THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

Today is Forgettable Friday. America is closed today.

My column is at the Washington Times.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2011/jan/20/forgettable-friday/

America will reopen for business on Monday.

eric

I had the pleasure recently of interviewing the lovely and brilliant Andrea Tantaros.

http://andreatantaros.com/

Ms. Tantaros is a Fox News political analyst and a columnist for the New York Daily News.

A sought after political consultant, she excels in helping her clients with everything from damage control to brand marketing. She moves seamlessly from lighthearted conversations on “Redeye” to serious debates about policy on “Hannity.”

She does not mince words, and her clients benefit from this.

She is also one of the most beautiful women on Earth. Her Fox News videos have grown men salivating over her with more passion than any politico not named New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

(The relentless man crush conservatives have on him skews the data, and is therefore an anomaly.)

While easy on the eyes, she will make your ears bleed if you try to advocate liberalism. She is tenacious and smart, and yet still self-effacing.

As with any interview, I have broken down my interview with Ms. Tantaros into three parts. First I present the fake interview that never happened. Then in the great tradition of the Jayson Blair Times (a scourge of a rag and a rival to the paper employing Ms. Tantaros), I present a doctored version of the fake interview deliberately taken out of context. Finally I present the actual unedited interview.

Here is my completely fictional interview.

Eric: “Given that you are a Republican Jewish brunette, it was very sweet of you to accept the engagement ring I got you. Should we announce our union to the world or wait until after our second child is born?”

AT: “I am not Jewish. I have a boyfriend. I have never met you. You seem like a cubic zirconia kind of guy. As badly as I want to repeal Obamacare, a free market plan should be enacted that covers stays at mental health facilities. You need it.”

Eric: “Would you be willing to admit that in a past life, you have thought about me constantly and gazed at me with wonder?”

AT: “I am wondering about you right now, but I do not see that as something in your favor. I think you have screws loose, and if your next sentence uses either of those words, I may have to deck you. I would not let you touch me if you were the last man on Earth.”

Eric: “What if it came down to me and the New York Times publisher?”

AT: “I would declare civilization over.”

Eric: “You are tough as nails, and I am throwing in the towel.”

AT: “This is the right thing to do, and my life will be instantly better when you do as quickly as possible.”

I will now present the doctored version of this interview, using the writing skills and ethical constraints of the Jayson Blair Times.

Eric: “Given that you are a Republican Jewish Brunette, it was very sweet of you to accept the engagement ring I got you. Should we announce our union to the world or wait until after our second child is born?”

AT: “This is the right thing to do, and my life will be instantly better when you do as quickly as possible.”

Adolescent fawning aside (me, not her, for those further than three standard deviations from lucid), the struggle for the heart and soul of this country is a tough battle that needs hardened foot soldiers. Ms. Tantaros is an unapologetic conservative who will take on any liberal point by point. The Republican Party benefits from her youth, enthusiasm, and lacerating dagger of a tongue. When elegance is blended with facts and logic, the results can be a delightful cocktail appreciated by those to the right of Leon Trotsky.

Too many conservatives have weak knees. We need steel spines. That is where Ms. Tantaros comes into play. The GOP is lucky she is on our side.

With that, I present my actual interview with Andrea Tantaros.

1) What is the Andrea Tantaros story?

“I’m third of four children born to a Greek immigrant father and a Christian, Italian-American mother. My family was in the restaurant business so we all had to work. A lot. My father came to America with nothing, never took a penny from the government and built an empire with my mother by his side as his partner. He loved us very much, but he was very tough. He set a demanding example and taught us the meaning of persistence, hard work and a mantra of no excuses. If more people were like him, this country would be in better shape.”

2) What made you decide to enter the political arena?

“I’ve always been a very competitive person but never thought about politics when I was young. My parents were active locally but I actually passed on going to college in Washington, DC because it was ‘too political.’ Pretty amusing when you think about it. Then a friend set me up with a summer internship in the press office of Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign (before he hijacked a third party). The rest is history.”

3) What is the first rule of damage control? What are examples of the best and worst ways to deal with scandals?

“If there is legitimacy to the scandal, don’t hide. Get all the facts out early. The more you leave on the table, the greater chance the story emerges drip by salacious drip later on and becomes the cover of the New York Post for a week straight (see Tiger Woods, John Edwards). People didn’t like to hear that Letterman had an affair but he got in front of the story, admitted it, and said let’s move on, leaving the press with nothing else to report. Alas, it died quickly.

Also, never, ever lie. It’s a good rule in general, but when dealing with the media, honesty is the only policy (see Tiger Woods again). Except for this questionnaire. And maybe when you’re on Red Eye. Kidding. (But not about Red Eye).”

4) What 3 political issues are most important to you?

“My issues are more abstract than precise. Fairness is very important to me. I don’t think the government should be taking from those who work hard and make more, nor should they be telling us what to do. They should focus on keeping us safe. Living in New York City, that’s a big one for me. Stop worrying about how much sodium is in my soup and focus on stopping the suicide bomber on my subway.

My father used to say ‘What a country,’ when he was amazed by something truly and uniquely American. He used to say it about how generous the American people were to those in need, or when he’d see professional cheerleaders. But his attitude was one that loved this country so much, seldom seen by most who were born here. I fear that mentality is slowly becoming extinct. Maintaining what makes us great and the vast opportunity we offer is critical.”

5) The Republican Party is not known for having the best marketing. What can ordinary citizens do, besides listening to you, to help strengthen conservatism?

“The Republican party is still pretty dusty. It’s getting better, but at a glacial pace. I find that yelling at people who disagree with you is useless, but having the patience to explain what conservatism is can be quite effective. For example, I was in a cab last night complaining about my Mayor (New York City Mayor) Michael Bloomberg as I do most times when I’m in a taxi. I was talking about how his insistence on telling us what to do from how much sugar to eat, to the dangers of salt to his new fleet of green police was getting out of control. The cabbie, clearly not a conservative, agreed that he needed to stop butting into our lives. When I explained that is the crux of conservatism, and why I was one, he agreed. By the time I was at my destination, he had denounced liberalism and pledged not to vote for Obama.”

6) If you had 5 minutes alone with President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney, what would you say to them or ask them? What would you have done during their tenure to keep their images high?

“I’d ask Bush why he listened to Karl Rove so much and abandoned his Republican roots. Rove is great at numbers but should have never been handling policy. He’s not a conservative, and his guidance followed by Bush reflects that. They are both very likable, personable guys. His team failed at showing the nation that. I’d ask Cheney to have a beer with me.”

7) Greece is known for the first Olympics and the ruins of the Acropolis. Yet now Greece is facing ruin and financial apocalypse. As a proud Greek, do you have any emotional stake in the situation? Also, what can America do to avoid going down the same path? Are the situations analogous?

“I don’t want the country to slide into total chaos. Then I wouldn’t have anywhere fun to vacation in the summertime. We’re actually headed in the same situation. Greece is the ghost of Christmas future. It’s the end result of socialism. It’s the reason my father left.”

8.) What can big business, whether it be gun makers, oil companies, or hamburger establishments, do to improve their images? How does one counteract the stereotype of big business as evil?

“Business exists to make money. They also create jobs. What’s so bad about that? We shouldn’t let liberals shame business for its profits. We should want them to succeed. They just need to act ethically. When they try and screw people is when they run into trouble.”

9) What Americans call 9/11, Israel refers to as every day life. Israel seems to get the blame no matter what it does. Does Israel need better public relations people? What can it do to improve its image?

“It seems there are two wars going on over there. Reality and then the PR war. They should solicit help and advice. (Manischewitz summit, anyone?) Oddly, though, many American Jews are Democrats, who often apologize for the acts of those in the Muslim world that seek to eradicate the Jews. Why American Jews continue to support those who don’t support policies that protect Israel and her people always puzzles me.”

10) Attempts to partially privatize social security, fix the ticking time bomb of Medicare, and reform education have been met with hysteria about throwing old people and children on the street and leaving them to die. How can Republicans frame issues and counterattack charges of “meanness?”

“It’s not meanness, it’s reality. These programs were never designed to be retirement plans. The longer we wait to make the cuts, the more painful it will be. It’s why the argument that Obamacare will help fix our fiscal woes is such nonsense. Every time the government has gotten involved in health care, it’s been a costly nightmare. Medicare and Medicaid are two perfect examples. They are bankrupting us. Obamacare won’t be any different.”

11) Who are your 3 political heroes, American or worldwide?

“Margaret Thatcher
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Roger Ailes”

12) You made many people laugh when you referred to President Obama as a “wussie.” If you were a Democratic consultant, how would you advise him and other liberals with regards to “dewussification?” What do they need to do specifically to “man up?”

“I believe I called him an Ivy League fancy lad. But he is a wussie, too. He needs to stop apologizing and appeasing. That comes from his desire to be all things to all people, which is impossible, especially as President. He strikes me as very insecure, his childhood was less than ideal which probably explains that (though I’m no shrink) and he likely knows he’s not ready for the office which he holds, which explains his obvious inability to be magnanimous. He also doesn’t comprehend this country’s greatness. He can’t stand up for America if he doesn’t appreciate her exceptionalism, which he doesn’t.”

13) Conservative victims of liberal media savagery have included Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Nikki Haley, Jeannie Pirro, and many others. Is it all about abortion? Is it because they are physically attractive? Is it because they are women? Why are they being targeted for demolition and what can they or could they have done to fight back?

“All of the above. Liberals hate conservative women because they think women should be all be liberals. When they see Sarah Palin they get mad that a woman with five kids, a beehive and husband in the union isn’t a registered Democrat on welfare. They advocate for choice but only if we choose as they do: to advocate for abortion, to spend our days arguing over equal pay or hating men. I’m the opposite. I don’t worry about keeping up with the guys. I happen to love men and I’m a happy girl. Happiness really ticks them off.”

14) Without delving too deeply into your personal life, what would you want Americans to know about Andrea Tantaros the person? 100 years from now, what would you want people to remember about you, and what would you hope the history books say about you?

“That I’ll always stand up for what I believe in and that I’m fiercely loyal. But since liberals control education I will never make it into a history text book, nor should I. I’m just the kid of an immigrant voicing my opinion like everyone else. We all have them, I just get to express mine on television and in print.”

15) Do you get bored with the marriage proposals that you get inundated with on a daily basis, and does your share of the 18-30 year old male fan base decrease when they find out you are unavailable? Since you are Greek, how do you handle being mistaken for Aphrodite?

“I’m always flattered, but I’m no Aphrodite. Well, except for the nose. I have the same nose as all those marble Greek statues. It also doesn’t seem to bother guys when they find out I’m not single. You are persistent creatures, but that’s why we, conservative women, love you.”

I would like to thank Ms. Tantaros for her graciousness, her time, and most importantly, her relentlessness in the face of some very tough contra forces.

No matter how good a product is, without proper marketing it will fade away. Conservatism works, but it is often advanced in a less than articulate manner.

Ms. Tantaros is not just on the right.

She is right.

More importantly, she is prepared and skilled enough to show everybody else why she and the rest of the right are right.

If she leaves a lasting impression, this country may have a lasting conservative majority.

eric

The left just can’t stop the hate.

They can’t let go.

President Obama called for calm, and I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Yet it seems even a presidential request for a cessation of hostilities cannot stop the left, since hostility and hate is all they have.

I was willing to give some latitude to people who popped off before the president’s speech. Yet those same people have shown that they will never stop the scorched Earth tactics of burning the entire village just to gain an ounce of political advantage.

When a pot smoking, Communist Manifesto reading nutcase named Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and murdered six others, the left immediately went bonkers. They explicitly blamed Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and the Tea Party movement for the murders.

There was not an ounce of evidence that Mr. Loughner was influenced in any way by conservatism. In fact, the evidence specifically showed that he was not. After several days of viciousness by the left, they chanegd their story line only when public opinion polls showed a backlash. Then they blamed the current political climate and said that everybody needed to tone it down.

What the left meant was that the right should just shut up and abandon their beliefs while the left kept lobbing verbal grenades.

The notion of violence on the right was a complete myth. It was an intimidation tactic. Yet leftist violence is very real.

This brings us to the tragedy that is James Eric Fuller.

Mr. Fuller was one of the shooting victims. He was hit in the leg and survived. While there is no doubt that he deserved our sympathy, this does not justify his turning from victim to criminal.

Several days after the shooting, he attended a town hall meeting. A tea party spokesman was giving non-controversial remarks. Mr. Fuller held up a picture of the tea party spokesman and yelled “You’re dead!”

This is what the civilized world calls a death threat, and what the left considers business as usual.

Mr. Fuller was taken into custody and held for a mental evaluation. Like Mr. Loughner, Mr. Fuller may be a few cards short of a full deck.

“It looks like Palin, Beck, and Sharron Angle got their first target. Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled.” He condemned John Boehner and recommended that Dick Cheney be tortured.

The left wants to dismiss Mr. Fuller as a lone lunatic. Not so fast.

Mr. Fuller is different from Mr. Laughner. Mr. Laughner was used by everybody from the Pima County Sheriff to MSNBC employees as n example of right-wing violence. The link was proven to be non-existence.

Mr. Fuller was a left-wing activist. His death threats were 100% directly correlated with the words of the leftist accusers. He said the exact same phrases. Using the “standards” of the left, they are directly responsible for Mr. Fuller.

I have said over and over that the reason why the left wants violence to be a part of the political equation is because for them, it works. The right can only win battles of policy. The left can only win by polarizing and personalizing the discourse. They foment rage because they benefit from it.

Mr. Fuller was not just a nutcase. He was a leftist nutcase. That is inescapable and undeniable.

So do MSNBC reporters and the liberal media have blood on their hands?

Only if we use their standards. They cannot have it both ways.

They cannot say we should all be civil and then continue spreading hatred.

The right wants policy discussions. The left wants political bloodshed.

MSNBC hatemonger Ed Schultz is a prime example. His views only yesterday, a full several days after the president asked for calm, tell a picture of a man who will never stop hating.

“I would be more than happy to change my tone on this show. I would do it…as soon as the Republicans stop blocking policies that help working class Americans.”

For the love of Almighty God, Mr. Schultz might have just declared hunting season on Republicans and made the death threats himself.

He has finally admitted that he believes his angry, hateful tone is justified because Republicans disagree with him. Republicans have policy differences, and until they change their policies, he will not change his tone.

How is that civility? The whole point of civility is to be decent to those we disagree with. Anybody can be respectful of those concurring with us. Tose dissenting from our view are the very people we need to be the most civil with.

Ed Schultz does not want civility. He wants Republicans to shut up and agree with him or face personal destruction from him. If they continue espousing beliefs, he will keep up his hateful tone.

“Republicans have no business talking about civility and tone until they change the way they govern.”

Actually it was the left screaming about civility and tone at the top of their angry lungs. Mr. Obama at least did so in a respectful, calm manner, when he clearly saw the left spiraling out of control.

So until Republicans simply stop being conservatives, existing, and breathing air, they deserve every unce of incivility that befalls them. This includes death threats by Mr. Fuller using the very exact same language used by Mr. Schultz.

Randi Rhodes had her own lovely diatribe.

“So Glenn Beck has now become Sesame Street for potential assassins.”

Really? I would argue Randi Rhodes is what she accuses Mr. Beck of being.

One could spend hours dissecting the bile that secreted from an angry crazed unidentified man to produce Paul Krugman, yet his love of Hitler and Nazi reference is sufficient for now. He feels we should avoid them “unless they are relevant.” Since he supposedly writes about “economics, (hatred of George W. Bush)” it is never relevant. Then again, neither is he, but the left refuses to condemn his repeated screeds.

The vile spreader of hate behind the Daily Kos, which controls the Democratic Party, reacted to the shootings by saying “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.” So as for Mr. Fuller, mission accomplished Markos Moulitsas.

Leftists will claim that since Mr. Fuller did not actually carry out his death threat, no harm, no foul. This is garbage. The guy made death threats. Perhaps anything short of actually murdering Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or their families will continue to have the left ignore the truth. MSNBC blamed the Tea Party, and this leftist crazy Mr. Fuller went after a tea party guy who was simply speaking in a rather calm and quiet manner.

The left has two choices, both of them painful.

They can take responsibility for Mr. Fuller’s actions. MSNBC blowhards Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Ed Schultz can admit responsibility and apologize for Mr. Fuller’s behavior. The Pima County Sheriff can do likewise.

Or the left can truly stop accusing the right of fomenting hate speech. There is no hate speech coming from the right by any of the usual suspects mentioned. The left cites their existence, but never provides a simple single example. Yet with the left, we have concrete examples of how their speech leads to violence.

The left will never admit this, but it is also their fault that people like Mr. Loughner and Mr. Fuller run wild and free. The left blames Ronald Reagan for every deranged mentally ill person roaming the streets arguing with inanimate objects.

The reason these people do so is because the left is against the forced committing of crazy people to the appropriate looney bins.

I make no secret of my utter contempt for these basket cases. In the same way the left cares more about the rights of criminals than victims, they make excuses for lunatics but refuse to force them to get treatment.

What is the result of this liberal compassion? Crazies have the right to die on the streets of starvation, dehydration, and lack of medication.

I was the one who got flak for saying three years ago on this very blog that we should quarantine the mentally ill. My exact words were “lock them up, drug them up, but for the love of God, shut them up.”

I am long done with compassion for them. I have compassion for those who get hurt by them.

I have a couple of lunatics in my family, and I have begged for them to be forcibly committed. When they go bonkers and kill somebody, it won’t be because of me. I did the best I could to legally remove them from society.

So while the left is letting the inmates avoid the asylums, they are also filling them up with rage instead of medicating them.

Mr. Loughner and Mr. Fuller could have been locked up in the past. Mr. Fuller still likely won’t be locked up permanently. Then when he has another episode, the left will find a way to blame Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin even as he declares his undying love for MSNBC.

The left has no interest in civility. They want violence at all costs. Collateral damage for them is a victory. They do it because it works.

They want conservatives living in fear of enacting a single right of center policy.

Their strategy is working and they are winning. Until it stops working, there is not a safe place on this Earth for Republicans and conservatives to hide.

Since they will be despised and threatened no matter what, conservatives need to be prepared. Extra security and bodyguards are a good start, in addition to having top notch lawyers at the ready. Mark Levin gets it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/mark-levin-sue-chris-matthews-msnbc_n_809132.html

The left either forcefully condemns Mr. Fuller or they quietly support him. There is no middle ground. The day they falsely blamed conservatives for Mr. Loughner, they lost their right to blather about civility.

The violence in this country is one directional, solely and completely owned by the left.

Either everybody obeys the rules of civility or nobody does. Republicans and conservatives will not engage in unilateral disarmament while the left plans to politically (hopefully only politically) slit more conservative throats.

Congratulations Mr. Schultz. You and your ilk with your real hate speech have finally produced the results you desired. Well, not completely. No conservatives have been killed…yet.

eric

It is time to get back to politics and policy.

Over a week ago much of the America political world came to a screeching halt due to the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. This freeze was highly appropriate, and good people everywhere continue to pray for Congresswoman Giffords and mourn the victims. Nothing is more tragic than the death of a child, and that should never be forgotten.

(I personally feel additional great pain over the Giffords shooting because she is Jewish. I would still feel bad if she were not Jewish, but with the attacks on Congressmen Weiner and Cantor, I pray that the madman who shot the Congresswoman was not motivated by anti-Semitism.)

Yet we cannot indefinitely put life on hold. With the greatest respect to those still suffering, those not directly connected to the tragedy have to get back to normal. Sometimes that involves serious disagreements about issues that matter greatly.

Civility means sticking to policy and not engaging in vile personal attacks. It does not mean we all “come together” and agree with each other.

I support the vote to repeal Obamacare. Many agree with me and many others do not. The discussion does not have to turn into chairs being thrown in the not so great tradition of Jerry Springer and Geraldo. It certainly should not be solved with gunshots. Yet disagreements in general are healthy. George Washington had unity during war. Yet John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had competing visions of America that still exist today. Both of those visions should be treated with dignity. We need more speech, not less.

So while we were appropriately mourning, the rest of the world did not stop.

The American dollar is still in free fall.

Our states are going broke, with California and other states possibly needing a federal bailout.

Drugs are destroying our youth, and the economic “recovery” is proving illusory as jobs remain scarce.

Our schools are declining into training grounds for future prisons, while actual prisons are overflowing.

2010 was a bad year for America, but 2011 has gotten off to a far worse start. At least in 2010 no members of Congress were shot. In addition to Ms. Giffords and Judge Roll, a high ranking federal official in the prior presidential administration was recently found murdered and dumped in a bizarre place more appropriate for a Mafia victim.

As if the domestic scene was not bad enough, the rest of the globe is going bonkers all at once.

Third world genocidal lunatics running Iran are still trying to kill us all.

(I used to say “third world genocidal lunatics in Iran…” I am from now on replacing the word “in” with “running” to clarify that I am referring to the leadership, not the people. We all need to make an effort.)

North Korea continues to threaten its neighbors while millions of people starve.

For every optimistic story of a Sully Sullenberger or a Chilean Mine Rescue, it seems that two or three negative events are happening.

It is too simplistic to blame the media. They may thrive on conflict and misery, but maybe things really are that bad.

Rather than actually confronting problems honestly and ethically, people look for excuses.

People get shot, and the blame falls on talk show hosts.

Then we are told to come together, and the solution is to have congresspeople sit next to each other.

Playing musical chairs does not solve a single problem.

The only solution is to truly respect that good ideas can come from everywhere, and that some differences cannot and should not be bridged.

Many of you over the last four years have pointed out that I spend very little time discussing social issues. I have opinions on abortion, gay rights, and illegal immigration. I just refuse to discuss them.

The world is on fire. If we don’t prevent Armageddon and save our economy, we will cease as a world people to be. Terrorists flying planes into towers did not distinguish Americans from Mexicans or heterosexuals from homosexuals.

I respect that others are fueled primarily by social issues. Just be respectful and understand that different people have different passions.

There is a ton of work to get done.

So let’s make this simple.

Barack Obama is a democratically elected president. He was born in Hawaii, not Kenya. He is a Christian, not a Muslim. He is fundamentally wrong on issues I care about, but he loves America in his own way. He is a good husband and father, and an inspirational figure to many. His liberal supporters are not unpatriotic.

Sarah Palin was a democratically elected governor who was selected to be the 2008 vice presidential nominee. She is a loving wife and mother, and an inspirational figure to many. She is not evil or stupid, and her supporters are not unpatriotic either. They are not dangerous. Dissenting from the president is not a threat to democracy. It is democracy.

(Special thanks to former New York Mayor Ed Koch for his defense of Sarah Palin.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/18/palin_defeated_unfair_critics_at_nyt__msnbc_108561.html

Until people can accept that the people on the other side are a noble opposition, nothing will get done.

Yet sometimes inaction and failing to get things done is a good thing. What we call gridlock, the Founding Fathers saw as the system working.

There is a middle ground between ripping each other’s eyes out and fake pious calls about coming together that are unrealistic. We come together when we need to. We always have, and always will. We came together after Pearl Harbor and after 9/11.

If something is that important, we will come together. If not, we will stay on opposite sides. As long as this is done non-violently, these instances of separation and division are positive.

We don’t need screams of bloody murder or holding hands and smoking peace pipes.

We don’t need rage or Kumbaya.

We need to respect our differences, without trying to paper them over.

Differences are healthy.

So we can calm down without insincerely coming together.

America was founded on differences. It is time to stop kidding ourselves. We are not ideologically homogeneous, so we should just get back to the normal business of fighting…yes fighting…as in feuding and fussing…like we always have and always will.

There is only one appropriate way for politics to result in a person’s demise. and that is for Congresspeople to give speeches and bore people to death.

(Thank you Hugh Hewitt for referring to C-Span as “the political equivalent of waterboarding.”)

It is time for our leaders to get back to doing something, doing nothing, and even accusing each other of doing nothing while simultaneously doing bad things, which technically is something.

It is time to get back to politics and policy.

eric

Starting today I am now a columnist for the Washington Times Communities Online. My first column for them deals with Dr. Martin Luther King, President Obama, and the issue of civility.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2011/jan/17/mlk-barack-obama-and-2011-civility/

I would like to thank the Washington Times Communities Online staff for their graciousness and professionalism, and to Rick Amato of KCBQ in San Diego for introducing me to them.

eric

I need to delay my response to President Obama’s speech one more day. Dear readers, barring any other unexpected events, I will have a surprising announcement regarding the president tomorrow. Forgive the delay. One more aspect of the leftist attacks needs to be dealt with.

For those not paying attention the last few days, a 22 year old pot smoking reader of the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf killed 6 people and wounded 13 others in Tucson, Arizona. One of the victims who survived was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Conservatives reacted to the tragedy by praying for the victims. Too many liberals decided to use the tragedy to attack conservatives. Some of these leftist miscreants attacked Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh has been described on the left as “spreading hate speech.” Hate speech is anything the left disagrees with. Naturally, Mr. Limbaugh took issue with being accused of facilitating murder.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/10/limbaugh-says-dems-playing-politics-with-giffords-shooting/

I have been lambasting the left for trafficking in real hate speech. Yet rather than just throw out names like Joan Walsh and Keith Olbermann, I have provided specific examples. When I call Bob Herbert and Maureen Dowd racial and sexual bombthrowers, I back it up with specific statements in context. I refer to the Jayson Blair Times and Palesimians based on direct bad behavior. I don’t just make stuff up.

So I went on the CNN website to look at who the critics of Limbaugh are. You can see all of them for yourself in the above link. I did not cherry pick. I did not need to. What I found was that if the liberals on that comment thread represent liberals, then Limbaugh’s critics are absolute basket cases.

I wanted to see them offer specific examples of bad things he did. They offered nothing of the sort. Why do they hate him? just because. That’s it. He disagrees with them, and effectively defeats their arguments.

Limbaugh does not need me to defend him. This is not about him. This is about showing the truly pathological hatred of the left, unable to back up their assertions.

Anyway, here are what the simians posing as liberal rocket scientists had to say about Limbaugh, with my comments interspersed.

Jeff Brown in Jersey–“This is a very ugly man, inside and out!”

Now that is intellect.

shadysider–“Hey Limbaugh, movies entertain. Your rhetoric incites.”

Example? None.

S.positive–“Idiot Rush, cant you put two and two together as you do everyday. You need the American Public to spell it out for you. You and your group are a DISGRACE to this country…”

He calls himself positive, and starts with an insult. Who is Limbaugh’s group? Does that include me?

a6102658–“We are we constantly admonished not to rush to conclusions”
So, why are you?…too much heat.
This exactly what I expected him to say, he makes his money by using fear.”

How? Provide an example.

Truthmonitor–“Sorry, Rushbo. Your ‘defense’ of yourself is laughable. You are very much to blame, hate-monger.”

How is he a hatemonger?

Chumlee–“No drug addict Limbaugh, you and your pals at Fox Noise – failing Palin, et all are responsible for the terrorism you
spew. You and yours are TERRORISTS, Fox Noise, including you, need to be shut down and taken off the air. You are a disgusting individual whose mouth needs to be shut. Where the sun does not shine Linbaugh. Crawl
into a hole and stay there – and – bring all of your nut job friends, including the psycho from Alaska – you know,
the quitter, failing Palin!”

This post should have been taken down by CNN. Calling Limbaugh and me, since he included “you and yours” as terrorists is real hate speech. How are we terrorists? CNN traffics in hate by not deleting this.

sandy–“No, his comments never incite others! Hogwash!! This man’s mouth is nothing but inflammatory remarks. Of course he, Palin,Beck etc are not going to own up to what their inflammatory rhetoric does, that would stop the money flow for alll of them, and it’s about money for all of them. Many Americans have all along thought that some of the rhetoric out there was going to end disastrous, it was only a matter of time. Now, there are some who have the guts to tell the truth. I for one want this to end and if it means taking these pundits off the air, then so be it.”

Ok, so this person favors censorship, but what specifically constitutes inflammatory rhetoric? None of these people called liberals terrorists, as the previous liberal did.

carlos–“as to the imbecile woman from alaska: you do not offer condolences to the family of a living person……..such stupidity from this woman is beyond comprehension…….and, you bloated drugster: do not spin it because you are just a responsible as that woman because of your hatred for the President of the United States of America with your vile and evil mouth.”

Actually the liberal media initially reported Congresswoman Giffords as deceased. So Palin’s comments in context were correct. Calling someone bloated is a slur against fat people. Is that not hate speech?

Rush Bimbo–“This guy drinks his own kool-aid”

That offers nothing.

GT66–“One must wonder how Limbaugh can close his eyes at night with all the damage his rhetoric has done to public discourse in this country. It must be the drugs that help him sleep at night.”

His addiction to prescription pain pills is fodder for the left, but Barack Obama did cocaine. So what? How does Limbaugh’s human failings on a human level make him hateful?

Al-NY,NY–“You’re a fat, loud-mouthed, loathsome and drug addicted slob. If it were the other way around, you’d be first in line with the blame game”

Real classy Al. Limbaugh has not blamed anybody but the guy who did it.

Jreddog1–“Me-thinks thou doth protest too much.” And another sign that Rush is just as crazy as Loughner. When he should be saying “Whoa, maybe the hate fueled, anger filled, and outrageous statements made by me might have had an influence on this character”, instead he is saying “Don’t blame me, that is unfair and I had nothing to do with it.” He continues to maintain his divisive nature. He is a lunatic.”

Limbaugh is a lunatic? Based on what diagnosis? Charles Krauthammer has decades of experience in psychiatry, and he offered a diagnosis of the shooter without giving Limbaugh the same diagnosis. What statements did Limbaugh make?

Dave–“So what? Who cares what Limbaugh thinks? Considering that this fascist idiot wrote the book on “playing politics,” his reactions are quite amusing when the shoe is on the other foot. He’s the typical “do as I say, not as I do” conservative – all mouth and no brains.”

Actually, politics has been played since the beginning of time. Machiavelli came long before Limbaugh, and so did Sun Zhu’s “the art of war.” Saul Alinsky came before Limbaugh. Calling Limbaugh a Fascist is saying an anti-Italian slur, and I am not sure Limbaugh is even Italian. How is he a Fascist?

Four and The Door–“In this instance Rush Limbaugh is exactly correct. The more information that comes out about Jared the twisted and confused mass murderer, the clearer it is that this crime was a result of mental illness rather than partisan politics, Sarah Palin, ObamaCare or anything else that actually exists in the real world. In fact, it was reported that Jared the twisted and confused mass murderer also hated the previous administration. He was neither pro-Republican or a Democrat. He was sick. But the far left liberals do not let a little thing like the truth get in the way of Sarah bashing. That’s why their rants are so easy to tune out. They mean nothing.”

That is what we call a lucid, coherent argument. It was offered by a conservative and defender of Limbaugh.

Are there conservatives who go on message boards and into chatrooms and spout nonsensical gibberish?

Absolutely.

Are there liberals offering lucid and thoughtful arguments regarding the tragedy itself?

Of course.

Has a single liberal offered a single example of Sarah Palin, Glenn beck, or Rush Limbaugh engaging in true hate speech?

Since their is zero link between the shooter and today’s political climate, isn’t focusing on the political climate a way for the left to try and exploit a tragedy for political gain?

Most certainly. Socialist Bernie Sanders actually mentions the tragedy and Sarah Palin in his fundraising letter. If using a colleague who was just shot in the head to raise campaign money is not hateful, perhaps I have lost track of when that became respectable.

So again, until the left can offer any actual example, they should just shut up and sit down.

Until the left stops engaging in real hate speech that allows me to provide hundreds of real examples on a  daily basis, they should just shut up and sit down.

The left is poisoning our society because they cannot win in what Limbaugh calls the arena of ideas.

The left is the culture of hate in America. The right are the innocent victims of the leftist rage.

Deep down, the left knows this.

Based on the recent polls about the exploitation of the tragedy, so does an overwhelming majority of the American people.

eric

I will not be covering President Obama’s remarks today. I will have an announcement later in the week regarding the president that many of you will find shocking. Until people read that column, they will not fully understand why I chose to publish today’s column before the president’s remarks. This column was written before he spoke.

One last hater needs to be called out right now, and it is not anybody who spoke at the memorial.

For those on the left whining and crying their little liberal eyes out and pleading over “civility” and “toning it down,” sit and down and shut up.

One day I will stand before God (Yes liberals, conservatives are creatures of God as well), and I will have to answer for remarks. I am prepared to be judged and stand by my words.

The left exploited the death of innocent people, and some of those miscreants are backtracking in the face of the only thing guiding liberals to begin with…polls.

Others are doubling down.

Well my poker chips are being pushed to the center of the table. I am all in.

This is a fight (verbally, for you dumb@sses unable to understand prose from actual violence), and conservatives had either bring the brass knuckles or get punched out permanently.

What are the proper terms for blaming the Arizona shooting in any way on conservatives such as Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin?

The terms are slander and libel. The only purpose of slander and libel is to destroy.

As always, Sir Charles of Krauthammer, a trained psychiatrist, gets it perfectly right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html

Yet Sarah Palin took it one step further. The woman who for two years has had her family brutally and savagely attacked in every conceivable way short of bullets through their hearts has finally had enough.

Unlike the real hatred coming from the left, she did not attack anybody. She defender herself. What is she supposed to do, keep getting her eyes gouged out? Will her death finally be enough for liberals until they can move on to the next conservative to hound into the grave?

The left took several pounds of flesh, and she wants what little she has left to stay on her body.

She used the term “blood libel” to describe what is being done to her.

Blood libel is a hyper-charged terms. It is also deadly accurate in this case.

Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat who I have been very critical of in the past, is backing Palin.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/

Blood libel was the notion of Christians claiming that Jews were committing murder, which was used to justify violence against Jews. Currently its roots are used by the Palesimians to claim that Jews are poisoning the water to murder Palesimian children. This is also used to justify violence against Jews.

Palin absolutely is a victim of abuse that goes far beyond anything normal. One anti-Palin reporter moved in next door to her so he could stalk her family. Is that normal?

T-shirts saying “abort Sarah Palin” are popular among the left. Have they ever apologized? Of course not.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/

Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League started out by saying the following:

“It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks.”

While I agree with this, Foxman is a day late and a dollar short. He is a liberal, and far too willing to accept ideological bigotry against conservatives. He should have been out in front at the very beginning, like he is when a liberal is criticized.

Then Foxman adds another comment.

“We wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase ‘blood-libel.’ ”

“He called it a phrase ‘fraught with pain in Jewish history.’”

As frustrating and inconsistent as Foxman is, I am not troubled by this comment. He does not attack Governor Palin. He has a right to educate people as to the term. Notice he does so in a civil way.

Not Congresswoman Debbie Wasseman-Schultz. She seems to think that her being Jewish gives her the right to speak for all Jews. Here is what her office had to say.

“’Palin’s comments either show a complete ignorance of history, or blatant anti-Semitism,’ said Jonathan Beeton, Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s spokesman. ‘Either way, it shows an appalling lack of sensitivity given Representative Giffords’s faith and the events of the past week.’”

Blatant anti-Semitism? Should she have been like Justice Clarence Thomas and called herself the victim of a “high tech lynching?” Or would she then have been called a racist.

Sarah Palin using the term “blood libel” may upset some liberal Jews. Will they bat an eyelash at Wasserman-Schultz implying that Palin is an anti-Semite?

Will Wasserman-Schultz apologize for this slur, a personal attack?

The left attacks Palin, she defends herself, and the left gets enraged at her defending herself.

I am proud to defend Sarah Palin and conservatives in general. I do so because the attacks on her are an attack on me.

If I ever had to choose between my Judaism and my political conservatism, I would choose Judaism every time. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has seen liberalism attack Judaism (Code Pink, J-Street), and she proudly threw her Judaism under the bus.

The idiotic article linked to above even has the following sentence:

“Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of a pro-Israel group called J Street, said that ‘when Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.’”

J-Street is not pro-Israel. It is an anti-Israel, Arab funded group seeking to undermine Israel. Ask even “Democrats for Israel” (I disagree with them on politics but they are legit on Israel) about J-Street.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/14/oy_vey_phony_indignation_over_blood_libel_108533.html

I am not offended by Palin’s words. I am offended by Jeremy Ben Ami and his worshippers like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz claiming that they represent anything close to mainstream Judaism.

I want both of them to look my father in the eye. My dad is more than a Holocaust survivor. He is a guy who spent years being shot at just for being Jewish. Had he and my grandparents been caught, ovens awaited them. His opinion matters to me more than some leftist Congresswoman trying to score political points by doing what every liberal does…bash Sarah Palin for sheer sport.

My parents like Sarah Palin. They dislike Wasserman-Schultz. Palin stands up for Jews and Israel. Waserman-Schultz stands up for the Arabs running J-Street. She may not be anti-Israel, but at best she is a dupe, a dope, and a pawn.

(Her own father Larry Wasserman confessed that his daughter “had not been particularly active in the Jewish community before entering politics…” Her district contains elderly Jewish liberals who still think FDR is in charge. Remember, these are the enfeebled people who in 2000 voted for Pat Buchanan. )

Some on the left will now start blubbering about how I am being “vitriolic.”

No, I am defending a good decent woman against false charges. That is what being honorable is all about.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz could have taken the Abe Foxman route. She could have expressed dismay without getting personal.

Instead, hiding behind her staff, she called Sarah Palin an anti-Semite.

That is blood libel.

I call on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to condemn the anti-Semitism charge against Sarah Palin.

Knowing she will refuse to do so, I call on Jews everywhere to remember who our friends are.

If Jews were to be persecuted, Sarah Palin would stand up and defend us.

As for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, her Palin-bashing, J-Street loving attitude speaks for its Self-hating Jewish self.

I continue to abhor all violence, but will not let leftist bullies like Wasserman-Schultz tell me who gets to speak and who doesn’t.

I will tone it down when she shuts her leftist Christian-hating, religion-baiting trap.

eric

On Saturday in Arizona, a 22 year old man shot 19 people, including U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Six people, including Federal Judge John Roll, were killed.

Minutes after the bullets were fired, liberals across the country began using the tragedy to their political advantage, blaming conservatives for the shootings.

Despite zero evidence that the killer was in any way connected to conservatism, the left replied “evidence, shmevidence.”

When enough evidence was so overwhelming that the attempt to tie the killer to conservatism was failing, left-wing commentators needed a backup approach. “Political discourse” and “toning it down” became code words for silencing all conservatives.

There is a myth in this country that “both sides do it.”

No. They don’t. Not by a long shot. With rare statistical aberrations on the right, virtually all of the hatred in this country emanates from the left.

The very leftists calling for civility are the ones spreading the most hate.

If one were to comb over thousands of hours of writings by Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, researchers would struggle to find an example of true hatred. It would take forever.

Yet finding leftist hatred takes only seconds. This very week while Glenn Beck was calling for peace, absolute bile was emanating from Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Joan Walsh, and Paul Krugman.

Now anybody can name names. Throughout this week I provided specific examples of what they said.

The left does not have examples on the right from the people they attack. Those examples don’t exist. The best they can do is a website by Sarah Palin that has rhetoric totally consistent with normal campaign speech. You are more likely to find dangerous rhetoric in a high school football locker room before a game against a crosstown rival.

The reason why people claim moral equivalence is because moral equivalence prevents people from having to do any analysis of the truth. It allows for laziness.

Growing up my sibling would drive me crazy. I just wanted to be left alone. Yet my parents would say “You go to your room, you go to your room.” The punishments were equal but the behavior never was. My sibling would laugh with glee because in her world, mutually assured destruction was victory. She has a mental illness, and the lack of parental willingness to see the real problem only enabled her behavior. Today she wreaks havoc on society, and will most likely commit an act of violent rage because nobody will lock her up. I was told that I could just “let it go,” and let her torture me. That was not an option. Society will not miss her when she is gone. It might be improved. Moral equivalence allowed her to run wild.

In college a fellow student physically attacked me. I defended myself. The result? The imbecile dean of students punished us both, rather than listen to other students claiming I was innocent. I was told I could have just “let it go.” That would have meant letting him punch me.

Does anybody think schools can save kids who are bullied? The choices are to get beaten up, or try and save your own life with self-defense and get criticized my some pinhead principle who thinks the kids should trust in the very school system that cannot protect them. It is no wonder violence explodes as schools remain clueless.

Look at Israel. It is totally black and white. There is no shade of gray anywhere. Palesimians are trying to murder innocent Jews so they can wipe them off the map and eliminate Israel and Jews everywhere. Israelis are trying to defend themselves. Israel retaliates and punishes the murderers, and they are told to just “let it go.” People bemoan the “cycle of violence,” too stupid to realize that a little short-term overwhelming violence can prevent long-term violence in greater amounts. Harry S. Truman understood this after Pearl Harbor.

Wars end when one side wins and the other side is crushed.

Now apply this to liberals and conservatives. The conflict is totally the fault of the liberals. The conservatives are virtually blameless.

So if I am going to make such a black and white statement, I had better back it up with sound analysis.

The left exacerbates the conflict. They love the conflict. They want the conflict.

The question is…why?

Why would they want this?

The answer is because of how they are wired, and the situation on the ground.

Conservatives want policy discussions. We disagree with liberals. Liberals want gutter politics. They despise conservatives with every fiber in their being.

How do I know this is true?

Because the explanation is sensible. There is a warm-blooded explanation and a cold-blooded one.

The warm-blooded explanation is God. There are many more religious conservatives than liberals and many more secular liberals than conservatives. If you believe in a higher power telling you to love your neighbor, feed the poor, house the hungry, and live honorably, you have a better chance of doing that.

I am going to steer away from this as an answer because it is flawed. There are plenty of atheists and agnostics leading good lives, and admittedly some religious people are hypocrites. The left would like to make people believe all religious people are phony, which is not true. Yet even a small amount of crossover can weaken this theory. The warm-blooded theory feels good to say, but the cold-blooded theory works better.

Conservatives want politics to be impersonal not because we are better human beings (although we are), but for a cold calculating reason. The cold-blooded explanation is much stronger.

We do not want to get personal because we can’t win that way.

If it becomes personal, we lose. Always.

This is a center-right country. If the discussion is about policy, we do fine. Americans by and large want higher rather than lower taxes. They prefer having more freedom and liberty than having every aspect of their lives regulated (not 0 regulation, limited regulation). Americans do not feel people should get something for nothing. The welfare state is not popular. Hand-ups are preferred to handouts. They prefer that criminals and terrorists be seen as the bad guys while law enforcement are the good guys. They prefer that the rights of victims be given greater weight than the bad guys. They support capital punishment.

Democrats like Bill Clinton have gotten elected by talking tough on crime, supporting welfare reform, enacting capital punishment, and preaching tax cuts.

Barack Obama ran as a centrist, doing everything he could to hide his liberalism. People in the middle who voted for him liked him personally. That did not mean they agreed with him on issues.

Since the left cannot win on policy, they have no choice but to engage in the politics of personal destruction. If they could win on policy, they would not need to destroy innocent people.

Palesimians do not see Jews as human beings. This dehumanization allows them to kill with impunity.

Liberals do not allow conservatives the benefit of the doubt regarding their humanity. Conservatives are either evil or stupid. Those are the tactics used to destroy.

One name mentioned in the last couple years is Saul Alinsky. I have no interest in calling liberals a bunch of radicals or socialists or even Communists. Those are just labels. The issue is that they use the tactics Alinsky teaches in his handbook “Rules for Radicals.” Two of the main tactics are “polarize” and “personalize.”

How can people possibly make the world a better place when this is a guideline for behavior?

How can the left credibly say we should all tone it down when their very electoral survival depends on taking conservatives and ripping them and their loved ones to shreds?

They can’t.

The words are definitional. To personalize means to make something personal. Sticking to policy is impersonal. To polarize means to push people to the extremes and divide people. It is the very antithesis of unity and coming together.

The left does this because from time to time…it works. Every time it works, like any bully, they get more emboldened.

Why debate policy when you can call somebody a racist, sexist, Nazi, Fascist, homophobic pig who wants old people to die and children to starve to death?

If the Palesimians put down their arms, there would be peace tomorrow because the Israelis would lay down their arms in a heartbeat.

If the left would stop the hatred, the right would love policy discussions.

Again, we don’t want a fight to get personal because we can never win that fight. It makes no sense to fight a fight we know we will always lose.

Many on the right hate the fight because their religious beliefs preach unity, love, and tolerance. Yet even if there was not a shred of decency in this culture, the desire to avoid conflict for strategic reasons would kick in. The left wins that fight every time because it is in their bloodstream. It is all they have.

If the left wants to prove me wrong, then try adopting some decency. Lead by example.

Stop calling conservatives all the various “ists” just because there are policy disagreements. Just stop.

Stop attacking individual conservatives unless you have a shred of evidence that they actually did something that crosses the line.

Alec Baldwin (liberal) once said he wanted to take the late Henry Hyde (conservative) and “stone him to death.” Has Glenn Beck ever said something like this?

Are there any attacks on Mr. Obama’s lovely children? No. Nothing comes close to the cheap shots at the Palin children. Even the baby with Down’s Syndrome was attacked.

No, I am not going to stop. I am not going to let it go. I have never gone after anybody on my blog or in my life unless they specifically did something destructive. I have defended myself and third parties.

Yet I would never attack Mr. Obama’s children. They have done nothing wrong. They are good kids.

There are good liberals out there, but they won’t stand up and criticize the bad liberals. Again, there may be decent Palestinians out there, but they won’t stand up.

When conservatives cross the line, I stand up. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and I loudly and unequivocally know the difference.

So my challenge to the left is twofold.

Do not attack a single conservative ever again on a personal level unless they specifically say or do something beyond the pale. Campaign rhetoric practiced for decades doesn’t cut it. Otherwise, the song “We Will Rock You” would have to be a death threat. Unless you have specific examples, knock it off and stick to policy.

My second challenge to the left is to stop making excuses for their own hatred. To say like Ed Schultz did that he is “passionate” is nonsense. We are all passionate. That does go both ways. Don’t whitewash your own behavior. Most importantly, do what the right has done for decades.

Renounce violence.

No excuses. No equivocations. Renounce any and all violence in the political arena.

I do. It is wrong. Outside of defense of human life, renounce violence.

If you see a guy kicking an animal or pushing a child out of a wheelchair, yes, you can and should exact justice, which may involve violence. Be honest about whether you are defending goodness or being an aggressor bully. Liberals have beaten wheelchair bound conservatives, and beaten up conservative minorities at tea parties. There is no conservative equivalent on any equally measurable scale in the modern political climate.

Like Israelis and most Jews, conservatives preach that violence is wrong.

Like Palesimians, liberals say that violence is “not always helpful.” What that means is violence will be lessened when it is counterproductive, but absolutely used if it works.

This is why conservatives have their cars keyed and their lawn signs stolen. This is why liberals run over conservatives with their cars. Conservatives do not do this. Yes there are statistical aberrations, but if every one of these crimes was calculated, the left would have committed most of them. I would be happy to get stats if this is tracked.

We have no reason on the right to do this. We simply do not hate the left. We see opposition. They see enemies. We don’t.

When the left gives up any and all violence, verbally and physically, they will be surprised how peaceful the right will be.

Yet this potential lovefest will never happen.

The left wants warfare. It is the only way they can win.

The ends are so important that they will use any means, no matter how destructive.

That is what allows them to take the tragic murder of innocent people in Arizona and blame it on political conservatives.

We could blame it on them, but it would require us getting into a gutter so far that we would never get our souls back.

That is leftism, and I want no part of it.

The only solution at this point for conservatives is full throttled self-defense.

This war the left wants will end when the left surrenders and finally concludes they will never win using warfare. Only then will they come to the table and dialogue.

As long as violence works for them, they will keep burning the entire village and then wonder why there is destruction and ruin all around them.

eric