Poor Republican

It really doesn’t get any better than this.

I wrote yesterday how media coverage would be so much different if a Republican was on vacation during something like the Gaza fighting.  And within twelve hours ABC News proves me right:

” Even an emerging crisis in the Middle East, one he pledged to resolve just 13 months ago, has not drawn President George W. Bush from his final vacation before leaving office.”

Am I that good?  No; the liberal media is just that predictable.  Here’s another little gem:

“Not atypically, we have yet to learn anything more about what is keeping the commander in chief busy, though one can assume there is brush to be cleared, trails to be biked, and perhaps even fish to be caught.“

You heard it here first, folks.  At least they stopped pretending to be objective.  And why not?  First they stopped pretending to be on our side, then they stopped pretending to even be neutral.  Maybe next week the media will finally admit they’re hoping for the enemy to win.

They’ve been saying they want Bush to step aside and let Obama in.  They’ve been claiming Obama should be more assertive.  Well, Obama has his chance and he says nothing.  The media’s response?

To attack Bush for being on vacation.

All too easy.

Obama the 1st, His Most Merciful and Beneficent, Man of the People, is out golfing while the Middle East erupts into violence.  “The Office of the President-Elect,” that invented non-entity that has a press conference on every issue, has nothing to say.  While a major crisis is unfolding, the man who will be president in three weeks (and would be already if his cheerleaders had their way) is out golfing and living in a rented villa worth $8.5 million dollars.

Imagine the outcry from liberal pundits and the media if this were a Republican.  First of all, there would be the usual “out of touch rich politician” comments stemming from his stay in a multimillion dollar home.  Then there would be the “asleep at the switch” comments.  Try this one on for size:

“Bush Golfs While Gaza Burns”

Now, I realize that Obama is not actually president yet, which is a fact apparently lost on liberals.  Every time he holds another press conference behind his podium with its fictional seal and title on it, liberals immediately want to know why His word is not being carried out….not only by Congress, but by the ACTUAL president.  So how come he’s not standing behind His podium right now, giving us His wisdom?  For that matter, why has Obama not already solved the problem?

Did we not hear the pronouncements of Obama’s ability to bring everyone in the known universe together?  Did we not hear how he is such a great “uniter” and that we needed that after having a “divider” in office for so long?  Did we not hear how much smarter he is than, well, everyone?  Plus, he’s (half) black AND has Hussein as his middle name, which we are NOW told is an advantage when dealing in the Middle East.  Should he not be able to simply wave his “Hope and Change” wand and end all that bloodshed and suffering?

If this were a Republican there would columns demanding answers to these questions.  The liberal pundits would flood the Sunday talk shows and mock him for staying in a rich man’s home and vacationing, instead of flying to Washington to be briefed and attend consultations with leaders.  Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other members of the Monochrome Coalition would be holding press conferences to proclaim that the incoming Republican was out golfing in Hawaii because he doesn’t care about minorities.  Yet these people are all silent when Obama does nothing.

So to liberals I ask this:  where is your God now?  More importantly, why aren’t YOU asking that question?

Boo hoo.

For years Hamas, Hezbollah, and the massive hodgepodge of “I hate Israel, America, Britain, and any other country that has running water, lights, and lets women show more than their eyes” groups have cried about Israel occupying Gaza.  That in and of itself was a joke.

Gaza was originally occupied during the 1967 war when it was used as a jumping off point to attack Israel.  Like the Golan Heights, Israel took these territories to provide a buffer between Israel and her enemies.  Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, even displacing her own citizens from their homes to do so.  They gave the Palestinians full autonomy, even allowing Egypt to control the strategic Philadelphi Route, which Israel had legal right to.

What was the result?  Hamas took over the territory and immediately began using it to launch attacks against Israel.  The Egyptians claim to secure the Philadelphi Route, yet the materials to build and launch hundreds of rockets somehow find their way into Gaza….while human rights groups decry the lack of basic medical supplies and food in the territory.  If you can smuggle in rocket propellant and warhead materals, couldn’t you also smuggle in drugs and food for your “poor, victimized, innocent” people?

There was a ceasefire, which Hamas broke.  Hamas has fired hundreds of rockets into Israel since then, most launched from points in residential neighborhoods.

Finally Israel got sick of it and struck back hard.  The reaction was predictable.

The same people who said little or nothing when Hamas broke the ceasefire and fired rockets into civilian areas are now screaming about Israel’s “war crimes” for striking military targets that happen to have civilians near them.  They don’t criticize Hamas for launching rockets from civilian neighborhoods; they criticize Israel for attacking the launch sites.  They don’t blame Hamas for building 40+ tunnels to smuggle military supplies through; they blame Israel for bombing the tunnels.

The funniest one yet is condemning Israel for “disproportionate use of force” by bombing Hamas targets.  Fighting back too hard?!  If you walked up to the average liberal who curses Israel’s “overreaction” on a daily basis and punched him in the face, do you think he would accept it if you insisted that he only be allowed to hit you back the exact number of times you hit him?  With the exact same amount of force?  If he hauled off and flattened you, would he feel sorry for you if you cried “disproportionate force?!”

You poke the bear, then cry when the bear mauls you?  And everyone else backs you up for your stupidity?

It reminds me of an encounter with my son’s elementary school principal.  A bully had been punching, pinching, shoving, tripping, etc. my son for the better part of a week.  Finally the boy jumped on my son’s back and forced him face down on the asphalt, bloodying my son’s lips.  At this point my son rolled the boy off and cleaned his clock.  The bully was suddenly a “victim” of my son’s “overreaction.”  My son was in trouble for “continuing a circle of violence” and because he “fought back too hard.”

I asked the principal how he’d react if I came over his desk and started beating him.  Would he only call the police?  Would he only fight back a certain amount so his force was “proportionate” to mine?  His reply was classic liberal.  He said “well that’s different.”  In other words, the standard applies to whoever a liberal says it applies, but not to anyone he doesn’t want it to.  Sort of like the way they interpret the Constitution…..

That’s how it always is with liberals.  Chop off someone’s head, nothing.  Take some naked pictures of prisoners who are otherwise unharmed, it’s a war crime.  Blow up a bus full of schoolchildren, nothing.  Demolish the house of the bomber, it’s a crime against humanity.  Launch a hundred rockets into Israel, deliberately targeting civilians, nothing.  Bomb the launch sites of the rockets, it’s “disproportionate force.”

If you are an enemy of Western civilization, America, English-speaking people, Christians, etc. then anything you do is a result of something your victim did.

If you, the victim, retaliate…..”well that’s different.”