Gabrielle Giffords and the Progressive Creed
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” — Socrates
“The falsifiable life is not worth living.” — Progressive Creed
The attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) and 19 others outside a Tucson supermarket provides yet another opportunity to reflect on life’s fragility and the fact that tomorrow is never guaranteed. Yet it also provides an opportunity to better understand the partisan divide that separates our polity. At the moment, the attacker, who would want his name to be prominently mentioned, seems to have been motivated primarily — perhaps exclusively — by the many demons that pursued him and inhabited the dark recesses of what was likely a drug- and alcohol-addled psyche. What little is known about his preferred literature and his political leanings suggests a leftward bent, yet his various YouTube rantings indicate no clear political motivation, only substantial derangement.
Even so, many on the left have already jumped headlong into this particularly fetid political swamp. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman, fast into the muck, has asserted that the attack was politically motivated, and of course somehow vaguely related to the Tea Party. CBS is making gun control noises. CNN has suggested that the killer’s violence was somehow inspired by Sarah Palin. He has also been variously falsely identified by other media outlets — as a veteran of Afghanistan, or some unspecified sort of affiliate of the Tea Party. It would appear that Sarah Palin (and the Tea Party) is now the new progressive locus of all evil in the world. This is particularly ironic. Progressive thought tends to discount the very existence of evil, unless of course, it is being used to demonize political opponents. Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and George W. Bush have not yet, to my knowledge, been specifically blamed, but that’s likely only a momentary oversight.
How, at a time when our concerns should legitimately be only for the physical and spiritual healing of the victims and their families, can anyone descend to base political posturing? The answer lies in an understanding of the aphorisms above.
To conservatives, Socrates’ admonition bespeaks periodic, life-long self-examination. This makes sense only if one accepts that Mankind is fallen, imperfect, and incapable of being perfected. Only then is the need for serious introspection and correction obvious and meaningful. If my beliefs are perfect, there is no need for self-examination. In addition, for self-examination to be more than an exercise in navel-gazing, I must truly believe that I am inherently fallible, so that my introspection has a purpose. I must accept that at least some of the premises underlying my most cherished beliefs are wrong, and that with time, growth, and maturation, introspection will reveal those fallacies and make their correction not only possible but necessary. I must also accept that such changes are necessary because holding false and unsupportable beliefs will be harmful — even dangerous — to me, those I love, and society at large.
Socrates’ aphorism does not speak to progressives. It is unlikely that they would ever attempt to act on his advice, but if they did, they would almost certainly find no need for change, for their fundamental beliefs are at once non-falsifiable yet subject to change at any moment. To lesser beings, this might seem contradictory — even nonsensical — but they obviously lack the Ivy League education, the sophistication, and the nuance necessary to successfully hold a plethora of contradictory beliefs.
It was NOT ARISTOTLE who said that “the unexamined life is not worth living” – it was SOCRATES.
Tut-tut!
From an otherwise appreciative reader.
Yes, but to give Aristotle credit, the first line of Aristotle’s Metaphysics is: “All men by nature desire to know”. ..and then he goes on to explain what a delight it is to “know and bring(s) to light many differences between things”.
To be even more precise, the sentence appeared in Plato’s Apology of Sokrates and presents the philosopher’s words in indirect discourse (as the object of a “that” clause.) There are no surviving writings of Sokrates, so we must rely upon others–Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes–to guess at what he said. We do not have any of his exact words, but I think we may credit Plato here with faithfully conveying his meaning–or “narrative,” if you like.
Thanks for the commentary on the source of the quotation. In my research I found a roughly equal number attributing the quote to Aristotle and Socrates and had to choose. There is certainly argument either way, as is often the case with quotations from antiquity. Such thoughtful corrections are one of the reasons it’s such a pleasure to post at PJM. Thanks again!
Socrates, not Aristotle for the quote
On Saturday, Keith Olbermann blamed Rush Limbaugh during his extra-special edition of “Extra Special Comment.” It ran mere hours after the shootings. Multiple other “voices of reason” have subsequently blamed both Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
George W. Bush has used up all of his political eligibility, so (believe it or not) he won’t be blamed. If Karl Rove gets blamed (which he may), it will be because of the “climate of fear” that he and the Koch brothers have “created,” and the “waves of anger” that he and the Koch brothers and Roger Ailes are “stoking” and/or “inflaming.”
I love the portrait of Obama as propaganda except the Progressive credo should read “The falsifiable life is the ONLY life worth living”
This video documents the reasons for and destruction of Marc Rubin’s masterful portrait of Barack Obama in 2009 after the NEA was hijacked by Obama and his progressive operatives. Its called “Catharsis” http://www.marcrubin.com/obama.ivnu
Analysis like this is pointless. Americans are always trying to attribute rational reasons for why certain people do irrational things. Can’t the answer be that this shooter was just, plain, nuts? Why does there always have to be a “deeper” meaning? Why do we have to always analyze his childhood, see if he was popular in school, or if he had any girlfriends? He was INSANE!!! He heard voices in his head, worshipped a skull, and took a lot of drugs. This was going to eventually kill someone, the only question was how many and how soon. Well, we got our answer last Saturday. Obviously, for the far left to attribute blame for this nuts actions is dumb to say the least. But for the rest of us, he was simply a crazy person who did a terrible, terrible, thing. We will always have such individuals in any society and no amount of analysis will change that.
Did we read the same article? I enjoyed the simplicity with which Mike distinguishes between the left and the right. These ‘progressives’ have been with us for a long time.
Imagine a caveman with stomach pain seeking help and getting a visit by someone with a wolf-pelt strapped to their head, carrying a rattle to spook the evil spirits from his body. Three hours and a burst appendix later, well, the medicine man tried. Three trillion dollars in carbon taxes and an on-coming ice-age later, well, Gore tried.
Maybe the Great Society, with gazillions spent to eradicate poverty hasn’t had the desired effect either, but ‘we tried’. Tons-o-dollars poured into the black hole of education in this country (and my state, Ca in particular) has produced a mixed return (speaking generously) if nearly half can’t even graduate. But they’re trying too.
As to this particular event, eliminating guns is the chant we’ll most likely hear from our shamans as they dance around the fire pit, oblivious to the unintended consequences that will have on innocents everywhere.
Yes, the medicine man is still with us and sad to say, won’t be going anywhere soon. Chief among them being Obama, whose specialty is redistributing wealth to drive the evil spirit from society. Seeing progressives in this manner is very helpful. You’ll know them from a distance if you look for the ‘pelt’ strapped to their heads, the odd rattle, and possible face-paint.
By rejecting Nature (especially the human kind) and replacing it with beliefs in their own ‘power’ to control it (or at least drive the worst parts out) these pelted (professional) do-gooders and nanny staters will continue hopping around the fire (for a fee) as society’s condition may or may not improve. For some, dancing harder and chanting louder are just what the witch-doctor ordered.
“Progressives” are despicable, focused on how they might use the tragedy in Tucson to up the cred and visibility of their President through “framing” the event.
I have nothing but contempt for these people, including, but not limited to, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau, who is my nominee for Moron of the Day, as he issues his own self-serving, vapid statement about a connection between Arizona’s efforts to enforce immigration law and the contemptible acts of a schizophrenic.
I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons.
I feel that the most important thing to change in America is these left leaning goons in the education system for OUR children. They warp their minds with endless blaming and make the children very fragile when they come out to the real world.It starts at Kindergarten.One day,have a listen to the speaking ofr reading of these little facist women that run these places. I was amazed at how they teach the really young the wrongs of other people(conservatives).If you have ever tried to talk to a young progressive mother about their child………It’s worse than fighting a man.
Thus do progressives elevate mere politicians to god-like status.
And they hold onto it, once they’ve done the elevatin’.
The eleva-tee (cf poster child Barack Obama) can demonstrate all kinds of abject stupidity, exercise gross errors of judgment, personally destroy the American economy, even fail on simple stuff like telling the world (with fake modesty) that he doesn’t speak “Austrian”, and it all gets glossed over, ignored by the lapdog media and all the rapt and tingled tee vee commentators.
Truly, there is a plethora of very dumb idiotlogues who have public voices in America these days, who will never, ever abandon their subservient obeisance to he (or she) who has been elevated inside their very tiny minds.
This site in full of hate. I came here to find intelligent thoughtful news and comments. This site is just like almost all others now days, left and right. Why would you assume that this comment about rhetoric is pointed at your ilk. Both sides think the other will destroy the nation. The constitution put in place a system to accommodate differences. To create a balance. We as a society have become uncivil. If you do not believe this look around online. Anger and contempt is the order of the day no matter where online. Why not tone it down. I will copy this statement and paste no matter what the site, left or right. Look at your comments would you say this to your neighbor or offspring if they were the ones you are talking to or is it just because you are not face to face. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHING IT WILL ONLY ALIENATE OTHERS.
It is not leftism that motivated Loughner to do his deed. Leftism, like all Fascist movements, is magnate for sociopaths and psychotics who look for avenues to engage in murder and mayhem. It is not the rhetoric that draws them into progressive circles. it is the idea of progressivism that is attractive to dangerous people. Dostoyevsky warned us of people like Loughner and Markos Moulitsas in his novel the Possessed.
A minor point: “Leftist ideas” aren’t self-produced, abstract constracts floating in space, to which leftists are attracted; they’re mental constracts buit by leftists, attracting other similarly minded leftists.
A major point: it can be argued that these “leftists constructs” (inclucive of all such models/theories/views well prior to and including marxism, to present day anarchical manifestos of the Greek and Italian scum passing as theoreticians of a new wave of left-wing anarchy with the name “cells of the fire’s core” – to which the ramblings of the Arizona shooter much resembled), well, all these leftist ideas are but the product of mentally ill persons. Furthermore, those attracted to such constructs are also mentally ill.
It can be argued that social theories which either are self-contradictory and/or aren’t based on solid empirical evidence are ill-conceived; and consequently individuals holding on to such constructs are mentally sick and/or mentally challenged.
Brilliant piece. I especially like: “To the progressive, any “reality” that does not perfectly reflect progressive theory, belief, and policy is not reality at all.” So often I have said to myself “But how can they SAY that???” I have to remember this comment whenever I confront abject lies and counter-factual history coming from progressive dogma adherents. Its not ABOUT reality, stupid! PS We also have to remember that when we debate them, correcting their facts doesn’t gain us any headway because they DON’T CARE WHETHER THE FACTS ARE CORRECT OR NOT!
It’s the very IDEA that there is a difference between right and wrong, between truth and error, that makes the progressive so angry.
Here’s another take on very much the same topic:
Why modern liberals are 100% wrong about everything
progessives play for keeps. they don’t ever let honesty get in the way.
the bottom rung believe what ever they are told. they have been brain washed in the education system (controlled by progressives for generations).
I consider it to be more a human defect …one that leads to such forms as NON CRITCAL THINKING that it is suicidal. A genetic disposition to being a sheeple.
conservatives have to stop compromising. both positions cannot be correct.
I am so sick and tired of that worn-out cliche, “sheeple”. Whoever uses it displays his or her false sense of superiority. That is why the term is used primarily by progressives… oh, and by you, General!
“That is why the term is used primarily by progressives…”
Hmmm. I’ve never seen this term used by oppressives, er, I mean, “progressives”.
I’m accustomed to seeing it used by conservatives to describe the mass of people in this country who are willingly led around by the nose; particularly by inhabitants of firearms discussion boards, to describe the willfully defenseless.
actually humans tend to be somewhat like herd animals so the term is appropriate.
and your post indicates it is applicable to you. maybe that is why you dislike the term.
I guess this article explains how the progressives can scream that the killers actions were inspired by conservative free speech, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support that proposition.
Here’s what we know:
Loughner was registered independent and didn’t vote in 2010.
He was a druggie and espoused leftwing philosophy in high school.
He was an open admirer of Hitler and other marxists.
He had a long term obsession with Miss Giffords and attempted communication with her on several occasions.
He is possibly schizophrenic.
He displayed sociopathic behavior in class at a community college.
He had a skull shrine in his back yard.
He didn’t articulate any aversion to the left or right in his attack, spewed gobblety gook about a lack of respect for language, and shot a pro border control, pro 2nd amendment Congress person.
And the left attributes the attack to hate speech from conservatives.
Does the left have a clue as to why the American people have turned so hard against them?
A CBS poll released today found that the public isn’t buying the politcal blame game re the shooting as 57% don’t believe it was politcally motivated with 49% of Democrats disclaiming a political motivation.
pro 2nd amendment Congress person who held both liberal and conservative positions politicallly.
From those facts the lefties attribute the attack to Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives, and think it advisable to revive the fairness doctrine, restrict the use of target symbles, and limit speech that could be construed as attacking Congress people.
From those facts the lefties attribute the attack to Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives, and think it advisable to revive the fairness doctrine…
I would postulate that even “progressives” aren’t stupid enough to believe (all) their own rhetoric and are, mainly, using any old crisis at hand in service to their end of shutting down conservative talk radio, getting un-elected wonks to “control” the internet through the FCC and the like.
Since they can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas (think about the short life of Air America) their only alternative to silence their copious (and growing) critics is through control and regulation. You know, through his prickly and repeated comments, one Barack Obama is outraged that his numerous critics even have access to airwaves, electronic media, etc.
For Tucson and virtually anything else under the sun, progressives (I prefer the term libruls) act in the spirit of little Rahm’s…”Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing
the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors…”
~from the writings of Benjamin Franklin, 1722-1726
“Con men understand that their job is not to use facts to convince
skeptics but to use words to help the gullible to believe what they want
to believe.”
~Thomas Sowell, Sept. 2009
Tanstaafl,
You are right about the lefties use of any old crisis at hand to silence opposition and advance their agenda. They are going to keep it up until they realize it is weakening them politcally.
That reality requires vigilance on the part of conservatives and vigorous defense of the facts in all public forums. No turning a deaf ear to the obfuscators. Factual confrontation will eventually carry the day. The TEA party movement used fact to persuade millions of independents who voted for Obama and liberal congress persons in 2008 to begin to reverse that tide in 2010.
Sorry about the disonance at the end of my above post. It was an erase and rewrite that didn’t apparently erase and rewrite. Operator error, no doubt.
many string-pulling progressives may not believe but that is what the useful-idiot, warm fuzzy, and unicorn feelers are there for
all the touchy-feelies that say guns are the reason for this violence; the flame-fanners that keep needling on with the fairness doctrine, hate-speech, etc. etc. etc.; a powerful alliance between the tyrannical and the naive
“I would postulate that even “progressives” aren’t stupid enough to believe (all) their own rhetoric and are, mainly, using any old crisis at hand in service to their end ”
This is true of most of the leadership, but I think it is NOT true of most of the rank and file.
They really ARE stupid enough to believe this tripe! Or, rather, they are willfully blind enough.
It’s really not a question of intelligence.
They really aren’t into ideology, other than a few librarian dreamers, who constitute about 1% of lefties.
The leaders are in it for power and money. Marxism is just the tool du jour. They like it because it supports a great con. Even Madoff didn’t rake it in like little lenin will whether he wins again or not.
There is a slice in the middle (lawyers, union bosses) who are in it for the opportunity. It beats running credit card scams and is safer than breaking into houses. Krugman is in this category. He has found a way to leverage the nobel prize he won by cribbing other people’s work into a million+ a year living sucking at the teat of the politburo.
Then there is the rank and file. Their ideology is getting their hand in the other guys pocket. Redistribution is as theoretical as they get, whether its the welfare cheats, union guys going for the triple platinum pensions, or the deadbeats looking for the next mortgage scam.
Their ideologies are power and theft. So dont go thinking that having a party because 6 people died is anything other than today’s shell game on a table on the street corner. They would pick the gold out of the congress woman’s teeth if they had a chance.
It’s just a massive con game.
Speaking of violent rhetoric and images, Michelle Malkin has an impressive collection of such from the ‘left’ or ‘progressives’. These words, spoken in prime time air, and at rallies; these posters and images are vicious, murderous and violent.
http://michellemalkin.com/
We see the attacks against Palin, everything from signs of: “Abort Palin’, or images of a gun attack against her, or calls for her ‘gang-rape’.
We see the T-Shirts with ‘Kill Bush’ on the front. The signs of: “The only dope worth shooting is Bush’. The effigies of Bush beheaded, the exhortations to kill him.
We see the actual physical attacks by leftists on people demonstrating (peacefully) against abortions. Or against gay marriage.
It’s quite a set of words – hate-filled rhetoric – and vicious, violent images of the left.
Is the left so unaware of their thoughts, words and actions that they are unaware of what they’ve said, written, posted…all calls-for-violence?
Is the left so unaware of their thoughts, words and actions that they are unaware of what they’ve said, written, posted…all calls-for-violence?
Have just convinced themselves that their own violent rhetoric is done in the cause of “justice” and truth and, therefore, there is no problem.
Plus, they can’t process their own hypocrisy, it’s too hard for them, mentally.
Generally, they can’t do irony either, or catch on to riffing. There are vast mental holes inside the leftoid’s overstuffed brain, not really evident in this highly scientific rendering (which I’ve linked a zillion times at PJM)…
The Socialist Brain of a Liberal Democrat
And….their violence is perpetrated under the motto “the end justifies the means” and the perpetraters are “freedom fighters”.
How would Progressives explain Loughner’s killing a conservative judge in the process?
After getting a lot of mention on Saturday, the murdered judge has garnered very little press coverage in the subsequent days. Only Congresswoman Giffords and the 9 year old girl get mention. Maybe other victims don’t tug at the heart strings the same way the Congresswoman and the child do (most were just old people after all). And continuing to talk about the murdered Bush-appointed judge wouldn’t help advance the narrative that the shooter was an angry right winger.
The MSM’s last vestige of any sort of credibility has just been thrown under the bus. It’s sickening!
the progressive seem to be winning and have the conservatives defending themselves.. …these past couple of days illustrates the argument I have made before.
….conservatives need to get control of the language and start being on the offence. they should start to go after the hate mongers, the progressives.
in court.
Sheriff Dupnik should be relieved of duty and investigated for his mental condition. He’s rambling on like another mentally deranged individual that could be an imminent danger to the public.
And he’s still carrying a gun?
Great analysis Mike. You have cogently explained the reason (if you can call anything that the left does as reasoned) behind my two biggest complaints about the left: 1) that they make up the rules as they go along and 2) that everything we believe in seems to be turned on it’s head, that right is wrong and wrong is right. When a way of thinking refuses to acknowledge that there are any constants in life then it’s not surprising that no agreement or compromise can be found with your opponents on anything.
People like this are hopeless and can’t be argued with. Unfortunately they thrive because there is a large percentage of low information voters who, while not being active leftists, glean just enough information from the leftist media culture to be dangerous and then impose their manipulated ignorance on the rest of us with their votes.
“they obviously lack the Ivy League education, the sophistication, and the nuance necessary to successfully hold a plethora of contradictory beliefs.
Such beliefs need no immutable foundation. In fact, they cannot have such a foundation, and this is a large part of their appeal. ”
Well said. It’s interesting to note that this ability to fully believe mutually exclusive ideas is also Muslim dogma. Mormons are quite comfortable with it, as well.
Libertarians stand on the same foundation, though they don’t realize it.
My father used to say “A liberal believes what he believes, don’t confuse him with the facts.”
“To conservatives, Socrates’ admonition bespeaks periodic, life-long self-examination.”
In my experience reading this site, any conservative who questions the basis for his or her political beliefs is labeled a RINO and shunned. I’m not saying that progressives are spectacularly good at self-examination, but conservatives are absolutely terrible at it. This article is founded on a completely false assumption.
Bingo!! My thoughts exactly.
I was waiting for some act (or example) of self reflection given either by the writer or the responders, and all I hear is the certainty of their correctness.
The concept that people believe absolutely in the Second Amendment and God, without any doubt or reflection, yet they are the self-reflective ones… does not compute.
The point about God is especially true. If you question your belief in Jesus Christ, then you are by definition a person of weak faith.
My problem with this article and a lot of PJM articles is the complete lack of supporting evidence. For this article to make its central point in any sort of authoritative manner, there would need to be some links to conservative journalists or leaders who have openly questioned their beliefs in core conservative values. My guess is that you would end up with links to people like David Frum and Andrew Sullivan, people who are called RINOs or worse by the red-meat conservative crowd.
Your comment is very interesting. The Socrates quote is about examining your life. The writer talks about questioning your own *understanding* of reality or core values. This is very different from “questioning core values”.
The conservative assumption is that there is an underlying objective reality – both physical and moral, but that ones personal model of that reality is never perfect and needs to be improved. We never question core values, but we often discover that we didn’t fully understand them before.
The progressive assumption is that only ones personal perception of reality is important. If you start to perceive something undesirable, it is best to work hard to change that perception.
Both approaches deal with changing personal perceptions. But the conservative seeks to conform his perception to an external standard outside of himself. The progressive seeks to conform his perception to an internal standard inside of himself.
Aaron, be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.
Someone has said that the purpose of an open mind is the same as that of an open mouth: to close it on something substantial.
The history of Conservatives who exhibited self-examination and changed their world view is actually quite well populated. Here are a few.
1. David Horowitz – you can read his observations at http://frontpagemag.com/. He was the most liberal of Jews and came to espouse conservative principles later in life. His book Radical Son tells the story. The editor at his blog actually held a debate on the appropriateness of including homosexuals in the Republican Party in the context of the CPAC boycott,and the editor took the side of GOProud.
2. Marvin Olasky – you can read his observations at http://www.worldmag.com. He was a dedicated Marxist and even went to the Soviet Union for training and indoctrination. He recently published a series of biographical articles in World. He has written more than 20 books, most of which you can see here: http://astore.amazon.com/worlmaga-20/102-4266415-1976967?_encoding=UTF8&node=2.
3. Ronald Reagan – He came to embrace conservatism later in life, as told by the book The Education of Ronald Reagan: http://www.amazon.com/Education-Ronald-Reagan-Conversion-Conservatism/dp/0231138601. He was a deep thinker about scores of issues, as evidenced by his book Reagan in His Own Hand: http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-His-Own-Hand-Revolutionary/dp/074320123X. There are other books that relate his stories, his letters, etc. The Left’s attempts to paint him as an amiable dunce are a lie and are actually projection of their own shortcomings.
Of course, I’ve given only three examples, and all who came to embrace conservatism and not liberalism. But it is the nature of conservatism that we believe that there is an immutable truth that rewards those who seek and find it. Our search is not to sample all kinds of “truth” but rather to discard thoughts and ideologies that have proven themselves not to be true. In other words, we generally don’t believe that life is all about the journey (except that the journey is profitable experience but not an end in itself); we travel with an aim in mind, and once we find it, we are content.
I have found such a contentment in the words of Jesus Christ, as revealed in this story from chapter 4 of the Gospel of John:
————————————————–
When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
“Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”
Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
——————————————————–
My challenge is no longer to find the basis of truth, but rather to understand how it relates to all of life, and to bring my attitudes, words and conduct into conformity with the truth. I like the motto, “Change the world, start with yourself.”
We therefore don’t admire those who formerly espoused conservative principles and no longer do, since we believe they left the truth they had. Often (in my view) it is because their moral lives created such a dissonance with their views that they found it more convenient to change their views than to change their lives. And changing a life, again in my view, is possible only with divine intervention.
Take it or leave it, I think that’s a fair answer to your implied question.
You guys should set up a date.
Imagine the thrill of meeting a like empty-minded individual.
Unless, of course, you are really the same person, or are so excited reading the obits from the mass murder that you don’t have time to spare
You two should get a room..
From the washingtonexaminer.com:
Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-PA, said this about Florida’s new Republican Governor Rick Scott on October 23:
“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks.”
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. … Folks in Philly like a good brawl.” Barack Hussein Obama telling his followers how they should deal with the Republicans, 2008
In 2010, Obama called on Hispanics to join him and “punish our enemies.”
Harry Reid in 2009 called Tea Party critics “evil-mongers” who disrupt town-hall meetings with “lies, innuendo and rumors.”
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Barack Hussein Obama, during a fundraiser April 2008, inciting class warfare and anti-middle America sentiments. Hillary Clinton later called these Obama’s remarks “demeaning”, “elitist” and “out of touch”.
When republicans are in power it is “our patriotic duty to dissent.” When democrats are in power, dissent creates a “climate of hate.” LOL
With the exception of only a few, the “awakened masses” have never opened their eyes much less turned on their brains….only [following] populist rhetoric of their choosing. All this intellectualizing over the irrelevant is futile to any worthy cause(s).
America has been in an internal silent war for nearly a century with an opponent that is multiples more intelligent, winning all of their strategic [battles] thus far without firing a shot but, have yet to win the war…in which they are in no hurry to do. They have positioned an approaching majority of the peoples to win the final battle and thus, the war for them.
An overwhelming majority, most in denial, have [already surrendered] to their core objective of a centralized government (State and federal) dependent upon by the masses for their very survival.
So pardon me if I believe its a bit to late to be intellectualizing what is going on in some declared national ideological and political divide that really doesn’t exist. If anything warrants intellectualizing it would be the nations denial of their [passive] surrender to an enemy’s battlefield objectives over the past several decades.
Think I’m wrong? Then you haven’t honestly and factually considered how you and society at large have become dependent upon a centralized nanny government….be it State or federal or both. That is maybe worth intellectualizing when denial is overcome.
Thanks for a thought-provoking article. It brought to mind my youthful quest long ago of ‘the truth’, in which I used study and logic to find my way, and a reason for living. I read the teachings and histories of all of the major religions of the world, and each’s impact on the people who followed them. One thing I learned was that a society must have a basis in expected behavior, call it ‘right and wrong’, in order to survive as a group. Americans once shared it, and it was a strong conviction that Judeo/Christian principles for living were the best. Such values as the 10 Commandments are also found in other major religions of the world including Islam. In these religions, self-reflection is a requirement, and a life lived in compliance to the moral code.
When people opt out of belief in an unchanging moral code, they grasp at anything that gives their lives purpose, leading to ‘social justice’, man-made Utopias, pagan Gaia worship of the earth, etc. I believe there is an inborn human quest for perfection, which leads some to worship a Supreme Being and others to believe humans need to be perfected by other humans. As people in the West turn their backs on the bonds that once served as a foundation for unity, their civilization will die. It seems to be the history of all societies.
I was with you until, “As people in the West turn their backs on the bonds that once served as a foundation for unity, their civilization will die. It seems to be the history of all societies.”
Seems to me that is a bridge too far. Samuel Huntington, among others, made the case for an homogeneous culture, one to be sure, that tolerates groups with differing views provided those views do not disrupt the fundamental shared “basis of expected behavior”. The debate raging in the country is about which set of values will emerge as the core around which the citizenry unites. The constitution has been identified as the document that provides the context for those values.
It is easy when discouraged and sickened to leap to the conclusion that the end is near. Not only is it not near, I think out of this turmoil something really dynamic will arise. Just hang in there and have faith in ordinary people.
emmaliza….EXCELLENT piece of writing and observation!
As you say, we were once bonded by a common fabric of values and self reflecting responsibility to our freedoms. Folks of other nations flocked here for that opportunity. Nowadays, the world flocks here for the opportunity of corrupted riches, material possessions and the un-granted rights of irresponsible freedoms. For the past five decades America’s generations have strived to become the likeness of other nations and their values….and the battle between anarchism and socialism continues for America.
SAD!!!!
I don’t usually listen to Barry speak about anything for any reason. For me, listening to Barry is akin to chewing on tinfoil while holding a yowling cat, only more so. But tonight I’m going to listen. I’ve already watched the Sarah Palin video that she just put out. She looks and sounds Presidential. Now I want to see how Barry handles himself.
It’s really beside the point almost whether anyone can prove the direct influences of violent political rhetoric on Jared Loughner. What can’t be denied – and what most people see clearly – is the undeniable fact that the “reich-wing” in America has been willing and eager to throw around violent rhetoric and have created a patently dishonest echo-chamber full of hysteric half-truths, outright lies, and character assassination as they wrap themselves in the flag, claim “family values”, flaunt their religion, and worship their guns and the military (violence). And, then they want to be taken seriously. Somehow, Sarah Palin comes to mind.
Sinclair Lewis must have been thinking of her (aka “Moosolini”) when he said, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross”.
…it came to America, and is wrapped in a burqa and carrying a phony birth certificate.
Sinclair Lewis wasn’t apparently a good soothsayer after all, his crystal ball had too much red paint on it.
Just remember, according to the left, guns don’t kill people – keyboards do!
Mayhem in Tucson IV: Liberal Hypocrisy
What in part distinguishes human beings from the beasts of the jungle is a certain empathy, the capacity to vicariously, compassionately, experience and relate to the feelings of another human being, particularly to that person’s sadness and grief. What in part distinguishes liberals from empathetic human beings is their mindless fixation on scoring political points in times of mourning and grief.
‘Twas ever thus. Possibly, to be generous, a lack of empathy may be rooted in their genetic makeup.
From Day One of the Tucson tragedy, with no regard for the emotional upheaval of the victims and their families, with no thought extended to a troubled and grieving nation, with few exceptions the leftist-liberal tribe has sought to capitalize–and make some bucks–on the murdered and wounded with distortions, innuendo, and outright lies.
In a word, that tribe has been nothing short of a disgrace. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3387)
It’s tempting to politicize this event. But I’ve always said, “Why can’t we all just get a song.”
As a psychologist, I’ve been trying to use this original song to get people focused on what’s really important, coming together to promote healing after this troubling event.
Blood-stained Soil of Arizona
http://www.drblt.net/music/BloodStainedBLTdemom2.mp3
Dr BLT
words and music by Dr Bruce L Thiessen, aka Dr BLT © 2011
From the album, Bakersfield Noise found here:
http://www.drblt.net