Despite stiff competition, Representative Barney Frank may be the most incompetent and corrupt member of Congress. His failed romance with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac helped bring about the current mortgage crisis and fiasco. Moreover, he has never acknowledged guilt or displayed shame regarding anything he has done.
Indeed, based on the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee’s public utterances one would never suspect that he is to clueless politicians what Mexico is to responsible government. In a recent interview with the website 365Gay.com (which gratefully illustrates that one can be gay for more than a mere 364 days), Rep. Frank maligned Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as a “homophobe.”
Specifically, he said, “I wouldn’t want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court.” No justification was provided for this slur at the time. Certainly, “homophobe” is not the first or last descriptor that comes to mind in regards to one of the nation’s most brilliant judicial minds, but considering that the congressman’s pontifications involved the viability of gay marriage — a subject near and dear to him — his ad hominem accurately represents the idols of our age.
Such a flippant and illogical term exemplifies PC-speak. Rep. Frank has a long history of cowardice and mindless aggression in regards to his ideological foes. Identity politics are his trademark and last fall he even suggested that racism was the force behind those who questioned the wisdom of passing the Community Reinvestment Act thirty years ago.
Sadly, some folks deem political correctness passé in 2009 but they are very wrong. In Obamamerica, cultural Marxism thrives and replicates like never before. The reason we hear so little about it in the news is a product of the massive victory of political correctness over traditional communication.
Nowadays the average person is so busy tailoring their speech to meet the fraudulent mandates of “sensitivity” that they no longer have the will to state what they really think, even though PC’s tyrannical impositions are antithetical to real sensitivity.
Fueling this sterile and arbitrary vernacular is the need to exclude others from the arena of legitimate debate. It’s a method by which the irrational can silence the rational. Disagreeing with a PCnik like Frank is verboten. We must respect his diversity but should we publicize our own we are dismissed as “haters.”
Practitioners of PC hope to humiliate and paralyze critics via personal attacks, which duly confuse impartial observers and cause the subject of their ire to self-censor in the future. You become the issue rather than the facts you cite. After negatively assessing your psychological motivations and mental stability, your accuser — often a person completely debilitated by narcissism and a perpetual need for emotional stimulation — is relieved of any burden of having to defend his own spurious positions.
Luckily for the Democratic Party, the children of the PC revolution rarely devour their own. When anti-liberals accidentally emit politically incorrect phrases they never inspire media outrage because in the Manichean world of the leftist only good and bad exist. Party affiliation determines moral worth in their eyes.
Unlike with conservative politicians, progressive (re: regressive) journalists reflexively support progressive pols. They allow their leaders to explain themselves and depict shaky confessions as sincere or pretend that such mistakes only matter to the Fox News Channel.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a case in point. I could find practically no citations, apart from the aforementioned Fox News, referencing a recent Freudian slip she made regarding Rep. Frank: “I am pleased that because congresswoman — excuse me, chairman — Chairman Barney Frank …”
Well, at least we know how she really views him, but PC thought crime allegations currently oppress only one side of the political spectrum. Had a Republican said anything like that about Rep. Frank — and not long ago one did — a shootout at the Liberace Corral would commence.
Pelosi’s intentions were never questioned by the press. After all, she is one of the good guys. Thus, the wannabe divas of the fourth estate deem her parapraxis unremarkable. The non-cognoscenti’s non-coverage is yet another example of the toxic bias that’s bankrupting newspapers all over America.
In keeping with this not-so-new dispensation, the man contemptuously known as “the banking queen” condemned a peer as pathological after the gentleman dared disagree with him. Ironically, not long ago the House of Representatives was considered a setting wherein debate was not only expected but advisable.
Dripping with condescension Frank accused his “colleague on the other side” of having “a psychological disorder I am not equipped to diagnose.” The great genius then smeared his Republican adversary further by announcing, “The bill is five and a half pages — even the gentlemen from Texas could have read it by now.”
In three mere minutes, Rep. Frank implied that his rival was mentally ill, hailed from a dysfunctional geographic area, and was stupid, an achievement that could place him in the Aberrant Hall of Fame.
Rep. Frank smeared Justice Scalia as a “homophobe” for the purposes of intimidation. He wishes to convince regular citizens that if they want to fit in and be socially superior then they must acquiesce to the demands of gay activists (re: special privilege advocates) in the future.
To Frank, Justice Scalia’s dissent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case rendered him beyond the pale. In the religion that is PC, few cows are more sacred than homosexuals. Scalia’s dissent was de facto evidence of a black heart.
Should one accept Frank’s quip as fact and regard Justice Scalia as a homophobe, then he or she will not bother to contemplate the worth of his judicial opinions — precisely the result for which Rep. Frank yearns. Justice Scalia regarded the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas as manifesting “a massive disruption of the current social order” and said that judges should not decide “questions of morality on which the Constitution is silent.”
These are perfectly acceptable objections but Rep. Frank anticipates that disinterested voters (known as “moderates”) will accept his recasting of Justice Scalia into a hater and thereafter look upon the opponents of gay marriage as being sick and jaded individuals.
Luckily, on this occasion, the chairman’s plans went awry. His comments revealed just how intolerant and menacing the behaviors of far leftists in this country actually are. In the days that followed, the conjurer of corporate bankruptcy was forced to clarify his statement.
Rep. Frank conceded that not all persons opposed to “same-sex marriage” are homophobic and he drew an imaginary line between Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Yet no mention was made as to why their differing rationales equated with one being “very reasonable” and the other being malignant.
This is significant because the Democratic Party’s stance on political correctness is the same as Frank’s. The radicals now own America’s most powerful party. Thus, they slander Republicans whenever possible and craft every disagreement into an emotional show trial.
Their strategy makes the right perennially defensive. Instead of verbally liquidating their deleterious social and economic policies we waste time explaining why we’re not racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. The time has come for us to abandon this pusillanimous practice.
Political correctness is diametrically opposed to truth and that’s reason enough to reject it. It casts foes as evil and facts have no standing in its courts of conformist conjecture. Reality is but a speed bump when one longs to change the world.
We must seize the strategic initiative and exploit the incompetence of the current president and the no-talents who steer Congress. Let us not be timid. As with Rep. Frank, we must call a hater a hater.
In the future, we must respond vigorously to defamation. We must refute radicals and shower them with the same kind of disrespect they direct at us. Continuing to treat those who dishonor you with dignity is a habit that leads to extinction.
Napoleon’s famous maxim — “the army that stays within its fortifications is already beaten” — exquisitely sums up our situation. We must answer attacks with counterattacks and ridicule of our own. Let’s rise up, fight them, defeat them, and “not go gentle into that good night.”