Liberals Love America

[fintstone]

Liberals Love America Like O.J. Loved Nicole
by Ann Coulter
Posted Jan 6, 2005

Even the United Nations sponge who called the United States "stingy" immediately retracted the insult, saying he had been misinterpreted and that the U.S. was "most generous." But The New York Times was sticking with "stingy." In an editorial subtly titled "Are We Stingy? Yes," the Times said the UN sponge "was right on target." This followed up a patriotic editorial a few days earlier titled "America, the Indifferent."

America's stinginess is a long-standing leitmotif for liberals--which is getting hard to square with their love for America. When it comes to heaping insults on America, U.S. liberals are the nation's leading donors.

In 2003, the Center for Global Development--funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, despite the fact that it could have used that money on future tsunami victims--concluded that the U.S. ranked 20th out of 21 nations in helping poorer nations. This came as a surprise, inasmuch as the U.S. gives the highest absolute amounts of foreign aid to the developing world.

But as the study explained, the center "assesses policy effort rather than impact." As any liberal can tell you, it's not results that count, it's intentions! In other words, the CGD discounted some countries' foreign aid because the CGD decided it was the sort of aid that wouldn't work--even if, in the end, it did work.

The CGD's evaluation of "effort" somehow managed to bump U.S. contributions from the No. 1 spot to second-to-last. Sending the military to liberate millions of people from ruthless dictators, for example, did not count as "aid," whereas sending in peacekeepers afterward did.

The U.S. did not merely write a check to help the oppressed people of Afghanistan and Iraq: The U.S. did most of the fighting and liberating as well as a significant share of the dying. Where's Michael Moore with that up-to-the-minute body count of U.S. soldiers when you need him?

But in the words of the CGD, military aid doesn't count because "one country's security enhancement is another's destabilizing intervention"--you know, the way U.S. soldiers "destabilized" France in 1944. (My guess is, Presbyterian missionaries in the jungle don't get as many points as UN seminars on condom use either.)

Consequently, in 2003, Norway got 7.1 points for "peacekeeping." Denmark got 7.4 points. France got 5.2. The country that dispatched the Taliban and Saddam Hussein--and, before that, ensured that the above countries would not be speaking German or Russian--got 1.5 points for "peacekeeping."

But at least we beat Japan! Except in other studies by liberals--who certainly do love their country--that claim Japan beats the U.S. in foreign aid donations.

Among Al Franken's proofs that Bill O'Reilly is a "liar"--in addition to his jaw-dropping revelation that O'Reilly's former TV show won a "Polk" and not a "Periwinkle" Award--Franken attacked O'Reilly for having the audacity to say the U.S. gives more foreign aid than any other country in the world.

Responding to this outrage, Franken writes: "Japan gives more. Not per capita. More." (And Franken is the world's largest donor of mentions of his own USO tours.)

I guess there are as many ways to calculate "aid" as there are to calculate "love of country." According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries--notable for being more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, clocking in at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5% of the world's population and give about 35% of the aid.

So it's interesting that a great patriot like Al Franken--who goes on USO tours regularly, in case he hasn't called you at home in the last 10 minutes to remind you--would choose the method of calculating foreign aid most disparaging to his country and call O'Reilly a "liar" for using a different calculus.

At a minimum, in order to discount the largesse of the United States, one must carefully exclude gigantic categories of aid, such as military aid, food aid, trade policies, refugee policies, religious aid, private charities and individual giving.

However "aid" is calculated, it is not that hard to calculate someone's affection for their country based on their propensity to tell slanderous lies about it.

Let's review.

The New York Times calls the U.S. "stingy" and runs letters to the editor redoubling the insult, saying: "The word 'stingy' doesn't even come close to accurately describing the administration's pathetic initial offer of aid. ... I am embarrassed for our country."

Al Franken flies into a rage upon discovering that O'Reilly imagines the U.S. is the most generous nation in the world.

The Washington Post criticizes Bush for not rushing back to Washington in response to the tsunami--amid unfavorable comparisons to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who immediately cut short his vacation and returned to Berlin. (Nothing snaps a German to attention like news of mass death! )

The prestigious Princeton "ethicist" Peter Singer, who endorses sex with animals and killing children with birth defects, says that "when it comes to foreign aid, America is the most stingy nation on Earth."

And has some enterprising reporter asked Sen. Patty Murray what she thinks about the U.S.'s efforts on the tsunami? How about compared to famed philanthropist Osama bin Laden?

In December 2002, Murray was extolling Osama bin Laden's good works in the Middle East, informing a classroom of students: "He's been out in these countries for decades building roads, building schools, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. It made their lives better." What does Murray say about bin Laden's charity toward the (mostly Muslim) tsunami victims?

Speaking of world leaders admired by liberals, why isn't Fidel Castro giving the tsunami victims some of that terrific medical care liberals tell us he has been providing the people of Cuba?

Stipulating that liberals love America--which apparently depends on what the meaning of "love" is--do they love America as much as they love bin Laden and Castro?

[tabs]

At one time being a Liberal was a NOBLE endevor....when you stood to right the wrongs of society in favor of the indivdual....

The child labor laws, the rise of unions to protect the rights of workers, and the civil rights act to just paraphrase....

Today many of this wrongs have been at least adressed if not totally corrected...

so what does todays Liberal stand for....they are trying to address the wrongs done by indivduals to society....

Anti Smoking, Gun Control, various EPA laws and Executive Orders are just a few...How many campus Liberals now shout down the indivdual for expressing an opinion that is not considered to be PC....Hey that sounds an awfull lot like the R Gruppe and me... Hmmmm does that mean the R Gruppe is really a Liberal organization....

[bryanthompson]

The entire liberal religion is made up of only angry people who think everyone's out to get them. They're all professional victims of at least one segment of society. Blacks, gays, tree-huggers, save-the-whalers, environmentalists, schoolteachers, unions, any minority, they area _all_ victims of "the man". Liberals promise change, they promise a seat at the table for everyone, meanwhile they work to make "the man" stronger and to make their constituants feel more victimized by the other side. It must be a pitiful existance.

[ubiquity0]

I hear they all have rabies as well.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by tabs
At one time being a Liberal was a NOBLE endevor....when you stood to right the wrongs of society in favor of the indivdual....

The child labor laws, the rise of unions to protect the rights of workers, and the civil rights act to just paraphrase....

Unions? They came together to protect the jobs and wages of members from being taken by people willing to do those jobs for less money. The companies "exploited" this.

Unions were racist in origin.

[cool_chick]

two words for this post.

right-wing p r o p a g a n d a.

Isn't that 3?

[cowtown]

Looks like two words and then a bunch of letters to me.

[tabs]

[i]Originally posted by red-beard
]Unions? They came together to protect the jobs and wages of members from being taken by people willing to do those jobs for less money. The companies "exploited" this.

Unions were racist in origin. [/B]

Henry Ford back in 1910 started paying his workers $5 a day which was an unheard of wage for an auto worker..all the other manufacturers were oposed and told Henry so....Problem was Henry couldn't even keep workers at $5 a day. The job was just too boring and working conditions were horrible.

Red your take on the rise of the auto Unions is miscued...When you wroked for Ford if you took too long on the crapper they came and yanked you off. Ford literally ran his own secret police.... as did the other companies...

Unions werre Racist...BS....The auo comapnies were racist.. yeah...they would only hire the Blacks to work in the most awefull jobs ...working in the Foundry....yet 100's of thousands of Blacks migrated to Detroit to work in the auto companies...because it was better than back home...and during WW2 the migration increased because so many workers departed for military service...


The rise of the Auto Workers Union in the late 1930's gave the workers decent wages, retirement and DECENT working conditions....it also enabled the American Middle class to broaden out to what it is now....

So don't knock the Uniions for what they orginally started out to do....the first generation leaders were about the workers even the second but after that Unions became big business as Labour Brokers only interested in the Health and Welfare payments the Companies chip in...


Ohhhh and how do I know all of this ...MY Grandpa spent 43 years in the Rouge starting in 1916, my Daddy was a Tool and Die Maker for Paxckard in the 1930's and 40's, My Graddpas cousin retired from Pontiac, his son installed the first Computer automated automobile production system in the world for Chrysler in 1962, LECTURED the JAPANESE on how to install them and went to Russia and helped install one ove there in the early 1970's......and my Dad's Cousins Wife was Jimmy Hoffas Secratary....(She was the literal fly on the wall).

[david914]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
Isn't that 3?

Liberals have difficulty counting due to not getting a fair education because of "the man"

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by david914
Liberals have difficulty counting due to not getting a fair education because of "the man"

LOL I thought the colleges were overrun with liberals, which, if true (by your side's definition) means only liberals get educated.

i dunno if a hyphened word counts as 2 or three.

I'll reiterate for those who have difficulty comprehending:

right-wing propaganda

Is that better?

[bryanthompson]

LOL I thought the colleges were overrun with liberals, which, if true (by your side's definition) means only liberals get educated.

I got in a fight with an english professor my first day of class over this. Most students don't know whether they are conservative or liberal. They know that they have to be in the godforsaken system to 1.) pick up chicks 2.) drink beer 3.) refer to 1 and 2 again 4.) get a job
Most students will accept the hippy propaganda being fed to them, and they never question it. Professors are supposed to be unquestionable pillars of truth, if you question them, they will fail you.

Those of us who are conservative and have to go through the system do a LOT of

Or we find another way.

[david914]

Oh gosh, our education system is riddled with people who are "educated" but have no practical experience. They live in a vacuum, i.e. what works on paper doesn't necessarily work in real life.

[Superman]

Bryan, you certainly seem to understand quite a few stereotypes of liberals. Bummer for you though, that you probably believe them.

Ms. Coulter (should I use that title?) certainly understands propaganda and why the truth should be ignored by editorialists.

Go get 'em. Tabs.

[fintstone]

Have some cheese with that whine.

[rrpjr]

I quote George Orwell writing in 1941 ("England Your England") about the state of Leftism in his native country.

"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is the duty to snigger at every English institution.

"All through the critical years (before the war) many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British.

"A modern nation cannot afford (this). Patriotism and intelligence will have to come together again. It is the fact that we are fighting a war, and a very peculiar kind of war, that makes this possible."

Yes, Geoge Orwell.

Both my brothers went to college in Cambridge, and I remember some lively times there. I remember anti-Communist refugees and Marxists, black radicals and old southerners, arguing wildly into all hours of the night. There was fury but also a lot of joy. The nights ended in exhaustion and respect. But I saw two things develop there over the years – a slow closing of the mind allied with a slowly growing anti-Americanism. A creeping assumption of America’s invidiousness, and a refusal to hear any challenge to it, seemed to spread over the insulated culture of the academy. How odd, I remember thinking. Wasn’t the essence of both America and "liberal arts" the love and appreciation of free expression? Leftism seemed to be drawing a wall about itself, within which they huddled in an echo chamber of ideas and assumptions they considered simply beyond challenge, with a growing meanness toward those who might challenge them.

Now, years later, I find the condition even worse. I visit Berkeley several times a year. I see the same problem there, but writ much larger, across a monolithic liberal community completely uninterested and even hostile to intellectual challenge or to patriotism. In 15 years of extended visits there, in many conversations with affluent and educated people, people who have done very well in America by every standard we have for success, I have not met one – NOT ONE -- who has ever volunteered a kind word for his country. This is only half of it. When pressed, by me, not one has even conceded that America was basically a good country. All right. Let’s assume America is terrible. Is it irredeemable, too? Are they willing to admit to nothing that persuades them to keep living here? Apparently not. Moreover, though I am able to engage people in debates on the issues, the debates are always reach an impassable wall. One can almost hear the clank of their big, beautiful minds closing down like bank vault doors around the treasure of their hallowed assumptions.

I also spend a good amount of time in the South, in the Carolinas, and I can say without the least tongue in cheek that I find the average North Carolina redneck more open to an unorthodox idea than the average liberal of Berkeley. Not as capable of debating with you, perhaps, but more willing to hear you out, if only from some antiquated courtesy.

[david914]

"Antiquated courtesy"? It's just plain courtesy. Something that many people these days don't seem to know much about. Our society has become so "me-oriented" that the big picture is lost. The condemning of the United States by it's own citizens is indicative of this. Once upon a time, a person could get hung from the nearest tree for making such statements. Now, they get by with nary a slap on the wrist.

We could all take a good lesson from our grandparents generation. They fought and sacrificed during WWII to keep our country together, and it worked. The only glimpse of that kind of teamwork that I see today is largely in our miltary families.

If a person is that unhappy living here in the United States because they don't like President Bush, or the fact that our military is in Iraq, or they don't like God mentioned in public, I say get the hell out. The majority of United States citizens love our country, support our leaders, and believe in God.

Shortly after 9-11, I was on a local university campus and noticed many students parading around with anti-war signs. I was very tempted to walk up to one and ask how long they think they would last walking around New York City like that, but I didn't. I wished now that I had. All this "make love, not war - touchy feelie - wanna be everyone's friend" stuff doesn't work if the other side won't play by the rules. Try and talk to someone who lost a loved one on 9-11 about being nice and not fighting back. Chances are, your words will fall on deaf ears (and rightly so).