’re driving too slow and keeping them from getting to their daughter’s birthday party, or you cut them off and didn’t see.”
Then he used a politically incorrect example of an extremely evil man to prove his point. Smith DID NOT say what Hitler did was good; he said that Hitler most likely THOUGHT he was doing good. The fact that this is what Will Smith meant seems unimportant to the JDL (Jewish Defense League) or shock jock reporters across the world. What Will Smith meant was irrelevant to the reporters who ran with the misrepresentation. “If it bleeds, it leads” is the saying, and the fact that reporters chose to let Smith bleed without regard for reality is sickening to me.
Here’s the quote from the article by Siobhan Synnot of the Daily Record:
“Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good.
“Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, ‘let me do the most evil thing I can do today’,” said Will. “I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good’. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.”
This is a very logical statement, despite it being about an evil genocidal murderer who deserves no sympathy. This produced response articles with atrocious, reckless headlines:
“Will Smith sees the good in Hitler - US actor Will Smith has stunned fans by reportedly declaring that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was essentially a “good” person.” - The Australian
I’m gonna make some TRUE statements that will cause a knee-jerk reaction in most of you. Fight the urge and read EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING:
The evil part was his criteria for doing so. Again, Hitler’s goal was to make the world more productive by getting rid of unproductive, evil people. His intentions were NOT evil; his criteria WERE. I feel compelled to be redundant for the sake of clarity: just because his intentions were good does not justify the evil he perpetrated. His crimes were viciously evil and the pinnacle of blind, racist ignorance. He was a psycho whom ignored the fact that some of his favorite musicians and composers were Jewish and decided they all should be exterminated. He was responsible for the death/torture camps like Auschwitz, which killed 75% of its prisoners upon arrival, and used the remaining 25% for free slave labor.
I have nothing but incensed despise for Adolf Hitler, but I will not attack or sit by while someone else is attacked simply because they said one seemingly nice thing about an evil man. Smith was illustrating that there is hope for goodness to spread, even when people like Hitler have existed. The Holocaust happened due to the tremendous ignorance, and speaking ability of Adolf Hitler.
It is completely possible Will Smith hates Jews, but these recent statements aren’t proof of that. The Jewish Defense League should be going after the head of Siobhan Synnot for her deliberate character-arson, and the editor of any newspaper that ran with this without due diligence.
P.S. I understand Will Smith is friends with Tom Cruise, who appears to be a certifiable fruit cake. That worries me a little, but some cursory research seemed to show that Smith seems to be and likes people to know how open-minded he is. He is being overly nice to Scientologists in this pursuit.