Straight Up with Sherri

Friday, July 01, 2005


Note to self: DO NOT SIP COFFEE WHILE READING NEWS AND BRING DUCT TAPE! (Be sure to spike coffee with HARD liquor or lace HEAVILY with drugs.)

I don't have the words for this guy!

NBC anchor compares Founders to terrorists
Brian Williams equates 1st U.S. leaders to Iran president-elect

In his newscast tonight, "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams compared America's first presidents to the president-elect of Iran, alleged hostage-taker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying they were "certainly revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists by the British crown."

At least six of the Americans held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran as hostages for 444 days claim Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the captors, having recognized him on television reports.

Williams' comment came in a question to reporter Andrea Mitchell.

At the end of Mitchell's report, Williams asked, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."

Read it ALL!

HOW DARE HE COMPARE OUR FOREFATHERS TO THESE ANIMALS! HOW DARE HE! What is his point? I mean some people would say that Hitler was a humanitarian....... SO? These people would be called MORONS! (at the VERY LEAST!) The Bombers of Pearl Harbor could be called Heroes by some people. We could carry a list forever. Heck- some people would call McCain a conservative. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Here we are, on the cusp of our DAY OF INDEPENDENCE, and some IDIOT wants to talk about our founders this way?

Tune in tomorrow, I will share a story about my favorite American Patriot, and the kind of MAN he was. This weekend will be dedicated to REMINDING people of the AWESOME men our forefathers were.


  • This is what I dislike about the media, it was a comment - Not a comparison. Yet the report used the word so now everybody is having a COW.
    It is an eye opening comment - not an outrigh comparison.
    This is how the media manipulates mass emotion. Pay more attention and don't fall for the bias.
    Just read it for what it is - not cool - but not worth a heart attack.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:58 PM  

  • Sherri's just being her emotional reactionary self. I'm waiting to hear the more reasoned responses by RWNJ and Levi. Not about whether it's appropriate "in this time of war" to express yourself like the newsanchor said. But whether our founding fathers were indeed working against their government, in a a traitorous fashion with respect to England.

    I'll make it easier for Sherri, though...

    If the state of Hawaii took up arms in attempt to liberate itself from the U.S., there is no doubt they would be labeled terrorists.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:56 PM  

  • Being against an established gov't may make you a rebel. Taking up arms against said gov't could make one a REBEL-

    Terrorists is a totally different word. TOTALLY!

    Pay attention folks. Use words that mean what you say and say what you mean. The people wanting freedom in IRAN are rebels- liberals, even- but not TERRORISTS~!

    In fact- they are LIBERALS that I LOVE!

    Our forefathers were NOT TERRORISTS~! ( they were liberals of their time.) PERIOD!

    Really! People of today that agree with our forefathers are CONSERVATIVES.


    On top of that- media would call people TERRORISTS- but only for one reason- they like to be inflammatory. IT SELLS. It makes for better fodder.

    I feel our own gov't has twisted and recked this country. Am I terrorist now?

    Good greif.

    As for emotional-- LOL!

    Ahhhhh- CALL ME WOMAN~!


    If you really want to use the correct term- It is not that I am "emotional"- I am PASSIONATE!


    I honestly do not sit behind the keyboard in tears, pounding on the keys, etc.- LOL!

    Besides- any decent writer DOES convey emotion- so thank you for the compliment! Levi and RWNJ do complete SUWS and make it much more well rounded. It would never be the same without them!!!!

    It is not political viewpoints that makes one a TERRORIST- it is the action. Killing innocents makes one a terrorist. Terrorozing and threatening innocents makes one a terrorist. Not wanting to overthrow any given gov't.

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 3:04 PM  

  • You are right about that Sherri. it was he wrong word - but was used intentionaly to insite (imo).

    Be passionate, that doesn't require having a cow!

    Just funnin :-)

    Keep it real!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:22 PM  

  • My response - simple.
    Brian Williams is an America-hating, stupid, crony of the Soviet-style Communists! He is a vitriolic pimple on the ass of Satan who wants the total overthrow of the American people and tyrannical domination by a self-appointed group of wealthy autocrats (led by George Soros) who would enslave America.
    I believe that Brian's comments are driven, neither by America's founding fathers nor by the Iranian elections, but rather by a deep seated, pathological hatred of George Bush. This is just an abjectly idiotic temper tantrum that he had to lash out at the wimpy, liberal President of the U.S. and those he perceives to be Bush's supporters.

    As such, I brush it off as pretty much meaningless, 3-year-old behavior that I expect from NBC. There are much more important issues being addressed by people with normal intelligence that warrant my attention. I have little use to concern myself with mental midgets and hate-mongers like Brian Williams. Pay him no more heed than you would any other being of mosquito intellect and behavior.

    NBC Nightly News (as the other broadcast news shows) is dying and this is just another reason why. Only lefties can watch this with aplomb.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 4:49 PM  

  • Opinions about Williams are not as interesting as opinions about our founding fathers. Have any?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:37 PM  

  • Of course. I believe that our founding fathers were a collection of wealthy aristocrats and activist tradesmen. They had been loyal to the Crown until King George III became obsessed with his war with France and left the issues of the colonies to a corrupt Parliament. Freedoms were stomped, not by George, but by Parliament and the colonial governors. Unable to either get George's attention or peacefully resolve their problems with the governors, there arose pockets of local protest and demonstrations. The traditional Cromwelliaen response was to put down these acts through arrest, and later military occupation. The first hot-button issue was the confiscation and government use of private property. But the issue that the American Revolution was really all about was gun control. It was when King George had approved the Parliamentary procedures of requiring the colonists to surrender their arms, and once done, arrested and imprisoned the local townsfolk. This was the series of events immediately proceeding the "shot heard round the world" at Lexington. At this, the patriots at Concord, in order to prevent the same thing from happening to them took a proactive approach.

    Seeing my understanding o what promulgated the war, let’s look at the founding fathers. They were a band of individuals that discussed the rights of men as having come from God. There were no atheists, although the range of religions organized and otherwise was wide. All believe in the dignity of the individual. A few were socialists, none were communists, and all were capitalists. They were divided mostly into two groups: Federalist and Anti-federalist who accepted one of two ideas. The first group believed that it was the responsibility of government to serve the "common good" of men. The second group believes it was the responsibility of government to butt-out of men's affairs. The second group won the debates and that's why the Constitution exists to limit government (although the SCOTUS patently violates the Constitution repeatedly!).

    Now, the individuals: I will deal with collectively since to do so individually would be overwhelming (but I will say that my favorite is George Mason). They were disillusioned, moralistic gentlemen. They wanted to guarantee "individual" rights from God - not from government, after realizing that they could not be a colony of England and do that, they declared independence. George III responded with a small token military response that was met with equal military resistance. In honor on both sides, only warriors were killed - no civilians by either side. However, the colonists did two "uncivilized" things. First, they shot the British Officers (unheard of in military tactics of the time) and second they refused to shoot line-to-line because they were such a lesser army and would easily have been annihilated.

    Once it was realized that the British really didn't take this series of skirmishes seriously, the colonists set about to set up a government. Now, they had to overcome a concerted effort of Lord North to mobilize the Tory party to politically end the revolution rather than militarily. This is the equivalent of the liberal objections to Afghanistan and Iraq with two big differences. First, the revolutionaries were the leftists and the conservatives wanted to conserve the relationship with England. Second, the Crown had so expunged the colonists of their power that the Tories had no clout whatsoever. Consequently it was easy to set up a new governmental scheme with only one point of view: all rights belong to individuals, the individual States make their own rules, and the Federal government is a powerless entity that the people & states can deal with if they choose to, or not at all -> go away! That didn't work. So, the new Constitution was written - a Bill of Rights was demanded or it could never have been ratified - which is why the Bill of Rights can't be amended. And the government began thus. People, States, Federal; in that order.

    The founding fathers were patriots, they believed in God, they believed in the rights of man, they believed in itsy-bitsy tiny government. They would never murder innocent civilians; they had mixed feelings on slavery. Their concern for the good of the new nation far outweighed any personal concerns - these were obsessive individuals - most who lost their fortunes in the revolution for the "cause". They had great honor, they never took hostages or threatened destruction of anything. They never denigrated King George, only opposed him.

    Unfortunately, they had to fight the same revolution all over again in 1812, because King George didn't accept his loss the first time around.

    In comparison to Brian Williams' perception of the Iranians - not even close. These are terrorist thugs who constantly abuse civilians, take hostages, threaten the world with massive destruction, torture, maim and kill anyone who would limit or question their power (I dare not say authority).

    I like and admire the founding fathers - unlike our current brood of politicians, they had principles, courage, and faith. All we have toady are aimless, self-serving power mongers who hate the People and want to enslave the People, but lack the courage to stand up for a single principle (probably because they don't have any).

    I didn't agree with all of the political principles of the fathers, but I would love to debate any one of them. I truly admire all of them.

    Sorry it's so long winded.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 11:26 PM  

  • RWNJ -- really grumpy big dog for whatever reason posted the entire consitutution on lgf last night, so I reread it. FWIW, there are only 2 unamendable provisions in the constitution-- the slave trade may not be outlawed prior to 1808 (expired), and no state may be deprived of its 2 senators without its consent. Everything else including the Bill of Rights is amendable.

    There wasn't a whole lot of hostage-taking or women-stoning in the revolution. The Americans went into uniform as best they could also.

    Terrorism is IMO making war on civilians -- the only real activity of the Iraqi "insurgents."

    Here is a good debate in Front Page magazine where Horowitz proves by his own words that the editor of Nation is disloyal. link
    This is a follow on to his book on the "Unholy Alliance" between the left and radical islam.

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 9:18 AM  

  • pimf -- I mean by the editpr's own words.

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 9:41 AM  

  • anybody know when the next ship is leaving for England? we can ship this clown out to them!

    By Blogger KC, at 7:40 PM  

  • Before even commenting on what Williams said, I would also like to give mention to the purpose of the media and ask everybody here if they are familiar with the role the media plays in our society?

    Are we given the absolute truth when it comes down to foreign affairs? Or does everything we receive has a bias slant that tips the scale in favor of a person no matter what evidence you have on the person?

    The average American is far from having the proper skills to filter out what is real and what is fake.

    You would be surprised to the level of ignorance even with the "educated" to the point that when another person attempts to enlighten someone else with the truth, they are considered crazy or an outcast, even if that person has several references and crucial evidence.

    People are "brainwashed" into thinking all is well if it's NOT on the NEWS....


    Well, I guess that is mission acomplished when it comes to providing a smoke screen that Americans can't see through...

    And when it comes to William's comment, did it really have sway your attention from the matter at hand? If it did, my hat goes off to him!
    CBA 7120

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:32 PM  

  • Well put CBA 7120. I could not of said it better myself. The media is so bias people don't no right from wrong.
    SBG 3301.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home