Hennessy's View

For most of my life I was naïve.  I think.

I thought that most people who voted for larger government, higher taxes, tighter regulation, and limits on speech, religion, and assembly, were misguided.

I’ve always known and acknowledged that the people who advocated and plotted to concentrate power in the hands of a few were wicked creatures.  I never hesitated to attack them head-on.

But the others.  The others I sometimes pitied. Other times I belittled.  Other times I simply giggled at them.

After the center-left’s response to Tucson, I think I might have been wrong.  There might not be many “good” liberals.  Maybe most on the center-left are rotten, power-hungry, freedom-hating, murder-using slime.

Please show me I’m wrong. Don’t bother telling me, because I don’t believe a one of you. Show me.

The liberal-progressive-left world has demonstrated the worst of humanness this week.  It’ll take a lot to convince me you haven’t sold your souls.

Popularity: 1% [?]

What if they grow to be these NYU maggot-infested, long-haired, hippies?

Popularity: 1% [?]

The headline would have read, “We’re Gaining in Iraq,” but I didn’t want to confuse any liberals for whom the “we” in Iraq is al Qaeda.

The surge is working according two liberals from the Brookings Institute writing in the New York Times. And according to Dean Barnett blogging on HughHewitt.townhall.com, their former friends on the left are ready to do to them what it appears Chuck Schumer did to the Chief Justice.

Barnett writes:

Characteristically, both [liberal attack] pieces didn’t take issue with what Brookings-men Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon reported seeing in Iraq but instead attacked them personally. If you’ve studied the moonbats in their native habitats as I have the past several years, this comes as no surprise. After all, what is the chickenhawk meme but an attempt to win an argument by attacking your opponent rather than engaging his ideas? Has anyone come back from Iraq recently and not seen progress? Wouldn’t an effective rebuttal of O’Hanlon’s and Pollack’s article sought out such friendly sources?

Of course, liberals attack with personal insults. They have no reason, no logic, no defense, no apology for their positions. They arrive at their positions the way a water bug arrives at the edge of a table.

In “Up From Liberalism,” William F. Buckley described this as “the liberal mania.” To date, medical science has found no cure, and society has invested far too little in its eradication.

H/T Discerning Texan

Popularity: 1% [?]

Michelle Malkin responds to that unnecessary race of humans known as liberals. The liberals, it seems, have gone about calling her web site, michellemalkin.com, a “hate-site.”

Other bloggers are jumping in to defend Michelle. I won’t. I think she has one of the best blogs in the business, but she doesn’t need my defense.

First, liberals are evil little creatures–more little than evil, in the small, petty sense. Their self-righteous slander is not really meant to hurt its target as to aggrandize the speaker or writer in his own small mind and among his own petty peers.

Second, I hate a lot of things, and I suspect Michelle does too. Since I write often about things I hate (even if I don’t say I hate them), I couldn’t be upset if HennessysView.com were called a “hate-site.” It’s very much a “love-site,” too, though, because I write about things I love (even though I don’t always write that I love them). Remember that liberals are small, petty, and narrow-minded. They react impulsively and inappropriately to stimuli, the way waterbugs react to light.

Finally, with all the hatefulness that liberals — small, evil bastards that they are — have directed toward Michelle, including calls to rape and murder her and her small children, Michelle can sleep well knowing that nothing she’s written rises to the level of evil visited routinely by her enemies.

Popularity: 1% [?]