Liberal Illiberalism
The Liberal Assault on Liberalism
Conservatives are put into awkward positions of critiquing liberal ideas on grounds that they are impractical, unworkable, or counterproductive. Yet rarely, at least outside the religious sphere, do they identify the progressive as often immoral. And the unfortunate result is that they have often ceded moral claims to supposedly dreamy, utopian, and well-meaning progressives, when in fact the latter increasingly have little moral ground to stand upon.
Take a few contemporary controversies.
Radical environmentalism. When “conservation” sometime in the 1970s was redefined as “environmentalism,” the morality of the entire issue likewise changed. Most Americans had wanted clean air and water; and they were willing to pay to curb pollutants and drive more expensive, but cleaner, cars. They had no desire to see condors die off or kit foxes disappear.
But at some point, the green creed began to dictate that all species were equal to humans. Soon concern for a tiny frog or worm trumped a needed project — a dam, an irrigation canal, an oil well, or a mine — designed to alleviate human suffering. Here I am not talking about large-scale species annihilation, but rather taking a truth about wishing to protect a natural habitat and perverting it into elevating concerns for insects, amphibians, and small fish over people’s elemental struggles to exist and prosper.
When California elites shut down 250,000 acres of irrigated agriculture to divert water into the San Francisco regional delta and bay, purportedly as a remedy to help the three-inch delta smelt, they were making a loud moral statement that those who mostly had secure jobs, mostly nice homes, and well-off environments were going to destroy the jobs of those in agriculture — not just the land owner and foreman, but the agricultural workers themselves — without much worry over the consequences.
In crude terms, the ideology might be paraphrased as something like the following, “I got mine, Jack, and can’t worry about you.” Or, “You don’t interest me as much as does a tiny fish in the delta.” In truth, I would be far more worried that the town of San Joaquin had little money for basic civic services from a cutoff in irrigation water than I would a drop in the delta smelt population.
Had a tractor salesman in Mendota or an irrigator in Firebaugh had an environmental Shane to square off against the Bay Area’s hired Jack Palance, then the dispute might at least have been more equal and honest. By that, I mean surely there are environmental problems with Berkeley’s treated sewage that goes into the Bay; a particular moth larva in theory could be found to be “in danger” when the next UC environmental sciences building is envisioned; and there must be all sorts of ways to ensure the Fish and Game Department’s trucks and SUVs run only on natural gas or propane, right?
In other words, so often in matters of producing gasoline for the lower middle classes, or cutting timber to ensure affordable housing, or making sure that we have plentiful cheap asphalt to fill potholes, we forget the moral argument that such resource utilization is critical to ensure that average folks have the same sort of chance for jobs, money, and aspirations as do the more wealthy whose green religious zeal makes them absolutely insensitive to — and in truth immoral about — the concerns of others less well off.
When Steven Chu admits both that he wishes gas prices to soar to European levels and that he has no need either to drive or to own a car, then he is really saying, “I don’t have much concern for the results of my own fantasies.” Yet had his lab and assorted lasers once been put on regular 12-hour blackouts to conserve “skyrocketing” energy, then he might have worried more about the consequences of his utopianism. When Barack Obama both calls for “skyrocketing” energy prices, and on his first January day in office turns up the West Wing thermostat to tropical temperatures, then there is a sort of immorality implicit in his entire ideology. At least Jimmy Carter put on a sweater and turned down the temperature to match his malaise rhetoric. Does Al Gore think that the Mexicans, Nigerians, or Venezuelans who supply some of the jet fuel that allows him to huckster via private aircraft are kinder to Earth in the Balance when they drill than when we would in ANWR or North Dakota?
Ah, Lovie! You have exposed your abject stupidity, as well as a lack of ability to imagine what the consequences of your heartfelt statements must engender.
I’m convinced that we are in the midst of twin bubbles, which resemble a double helix, or vine growing to the sky, as they reinforce each other.
We are all aware of the dastardly outcomes, worldwide, of all the various financial and economic bubbles. The elites in charge of the political and economic systems are woefully as un-self-conscious as Coach Lovie, with one bubble after another popping.
However, probably the most dangerous bubble is the one that’s been spreading, one person at a time, especially in America, to wit the production of so many high school “graduates” who’ve been well taught (hark back to that song in South Pacific) so much that is not true. It’s like this—wise parents teach their kids to “look both ways when crossing the street”. These dark days, putative parents, who are most of them simply aged “children” themselves, have forgotten about the need to teach so many of the same types of lessons.
Obama is president.
There is no need to say more.
I wonder if Lovie asked his boss’ advice about publicly supporting BHO, in such a dumb ass way.
Here’s where we may be going—the unplugged fools seem to be in competition to make the most outrageous statements, in their bubble world of no self consciousness, so that the newest “factor” facing awake people will be the CRINGE. If one had to breathe the stench from a fresh pile of human dung, inescapably: yuck!
Now—in the noosphere, we are enveloped by the same type of STENCH!
What’s happening nowadays proves Darwin was wrong—devolution is regnant!
If Barack were a Chicago Bear, Lovie would cut him. Lovie would shake Barack’s hand, wish him well and then call Mitt Romney’s sports agent…
There’s no Affirmative Action in football.
And regardless of who-has-who’s-back, the American people are going to do the same thing in November.
“There’s no Affirmative Action in football.”
Yes there is! There is a specific AA program requiring each team to take affirmative action to recruit Black coaches and other managers. So, it is only fitting that the affirmative action President is the beneficiary of the endorsement of an affirmative action coach. Neither of them would have their jobs if they weren’t Black – or carmel colored anyway.
Ah yes – and we can thank the likes of Jesse Jackson for one more program that promotes one race over another. Any hiring program that does not include the interests of all races is inherently flawed. It comes at the expense of the excluded. Either liberals don’t understand the logic or they just don’t give a crap.
WRONG!!! It’s not Jessie… it’s not Obama… it’s none of them. It’s the media. And the dolts who let the media do their thinking.
If the media did it’s job, by honestly reporting the news, and vetted candidates and political activists, as they should, the over whelming majority of American voters would reject them. Control the message, control the reaction.
The upshot is that we now have both a racist president and a racist coach of the Chicago Bears.
The Bears haven’t done well lately. It’s time to get a different coach.
Wow. And it’s racism like this why he won’t be reelected, not because of anything he’s done or hasn’t done. People like you can dress up your justifications anyway you like, but that’s ultimately why he won’t get back in.
wow, eric; you bring new meaning to the term “lack of self-awareness”. You totally make VDH’s point – in your world, anyone opposing Obama is motivated solely by race but those who support him BECAUSE OF race have pure motives. Sorry, but by any empirical standard, Obama has not been successful.
Pick any metric you like and the evidence is clear. What is ironic is how he campaigned on this whole “new tone” BS when such was never his intent. In fact, the lousy results produced are the intended outcome; when you heard ‘transformational change’, your inference was 180-degrees removed from Obama’s implication.
Eric tell us what he has done. Did you get a check ? Why I knew that Solendra could not loose that much money, half a billion in less than two years.
Lovie Smith took both whiny Jay Cutler and selfish Brandon Marshall. He’s welcome to them and I say this as a Bronco fan (both were once Broncos and are no longer for good reason.) Let’s just say Lovie doesn’t have the best judgment.
Excellent points were made by Victor Davis Hanson. We conservatives do in fact hold the high moral ground and it’s about time we started making those arguments. Remember that Soviet communism fell of both its own horrible economic decisions and the weight of moral arguments made against communism by public world figures like Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. These arguments taken up by ordinary people and repeated again and again toppled the socialist Soviet ideology. It’s been done before and we can topple the current socialist ideology if only we speak up.
“There’s no Affirmative Action in football.”
One of the stupidest comments yet. Pro football and basketball are nothing but AA. Because of AA in college sports over the last 30 years blacks have dominated the drafts into both sports. Now we have AA in the coaching ranks.
Um… No. This is like the Right saying media is liberal and in the pockets of Democrats. Neither view is correct. Media goes after the story, no matter where its from. Athletics go after the talent, no matter the color. Saying Basketball is dominated by Blacks because of AA shows a high level of ignorance.
I am unsure if your comment is naive or ignorant. Talent in sports and ability to get a “story” are facets of the respective jobs, but have become smaller elements of consideration as Americans self sub-identify and create specific marketing targets(idealogical or racial). Denying affirmative action or other promotion programs exist is no different than solely blaming them for the changing (and arguably declining nature) of our society. To Mr. Hanson’s larger point, we are losing the ability to see the forest for the trees.
But what about all those high jumping white guys who are discriminated against because the low-jumping black guys get 10% of the slots on NBA teams? Where is Breitbart when we need him?
Seriously, though, don’t we need AA for white guys in the NBA?
First, a flash for you young Mr. Gorall: lefty and smart are not synonyms. Young and stupid often are, so I’m asuming you’re both young and stupid. If it weren’t for AA and its associated dumbing down of education virtually none of the Blacks would have gotten in to college and certainly not played long enough to achieve professional level skills. Many of them would be in prison were it not for their athletic skills. Many should be in prison regardless of their athletic skills.
The worst thing that can happen to libruls is that they sometimes attain power. When they do, their basic mental irregularities, feelings substituting for thoughts and their outrageous demands for more, come into full play. These are finally demonstrated for all to see by rioting in the streets. Examples: the Democratican Convention of 1968 and the OWS give-us-the-money youth of today.
Poor Lyndon Johnson. No president, including the ideologue we have today, ever came close to institutionalizing more socialism than he. But it was not enough to sate the librul, anti-war crazies of the day, like Ayers and his first lady of terrorism.
They always overstep to the point that the country finally throws them out of office (see also the elections of 2010). We are in this situation today in my opinion. That is the reason for my basic optimism. Once they are thrown out, people forget how goofy they really are and they have a chance to regain power. That is the reason for my sometime pessimism.
Yes. The Dems are inevitably facing political annihilation. Whoever wins the Republican primary will be the next President. We will make further gains in the House and Senate too. But this time we can’t afford to just go back to business as usual.
As Mrs. Palin has said, these messy primaries are good. It’s been a long time since so many of us have really thought through who we are as a people, and where we want to go as a nation. Such debates must be messy or they are not real debates. And it is good that people’s passions are fully engaged, along with their reason.
The elections can be seen looming on the horizon now. The summer will seem to crawl by and then they will be upon us (political sideshows and an Iranian showdown notwithstanding). But keep your eye on the real prize, which is in November. On it’s own, the Tea Party could only ever just stall the carefully planned statist onslaught of the Dems. The Tea Party succeeded beautifully, and it exposed the autocratic, globalist, quasi-totalitarian clique that pulls the strings (the people behind Obama). But soon it is time for maximum effort once again. Like 2010 we need another wave and that will depend on each of us individually. To vote, and to get the word out to every sympathetic ear that this is the last chance to save the Republic.
After that, the real fight begins. That is when we launch our counter-attack. We already know the Left fights dirty. (They have to, their de-humanizing ideas are morally repugnant to most of us when seen clearly). But we will fight openly. We will prosecute the ringleaders, expose the aparatchiks, discredit the theories, unseat the propagandists and embarrass the academics. We need a kind of Truth and Reconciliation program. We want to avoid a civil war, but at the same time we want to make sure that all understand that an internal enemy exists who seeks to destroy democracy, free markets and the Constitution that enshrines them.
We cannot silence this enemy, because to do so would be to undermine our own freedoms as well. No, we must both punish and humiliate this enemy. But the punishment should carry a lesson with it: In the long run our personal salvation lies in embracing our own humanity, not denying it. And for own side the lesson is even simpler: eternal vigilance.
Gyl, very nicely put. But we seem to be experiencing a kind of dis-harmony, like the wind that brought the Tacoma Narrows Bridge down. The wind will always be there but we must engineer a better ‘bridge’.
The TEA party folks are largely older and have witnessed the growth in power by the central government. It’s a growth that threatens liberty in ways younger people may not appreciate because much of theirs have already been chipped away and they may not hesitate to support a reduction in others’ liberties because it may sound good or “fair” and have a nice utopian ring to it (forget legal/constitutional).
If we are to reverse this trend we may have to link voting to some semblance of understanding what the role of government should be and the value limits play in keeping the government’s hands off our freedoms. I endorsed the voter-ID requirement when presented but have gone a step further. Perhaps a simple civics quiz on the USCON, DOI, and BOR. Good for five years if you score a C or better.
“A republic, if you can keep it” leaves it to the observer to imagine just what they’ll have if they don’t (keep it). If we haven’t already arrived, I fear this election will remove all doubt about our destination. Wisdom and age seem to go hand-in-hand but I’d certainly not want to discourage youthful voters- just give me the ‘informed’ ones. Oh, and if you pass the quiz, you can leave the ID at home. I don’t much care if you can drive.
Yes, I’ve had similar thoughts too.
It seems to be true that young people are more easily stirred by their emotions, and roused to tribal, revolutionary passions. It’s a mix of impatience (I want mine now!), idealism (life could be so wonderful if only…) and perhaps, even more primitive and destructive drives. And they are a little less self-aware, and so more likely not to notice when they are lying to themselves. On the other hand almost every day I’m inspired by some young person who has his or her head screwed on straight; with a crystal clear grasp of what is going on, what is at stake, and what must be done. And there are a lot of oldsters who’ve never grown beyond the foolishness of youth too!
I tend to shy away from “engineering” solutions when thinking about social problems. We should not pre-define the paths upon which humans should tread. Instead we should consider human tendencies and seek to mitigate the inherent conflicts they give rise too, and perhaps some of their worst consequences. I think that is how the Framers approached the problem too. And I guess that’s why they understood that keeping a system that is both flexible and adaptive, yet simple and enduring, would be the main difficulty.
But I think I know what you mean…
I wrote once before that I believe that most people want to feel connected to a culture that is vibrant and strong and outward looking; not one that feels itself to be weak and diminished, with its nose to the ground. But under those conditions, yes, many people can be induced to surrender some of their freedom in return for some perceived security. And yes, we are at risk of becoming entirely dependent upon a system over which we have zero control. That is the great nightmare scenario of the 21st century: Our dependence on high technology for even the most basic daily transactions permits a kind of totalitarianism never before dreamed of. It is the great trap we must find a way out of before it’s too late. The first step has been taken. The second will be taken next November.
I tend to agree that perhaps some filtering mechanism is a good idea for those who want to vote. Then again intelligence, or understanding of economics does not guarantee support for democracy. But I agree that many people seem to lack a basic understanding of how capitalism works, and why, warts and all, it is the best system for ensuring a broad distribution of wealth and a high standard of living at the same time. And why, on the flip side, socialism leads to economic stagnation and the rise of a bureaucratic elite which seeks to protect and pursue its own interests, often at the expense of the governed.
My own favored approach is educational also, but with a different emphasis. I believe young people should be thoroughly taught how to recognize when they are being manipulated, especially by the mass media. The neo-Communist Dems are pretty good at defining the very language that is used to discuss social issues. All sorts of loaded concepts are layered-in aimed at tilting the narrative ever leftward. (And yes, young people are especially susceptible to subliminal promises of sexual fulfillment as well as payback for the parental constraints that have dominated most of their existence! The only problem is that when someone appears who keeps offering you exactly what you want (even if you sense what you want may not be good for you), without making reference to the price – has another agenda in mind that he hopes you won’t notice.
“A Republic if you can keep it.” And that is the crux of our problem. If the Constitution was working as designed, it wouldn’t matter so much how (or if) you voted. Democracy has become our demon and the Constitution has become passe. Now that we have become a Democracy instead of a Republic, voting is like digging when you’re in a hole. The Media and the education establishment are firmly in the hands of the enemy. Voting our way out of this hole in the ground doesn’t look too promising. More likely that the walls of the hole will collapse; some of us will be buried and some may be able to crawl out.
A depressing point of view, but reality must be faced. There is always hope for the future, but the short-term prospects aren’t good.
You are correct sir. All that is missing is the acknowledgement that the same thing (or some version thereof) happens when conservatives win. The going back and forth between the two is how we have survived as long as we have. Would you not agree?
Does Stalin = Jesus too?
D-White, does morality exist?
Stalin and Jesus deal in absolutes. Do you see a Stalin or a Jesus running for President? Politicians and parties in America deal in pragmatic prancing around with one side in control, then the other. We have never had to deal with a Stalin or a Jesus as a President. Neither GWB nor Obama were such, although GWB believed in Jesus and some here may THINK that Obama thinks that he is Jesus. When enough people perceive that the party in power is screwing up, they throw the bums out and let the other guys screw up. They use all sorts of apocalyptic and/or promise filled language to get elected. but large boats don’t change course very rapidly. When a Republican President comes in he immediately rescinds a lot of environmental regulations and a Democrat does the opposite. It’s pretty basic stuff.
No, no D-White. Is there a limit to Pick It Fence Butism? When does equating one thing with another with macro Ping Pong Tongue Nattering Nanobistic Negativity become something of value, rather than a made up feel good Pick It that can be sat on, all the while observing the World in Grayscale?
There seems to be no there “there” in terms of a decision as to what could be, other than a wash. Did you teach this form of Blender Thought in the Children’s Prison System?
…then your gravity fails and negativity won’t pull you through…
YOU are the one who can’t handle the truth.
The truth requires that one does recognize that life consists of differences.
Now all the authorities
They just stand around and boast
You’re wasting your time with our favorite Hegelian Triangulator, Dwighty-boy. You know – the old thesis-antithesis-synthesis bit. But always, the nudge of the ‘synthesis’ towards the left. He’d make Cass Sunstein proud, except for the fact that he’s not very good at it. Scratch the ‘reasonable guy’ persona and you’ll find a full-blown state supremacist lurking underneath.
OTOH, it’s fun to whack his pinata from time to time and to watch the crazy spill out.
Mr. Dorrity, D-White has some steet cred, he’s supporting Romney. So he says…
Why Mr Dorrity, your back after going into hiding from getting your pinata whacked pretty good some time ago.
And another non-sequitur from our inept Triangulator. What did you do? Make some snarky reply, run away and call it a victory?
You seem to limit yourself to drive-by remarks in otherwise adult conversations these days.
As for ‘where I’ve been,’ a full time job and a book in progress occupies most of my time. And there’s that word, ‘occupy’. Bet that gives you a little frisson of delight.
Dwight: “…All that is missing is the acknowledgement that the same thing (or some version thereof) happens when conservatives win… Would you not agree?”
I acknowledge the same with serious modifications, or rather I acknowledge the same could happen, but it doesn’t seem to have ever, you know, happened. I don’t know what you mean by “some version.” Also, conservatives have rarely been in power during my lifetime, making it difficult to judge your case. The current House is much more an exception than the rule.
We had the Gingrich House. He and they passed conservative legislation with the help of…wait for it…Bill Clinton. But I don’t recall Conservatives rioting in Grant Park, Chicago, my old home town, while a conservative held the White Mansion, or any time in modern history really. Then there have been times when Republicans of no ideology at all accept improve-my-resume-by-doing-things-together held power.
For these reasons your so often-proclaimed ‘they do it but so do you’ doesn’t hold all that much water in this instance, or so it seems to me anyway.
“Who Knows?” post is a Typical lefty reply, alot of hate and anger, and no where does “Who Knows?” post, does he refute any Mr. Hanson points.
So Hanson 1, dumb lefy o.
As a person of Mexican descent I don’t understand my fellow Hispanics reasons against border security. As drugs come up from Mexico, Mexican kids are just as likely to get hook on those drugs just as much as White, Black or Asian kids. When an Illegal immigrant uses somebody else Social Security Number, it just as likely to be their parents or their kids social security number that the illegal immigrant are using, and etc. And if they really are concern about the Mexican people then they should support border security to stop guns and drug money going back to the drug gangs in Mexico. Which has cost the lives of thousands of Mexicans
Thank you sir for properly understanding and stating the problem. pass those views around and maybe we’ll get somewhere.
I liked the part where he doesn’t know what the word nihilism means.
Funny how the Left accuses people who disagree with Obama as racists but if you agree with him and say it’s cuz he’s black and you’re black, it becomes an intellectual puzzle the MSM can’t ferret out – they’re too busy reading the minds of white people to be bothered with actual facts.
Add this to the pie and bake it: Henry (Beer Garden) Gates,Jr. just had an article at the “black culture (hate whites) site called The Root titled: “Black Professionals: We’ve Got Obama’s Back.” The Root is owned by the WaPo.
Turn that around and publish it here and you’ll have libs coming around measuring your head for a hood.
Yeah, Try calling someone in “La Raza” a racist and get denigrated for it. Where is the United Caucasian College Fund? Where is the Caucasian Congressional Caucus? Where is the National Association of American Caucasian People? Where are all the European-Americans? Nothing racist here, move along, move along.
I have observed that for liberals, fundamentaly the ends justify the means. They really believe this.
I’m relieved to read a moral condemnation of “liberal” policies. This has needed to be said for a very long time.
America must Breitbart Barack; it’s the only way he can be defeated. The left will scream. It will be called negative campaigning, racist, and worse. Knowing Barack Obama and his minions — as we now do — it will be called both. Conservatism will become synonymous with “negative racism” — at least in the written press, televised news, and progressive blogosphere.
Yet if the right wages a polite and dignified campaign, eschewing negativity and “in your face” advertising, the Republican candidate still will be labeled negative and racist.
War is like that. The right might as well fight, or get used to performing sexual favors to earn the cash necessary to fill up their gas tanks, in order to get to jobs that pay less than they made in 2008, if they are lucky enough to even have a job. At least their contraception costs will be covered by the ObamaCare mandate.
Read more of my article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/breitbart_barack.html#ixzz1pZv7OMLx
VDH is condemning social democrats for being authoritarian, which they have always been. I blame them for something else that is immoral: the Great Dumbing Down. See http://clarespark.com/2012/03/13/dumbing-down-when-did-it-begin/. For without an educated polity, no one knows what is being rational as opposed to (irrational and immoral) status preservation by ruling elites.
Agree WRT the state of education in this country. I’ve wryly thought that the Gramscian Left has devolved itself from the Nietzschean ‘transvaluation of all values’ to the devaluation of all values. All in the service of the acquisition retention and most of all, the exercise of power. That exercise usually involves mass murder on a scale that beggars the imagination.
Here is an even more thorough moral evisceration of the Left.
Is it social collapse, or a new equilibruim forming?
The young bulls knocking the old bulls off the top of the hill.
“Is it social collapse, or a new equilibruim forming?”
Did you read the whole thing?
Nothing a Liberal Proposes is equilibruim. They Steal from the productive to pay for their fancies weather it be Enviromental, Social “safety nets” or some other pet project ment to “protect” some special thing or “class”.
Eventually the “productive” will sit down, then who are the “progressives” going to use for the cash cows?
True, and nothing in their current favored title, “Progressive,” states there’s an end-game. Ever.
Progress towards what?
Being “Progressive,” is the end unto itself. No accomplishments necessary.
There is nothing wrong with safety nets. Its the hammocks that need to go.
True but since the system has become “Hammocs for all” Time to start over.
Safety nets used to be called charity and it was shameful to take any. Then the liberals started taking our money and unconstitutionally using it to provide hammocks. The federal government does not have the legal authority to do what they are doing.
Good line!
I can’t even begin to understand why a website in decent standing – although a conservative-leaning and thus intellectually bankrupt one – would allow someone as woefully ignorant and grammatically inept as you to publish a comment on its forum. Never mind the baseless and pathetic content of your post; I literally could not understand the majority of your musings simply due to your loose (to employ a generous adjective) interpretation and application of standard usage and grammar rules.
I am an ardent proponent of each citizen’s right to speak his or her mind, but there ought to be a minimum threshold of basic intelligence and communication skills that websites apply in order to broadcast such mind-numbing and idiotically-conveyed thoughts.
A word of advice: don’t get on the Internet and publicly express ideas that condemn a group of people so clearly and inarguably superior and more well-informed than you.
While you have a way with words, you don’t with ideas. You simply say in flowery language: I’m smart, you’re dumb… nya nya. I have found it a common mistake to underestimate the intelligence of one’s adversary, and to overestimate one’s own.
Ah ha, he speaks from his nether trumpet.
This site doesn’t need a grammatical competency test to be able to post ones opinion, the NATION needs a “Ability to reason and understand our founding principles” test before one should be allowed to vote for yet another politician who will re-tie the strings of the proverbial “Hammock”.
All gratuitous assertion and arrogance. No arguments or reasoning of any kind. Like all liberals, you know how to write but not how to think.
anonymous wipes its ass with words and then contemplates the “intelligent” patterns on the toilet paper.
“A word of advice: don’t get on the Internet and publicly express ideas that condemn a group of people so clearly and inarguably superior and more well-informed than you.”
Really?
How about a word or two back, Under the costitution we are all creted equil and are equil under the laws. If you think your A in “Honors” English class makes you better then ANYONE here you are sadly and completly wrong.
But then again you have fallen for the biggest most common Liberal Brain wash, you believed your teachers when they told you you are “better” then the “masses”. I will put my IQ against any problem you wish to bring troll cause I know you aint got any skills other than telling the masters what they want to hear.
I would LOVE to see you tell that to President Andrew Jackson!! I “heer tell” that he was never a perfect grammarian, but since you couldn’t hide behind an anonymous internet post and would have to tell him your opinion of his speech patterns in person, you might end up on the wrong side of a dueling pistol!
It’s easy to condemn someone for grammatical errors; if you want to contribute to this forum, point out any errors your perceive in his logic! Other than that, spare us your condescending commentary–we don’t need it.
What’s inarguable here is the cowardice of anonymity, the surplus of arrogance, and the ill breeding of an elitist mongrel bereft of manners and common decency.
The foul signature of the left is at work here, assuming moral and intellectual superiority without cause or reason.
Liberal motto: It ain’t fascism when we do it.
Conservative dream: Everyone gets an equal starting line.
Liberal nightmare: Everyone gets an equal finishing line.
Yes: “… they act as they do because they know others will not act as they do—at least for now. Tit-for-tat factionalism leads nowhere but to chaos and carnage.”
One day, the taxpaying, law-abiding, family-focused, rule-following, go-along-to-get-along crowd will raise their noses from the grindstone, look around and realize they’ve become strangers in a strange land.
Can we wrest our country back from the dividers, denigrators and destroyers? Or have we already passed some unseen, unmarked tipping point?
When
When one does not see what one does not see one does not even see that one is blind.
Did you mean to say too stupid to know they’re stupid?
They are self-exalted by their righteousness that doth make them profane and unworthy, a scourge upon the land.
“They are self-exalted by their pseudo-righteousness that doth make them profane and unworthy, a scourge upon the land.”
FTFY
Charles Spurgeon understood how intolerant the open minded Liberal could be back in his day.
“The very persons who talk most about being liberal in their views are generally the greatest persecutors. If I must have a religious enemy, let me have a professed and avowed bigot, but not one of your “free thinkers” or “broad churchmen” as they are called, for there is nobody who can hate as they do; and the lovers of liberal-mindedness who have no creed at all think it to be their special duty to be peculiarly contemptuous to those who have some degree of principle, and cannot twist and turn exactly as they can.”
http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2010/08/charles-spurgeon-understood-liberalism-and-the-threat-it-posed-then/
And over a 100 years later it is even more radical and more intolerant. Great insight into the destructive capability of today’s Liberals. Of course, you’re just a close minded bigot.
Wow, Spurgeon sounds like he was talking about Bill Maher.
An exemplary survey. But our problem remains as it was: left-liberals have defined their positions as absolute, unquestionable morality, and so are unwilling to consider that they might be morally erroneous.
Even if left-liberals were open to the possibility that their positions are morally questionable, they didn’t reach their policy positions by a process of reasoning or analysis, but rather through emotional predisposition, and so cannot be reasoned out of them. That puts paid to the notion that we can talk them around with judgments such as “unworkable” or “unaffordable.”
…self-appointed tribal spokesmen in a multicultural system where hyphenation brings dividends.
True on so many levels. America grew into the nation it is or, well, was until recent memory, because we are most certainly NOT Tribes.
Tribal ways of thinking are narrow-minded, parochial, suspicious of anyone different than they. They conduct feuds that can have lethal outcomes over nonsense. They are intolerant of any POV other than theirs.
Liberalism IS immoral! Just look at all of the evil that the democratic idea of housing projects, welfare bucks & throwing condoms at everyone has done. Sadly, I have no doubt that America is doomed. We will slowly slink in the gutter & garbage can of history. No country that denies it’s culture, spends itself to death, refuses to enforce federal laws & values bugs, fish & frogs over people can endure.
It is all just a waiting game now. Our entire nation will more or less be like CA & Greece in the yrs. to come.
What does it say when living in a former Communist nation such as Bulgaria has a FAR better quality of life in nearly all areas than living in the States?
We are doomed, thanks to these immoral air-headed liberals. Say it ain’t so, Joe!
That history moves in cycles? But I’m guessing not enough that you plan to move there any time soon.
We poor ignorant morally corrupt,
unwashed masses of peasants,
still clinging to our automatic weapons and cult religions..
-
We are not worthy of the left leaning liberal sacrifices.
I think we need some more liberal sacrifices. I know where there’s an active volcano…
Dr. Hanson: I have been saying the same things for a while now (years?). So-called Liberals are not liberal (just as so-called progressives are not progressive). These name have been hijacked by the Left so it can pretend to be something other than it is. The only thing liberal about Liberals is how they liberally spend other people’s money, and the only thing progressive about progressives is how they progressively increase the power of the state at the cost of our freedoms.
Excellent analysis. These themes: radical environmentalism, multiculturalism, affirmative action and illegal immigration are all about one agenda – the self-definition of the identity of the Left (aka progressives).
These agendas assert that the Left are ‘compassionate’. Note that a description that is confined to emotion is sacred; it can’t be rebutted by reason or facts. It’s as axiomatic and isolate as a religious ‘truth’. So, the Left have set their agendas up as immune to criticism; if you dissent from their agendas, then you are, by definition, the opposite of compassionate. You are evil.
Radical environmentalism, as VDH points out, has little to do with the environment, but a great deal to do with control over the economic and political strengths of others.
Multiculturalism, with its acritical support of beliefs and behaviors that, by any logical basis, ought to be condemned as inhuman and ignorant, divides the population into adversarial sects.
Affirmative action lowers the work force to its LCD, or lowest common denominator, since ability-to-do-the-job becomes irrelevant in the workforce. So, you get teachers who cannot teach, mechanics who don’t know their field, customer service representatives who can’t speak English ..etc.
Illegal immigration is, as VDH points out, an enormous crippling econoic and social cost to the USA, as it would be to any nation. To politicize it as based around one ethnic group is a tactic of political gain for the Left, who are even now, trying to ensure that illegals can vote (No ID required!).
The results of these agendas are to reduce the freedoms and powers of Americans.
The freedom to develop new economic infrastructures – Obama’s EPA and Environmentalists are regulating the economy out of existence.
Multiculturalism is setting up isolate adversarial groups, who are, as Obama has advocated, ‘fighting their enemies’.
Affirmative action – it’s all been said, and that includes the strange case of Obama – and his missing college data.
Illegal immigration, where states are forced to pay for the education, health and welfare of non-taxpaying citizens, is destroying the border economies. And Obama is busy suing any state that tries to prevent this destruction.
To tell the truth I’m hard pressed to think of any historical precedent for a national leader who deliberately and systematically goes about destroying the nation he leads. Others have led their countries down destructive paths, but they thought they were doing the right thing. Obama is deliberately destroying America because he hates it. In his bones he hates it. So does the entire Dem leadership, and the financiers who bankroll the whole cabal. It’s ok though, they’ve helpfully self-identified themselves for future reference.
And I thought you were about to say George Bush, but then I remembered what tribe I was visiting. Do most of you on here actually believe what you are saying? As a proud liberal who cares for the environment and who helps out at local affordable housing nonprofit, I always like to see just how immoral by caring has become in the eyes of the ultra-conservative tribe.
Did you only come to Troll, or did you actually read the article these folks have so thoughtfully been commenting on?
You tell me, which is more immoral? A.)Forcing family and corporate farmers who provide jobs and food off of their land by restricting irrigation to protect a tiny fish who’s not truly threatened in the first place? Or B.) Sacrificing a few useless fish (unless you need bait) to allow that water to flow and keep those farms producing and sustaining their areas? Pretty sure I know that answer. I’m afraid we’ll disagree though
I’m thrilled you help out at a local non-profit. Do you receive the blessings of doing that good work yourself? I’d wager that you do, and that they’re pretty fulfilling when the service is performe personally. Now would you still be receiving those blessings if volunteering at that local non-profit was made illegal and you were forced to “donate” via your tax dollars so that some paid person could then do that work and receive none of the same blessings since they’re being paid for the work? How would that be moral?
Here’s just another example of how giving has been outlawed and why the liberal moral-ism is bankrupt.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/video/6856017-mayor-bloombergs-food-police-outlaw-food-donations-to-city-homeless-shelters/
If “Proud Liberals” are the ones standing on the moral high-ground, we’re doomed.
“And I thought you were about to say George Bush” If I had would that have made it ok?
“Do most of you on here actually believe what you are saying?” I can’t speak for others but I categorically believe what I wrote. But your conclusion has veryy little relation to it. Perhaps you lefties would better grasp your own destructiveness if you learned how to actually interpret what you are reading?
“As a proud liberal who cares for the environment and who helps out at local affordable housing nonprofit, I always like to see just how immoral by caring has become in the eyes of the ultra-conservative tribe”. I commend you for your good deeds; but they alone don’t protect you from being manipulated by people smarter than you are.
cbs – that’s a rather smug and sanctimonious comment you’ve just made. You’ve self defined yourself as ‘compassionate’; you’ve told us that we who write here can’t possibly believe what we write (why – are we too stupid; are our comments too ignorant?); and you’ve implied that we are effectively mindless members of a tribe.
It seems to be a characteristic of the left, that their support of socialism and social engineering is to be understood as a sign of their ‘compassion’. But is it really compassion or is it instead, a need to control people and reject freedom?
Furthermore, it is incredibly arrogant to suggest that compassion can only be expressed by the left (and socialism) and that those who are conservative or ‘right wingers’ lack such emotion. It happens to be a fact that the highest ratio of giving to charities – is by the right. The left is notorious for its weakness in giving to charity.
Great article, with the exception of the University of Utah hypothetical supporting Mitt Romney. I had to laugh about that, as one who has lived in Utah for 10 years. The U of U is decidedly liberal, and the liberal faculty would have a major conundrum about how to throw a major liberal hissy fit IF the U of U’s football coach were to do such a thing, because most of their students are Mormon (i.e. over 50%) and most of those Mormons are more conservative (I’d almost like to see the faculty try and therefore offend most of their student population, alumni donators, and other university endowment contributors!). Dr. Hanson’s Utah hypothetical would work much better with Utah State, Weber State, or obviously BYU, but NOT the U of U.
Regardless, this was a great article. I believe most liberals are complete fools; those liberals not fools are evil.
Unfortunatly, a vocal minority of the population, having successfully infested the MSM and the popular entertainment industry, control public discourse. And, alas, the elite minority controlling higher edcuation have managed to indoctrinate two generations of easily persuaded young people with limited intellectual ability and powers of critical thought. Reason, logic, and common sense do not fair well against diatribe, cant, and mockery.
I suggest panel debates formatted somewhat like the old style debates between religious individuals as one method to flush out and call out liberals. Imagine VDH going head to head for an hour vs his liberal counterpart. I suggest teams be set up. Each team picks two debaters for each issue to be debated and prepared their picks. Maybe CNN or PBS or FOX would provide the bandwidth/airwave.
Our side should be throwing down the gauntlet every time we are given a forum; TV, radio, internet, neespapers, magazines. Challenge the liberals to open debate and forcefully mock them if they decline.
If the liberals refuse, call them out for being chicken livered and unconvinced of their own positions.
Confront, call out, deligitimize them and their positions. Watch the rats scurry for their holes.
Reading the comments here, it appears that some conservatives seem to hate liberals more than they love America. They’re obsessed with the idea that Godless librulz are ruining everything and they nostalgically look backwards to some sort of old fashioned utopia that never really existed.
When should we return to? The 1950s? The upper-bracket tax rate back then was above 50% back then. Are you sure you want to go back to that time period?
If every liberal would agree to leave this country agreeing never to return, I would happily pay 50%+ federal tax on anything over $250K.
And I would come out far ahead in real worth by the time I factored in the damage modern liberalism has caused, from rampant immorality, to failed public education systems and higher education, to excessive business regulation. And those are just for starters.
If you can convince your brethren to do so, you can hold me to that.
Wow, what an illogical comment.
It isn’t an Either-Or situation, of Hating Liberals OR Loving America. It’s a rational reaction to the Liberals who are, with their policies (eg, Radical Envt, Multiculturalism, Affirm.Action and Illegal Immigration) are DESTROYING America. Got that?
What does the Liberal belief in or non-belief in God have to do with their stated policies – of RE, M, AA, II – ?
And who is talking about some old utopia? Are you seriously suggesting that if one criticizes a leftist, liberal policy, that it THEN means that you are yearning for an old utopia? That doesn’t make sense.
Speaking for myself, I am criticizing those leftist policies because of the destructive results of the policies-in-themselves. VDH has outlined some of the results.
Do you support those results – the economic implosion from radical environmentalism, the growth of identity politics and adversarial hatreds between such groups, the denigration of quality among employment, and, the enormous cost to the taxpayer of illegal immigrants? Do you support these situations? Why?
That’s liberal reasoning for you – you say you’d like to go back to the innocence of the 50′s and their response is: OMG! You want a return to slavery, public flogging, witch trials and hangings at dawn?????!!!!!!
The illogical leap of logic they perform would make acrobats envious.
Of course you conviniently overlook the rates in the fifties were in place at a time the federal share of the gdp was much lower, the rates in effect then were used to paydown the WW2 debt. Now if you were to argue that federal spending as a percent of gdp were to reduced to the levels of that era andvraise taxes to those levels for the purposes of reducing the national debt then you would be pleasently surprised that most conservatives would go along with the higher tax rates provided it was for the purpose of burning the national mortgage.
“it appears that some conservatives seem to hate liberals more than they love America.”
Maybe because they love America is the reason they hate pigressives?
I know I do.
I don’t hate liberals, to the extent there actually are any; I’m contemptuous of the useful idiots who think that leftist and intelligent are synonyms. The ones I hate are the leadership cohort of the Left, the outright communists and knowing fellow travellers, that the stupid liberals follow along in lockstep with. The left is anti-American to the core and everyone of their ersatz religions, social justice, global warming, womens rights, human rights, all the lefty talking points are all just Orwellian double-speak for concentration of power in a dictatorship of a self-appointed elite.
“When should we return to? The 1950s? The upper-bracket tax rate back then was above 50% back then. Are you sure you want to go back to that time period?”
Let’s explore this question a bit. First, like every other bill we pay, the tax bill cannot be considered out of context to the goods and services we get in exchange.
Let’s compare with the fifties. The “upper-bracket tax rate” is a red herring. Few paid it, so the total share of gdp represented by government spending was much lower. In fact, to find a time period where the total government expense as a percent of gpd equaled today’s, you have to go to World War II.
We know what our taxes bought in 1944: The US government was engaged in a mammoth, global clash. Blood and treasure spilled across two continents, to win the largest war ever faced by humanity. This was an epic crisis.
Today, we spend the same proportion. The epic crisis we face is ensuring that government workers retire young, with generous pensions.
Yeah, that compares well with stopping Hitler’s armies, doesn’t it? God help us if we really do have another real crisis at this point, because we’ve sunk a crisis-worth of money into feeding 55 year old retirees, collectors of disability checks, non-productive bureaucracies, etc, etc, etc, and we still think we ought to be providing free contraceptives, too. What have we got left for a real crisis?
Well, I’d say nothing, but the fact is, less than nothing, because we didn’t go into WWII with the massive debt we already have.
Let’s be clear. It’s not the taxes. It’s what we buy with it. A lot of our tax money buys nothing at all, except a plush life for those lucky enough to get it.
In fact, conservatives DON’T generally look back to a “better” time that never existed. Instead, Liberals constantly claim that conservatives constantly look back to a better time that never existed. What conservatives want is a future for themselves and their children characterized by individual freedom (you know, old fashioned “liberalism”) and not totalitarian state control.
I find that nearly 100% of liberal “ideology” is based on opposing entirely fabricated troglodyte straw-men with a label “conservative” slapped on them. It is just SO much easier to oppose your own definition of your opponent than to debate intelligently his political beliefs, and nothing defines modern “liberalism” more than its pathetic – and pathological – intellectual laziness.
The fact is, AJB, conservatives have been loving their enemies in the name of loving their country, and in many cases, their God all along.
When conservatives plead with liberals to not support abortion on demand, to not put on the blinders to Islam, to not have a sense of entitlement, to not falsely accuse your opponent of racism, to support traditional families, to not use drugs, to not envy the wealth of other Americans, to not be vulgar, to not use poor immigrants as politcal pawns, they are loving the liberal.
The problem is you won’t be told.
But does this ad-lib to both sides? Let’s do an experiment. Say abortion. When leftists promote a pro-choice position are they loving their enemy? No, they are promoting themselves in the short-sighted degenerate way they do, because to be pro-choice is entirely based on an argument concerning the Self (and necessarily without regard for the potential, viable, and real life they do not want responsibility for). Or is it population control where they are loving their enemy? Ahh, that is it, if there is any righteousness in being pro-choice it must concern population control, because to save the environment will coincidentally save your enemy as well. Yes? But why not say that openly, since it is such a righteous position? Ahhh, the shame of it, of course. Why hasn’t Obama spoken about controlling the population to save the planet through abortion yet, I wonder?
Or maybe promoting abortion is loving your enemy in that they will not have the financial hardship of bringing up an unwanted child. Obama said something relevant here, I think. What was it? Something like he wouldn’t want his daughter “punished” with a baby. Yes, because it’s not like his daughter has any money, because it’s the parent’s who are rich. They must run a very strict househould?
Or wait, it must be the time lost in having a child. That is how liberals love their enemy in promoting abortion. Because a girl who has a baby at sixteen could never, ever, ever possibly make something of her self. That would require that she work extra hard. And that’s not equality is it. So, it can be argued that liberals love their enemy by helping to ensure that girls, girls who also may be conservative, who are inferior according to this argument, will not be 3 or 4 years behind other girls who didn’t get pregnant. Such love, it almost brings tears to your eyes.
Great comment
Liberal = Progressive = Socialist = Fascism = Totalitarinism = Obama’s world.
Dr VDH elaborates on Divide and Destroy tactics along every dimension.
Will the nation of sheep continue to blindly follow ? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Mr. Hanson revisits (and properly cites Jonah Goldberg with the most recent and extensive
alliteration of) liberal fascism today. Good for Mr. Hanson, especially his references (a
couple of which I had not previously seen and have added to Another Slow News Day’s library of
truth links). Thank you, again, Mr. Hanson, for your fine research and your willingness to
reference it on PJM.
Something I noticed (again) in Hanson’s essay today, though, is interesting. First, he rightly
observes that, “… rarely, at least outside the religious sphere, do [conservatives] identify
the progressive as often immoral.” In so doing, Mr. Hanson reveals his agnostic bias (those,
like Mr. Hanson, who argue that agnosticism is, by definition, unbiased can argue that point
with their Maker on the last day [c.f. Mat 12:30]). In that statement Mr. Hanson marginalizes
as “rare” (at least within conservatism) those who place morality before all other decisions.
One of the ironies of that classification is that Mr. Hanson then spends the rest of his essay
using the definition of “moral” employed by that “rare” group of conservatives to marginalize
the Left (and rightly so) who completely reject that definition of morality.
The apex of this irony, though, is reached when we remember that Mr. Hanson has elsewhere and
often derisively called “moralism” that which he refers to today as “morality” and uses to
marginalize the Left. Hanson, therefore, criticizes “moralists” who don’t buy into his amoral
Enlightenmentopia with the very definition of “moral” that he elsewhere reject. (BTW, Mr.
Hanson cites his Enlightenmentopia as philosophically preeminent again today when he hyperlinks
James Delingpole’s essay rightly criticizing New Ageism). Mr. Hanson tells us today (also rightly
so) that… “To do all the above is retrograde and ultimately nihilistic,” yet Mr. Hanson
apparently forgets that nihilism, as per Nietzsche, is the apex of Hanson’s Enlightenment.
Go figure.
Readers wishing to explore these ironies further are invited to visit Another Slow News Day’s
various blog pages (really more research resource pages than blog pages) on Liberal Fascism…
http://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/liberal-fascism/
…, Atheism…
http://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/atheism/
… and Christianity.
http://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/christianity/
Numerous sub- and related topics to those are accessible via ASND’s Update Topics menu tree.
Excellent points, as usual, Dr. Hanson! More evidence of the blatant racial favoritism of the Obama administration was the reaction to aerial bombardment’s of a Bible College and Hospital supported by Samaritan’s Purse in Sudan this winter. There was rapid response to those incidents by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and I applaud her for this. Yet, I find no similar response by Suzan Johnson Cook, Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom.
Could it be there is favoritism in the Sudan situation, and callous disregard in the Saudi case, due to the Arab Christians being of a less-favored race (at least Obama’s eyes)? They cannot use the excuse that there is now a separate nation of South Sudan which is majority Christian; or that issuing a statement in the Saudi case would add fuel to the fire of an already tense region. Sudan is not exactly a shining light of religious freedom in the world–and one could argue that the Sudanese region’s tensions have far outweighed those of the Saudi peninsula over the past decade or so!
Now, sadly, an American teacher has been assassinated in Yemen. The pressure increases for the Obama administration to find some backbone and condemn the words and actions of Islamist extremists throughout Arabian peninsula!
My dear cyberfriend, VDH, there are no more liberals. The leftists ate them whole.
The leftists took the liberal’s concern for the damages of pollution and turned it into a a raging anti-capitalism scheme. We not only cannot protest the overreach, we can’t trust the reported “science” on the issues. The intent is not to “save” some heretofore unknown diminutive creature, it is to destroy (and then replace) America’s free market democracy.
The global warming hoax has been nothing more than a stealth redistribution scam intended to tear money from American taxpayers to place into the hands of leftist handlers. To “hide the decline” in the phony models was the canary in the coal mine (and oil drilling sites)…proof positive that it was “science” being “developed” to fit a narrative, not find the truth.
Illegal immigration is no such thing. It is not immigration at all. Border crashing and gun running from our southern borders is now a large scale criminal enterprise in which our DOJ and the Democratic Party at large are unindicted co-conspirators.
To think that our federal government would SUE a state for trying to protect its borders, would engage in a large scale drug running operation and involve itself intimately with the drug cartels in order to effectuate a POLITICAL advantage against constitutional rights of its own citizens, is so shocking that it is only surpassed by the shocking treason of the media which covers for the rape of our laws, rules and foundational documents as a nation.
There is NOTHING “liberal” about hard leftism. Let’s make that distinction as crystal clear as we can.
When the DOJ hires far, far, far left radicals and announces through its supervisory personnel that this country no longer intends to enforce our laws in a race neutral fashion, we have long ago left the “liberal” reservation.
The leftists engage in an inversion narrative to fool the eyes and ears and continue to get elected…posing as “do gooders” and “bleeding hearts”.
This is a full scale con job. They are bleeding hands and do evils instead. America is under full scale assault. Derek Bell, Don Warden, George Soros, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, the Socialist Scholars, Cloward Piven, Van Jones, Anita Hill, …these are not soft-hearted, doe-eyed, “liberals”, looking to pick flowers and sing folk songs.
There is danger in not recognizing the danger. They don’t root for peace. They root for our enemies. They don’t want to make America better, they want to destroy her and replace her as a compliant satellite lackey. They don’t want cheaper energy or cleaner oil or better capitalism. They don’t want a stronger free market or a race neutral constitution. The want retribution, redistribution and capitulation.
When you apologize for the country your running’s existence…when you sell out all your allies and cozy up to your enemies, when you intentionally run up consumer prices, when you run guns to drug cartels, don’t pass a budget for three years and radicalize the Department of Justice, help fraudsters making voting registrations untrustworthy…you are looking to create something other than a “liberal” land. Totalitarianism is a “by any means necessary” endeavor.
It currently wears the camouflage of “liberalism”. We ought to tear that mask off, not assist in making it more effective.
There are no more liberals, VDH. The first thing we do, is announce that fact loudly and clearly.
Perfect. Every word and thought – is absolutely correct.
Agreed ETAB. CFB and Art Chance (below) have provided about as succinct a summary of where we are and how we got here as I’ve read anywhere.
I would only add that there appears to me to be a conglomeratino of foreign interests involved as well. It sounds conspiratorial, but some conspiracies are real! The hard part is figuring out which ones. There are many foreign powers (national, corporate, private…) who view America as an obstacle to their ambitions. The UN is one of the instruments they use to try and constrain American power and re-distribute American wealth. There is reason to believe that the Obama cabal works in close coordination with these hostile foreign interests. Thus we have the first formally seditious and treasonous president in our history.
Clearly he is a stooge of the Trilateral Commission. Pass it on.
Liberalism died in ’72, when the leftists found enough control over the Democrat Party to push their own nominee. There were still lots of liberals around, McGovern was even one of him but the leadership cadres that took over precincts, districts, caucuses, and conventions and put forth a nominee of their choosing were not liberals; they were outright communists and remain so today. It took them some years and a failed Presidency in Carter and failed nominees as they sorted out their control. Slick Willie and his Commisar Hillary were every bit as radical, and probably smarter, than the Chicago Thugs Soros allied with, but they overplayed their hand and provoked a counter-revolution. Instead of sticking to the agenda, Slick decided to stay for the power, money, and interns and thus the Clintons became traitors to the Left. Enter Obama, a Red Diaper Baby surrounded by Red Diaper Babies and from the home of Saul Alinsky. Throw in some lefty billionaires and a SOB who should be dead named Soros, back it up with some sovereign wealth from the Middle East and you have the coup d’etat that the communists pulled off in ’08.
It’s not the values and goals I have trouble with – those are all highly moral and nice and good and whatnot. It’s the methods that bug me. The lengths to which liberals will go to acquire power and use it to force their agenda upon the country are truly frightening. Completing the “progressivization” of America requires power and control, maintaining the resulting progressive system requires even greater power and control – not in the hands of citizens in general or politicians in general, but in the hands of a homogeneous ideological clique. This is just as dangerous as any liberal nightmare about corporate fat-cats controlling the government. Big Business may grasp at all the power it can get, but it doesn’t do so with “absolute moral authority.” Big business can reasoned with, regulated, even bribed if necessary. Fanatical true-believers cannot.
This column prompts me to reiterate my personal take on how to identify a stupid voter. It’s really very simple.
–> If you vote for someone because he or she is black, you’re stupid
–> If you vote for someone because he or she is NOT black, you’re stupid
–> If you vote for someone because he’s a man, you’re stupid
–> If you vote for someone because she’s a woman, you’re stupid
–> If you vote for someone because they have a nice smile, you’re stupid
–> If you vote for someone because they have nice hair, you’re stupid
–> If you vote for someone because they’re “cute,” you’re stupid
–> If you vote for someone because they have an eye-catching campaign poster, you’re stupid
–> If you vote for someone because they “seem nice,” you’re stupid
–> If you vote for someone because he or she espouses a platform centered on wealth redistribution and social justice, you’re stupid
–> If you vote for someone because he or she espouses a platform centered on low taxation, reasonable regulation, personal liberty, and Constitutional government, GET YOUR BUTT TO THE BALLOT BOX AND VOTE!
This is why you can’t simply judge a person’s suitability for office — or for anything, from friendship to Rotary Club membership — by the color of their skin, or their X and Y chromosomes, or whether they talk like they’re from Louisiana or Minnesota, or any other surface-level identity. The point isn’t what society does to a person because of who or what or where they are, but how they respond. These responses are influenced by society, but in the end they are an individual choice. This is what MLK meant when he said he wished for people to be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. A person’s actions speak for them, not the amount of melanin in their skin. The latter is just biology.
This is why the African-American community baffles me so much with their seemingly blind devotion to Obama. Obama has as much in common with the urban (or rural!) black population as I do with the Amish. My mother is British, my father’s from NJ, and I’ve lived my whole life in New Hampshire. Most of those 32 years have included cable television and, more recently, the internet. I’m a Christian, but I rarely go to church.
Not so much the Dutch-descended, technology averse, deeply religious Amish. But hey, I’m white, just like them!
Obama’s father was Kenyan, his mother was white, and he spent most of his life hop-scotching around the globe. He has never lived in “the projects” (though he’s helped create a few!), he wouldn’t know “soul food” if it bit him on the nose, he’s got zero “slave blood,” and the closest he’s come to American black culture is the racialist Jeremiah Wright and his hateful rhetoric. Unlike today’s young blacks (who suffer from a high school dropout rate that should be a bloody wound in the face of race-based huckstering) Obama didn’t have to worry about graduating from high school. Heck, he didn’t have to worry about graduating from college, or becoming editor of the Harvard Law Review. The deplorable rate of black unemployment, particularly among young black males, is just a number to him, not a fact of life. He’s never had to worry about finding a job, keeping a job, or providing for his family. Everything was always handed to him on a silver platter with no expectations. He didn’t even need a resume to become President!
So what exactly do American blacks see in Obama that makes them think he has anything in common with them whatsoever? That would justify this pathological allegiance to identity politics in direct opposition to self interest? Because there isn’t anything that’s common between American blacks and Obama except the color of their skin. I don’t think he relates to them at all. I don’t think Obama even likes them (but then he doesn’t like anything American, so I guess I shouldn’t pick on him for this one particular dislike). The truth is that all the pretty platitudes in the world cannot change that Obama’s policies, and democrat policies in general, have brutalized the African-American population.
Is it possible for an entire population to suffer from battered person syndrome? Because if so, then I submit that the African-American population is right there. I would wager that the leftist progressive hegemony that has been subjugating American blacks under their bootheel for the past half century knows this. I’d also bet they realize that in the modern era of Twitter, Facebook, email, texting, and ubiquitous cell phone networks, their suffocating control of “the narrative” is being whittled away. And the thing with battered person syndrome is that when the victim has had enough and finally fights back, the consequences are usually ugly for the victimizer.
That’s why identity-based rhetoric has been ratcheted up to such an inflammatory degree in recent years. It’s a cult. By causing individuals to think and act tribally, rather than individually, you can close off the influence of outside voices. You can excommunicate unruly members of the tribe with the full backing and support of the tribe as a whole, because the tribe is their identity and disorder in the tribe leads to disorder in identity. A woman advocating a pro-life message, or a Latino arguing for stronger border enforcement, are heretics. Such outspoken members threaten the group’s cohesion, and in the group identity they are akin to the voices that plague a schizophrenic; they must be silenced if the collective consciousness is to be calmed. But silencing the voices via excommunication from the group, or blunting their influence through the use of monetary analgesics from Uncle Sugar, doesn’t make them go away. Just as there is no cure for schizophrenia, there is no cure for the echo left behind by one loud voice standing up and saying, “THINK FOR YOURSELVES.”
Excellent comment. The irony of course is that this is tribalism designed to give the politicians and academics ultimate control of our lives. The believers in this form of tribalism are not fighting for their own lives, way of life or beliefs but for a destiny where government decides who and what gets the riches. Inevitably the government will simply keep the riches.
This isn’t tribalism, its stupidity.
This isn’t tribalism, it’s stupidity.
You said it, Mr. G. The intransigence and inability to listen to outside viewpoints and make judgements based on ALL the evidence is the worst kind of ignorance. It’s ignorance when knowledge is RIGHT THERE to be explored.
The conservative side of the coin suffers from this same issue, of course. If you’re a social conservative you’ve heard plenty of fiscal cons denigrating your beliefs because they “distract” from the message. Similarly, if you’re a fiscal con and social libertarian, you’ve heard plenty of social cons denigrating you as a libidinous skinflint.
The difference is that as conservatives we rarely vote opposing viewpoints off the island (so to speak) when we recognize that those viewpoints are important to a comprehensive conservative message. We’ll even listen to leftist, progressive viewpoints, if only so we can make a counterargument and identify the flaws in their pie-in-the-sky socialist Utopia.
But if you’re a leftist? Fuhgeddaboutit. If you don’t toe the party line with unwavering, uncritical devotion, well, welcome to the black list. You were fun while you lasted, but don’t let the door hit you on butt on the way out.
It seems we have moved from “I have a dream…” to “I must be dreaming.”
APPLYING ALINSKY RULE 4: MAKE THE ENEMY LIVE UP TO ITS OWN RULES. — A “tea party leech” is deemed a “tea party leader” in our local press after he is arrested for rape. This belies that fact that there have been 75 rapes in the Occupy camps, so examples of alternative headlines to suggest in the “Comments” sections of offending sites is offered. “Occupy” is a subsidiary of the “War in Women”: A Tea Party is one of the safest place for women in the world.
An excellent column. The reason illegal immigration (typically just “immigration” in the leftstream media) is a Latino issue is because liberals make it so. The Democratic party is a coalition of permanently aggrieved victim groups, and they cast all issues in terms of these groups. Christianity isn’t one of their groups, so the religious freedom issue raised by contraception was transformed into a women’s rights issue. And, I hate to say, the Dems are very good at it.
I am also glad to see a moral argument presented against the liberal agenda. Based in large part on FDR’s second bill of rights, it places group rights ahead of individual rights and subverts property rights to social justice. I went to a talk the other day where the issues of “fair share”, the greedy rich, and equal outcomes were addressed. The argument was that if every step along the way is just, the outcome is just. If I don’t lie, cheat, or steal, the money I make is fairly mine. It doesn’t matter if I have more or less than you. We need to sharpen such arguments to combat the liberal agenda.
Wow. Outstanding commentary from everyone here (a couple of exceptions however) I love coming here when I feel depressed. Nothing like breathing the fresh air of reason and truth.
Frank Herbert (the writer of Dune etc) said it best (I paraphrase): Scratch the surface of a liberal and you find an aristocrat. How true of the Washington elite!
I nearly threw up laughing when I read VDH’s comment “If so, Lovie Smith should read Procopius on the Nika riots and the volatile intersection between sport, faction, and politics.” Like that’ll ever happen!
“If the Mexican border were secure, and 1 million French Canadians were pouring into the U.S. without English, legality, education, or capital, the Latino community would be calling for border enforcement, expressing worry about the unfair competition to entry-level American workers, decrying the cost and separatism in providing French-English official documents, and regretting the mockery made of the law.”
Unfortunately, the Canadians lost that fight and now live in a nation where French is required for increasing numbers of jobs and imposed on the population nationwide, though only a surprisingly small minority actually speak it — while similar “protection” does not exist for English literacy among the “oppressed” Québécois. Welcome to our future.
Watch, too, what is happening in New York City, where the $100 million in pocket change Bloomberg and Soros spent to steroidally pump activist networks is speeding social polarization and selective transfer of 10 times that in public monies and political power — transfers greased through the aptly-named Robin Hood Foundation and a dozen other elite networks dedicated to holding taxpayers hostage — while picking their pockets.
Multiculturalism, illegal immigration, affirmative action and radical environmentalism all depend on such public-to-private transfers of taxpayer dollars. The Québécois didn’t win by speaking French: they won by forcing other people to pay them to speak French, through the government.
Yes, you are right about Canada having lost the fight to Quebec.
In Quebec, it is illegal, yes, that’s right, it’s illegal to have a store sign only in English. If you DO have a store sign that is English, then, you MUST, by law, put a French version ABOVE it. Oh, and the French must be TWICE the size of the English. How’s that for a blatant sign of ‘you no-good English people’. Failure results in being hauled to court and fined.
Then, there are the infamous Language Police in Quebec. These snoops go around the province, checking that there are no English signs, checking that children speak French in the playground, checking that if local associations print up brochures – the French is dominant. You can’t go to an English language school, even a private one, unless your parents were educated in English.
But Canada is NOT, functionally, bilingual! The Francophone-only population of Canada is only about 23% and primarily in Quebec. But, by law, the entire federal govt must be bilingual. Since only about 20% of the population is actually bilingual, this means that most Canadians are barred, by this language barrier, from key positions in government. Got that?
After all, by the time you are in your late 20s and 30s, it’s not easy picking up another language. The result is a skewed civil service, heavily made up of an almost closed set of bilinguals located in the Ottawa-Montreal district. The rest of the population of this massive nation of Canada has little role to play in the bureauracy – they can’t get in due to that language barrier.
Imagine this happening in the US, where bilingualism in English and Spanish would be required, and how this would instantly end any political and government roles for the majority of the population – and set up a small elite set of people who would be eligible for govt office.
Excellent and thought-provoking, ETAB.
Your parallel, if applied in the US, would instantly set up a predefined elite of “uniquely qualified” people who could/would immediately move into all levels of government, all military, all elements of the judicial system, all public education, all higher education, and necessarily all business, as well, since the latter would hire bilinguals to negotiate with/defend themselves from the governing elites.
This is exactly what has happened in Canada – “a predefined elite of “uniquely qualified” people who could/would immediately move into all levels of government, all military, all elements of the judicial system, all public education, all higher education, and necessarily all business, as well, since the latter would hire bilinguals to negotiate with/defend themselves from the governing elites”.
These people have been nurtured and culturally embedded in a small 200 sq mile area of Canada – the Ottawa/Montreal corridor, an ‘isolate bubble’ who have little filiation with or contact with or awareness of the vast rest of Canada. The realities that the Canadian population has moved West, out of the Quebec and Ontario areas; that the economy is now located heavily in the West; that the North is opening up; that none of these activities are bilingual – none of this has any reality to this small isolate self-replicating bureaucracy – filled with nepotism and isolate from the general public.
As you note, the requirement for bilingualism has skewed the membership in the top military levels, in the judiciary, in the civil service, in major industries (which were at one time, heavily located in Montreal), in govt research funding, in higher education…
Be careful, USA – don’t make the error, which you might think is one that promotes ‘we’ll all get along together’ – that Canada made. Don’t make bilingualism a govt requirement – either federal or state. It will end up barring the majority of your population from participation in their own governance.
BRAVA, ETAB. Well said!
And, as you know, “in polite company”, one is basically not allowed to say what you’ve said here. Canadians are, indeed, held hostage by the Quebecois minority in this country. Quel dommage.
Even worse, because the French language has not much of a presence west of Manitoba, western Canadian parents can “purchase success” by sending their kids to bilingual private schools. You’re poor? Too bad. High level government positions will forever be off-limits because of your unilingualism. (Or, at least, non-Francophonic abilities, Cantonese and the rest don’t count).
I knew little beyond anecdote about the Québécois situation until I heard Peter Brimelow speak at CPAC, a speech reviled as racist in newspapers throughout the country and by a rude little media critic from Slate who kept shoving his computing devices in others’ personal space as he two-finger typed lies.
It was frankly fascinating to watch media deception unfold in real time.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
TSA Nabs Suspected Al Queda Terrorist At Chicago Airport, A toddler in a wheelchair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNO-AzPxS4U&feature=player_embedded
Back 1995, perhaps earlier since it was prior to the Contract with America, Newt Gingrich gave a fantastic talk at the Heritage Foundation on liberals. It was even, informative, explained liberals without all the nasty stuff we can be drawn into and most of all instructed one on how to best deal with them. Information, facts, logic – which he pointed out they just hate, and a calm demeanor; let them be the ones who get emotional, off topic, wrong and nasty.
What amazed me however was my reaction; I didn’t know the guy to be honest, I only knew the nonsense people passed around. He was eloquent, charming, sincere and kind. In fact he didn’t really say anything bad about liberals, he simply pointed that they honestly believe in the things they believe and espouse. Once you understand that, really know them, you can deal with them, one – as people, and two – as people who believe in things different than you. Simple as that. Needless to say I became a convert and have followed his model ever since and love getting into “discussions” with liberals. When one really understands how to use logic and bring it into play you get to see their heads spin. This Heritage Foundation talk certainly was recorded; it should be mandatory for anyone interested in the subject.
This has always been the crux of the matter and it’s a point that I’ve been hammering Leftists with for nearly a decade now. But it’s really a lot easier to encapsulate it than with all the examples Dr. Hanson lists. Simply pick a Leftist and pose the following to them:
Three people are standing on a street corner – a rich man, a poor man, and a politician.
What “right” does the poor man have to reach into the rich man’s pocket and take money from him for himself?
What “right” does the politician have to reach into the rich man’s pocket and take money from him in order to give it to the poor man?
Most just stand there with a stunned look on their faces, unsure of what to say. Those who think they’re informed because they read this-or-that Lefty blog will inevitably respond with one of three responses – 1) “the General Welfare clause”, 2) “the Social Contract”, or 3) “democracy” – all of which are easily pulled apart. In the end, you just get silence.
Regardless of the poor man’s “needs”…regardless of the rich man’s “excess”…regardless of the politician’s “good intentions”…forcibly taking money from a person who earned it in order to give it to a person who did not earn it is theft. Plain and simple. Call it whatever you want…couch it in as many euphemisms as you want…it’s still just theft. It is immoral and no sustainable societal foundation can be built on an edifice of such blatant immorality.
I no longer pull punches with my Lefty friends and acquaintenances. I tell them straight to their faces that they are thieves, who hide behind the guns of the government in order to steal money from other people. Of course they don’t like it, but once they’re confronted with the blunt truth – and they realize that they are unable to refute the proposition – in many instances, they will return to the conversation later with a much more open mind, willing to actually think a bit about their pre-conceptions.
Remember: all it takes is the smallest crack to plant that seed of doubt that will eventually result in the entire structure collapsing.
What you all have to realize is that truth can take care of itself and lies die under their own weight. Certainly the liberals are very coercive using moralistic language and guilt, stolen from our revealed religions.
When people blink, and realize how corrupt it is, and how unworkable, all of it will die like the America First movement on December 7, 1941. It always happens very quickly, even during the American Revolution, communication was slower, but then change came quickly.
Finally liberals all think that they have true power and influence. Actually they survive on the forbearance of others, when when that tolerance goes, they will receive no help or comfort personally or in their groups.
While the PJM Tatler is attacking Axelrod for using the term “Mitzkrieg,” Hanson’s piece, attacking liberals, is illustrated with a Happy Face sporting a Hitler mustache? Just more of the same right-wing hypocrisy.
Sorry for the unintended question mark.
You’re definitely no patriot. If 493 is when you were born, your youth would offer some explanation for your stupidity.
You just can’t make this stuff up!
Lefties have the government mandated monopoly on making stuff up.
So what’s your point. That the National Socialism of Hitler and his enforcers is that different from the International Socialism of Obama’s parents, grandparents, advisers and supporters? I can’t see the difference. Can you explain?
Right! I did not think so. Alot of people have claimed there is or was a difference but there was never any real difference I could see between Fascistic tyranny and Communistic tyranny as practiced in the 29th Century, except maybe a 10 x 10. (10 with a one superscript). By that I mean that even with the help of dozens of nations in WWII Hitler, with Stalin’s Help, could only manage to kill and torture 50 million people though he did it in no more than a dozen years. Stalin, Mao and their imitators killed, tortured, imprisoned, worked to death and starved about ten times that many over 70 years, or maybe as many as 700,000,000. Was the pain and torture any less for the victims of international socialism? No. Also, by its very nature of combining capitalistic power with state power socialism, whether national or international, will always be just as murderous as it was last century whether the socialist is named Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Kim Il Jung or Pol Pot or Caecescu or Castro or Obama or Chavez or whoever else. Separation of economic power from political power is one answer. No monopoly of power to anyone, neither capitalist or socialist. That is key. Madison and the other founding fathers had it exactly right. So let’s stop trying to defend the Socialists. Those monopolists of all power in themselves are just awful and their track record is awful. To be honest turn that Smiley Face with the Hitler Mustache upside down, with the true angry scowl that we recognize all so well on the faces of socialists everywhere.
Liberals believe unequal outcomes are the result of luck or exploitation. Therefore redistribution of income by government is a moral imperative (except for liberal leaders). Therefore, any tactics used to achieve this goal are likewise moral.
Conservatives believe in equal opportunity but not equal outcomes. Conservatives believe unequal outcomes are the result of differences in commitment, of attitude, of IQ, in hard work, in ability and willingness to calculate and take risks, etc. Unequal outcomes, to conservatives, are seen as reward to good choices and punishment for bad choices. Conservatives do not blame others for their personal outcome, they take personal responsibility for that. The glass is always half-full, not half empty.
I would also add that we as conservatives understand that luck can play a part in an individual’s success. Unlike the left, however, conservatives recognize that luck, if it plays any part in a person’s success, is only a small factor of that success. There is far more to building a successful company, a successful career, a successful investment portfolio, a successful family, etc, than sheer luck. At best luck will give you a leg up and shorten your timeline to success; but luck alone cannot sustain you. Without dedication, expertise, sacrifice, and the willingness to roll up your sleeves and actually do some work, even the luckiest enterprise will eventually fail.
Maybe your new diner made a windfall in its first month because one of your first customers was an A-list celebrity who needed to stop for a bite to eat and mentioned you on their official Twitter.
That’s luck.
But if your diner serves bad food, has unfriendly waitstaff or an unappealing atmosphere, that luck is going to dry up. You’ll be shuttering your business a month later.
Luck’s what you make of it, but what it’s not is a requirement for success. We get that. Leftists don’t.
Luck, to a liberal, doesn’t mean breaks that come your way during your life. Luck is where you’re born. One kid is born black in the ghetto. Another kid is born Jewish in the suburbs. A third kid is born WASP in a mansion in Scarsdale. Through no fault of their own, one of these kids will find it almost impossible to get into Harvard, the other will find it somewhat easier, and the third (especially if he’s a legacy) will find it a snap. Liberals want to arrange society so that it is equally easy (or difficult) for each of them to get into Harvard – no special advantages or disadvantages for any of them. Levelling the playing field. It’s simple, right?
Once again, to me it seems like a reasonable goal – I just have issues with the way they try to achieve it. I don’t think they really promote fairness or justice. I don’t think they’ve worked very well. I think other methods might work better. Liberals won’t have any of that, though. They believe that any change to their current agenda will result in the return of Jim Crow or worse.
The current culture in the ghettos is that if you try to better yourself you are an “uncle tom”. I’ll bet 90% of them have no idea where that came from because they never read any Mark Twain. If they did they would freak at the language and in fact there was a movement to bowdlerize his books not to long ago. Look how they excoriated Clarence Thomas. Look what they did to Herman Cain. Obama got his offices by scouring the backgrounds of each opponent to find something they could lie about and shame the opponent into quitting.
It’s better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
“Uncle Tom” comes from this little book called “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” by Harriet Beecher Stowe. When President Lincoln was introduced to Ms. Stowe, he is said to have said, “So you’re the little lady who brought on this great war.” This is the kind of stuff you really should know if you want to talk politics. Mark Twain had some good quips, by that ain’t one of them.
The Democrat Party has become the Communist Party in everything but name. The only intelligence I credit them with is that they’re smart enough to not call themselves communist. Their iron control of the education system has successfully dumbed down enough of the population that that is all they need to do.
Brilliant, as per VDH standards.
There is a clear moral thread which runs through the political divide, and it is becoming increasingly evident that it does not run through the modern Liberal camp.
Groups like the Catholic Bishops are belatedly waking up to the fact that liberal promises are never matched by liberal actions. They should be welcomed into the conservative camp.
Terms like “compassionate conservative”, “fiscal conservative”, “economic conservative”, and “social conservative” are invalid because they are both incomplete and redundant. Like the blind men in the fable who describe the elephant by the appendage they are feeling, they each allow the liberal distortion of conservatism to remain unchallenged.
Conservatism IS compassionate; conservatism IS fiscally responsible; conservatism does recognize economic realities; and conservatism does recognize the relationship between the health of society and the health of societies morals.
It is critical that Conservatives stand united. This is no time for cafeteria conservatism. The moral thread which connects us must not be broken.
Why young black men allow white liberals to lead them around by the nose is beyond me.
Once a slave always a slave.
In far too many cases, they don’t think for themselves; they’d much rather wallow in misguided groupthink.
Succinctly stupendous!
Why not? They have been led around for 60 years and now it’s in their DNA. White elite progs have given them everything: welfare, AA, freedom to lower themselves to the status of thugs with impunity and without judgement, a corrupt culture (and the noise they listen to), and an unrevocable victim status. Most blacks have been reduced to a basal status. Thus their continued support for white progs and their president.
Even the blacks who think they are smart-Cornell West, Mark Lamont Hill, Michael Dyson, etc are just pawns of the white progs. I get a kick out of real blacks from Africa who come here and make our blacks look like idiots.
I the opinion of David Horowitz the best way to defeat the left is through moral argument. Good stuff, hope to see more like this.
“When Steven Chu admits both that he wishes gas prices to soar to European levels and that he has no need either to drive or to own a car, then he is really saying, “I don’t have much concern for the results of my own fantasies.”
What always drives me crazy about this “European gas price level” that is so adored by the American Enviro-Nazis out there is that they never, EVER, take into consideration the sheer size of the United States. Europe has a very efficient mass transit system because it is TINY when compared to the United States in terms of land mass. Face it, we are a BIG country. When the bulk of Europe can fit into one of our states like Texas, not to mention Texas and California, you know that you have a big country. There is no possible way that you could ever have a mass transit system that would accommodate over 300,000 million people in a country this huge. Also, people genuinely need a car to get to work in almost all of our states. Try telling people who live in the remote areas of South or North Dakota that they don’t really need a truck or a car to get anywhere in their state. And I’d love to hear you have that same conversation with a fellow in North Texas.
This is a nation that is built around the car and truck. There is no way getting around that. We also drive, A LOT, getting from one state to another. If Americans had to pay “European Style” gasoline prices, most of us would be broke and unable to get to work, let alone have enough money to pay for the creature comforts in life, like food and clothing.
So the far-left liberal elites should knock off this fetish they have that whatever the Europeans do when it comes to gas consumption is fabulous. If they like it so much, then they can go live in Holland, a country about the size of New Jersey. When the entire United States shrinke down to the size of only Texas, then come talk to me about “European-Style” gas prices. Until then, figure out a way to make gas economical for all of us. You know, the people who have to drive to work for a living.
Well, really all those bitter clingers in those big, empty states don’t count; all the cool people don’t need cars.
One of the enviro-nazi’s sayings that drives me particularly nuts is “we need to get over our addiction to oil”. No, you stupid f**king numbnuts, “WE HAVE AN ADDICTION TO GETTING TO WORK”. Something you worthless bastards have no conception of.
In the spirit of helping the environment, cash for clunkers utterly screwed the poor, and lower working middle class who needed inexpensive used vehicles to get about and earn a living. Instead, government motors was forced to create a $40K electric vehicle that not even the liberal elite would buy, and so, went out of production. These idiots simply don’t think through their idealistic ideas; results be damned!
Libertyship46 — Your comment is right on. In 2010 I worked on a project as a consultant in eastern Oregon. The entire project was contained in ONE county, but there were days when I drove up to 200 miles, portal to portal. And these were not freeway miles! I was filling the 21 gallon gas tank every couple of days. Europe is different. Any US politician or political appointee who compares us to Europe and says we should be more like them, has not spent any “quality time” in the American “outback.”
Edit:
“La Raza would not like a Volk movement that sought to wave immigration law for Germans on grounds they were once America’s largest immigrant group and should be again…”
The correct word to use when setting aside requirements is to waive – the about quote should say “waive immigration law”, not wave.
More of the same here: http://timelesspearls.com/2012/03/the-death-of-liberalism/
Another terrific article by VDH !
I agree, the environmentalist do not care one bit about anyone but themselves and their frogs and worms….
People are far more important than frogs and worms… Fact.
Is race-based affirmative action constitutional?
The USSC says it is IF it is a narrowly tailored scheme to address demonstrable discrimination. The real issue isn’t the legal scope of affirmative action; it is the cowardice of managers and the corruption of Democrat, and not a few Republican, governments in allowing discrimination to be used as a shakedown scheme.
Some screw-up gets fired for poor performance and immediately claims his performance was as good as anybody else’s and he was only fired because he was Black. Along the way the union files a grievance, he engages some poverty pimp defense/plaintiffs’ attorney with good media connections, and contacts his Black Liberation Pastor. His discrimination complaint is front page above the fold. The nice lady from EEOC “investigates” and decides that you and your honky dog company have indeed discriminated against him and presents you with a consent decree that makes it all go away if you’ll just pay the “victim” a million bucks and enter into a “partnership” with Rainbow Push to solicit “qualified” applicants from them before you publicly advertise a vacancy. That’s the way it really works.
If you fight it out, you’ll probably win in court after months of relentless bad press, but your win if covered at all will be on page 86 in six point type. That said, if you can’t win it on motions and face a jury, 12 morons with drivers’ licenses WILL give the guy millions, so you’d best be prepared to go all the way to the USSC. The practical decision is just pay them off.
Blatantly unconstitutional.
All you have to do is get appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court and get four other justices to agree with you. Right now, it is Constitutional.
VDH used to write really great books. Worth checking out his writings.
The template created by the Lamestream puts us on an uphill fight, with us Conservatives, in our silk tophats, diamond stickpins, and gold-topped canes kicking Poor, Deserving Working Families into the gutters to protect our ill-gotten gains despite the best efforts of kind, sensitive, Liberal Champions of the Little Guy who try to shame us into contributing our Fair Share.
There’s no longer anything liberal about Liberalism, and there hasn’t been for at least the last 30 years. Every Liberal promise, from racial equality to affordable housing to living wages to the end of poverty to equality for women, has been a shell game which has promoted racial division, created housing shortages, chronic high unemployment, and welfare dependency, particularly amoung female single-parent households.
We don’t help ourselves by creating labels such as: “compassionate conservative”, “fiscal conservative”, or “social conservative”, in the vain attempt to accomodate the false template. Creating such false distinctions plays into the narrative that Conservatives are mean, judgemental, and only care about profits.
Conservatism IS compassionate because it betters the lot of everybody when jobs are created and prices fall. It is fiscally responsible when government isn’t making lovely promises which it never can deliver. It is socially beneficial when the true innate dignity of every human being is recognized and protected.
The true thread of Conservatism is recognizing what Reagan meant when he said,
“We are a people who have a government, and not the other way around.”
Liberalism is both a mess and a con game, and it’s probably reached the nadir of its evolution. It isn’t possible for it to evolve any farther than it has in our democratic system. Do liberals understand this?
Even if the economy improves and gas prices come down Obama’s incompetence has sealed his political fate—Romney, Santorum, Gingrich aren’t just fighting for the Republican nomination.
What if they go about further evolution outside of our Constitution and democratic system which they seem hellbent on doing. This is the danger we face.
Dear Leader and the progs do understand this and they have been probing the system to see where they can subvert it. The newest probe is the EO giving power to the executive during emergencies. The takeover of the DOJ and EPA were strategic moves. Open voting is another attack. And do not count out martial law during the elections. Or a war.
Sun Zu said know you enemy and we should, by now, know the progs. And we had better be prepared to fight.
Well you can eat animals, you just can’t murder them.
liberalism (or progressivism, statism, leftism, fabian socialism, national socialism, however you label it) is immoral and corrupt. those advocating it are to varing degrees corrupted by it. there is no other way to dice it.
You show your ignorance pretty starkly here. National Socialism is Right Wing, not Left Wing. The Nazi’s worst enemy were the Communists. Not just that, your whole premise is wrong. You say Left is immoral, yet morality and fairness is what the Left is all about. The Right is “me, me, me” not “we”. Its ‘what can I get’, not ‘how can we help each other’. The Left has the moral high ground because it thinks of everyone as a community that helps one another, not ‘lets see how I can get ahead at the expense of others’.
For the state to impose a collectivist vision of morality and fairness on its citizens is neither moral nor fair.
“The Nazi’s worst enemy were the Communists.”
Before or after they both invaded Poland? Their common worst enemy was capitalism. You should read up.
“..yet morality and fairness is what the Left is all about.
Whose moratilty and fairness? Seizing and consolidating power & distributing other people’s wealth to their pet clients is what the left is all about. They are anti-freedom to their totaltarian core.
“The Left has the moral high ground because it thinks of everyone as a community that helps one another..”
Have friends from eastern Europe & the former USSR who left communities like that.
How about leaving it the individual to chose who he helps or what he decides is moral, not a central committee of self-appointed rulers to make those decisions.
This is what foments revolutions.
Exactly. The left’s formula is “Be part of a community that helps each other…or else.” If the left wants people to be more charitable, it should educate and persuade people to be more charitable. We live in a democratic republic. The kind of change the left wants should be cultivated from the bottom up, by changing people’s minds. It should not be cultivated by using government power to intimidate half the population into superficial compliance with an agenda.
I point again to Reconstruction – an attempt to legislate social change that failed because it tried to “magically” produce equality by having the government say “Make it so!” Didn’t work because the changes were only on the surface. Beneath the surface, the old system was alive and well and waiting to re-emerge.
Arab-Israeli peace treaties – again, superficial attempts to change a deep-rooted problem by government fiat. Government representatives signed papers, shook hands, passed laws, but the people were still at war.
So today, most Americans are still capitalists of one stripe or another. We still believe in private property, not community property. We still believe that the fruits of our labor should be ours first, the Government’s second. We still believe in self-reliance, not Government patronage. We still believe in making an effort to succeed, not demanding success as a birthright. That’s the culture leftists are fighting against. It may not be as “moral” as the leftist’s vision of culture, but it is realistic and healthy.
So how was the Civil Rights bill different…or was it? Barry Goldwater didn’t think so.
I was 4 when Barry Goldwater ran for President. He’s also dead and therefore irrelevant to my comment.
And judging from the incessant whining that still proceeds from black people and their left-wing patrons, the Civil Rights Act did no good whatsoever. Neither did any of Johnson’s Great Society measures. Neither did any other “affirmative action” measure from that day til this. If these attempts at social engineering had succeeded in magically producing “equality” or “justice,” black people would no longer be a perennially discontented underclass in need of special treatment by the Government or society in general.
Groups of different people within a society need to work out their living arrangements by themselves, not have their relations imposed by their morally-superior betters. Another example: the Balkan states. The Soviets tried to convince those people that they were all fraternal Socialist brothers. Soviet Union went away, they were immediately back at each others’ throats.
If the Government tries to impose equality of results by fiat, it will create an artificial system, a facade that will need to be constantly propped up with more laws, more restrictions on speech and behavior, more arrests, more prosecutions – always more government. The paradox that the left never understands is that giving the government more power to do good gives the government more power to do EVERYTHING.
So your position is that we should not have bothered to pass the Civil Rights bill? If so, you just went a bridge too far.
No, you are the one who is ignorant. National Socialism is left wing. Why? Because it sets up a social organization that is based around the collective not the individual. Right wing organization of society is based around the individual not the collective. Get the difference?
So, all of the collective modes of organizing a society – fascism (National Socialism), socialism, communism – are left wing. Because they privilege the collective over the individual.
Furthermore, all left wing perspectives on society are utopian; they posit that IF ONLY the people would do such and such, THEN, all would be well.
The right wing are not utopian; they do not, ever, posit a perfection on earth. They are realists and work with a focus on adaptive change rather than authoritarian constraint.
The difference between fascism and socialism/communism is the basic definition of the ‘collective’. It is always homogeneous with no diversity or deviation permitted.
In fascism, the collective is understood as an ethnic group, who are meant to be maintained in a pure, unadulterated state over the years.
The socialist/communist definition ignores ethnicity and focuses on class – the population are supposed to be all of one economic class, who all work, all share, and all…whatever.
I’d suggest that you read up on fascism – Roger Eatwell, R. Paxton are a few references.
Here’s a good example of what our tax dollars going to government schools produces; a lefty useful idiot still parroting the old WWII Soviet line that the NSDAP were rightists. Wonder why this ignorant left punk hasn’t come back to argue his position.
Eric: The left, as you repeatedly point out, believes in the superior rights of certain classes and their coercive enforcement by centralized redistributive power. There is really no “we” in your arguments but only “YOU are not”, as in YOU are not to be treated fairly, nor justly, nor morally. YOU are only to to serve, as a human resource of the state, the well armed collection agency of the privileged political class seeking debt imposed by royal decree. That is theft and coercion and those are the hallmarks of tyranny. That is fundamentally immoral.
When corporations, through “private-public partnerships” become extensions of the state’s armed “Robin Hood” collection agency then that is called fascism, or as Mussolini labeled it, “corporatism”. That is a similarly immoral expediency justified by scientistic notions of the “operational efficiency” of a coercive state. Leftists like to label corporatism as “right wing” because it concentrates power in the false valor industries rather than in the false victim industries of communism in which they are better equipped to serve. That is not an argument against tyranny, but only about which class is favored. That is a distinction without a difference and the inevitable outcomes of both are the same: Misery and ruin.
By contrast, the basis of classical liberal (i.e. libertarian, true conservative) ideology is the recognition of inalienable individual rights, as identified in the DoI. Those rights cannot be selectively subjugated by the state and are not dependent on membership in a privileged class. WE all have them and WE should all be free to exercise them regardless of class membership or governmental whim. In a free society, WE become successful in our exercise of those rights by effectively serving others, not extorting them. WE in the United States created, and swore to abide by, a constitution that protects us from individuals and groups and nations that would infringe on OUR rights through fraud and violence. Fraud and violence are immoral because they violate the individual inalienable rights with which WE are each endowed. Such violations are immoral when perpetrated on US by an individual or by a corrupt government in the name of favored classes or by an invading nation.
It is a fatal conceit of YOU and other aristocrats to believe that YOU have either the moral right to coerce US or the knowledge to do so effectively. YOU have neither, nor does any other human. It is immoral hubris for YOU to think otherwise.
“The polite dogmas of the quiet past are unsuited to the stormy present…As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we will save our country.”
–Abraham Lincoln
A fundamental first step in such disenthralment is to abandon the idolatry of tyrants like Lincoln.
Whatever the motives behind the Bear’s coach saying what he did, the plain fact is that if he were white he’d be fired, and immediately. I am calling on the NFL to do just that, fire Smith for what to me is just a pure racist accusing whites of doing what he does but that white folks in fact don’t do. At least not outside of a swamp. I can’t get people fired from swamps but the NFL has to address this moron.
Don’t hold your breath. This has been coming for several years. Running back Larry Johnson once said he would not give his all for a white coach. The NFL like the NBA have become and are black leagues.
What drive me nuts is that whites make up most of the fan base and the black players could care less about them or the city they play in; they are only there to make money. These are the same whites who vote dem so I guess if figures.
Congratulations, you are ridiculous. Make a real argument next time.
You want some more, here we go:
The liberals barely squawked when half a million Iraqi kids died (per UNICEF) due to their forever loving “sanctions.” And while this was going on, tens of thousands of additional Iraqis died during Sadaam’s purges right up to the time we went to war. The liberals weren’t much concerned then until we went in, ended the sanctions, kicked out Sadaam and co., and then found ourselves in a war against those who wanted the good ol’ days back with the old dictator and his colosseum of mass killings. Then the liberals took notice. Now they chastise the US for killing the dictator’s cronies and the liberal media throw a tantrum.
And what about all the deaths that occurred prior to the war? Well, as long as a liberal isn’t disturbed by reading about it with his morning coffee, he’s just fine. And the liberal media were more than happy to minimize that horror for no other reason than to maintain their petty little feud with George Bush in that mentioning the mass deaths might just make him look justified.
This pretty much defines what it is to be absolutely amoral. And what do these horrid people want as their solution to Iran’s nuclear program? More sanctions. Does it bother them what happened in Iraq under its sanction regime? Not a fig.
And what about public schools? They have shown every indication that the people who are running them into the ground are just fine by them, as long as they are unionized they must be righteous. They deserve their big fat healthy paycheck and benefits. After all, its the people getting one over the man. And who can argue with a failed left-wing indoctrinating curriculum? Its clearly more important to the liberal that these kids grow up with the “right” thoughts–and if they’re minorities–even anger at the system for not providing a life with sufficient welfare to lead a comfortable life as a vegetable.
Fail at school, work, life, its not important to the liberal. Just as long as they vote “democrat.” If liberals really cared, they would be outraged by the performance of our schools and forget about ideology. But for them, nothing comes before ideology. Especially if its some minority kid who they’ll probably never run into anyway. Besides, talking smack about schools with other liberals just isn’t righteous during cocktail hour.
And, they’re sexist, bigoted, racist, self-interested scum who wrote the book on hypocrisy.
Did I forget anything?
Action?
This is the best post on the state of current affairs yet, as it succinctly states what so many Americans believe.
Suggestion for a yard sign this election season: NO TO TRIBALISM. It gets the point across without singling out any one group, although I’m sure the racialists will hear a dog whistle.
Great composition, Mr. Hanson. As are most of the responses to it that have been posted to date.
All I can say is, “please, please, PLEASE…reach out to all you know, and stand up, and speak out AGAINST the failed experiment of American Progressivism!”
“By that, I mean surely there are environmental problems with Berkeley’s treated sewage that goes into the Bay; a particular moth larva in theory could be found to be ‘in danger’ when the next UC environmental sciences building is envisioned”
Since environmentalists (including government employees) have been caught fabricating evidence, such turnabout would be hilarious fair play.
Voting on the basis of skin color? A rather hateful thing to do, eh Lovie?
Victor doesn’t even mention (or I missed it) the basic immorality of killing an innocent baby just because it hasn’t been born yet. If anyone kills their baby after it’s born we go into paroxysms of moral outrage. Why do democrats think it’s ok to kill those unborn babies but not to kill a convicted criminal who may have committed rape or murder? Where’s the morality in that view?
How can anyone, even dumb jock football players, support Obama? The guy is a complete phony and lies with every breath he takes. Any 12 year old should recognize that the emp-O-ror has no clothes.
A very interesting piece. I’ve always thought the environmentalists went too far in some instances. As long as species aren’t being totally wiped out, a balance can and should be struck. I’ve long considered myself a conservationist but I often cringe at the lengths somewhat similarly minded people take things and find their methods and demands to be authoritarian.
Want to say something about the environmental part of the essay. I “grew up” under an increasing amount of environmental laws. By that I mean, I graduated college in Dec 1973 and started work in Jan ’74. EPA was established in the 70′s. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act passed too. None of it had any direct effect on my work, but I was like the proverbial frog in the pot. I’m glad we have clean air and water. I’m not glad that people misuse the provisions of those federal laws to stymie legitimate projects.
Only later did federal regs in the form of the Endangered Species Act hit home. Spotted owl (which most of you have heard of) and Marbled Murrelet (which few of you have heard of — look it up.) These impacts started in the late 80′s for the owl and in the 90′s for the Murrelet.
OK, the Murrelet is a small seabird that spends most of its time in the ocean. But it lays its egg (that would be singular) on a moss-covered branch of a tree, or in the crotch of a tree. Said tree being about 32 inches in diameter near the base, and anywhere up to 50 miles inland, and said branch being “large.”
Murrelet “habitat” is anywhere such trees exist and take my word for it, there are a lot of places along the coast of Oregon and Washington where there are trees like this, thus, murrelet habitat.
Here’s the deal: the environmental restrictions that we face in my example and others, have come about through federal and state biologists defining habitat as the equivalent of actual occupancy by the species in question. For the regulators it became a “check the box” exercise. For the regulated, it became an almost impossible task to “prove the negative,” that is, prove (using techniques defined by the regulators themselves) that murrelets do not actually use the habitat.
What VDH described with the irrigation water in the SJ valley has played out in other parts of the county too. It seems the West is the punching bag for these regs, although I could be wrong. I just don’t hear much about how the ESA is being brought to bear in the Mid West, Lake States, South, eastern seaboard, or Northeast.
Anybody?
Birthers, Racists, Sexists and Homophobes: 13 Toxic Endorsers of GOP Presidential Candidates
What’s stunning about this year’s crop of endorsers is the torrent of venom, mendacity and absurdity that spills from their mouths and pens.
http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154578/birthers%2C_racists%2C_sexists_and_homophobes%3A_13_toxic_endorsers_of_gop_presidential_candidates/
Such a fresh breath of air. Thank you for your compassionate, empathetic post. Your boundless love for your fellow man is inspiring.
Lovie Smith is not a man schooled in the art of politics. If he was, he would be aghast at the eerie parallel between his ill-chosen words and those of Slobodan Milosevic or Adolph Hitler.
Of course, Coach Smith did not write those words, he merely read them. This is what ought to scare people. They are straight from the Obama campaign. The sentiment of ‘lets band together on the basis of race’ should disgust any true American.
Thank you Mr. Hanson for speaking so truthfully.
President Obama has exacerbated many of the problems with factions in this nation and it seems he is leading the charge with a purpose.
He has missed a golden opportunity to unite this nation, but has chosen instead to slice, dice and divide.
I agree that he has missed his chance, but the opposition was vehement from the get-go. The other tribe was having none of it.
Some of us in the “other tribe” have worked with modern communists, er, Democrats to learn that you can’t work with them; the officeholder and apparatchik cohort are fundamentally dishonest and evil people. They tell pretty lies to keep their useful idiots in the fold and bring along the mushy middle just enough to get their minimum winning coaltion. They have no desire to unite more than 50% + 1 so they can keep their sorry a**es in the big chairs and continue their agenda of looting the productive members of society. Nobody with any sense makes deals with them or compromises with them unless there is powerful enforcement mechanism, a mechanism that can do them serious harm, because if there is a way to abbrogate a bargain at a low or no price, they will do it and then attack you for having let them, e.g., “…no new taxes.” So, yes many of us knew what that communist SOB was the minute we laid eyes on him and we indeed want him to fail and have done everything we could to assist him in failing. Unfortunately, we still have too many “get along, go along” types in the Congress so we haven’t called him on his brinksmanship and thus enable him to “blame” things like the credit downgrade and slow recovery on the Republicans.
So you are saying that “by definition” there can be no uniting. Well, so much for that.
ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF UNITING! You deal with Democrats the same way we dealt with the Soviets, mostly, during the Cold War because at the official and apparatchik level, they are the Soviets. They understand mutually assured destruction and nothing else. If you want a bargain with them, you absolutely must have the means to hurt them badly if they break the deal. You can deal with them, but here I depart from Reagan, you NEVER trust them and you always verify. If a Democrat tells you the Sun is shining; go to the window and check. And you never give them a break or overlook things; if they misbehave, you slap Hell out of them.
I remember when it wasn’t this way, when Democrat officeholders and Party guys were business people with broad ties in the community they represented. Today, officeholders and appratchiks are special interest lawyers, union officers, ususally retired because politics doesn’t pay as well as unions, former staffers, former bureaucrats, almost never anyone with any broad ties in a community. In capital cities there are Democrat bars and Republican bars; there is, in fact, a degree of segregation that Jim Crow would envy broken only by major events like inaugurations, and not even always by those. I don’t know a single Democrat officeholder or apparatchik whose head I’d pee on if I found him laying by the road with his brain on fire. Like lawyers, the skid marks on the road in front of the body are from the wheels spinning as the driver tried to speed up.
Scratch Dwight’s ‘soul or reason’ persona and you’ll find a state supremacist.
The whole idea of the Left is totally immoral and absolutely impractical, always has been and has almost always turned out to be far worse than that when any part of it is actually tried. Respect for principled individuals of all sorts is NOT a value of the Left only; in fact, the Left demeans it with multi – (so-called but really gutter) – culturalism and the like. It may be that the Right – which btw I do NOT consider myself part of, although in recent days most of its positions and policies coincide with mine – might not, being ever alert to being hornswoggled by the left, have ever supported Civil Rights Law and hence LEGAL racial equality in the USA, but for myself, millions of others, and LBJ getting those laws passed. I can’t think of any other area in which the Left has ever actually done or proposed anything not Totalitarian hook line and sinker.
I have been a Democrat for let’s see 42 years officially and at least 11 more in mind body and soul, but my party has deserted me. I may vote Republican this year. For certain, I will never vote for any modern Democrat again, not ever, no way.
.
Many here have made a similar journey. Welcome.
Hello Dr. Hanson,
Aren’t you implicitly saying that the State of California should be subsidizing the irrational decisions made by people in Firebaugh to farm in a desert? Let’s ignore the fish and frogs and just thinking logically here. These people are upset that the state government isn’t pumping water hundreds of miles south for them to farm their land. Why on earth did they start farming in a place with no water? That makes no sense. Maybe it had water at one point, but their unsustainable practices altered the micro-climate. Why on earth should I, as a California native and resident, support a state government enabling these people to continue the illogical practice of farming in a desert? Maybe they need to be transplanted elsewhere, where you know, it rains…
It would be helpful to know more of the history here. Knowing how partisan VDH can be, I’m not sure that we are getting a fair version of this California water deal. How much water is there? What would be the adverse effects if the water were pumped back in?
The California water controversy has been in the news for months and has been commented on by dozens of people. You do not have to accept VDH’s view if you do not want to but his summary does not differ from the summary of many others.
Moreover, the issue of Western water management has been a topic in conservative and libertarian literature for a long time. I think Reason Magazine had articles about the subject over a decade ago. The state chose to provide water to the valley, perhaps below the market cost. But that fact does not change the fundamental issue of “liberal” cold-heartedness demonstrated by their sociopathic lack of concern for victims of their ideas. That is the point.
If I’m not mistaken, the cradle of civilization was the result of farming in a desert. It was only irrigation that made it “the fertile crescent.” Also, the Egyptian Nile civilization – farming in the desert, using irrigation.
To clarify, my comment was in response to Matt. Guess I hit the wrong “Reply” button.
The dimdems are not reality-based…learn that now…they are fantasy or utopian-based.
Any attempts to seriously examine the results of their policies is met with arrogant anger by the apostles of utopian socialism. That includes all areas from ecology to ending discrimination by discriminating and spending their way out of debt. You must also accept the fact that distractions, lies and smears MUST be used by the deems to promote or protect their toxic policies…they have no choice…they sell fire to scarecrows for a living…so can never ever be honest about the nature of fire.
J. Carter Obama is simply the current misguided apostle of utopian socialism. BTW, the top utopians exempt themselves from the personal pain of socialism (like socialized medicine, OzCare exemption) because the socialism if for us, not them.
I know it is hopeless quest to point this out, but “Latino” and “Hispanic” are not races, they are ethnicities. Neither is Arab a race. But, somehow, the Left has created the meme that people who live in Central and South America are a different race than people who live in North America. The absurdity of this is a measure of how much trouble we are in.
I just wish the next time someone claims our immigration debate is about race, they are asked to tell us what races they are talking about.
(This is not a drill… it’s really happening.)
Obama seizes control over food, farms, livestock, fertilizer and farm equipment across America.
http://www.naturalnews.com/035301_Obama_executive_orders_food_supply.html
All governor drunk driving maid nailer had to do was order the national guard to open the water valves. The courts have ruled that national defense trumps stupid animals, so make it a training mission to keep terrorists from closing off the water supply.
Dig far enough and you will find it was about taking the land to give to “friends”. Bankrupt the owners and pick it up cheap.
Next time you might want to vote for a person not interested in screwing you, i.e. Larry Flynt, instead of moon bats, and androids. Someone who made their living fighting the government is always preferable to someone who makes their living growing government to squash you.
But you have referendum, so get a law on the ballot to cut pelosi’s water off on her farms.
Good article. You are quite right, we should not just oppose leftist programs because they do not work, or do more harm than good to the people they are supposed to help, but because they are morally wrong. Even libertarian leaning conservatives like me have a moral sense, it is just a bit different moral sense than regular conservatives. We would refer to leftism as morally wrong because it is an assault on the prime values of America, liberty and rule of law.
none of this is about conservation, the environmnet, fuel, affirmative action or so on. it is about POWER, RAW POWER over others. Until conservatives and Republicans identify and fight this power takeover, it will continue as it more or less has for 75 years.
Only power can beat power.
AGAIN GET OFF MORALITY, OR THE DETAILS OF HOW THE AGENDA OF THE LEFT IS CRIPPLING AMERICA AND CHAINING OUR FREEDOMS. STAY AWAY FROM PLAYING ON THE FIELD AS DEFINED BY THE LEFT. DESCRIBE WHAT THEY DO AND WANT AS POWER AND THE DETAILS FADE AWAY. LET THE ELECTORATE CLEARLY CHOOSE BETWEEN THE CENTRAL CONTROL, ELITE, IVORY TOWER “EXPERT” POWER OF THE LEFT OR THE DEMOCRATIC (“for the people”), FREE ENTERPRISE (“you the people know what you want and are capable of making decisions for yourselves”) POWER OF THE RIGHT.
SIMPLE.
Obama’s assault on the American family farm… It is not just freelance thieves and bums you have to worry about. There are far bigger and dangerous ones in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.
There is an ad for a pro-Obama petition on PJ webpages, it appears as if it is coming from Obama. Is it moral?
Utopian socialism is not reality-based…
its fantasy-based…this is why so many thinking humans are puzzled by the words/actions of the arrogant apostles of utopian socialism, who, lacking ethical or moral boundaries…use distractions, lies and smears to promote or protect their toxic policies…the dimdems have no choice…
they are selling fire to a scarecrow…thus we must tolerate their bold lies daily as we watch in amazement.
They cannot be debated (its like teaching algebra to a dog)…only exposed and defeated.
I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own weblog and was curious what all is required to get setup? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny? I’m not very internet smart so I’m not 100% positive. Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks
Hi, i feel that i noticed you visited my web site thus i came to go back the prefer?.I’m trying to in finding things to enhance my site!I assume its good enough to use some of your ideas!!