Chris Matthews is a genius, just ask him. The MSNBC host has gone on a crusade against Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, questioning their intelligence on a nightly basis.
With that in mind, here is Chris Matthews explaining the significance of Egypt‘s Panama Canal:
Has Matthews mixed up the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal? How do we know? It is only safe to assume that Chris Matthews is a “balloon head” who doesn’t know any geography. Who’s writing this stuff for him?
On Tuesday night’s edition of Hardball, Chris Matthews lambasted Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for statements she made regarding slavery:
In the above video Matthews called Rep. Bachmann a “balloon head” who “knows no American history.” Only, what Bachamnn said is true. What Matthews’ statements demonstrate is that he is in fact a balloon head who knows no American history.
When the Constitution was written, slavery was a highly contentious issue. All but a small minority of the Framers of the Constitution, including those that held slaves at the time, were in favor of abolishing the practice. However, the Framers also understood that an outright abolition of slavery in 1787 would prevent ratification of the Constitution. Additionally, the Framers believed that the states were well on the way to abolishing slavery on their own. As such, the Constitution was written in a way that would allow future generations to eliminate slavery. In fact, the word “slavery” does not appear in the original Constitution, because, as James Madison wrote, it is “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” Furthermore, Article I, Section ix of the Constitution was written with the intention of banning the importation of more slaves. In 1807, Thomas Jefferson did just that, and signed a bill into law which banned the importing of slaves. For more information on this topic, Dr. William Bennett’s America the Last Best Hope; volume I is a great resource.
Mathews specious line of thinking is evinced in his citing of the tree-fifths compromise of the Constitution, which reads as follows:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
It was a mathematical formula used for the census. Matthews, and many liberals, claim that slaves were counted as three-fifths because early Americans didn’t view slaves as full human beings. This claim is predicated on painful ignorance. Slave states wanted slaves to be counted as full people in the census. Counting slaves as equals would increase the population count in slave states, thus allotting slave states more representation in the House of Representatives. The the-fifths compromise was instituted to limit the representation of slave states. Moreover, a close examination of the compromise reveals that slaves are referred to as “persons,” laying the groundwork for the abolition of slavery.
The Constitution’s case for abolishing slavery was noted by none other than the world’s most famous abolitionist, Fredrick Douglas, who said “now, take the Constitution according ti its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single proslavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”
Today’s education system teaches American history in a vacuum, as though the United States was the only place on earth where slavery existed. The abolition of slavery is a modern concept, when the entire course of human history is considered. From Thomas Sowell’s Dismantling America (p.197):
Slavery was cancerous but does anybody regard cancer in the United States as an evil peculiar to American society? It is a worldwide affliction and so was slavery.
Both the enslavers and the enslaved have included people on every inhabited continent — people of every race, color, and creed.
More Europeans were enslaved and taken to North Africa by Barbary Coast pirates alone than there were African slaves taken to the United States and to the colonies from which it was formed.
Yet throughout our educational system, our media, and in politics, slavery is incessantly presented as if it were something peculiar to black and white Americans.
What was peculiar about the United States was that it was the first country in which slavery was under attack from the moment the country was created.
What was peculiar about Western civilization was that it was the first civilization to destroy slavery, not only within its own countries but in other countries around the world as well.
Chris Matthews’ haughty dismissal of Rep. Bachmann was based on a complete lack of knowledge of American history. Matthews would be well advised to open a book instead of calling Michele Bachmann a “balloon head.”
This week on the Tonight Show Bill Maher launched into a vicious tirade against conservatives. Mixed with his sardonic and sanctimonious curse laden diatribe were the assertions that it is only the Right that incites violence, and that people on the Left do not act out violently:
Bill Maher has a problem: he is always sure, but he is rarely right. Maher belittles anyone who dares to disagree with his learned opinions as ignorant. In reality, a place Maher must have left a long time ago, the Left constantly incites violence against conservatives. Additionally, there is a long history of leftists carrying out their violent fantasies.
First, on the inciting hatred front, why not start with Bill Maher himself?
In the following clip from Maher’s television program, the host jokes about Vice president Cheney dying, than makes the serious point that he believes it would be good if the Vice President died:
Then there was Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Hardball musing about killing Rush Limbaugh:
The website The Onion made a video lamenting that Glenn Beck has not died a painful death:
The website the Daily Caller made a four minute video, compiling tweets urging the assassination of Sarah Palin:
Palin Death Wish Tweets Re Tucson Shooting from Legal Insurrection on Vimeo.
Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, had the following to say about Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican:
“instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”
That is just a sample of the vitriol and hate that regularly comes from the Left. Throughout the Bush Presidency the Left regularly wrote books, made movies, and otherwise advocated the assassination of George W. Bush. Maher’s claim that the Left does not incite violence is the type of absurd claim that could only be made by an ignoramus or a willful deceiver.
Maher’s second claim, that only conservatives carry out acts of violence because they are armed and insane, is equally fallacious.
In 1901 President William McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, who killed the president “because he was the enemy of the good people – the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.”
Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who assassinated President Kennedy (save your comments Oliver Stone fans), was a Communist defector, who returned to the United States in order to assist Fidel Castro.
The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, sent 16 bombs out, killed three people and injured 23. He too was an anarchist, and a devotee of Al Gore’s.
Just last year James Lee, who was inspired by Al Gore, took hostages at the the Discovery Channel‘s headquarters because they were not doing enough to combat global warming in his estimation.
On top of all these examples there are terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front, that proudly use “economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation and destruction of the environment.”
All this is not to say that Al Gore and his cohorts on the Left are to blame for the actions of terrorists. There are bad people in the world, and their interpretations of notable works does not implicate the authors.
What all these examples do prove is that once again Bill Maher, who represents the thinking of many on the Left, has given voice to a hateful position that is at odds with reality. Maher’s despicable lies about the Right are old hat for the smear merchant. Maher would be well served if he bothered to do even minimal research before opening his mouth.
The trouble with MSNBC panelists isn’t that they’re ignorant, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so. Well, except for Richard Wolffe – he’s just ignorant.
In an interview with Barbara Walters, Governor Palin said that she reads C.S. Lewis for divine inspiration. Lewis was a prolific writer. He is best known for his Christian faith, and his faith’s influence on his work. Among his more famous works are: The Screwtape Letters, The Space Trilogy, and yes, The Chronicles of Narnia. Even his children’s books had a strong Christian message.
With the above in mind, take a look at enlightened and well read member of the media, Richard Wolffe’s analysis of what Governor Palin reads:
To deride C.S. Lewis as merely an author of “a series of kids’ books” would be like remembering Winston Churchill as a hobby bricklayer. Another one of Palin’s critics, in this case one of her most vindictive and vociferous ones, has egg all over his face.
The dirty secret about the ‘enlightened’ Left is that they don’t read. Sure, in college they cracked open Barbara Ehrenreich and Naomi Naomi Klein, but that’s about the extent of it. Most Marxists probably haven’t ever read Marx.
Even Chris Matthews looked embarrassed in that clip. It is entirely possible that Richard Wolffe’s first exposure to C.S. Lewis came with the movie adaptations of Narnia series. But don’t look behind the curtain, remember, Palin is the dumb one and only the brilliant Left can stop hayseed America from supporting her.
(H/T The Blaze)
On this Strictly Right, Ari and Andrew go over the latest from Chris Matthews, the idiocy of Jerry Brown, the duplicity of ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats, the problems with elitism and more.
You can listen to this episode online here or subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.
In a leaked Journolist email from National Public Radio producer Sarah Spitz, she reveals what shouldn’t be surprising, but is still disgusting: she wishes Rush Limbaugh were dead. Spitz didn’t make an in-passing reference to how the world would be a better place without Rush, however. Instead, she even offers a narrative on how she wishes it would happen. In response to Limbaugh experiencing chest pains while on vacation in Hawaii earlier this year, Spitz said she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out as Limbaugh he in torment.”
Now, when the news was revealed that Limbaugh was admitted to the hospital, there were a torrent of Tweets from his detractors wishing that he would kick the bucket, saying that they hoped it was a heart attack, that he died a painful death, etc. I have never seen such hatred when someone from the Left has been through a similar experience. There are going to be a couple of nutjobs on either side of the spectrum no matter what; but I can’t help but laugh at the Left’s chosen way to treat someone they claim is so filled with hate and vitriol. They respond with…well, hate and vitriol. I’ve never heard Rush wish someone were dead — nothing close.
Despite what I think about NPR (which, believe me, is not favorable,) there is still an expectation of civility there. Punditry and polemic aside, media figures on the Left and the Right have [generally] had a level of respect for colleagues on the other side as individuals. Heck, Chris Matthews even guest-hosted the Rush Limbaugh Show once (betcha didn’t know that!)
When the now leaked Journolist database, this is the tip of the iceberg. From admittedly sharing strategies to kill the Jeremiah Wright stories to advocating a government takeover of Fox News, it’s clear the liberal media is…shockingly, liberal.
A month ago I wrote that Chris Matthews understood the electoral path to victory Sarah Palin could take in the primaries. In sum, she could win in Iowa, where she should have the support of Evangelical Christians, the most important voting bloc in the state’s primary, have a strong showing in New Hampshire, win South Carolina, where she was an early supporter of the woman who will be the next governor there, then win in Michigan, where she made inroads in 2008 when she did not want to concede the state, and with her immensely popular book tour last year. From there she would have an enormous delegate lead and all the momentum. It’s not a fait accompli, as Matthews makes it sound, but is entirely plausible.
Will Sarah run in 2012? I tend to think that Matthews is correct. Since she resigned her governorship, Palin has been available to write more books, post opinions on facebook and twitter (that define political debates – see: death panels), do more television and deliver more speeches. In addition, Palin has been touring the country, endorsing political candidates. She has been shrewd in her endorsements, picking candidates that have a good chance of wining, and thus owing her a favor in 2012. This strategy is similar to what Richard Nixon did after losing the 1960 presidential election. Eventually, Nixon had accumulated so many chips that it seemed as though the entire GOP was in his pocket. Having loyal supporters in key states is always important in organizing a primary campaign, and Palin is acknowledging that by supporting candidates that can win.
The establishment and the left write Sarah Palin off at their own peril. They ridiculed Ronald Reagan, calling him a ‘B-list actor’ and a country bumpkin, with extreme views. However, he was able to relate to the American people. In 1989, Ronald Reagan said, “I won a nickname, “The Great Communicator.” But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation – from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I’ll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscover of our values and our common sense.” Reagan believed in the United States of America, and that his country was the greatest force for good in human history. Those ideas resonate with people. Sarah Palin expresses those same principles. She is what Obama would call a “bitter clinger” – in other words an American. No one knows if Sarah Palin will run or not, but if she does her homespun wisdom and unflinching belief in American Exceptionalism will make her a force to reckoned with.
Genuinely shocking. Every once in a while a lucid point escapes Chris Matthews’ lips. His analysis of Sarah Palin’s political future looks, to me, to be dead on:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Matthews’ point, that Palin is being pragmatic in her endorsements, in an effort to ‘collect chips’ for 2012 is an interesting idea. Many Palin backers have been dismayed with some of her ‘establishment’ endorsements this year (Carly Fiorina was the biggest one (or John McCain)). However, if Palin wishes to have a future in national politics she will need people in power that owe her. The only way to build up this necessary base of support is to pick winners. With her high success rate (thus far), Palin can claim that her influence matters across the country. By siding with Carly Fiorina in California Palin demonstrated that her endorsement can matter even in the most liberal of states. The Governor’s strategy works on a number of levels. The first two have already been stated: she collects favors and flexes her political muscle. In addition, Palin’s endorsements keep her in the news for political reasons, not tabloid ones. When her candidates keep on winning it is impossible to ignore her power. As well, by endorsing a wide array of candidates, Palin is able to increase her appeal to ‘moderate’ voters – a group she excelled with as Governor of Alaska. The question is: will Palin’s support for a few moderate Republicans cost her support among the party’s base? (Answer: a resounding and overwhelming NO).
Could this be an LBJ/Cronkite moment?
Probably not – no one watches MSNBC, and even fewer care about what Chris Matthews has to say. However, it is something to see Mr. “tingle up my leg” take on Obama in such harsh words. To review, Matthews compared O’s handling of the Gulf oil spill to Jimmy Carter’s handling of the Iran hostage crisis. He said it was as big a disaster as what had to be done at Dunkirk. Chrisy pointed out that Chairman O is “not taking ownership,” “not acting like it’s big time,” “not acting like a commander in chief,” “not a chief executive,” and that the Obama team is no more than an”idiotic cerebral meritocracy.” I don’t think I could have said it any better myself.