Remember This? Of Course Not.

Jan 10 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

In case you happen to be Facebook friends with a women’s studies professor, the content of whose latest posts we can only guess, ask her to remember the years 2002 to around 2007. This was the run-up to the Iraq War—its planning, execution, and escalation. These years also just so happened to coincide with an era of extended dementia, an orgy of the most vile, childish, callous work of the activist Left, a time when violent radical rhetoric reached its most rabid masturbatory peak. Remember the “protests”? Kill Bush. Impeach Bush. War Crimes. Kill Cheney. Blood for Oil. Soldiers are murderers. Soldiers are torturers. Insurgents are freedom fighters. Islamists gathering on lawns listening to Ramsey Clark . Atheists and Islamists finding God together. The Stalinist Workers’ World Party leading the campus Left. Burning Bush in effigy. Movies about Bush’s assassination . Ask that they remember this in light of all the low-class posturing about “civil” political discourse. There’s something supremely hideous about being lectured by the Left on political civility. After all, aren’t the legacies of such magazines as The Nation (which nation remains to be seen) those of revolutionary ferment? That rag did the Soviet Union’s PR work for years, and now we’re supposed to listen to their moral analyses? How many staffers at that magazine believe in revolutionary Marxism? What about the contributors at Dissent ? How many attended one of those Kill Bush “peace protests”? Is it too inflammatory to call somebody “The Worst Person in the World”? MSNBC doesn’t think so. And please do not take Christopher Hitchens seriously until he fully repudiates his Trotskyist past. He can slander the Tea Party all he wants . But until he stops writing about his Commie days with schoolboy nostalgia , as though he needn’t apologize for them because Trotskyism was allegedly anti-Stalinist, I won’t really be interested in his ideas on who should tone it down. I have no desire to “prove” that Jared Loughner was a leftist. He might be. He might not be. What good will it do? If investigators find a dog-eared copy of Georges Sorel’s Reflections on Violence in his sock drawer, we’ll earn some talking points—cheap, filthy ones we shouldn’t use anyway. People are dead. If it matters, the evidence so far indicates that Loughner harbored some type of strange syncretic stew of political beliefs—a little leftism, some radical libertarianism, some fascism, some anarchism, some Marxism. In other words, he took the worst of each of the fringe movements and, in his indubitably disturbed mind, mixed them into his own fantasy philosophy. He should apologize for this, not any of us.

Link:
Remember This? Of Course Not.

No responses yet

Blind Dates and Soul Mates: How the Left’s View of Love Supports its View of Divorce

Jan 08 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

The cultural Left’s perception of human relationships, and especially relationships of the most intimate and formative kind, marriage and family, have a long, stormy, and checkered intellectual pedigree.  From Margaret Sanger to Simone De Beauvoir to Meade , Kinsey and Hefner , the Left has indulged its penchant for the condescending dismissal of the traditional and sacred and the adoration of the novel and outré for its own sake with relentless determination.  After my own divorce, nearly thirty years ago, I began a long, painful, but deeply enlightening search for answers and meaning to what had transpired in my life.  Some of the Left’s answers held a degree of attraction in callow youth, but both my religion and personal life philosophy, by then deeply established, turned me elsewhere. I learned several very interesting things during those years.  One, from Steven R. Covey, in a book published in 1982 called The Divine Center , was that we tend to see the world, not as it is, but as we are .  Secondly, I came to understand the way in which we tend to seek out those for intimate relationships who reflect and complement our view of the world. Agi Smith’s new post at the Huffpo Divorce page nicely encapsulates these concepts and allows us to look at them from the perspective of the affluent, upper class Left from within its own perceptual cubicle.  The theme of the post is on how finding a new romance after a divorce is not necessarily the answer to the psychological and emotional turmoil attendant to divorce.  That “rebound” relationships are not the answer to one’s recovery phase after a divorce leaves little to quibble with.  It’s Smith’s core assumptions and perception of marriage – and love – that are so telling. Her friends (could these be uniformly affluent, upscale liberals?) tell her she needs to immediately find a new man to salve the wounds of her divorce.  They set her up for a couple of blind dates, and both go poorly.  All are smart, handsome, successful and affluent, but bad risks.  Smith runs the gamut of these blind dates to no avail.  Then, what might be representative of the entire empty shell of what the Baby Boom Generation Left passed down to its progeny as a philosophy of love and its meaning pours forth. Answering her own question of why we fall for Hollywood’s version of love and romance when real Hollywood romances are so alarmingly fragile, she tells us: When it comes to Hollywood, everyone knows that a lasting marriage is a statistical anomaly, so why do we eat their romantic garb and believe that such a fantasy could translate into our lives? I’ll tell you why; because, no matter how much it hurts or disappoints, love will keep on fogging our clarity allowing ourselves to continue to search and crave more of it. We will starve without it, so we forage through life in pursuit of our proverbial soul mate no matter the cost. The cost emotionally, physically, financially or spiritually we still move onward with a Panglossian verve to achieve this emotion called Love , yet again and again and again. You see dear blog reader, love is not only blind, its a kind of mental derangement.  Love’s primary attributes here are “hurt” and “disappointment,” and its “fogging” effects on our rational minds are what keep us sniffing it out like a next fix.  We “forage through life” seeking a soul mate “no matter what the cost.”  As we are emotionally, physically, financiallly and spiritually reduced to human Silly Putty, we continue seeking intimate, meaningful relationships…again and again and again.

Read more from the original source:
Blind Dates and Soul Mates: How the Left’s View of Love Supports its View of Divorce

No responses yet

Oprah Knows Best

Jan 07 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

In Dinesh D’Souza’s book, Letters to a Young Conservative , D’Douza explains in layman’s terms the difference between conservatives and liberals. At root, conservatives and liberals see the world so differently because they have different conceptions of human nature. Liberals tend to believe in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s proposition that human nature is intrinsically good. Conservatives know better. They recognize that there are two principles in human nature – good and evil – and these are in constant conflict. I’m always reminded of this fact when I hear Oprah Winfrey speak. Indeed, Ms. Winfrey is the quintessential liberal, and her new network – network we’re talking here, not program: talk about a platform to spread your message! – is tailored around this fact. In a recent interview about OWN, Oprah repeated what she has said time and again for over 20 years: I’m concerned about the bigger overall picture: my belief that people are basically good. This is the worldview that drives Oprah; it is the basis for everything she produces. Like the now defunct Oprah Winfrey Show (reruns notwithstanding), OWN will be filled with programming that emanates from the liberal mind. Americans – kids included — will get an earful. Take, for example, one of OWN’s new programs, “In the Bedroom with Dr. Laura Berman.” Dr. Berman’s goal, we’re told, is to help people have great sex. Okay, fine. Most Americans agree sex is important and discussing it on TV might have its proper place. But most of what Dr. Berman doles out is leftist babble. Not only has she suggested parents offer their children vibrators, her latest show discusses the use of household objects for masturbation. Let me repeat that. A television program on how to use household objects for masturbation. It’s especially interesting considering this fact: When asked why she wants her own network, Oprah said most television programming isn’t worthwhile and that she wants to provide “mindful TV.” I suppose Dr. Berman’s new program counts as “mindful TV” – Berman did, after all, caution folks not to insert light bulbs into their nether regions. It isn’t just the programming itself, by the way — it’s also what goes on behind the scenes. As with all liberal media, there are producers we don’t see who determine what messages to send to viewers. Consider a recent comment from Brian Piotrowicz, one of Oprah’s co-producers. We don’t just portray the reality on our show. We pick and choose what we want based upon criteria of how this show’s produced. Based, in other words, on whether the program sends the message Oprah and her producers want sent. That’s precisely how media bias works. For example, Piotrowicz — who is gay (naturally) — made it clear he had no intention of doing another show on Jerry Waters, who appeared in a 1987 segment on the AIDS epidemic and expressed politically incorrect views. ‘This is a disease of nature,’ Waters said. ‘Nature will take care of something that’s wrong. It’ll eradicate it.’ Expressing himself to the government health official Oprah brought on her show to “educate” Americans about AIDS, Waters said, “I’ve had it with you people…You’ve been trying to jam this down our throats for years and I’m sick of it.” The health official told Waters his views were “wrong” and that AIDS will spread “until people get the message about prevention and education.” In the liberal mind, since people are all basically good and will thus make good choices when they know better (something else Oprah repeats ad nauseum: “When people know better, they do better.”), education is always the answer. Fast forward 20 years. Piotrowicz said he would only produce a follow-up show on Oprah’s new network if Jerry Waters has had “an epiphany” and has changed his views on homosexuality so the world gets the message that there is no other way to view a subject than the Oprah Winfrey way. Modern American liberalism comes in beautiful packages, but make no mistake: the goal is to change the way you think. Don’t let it. Suzanne Venker is co-author of the forthcoming book The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say (WND Books). Her website is www.suzannevenker.com .

See original here:
Oprah Knows Best

No responses yet

Nancy Pelosi: Don’t Cry For Me America

Jan 07 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

Our own Eva Peron has been unseated.  Just as she redistributed the wealth of Argentina and took it into bankruptcy, Nancy Pelosi fought hard to redistribute the wealth in America. The more we protested, the harder she fought for it.  She reminded me of the abusive parent who hits her child harder the more the child cries from the beating.   Yesterday as she transferred power over to the GOP, she had the chutzpah to say that the Democrats were committed to fiscal responsibility .  No matter what the pundits say about the limitations facing the GOP controlled House, they must systematically reform Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare law if they cannot repeal it. With Pelosi’s departure there is a chance for reform, regardless of the challenges.  What can the Republicans do if they can’t get it repealed? The GOP should start by introducing tort reform legislation on medical malpractice claims, and institute damage limitations. They should also require the losers in a case to pay the legal fees of the winners in order to curtail frivolous lawsuits. If doctors don’t fear frivolous malpractice cases they won’t need to order countless unnecessary and expensive tests . This is where the real savings will occur with tort reform. If the courts can prevent the insurance mandate Obamacare will fall apart on its own. But if not, then the GOP should introduce legislation to allow insurance to be bought across state lines. More competition will help to reduce the cost of healthcare. We won’t need 26 year old adults to stay on their parents’ plans if we can do everything possible to reduce the cost of insurance. We must allow healthcare savings accounts with less restrictions and higher tax credits for individuals who opt to set them up. Businesses should no longer be the primary source of health insurance for citizens.  They can pay their employees more and let the employees buy their own insurance plan.  Then you’ll see how quick people will stop abusing the system. Do you ever wonder why dermatologists sell skin care lines that look suspiciously like beauty products? Because a patient can buy them and have their insurance reimburse them simply because they got them from their dermatologist. It’s a colossal waste of money and invites abuse of the system. The same goes for people who have their insurance pay for massages . Would the patient do that if he were managing his own insurance costs? Pelosi’s dream of setting up a healthcare system like Western Europe was the first step toward a Socialist America. She has never cared about better and less costly health care . The law that was passed does not achieve anything like that, and the hundreds of waivers issued to friends of the Left proved that even they know it is more harmful than helpful. Now that Pelosi has been stripped of her power, it is up to the GOP to take a stand against this job killing legislation. Otherwise America will end up looking like Eva Peron’s bankrupt Argentina.

View post:
Nancy Pelosi: Don’t Cry For Me America

No responses yet

Sympathy for the Devil: How the Left Sanctions Criminality

Jan 07 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

Leftism is a cancer eating away at foundations of our society. It is in fact the goal of the Left to destroy those foundations so that our society can be replaced with the Marxist “Utopia” they believe in, a Hell on Earth of mass murder and rape camps in which they have the power over others they crave. At its core leftism is about inflicting pain and suffering on others and nowhere is that more obvious than in how the Left views and treats criminality. Still enamored with the Soviet Union’s medicalization of crime, the Left has long pushed theories which explain deviant antisocial behavior as mental illness that can be treated. This view of rape and murder takes responsibility for the crime away from the criminal and puts it in the hands of the rest of us, who are made responsible for “healing” this “sick” individual. But this view, injurious as it is, is mild compared to the more common view of criminality that flies around these days which states that crime is caused by “oppression.” For the Left, pushing class warfare is the goal of any theory they espouse, from global warming to financial reform. In the field of criminology the Left finds the root cause of crime in “inequality” and the evils of capitalism. People steal, they say, because capitalism denies them equal access to wealth. Rape is caused by America’s supposed sexism and racism is at the heart of inner city crimes. All crime is created by some “ism” which is perpetuated by you and me, who are the “real” criminals. And while we’re up to our knees in the filth they vomit from their Ivory Towers, our crippled criminal justice system struggles to deal with law and order while hampered by a society that thinks it can rehabilitate thugs and murderers. The murder of 12-year-old Jonathan Foster was the last act in a family tragedy that we witness everyday. The boy bounced from foster home to foster home until he landed with his uncle at age six. There at least he was happy and well cared for, but at age 11 Jonathan’s maternal grandmother requested he come live with her . That way he could be closer to his mother.

Read more:
Sympathy for the Devil: How the Left Sanctions Criminality

No responses yet

Colonel Flagg Battles the Pink Fungus

Jan 02 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

New converts to the political Right meet a predictable reaction from leftist friends.  Besides being warned we’re going over to the dark side and being threatened with social death for our abandonment of the fashionable, we are assured that “all” conservatives are bigots and haters.  Not only have I heard that chorus many times, but I have been accused, even by some here, of thinking that way myself.  What cannot be explained, by those who stereotype my views that way, is – if that’s true – why I’m here in the first place. Then there are the Colonel Flagg-from-M*A*S*H types, for whom all of life seems to be bad spy fiction.  To them, I am here as part of a shady coalition of evildoers bent on the destruction of all that’s holy. There’s no reasoning with people like this.  I have better things to do than even try.  The great majority of NewsReal Blog readers are too smart to buy into such nonsense anyway, so the silliness speaks for itself. A current article in the Central Michigan Morning Sun online pleads for “acceptance” of gay rights .  While the effort is to be applauded, this is more preaching to the choir.  Those who are inclined to “accept” gay rights are going to accept them, and those determined not to never will.  What really needs to happen is that those who understand the statist menace emanating from the Left must keep from becoming a mirror image of it.  What we become is what conquers us. As the Morning Sun piece notes, “the progressive movement cobbled itself together from constituencies given the cold shoulder by a Republican Party that defined itself by strict message discipline that left little room for anyone not capable of adhering.”  These groups are likened to “survivors from a shipwreck who found it easier to stay afloat clung together than treading water as individuals.”  While I appreciate the good will in the piece, I must say I don’t believe individuals must “tread water.”  Properly understood, the Goldwater conservatism I now embrace believes that only as individuals – who think for ourselves and take each person as a unit in his or her own right – can we exercise the responsibility we must over our lives. Those who see gays as some sort of monolithic pink fungus creeping over the American landscape will persist in that view if they are determined to.  If there are not enough independent and muscular minds left in America to know better than that, this country won’t survive anyway.

Visit link:
Colonel Flagg Battles the Pink Fungus

No responses yet

Fascism Coming? Communist-Loving Congressman Doth Protest Too Much

Dec 31 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress, Senate

Few things drive leftists to the brink of insanity more quickly and more effectively than the Citizens United decision, which happened to be a wonderful, ringing affirmation of free speech and the First Amendment. That’s the Supreme Court decision that allowed – heaven forbid! – corporations to participate more fully in the democratic process. (It’s not as if they weren’t already involved in influencing government before the decision came down.) But according to excitable one-termer John Hall , whose time as the Democratic congressman representing the 19th district of New York is about to draw to a close,  America is on the verge of descending into Fascism if more isn’t done to reduce the influence of corporate money in the political system. Says Hall, “I learned when I was in social studies class in school that corporate ownership or corporate control of government is called Fascism. So that’s really the question— is that the destination if this court decision goes unchecked?” Strict government control over businesses is indeed the essence of Fascism, or more precisely, Mussolini-style corporatism. As Mussolini himself said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” Corporatism boils down to this: government tells industry (and labor) what to do and they do it for the supposed good of the country. But no one has done more to advance the cause of corporatism than Hall and his party, which has presided over the nationalization of various industries including the massive health care sector. Like the rest of the activist left, Hall is in deep denial. The results of the November midterm elections weren’t a stunning repudiation of the radical left-wing policies of the Democrats and President Obama, according to Hall, but were the end result of corporate shenanigans. “The country was bought,” Hall said. “The extremist, most recent two appointees to the Supreme Court, who claimed in their confirmation hearings before the Senate that they would not be activist judges, made a very activist decision in that it overturned more than a century of precedent. And as a result there were millions of extra dollars thrown into this race.” Of course this ahistorical view is nonsense, but what would you expect from Hall, pictured above, who also co-founded the 1970s band Orleans ( “Still the One” was one of their hits) and performed at the 90th birthday celebration of unrepentant Stalinist songbird Pete Seeger . (As recently as 2004 Seeger affirmed that he was “still a Communist.”) And Hall doesn’t even understand who on the Supreme Court voted for the majority opinion in Citizens United . If by the ”most recent two appointees” he means most recent as of today, then he is referring to Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. The problem is Kagan wasn’t even a member of the Court when the decision was rendered on Jan. 21, 2010, and Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion. What exactly did Hall mean? Did he intend to (correctly) describe Kagan and Sotomayor as extremists or was it a Freudian slip? Who knows, dude. Left-wingers aren’t exactly known for making sense. Follow me on Twitter .

Link:
Fascism Coming? Communist-Loving Congressman Doth Protest Too Much

No responses yet

Annie Got a Gun for Christmas

Dec 30 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Gun stores saw a spike in sales this Christmas season, the first one since rumors flew that President Obama might ban assault rifles.  Has the surge brought in scores of militant rednecks? Actually, no.  But women are buying guns in increasing numbers. Most of my friends are leftists, and most of my female friends hate guns.  “Eeew,” they shriek at me when I tell them about my home arsenal, which now includes a Lady Smith .38 special and a Wyatt Earp-sized .357 magnum.  “How can you have a gun around? Guns KILL people!” Yes, they do.  Mostly, they kill defenseless people.  Quite often, they are used to kill us.  When we are armed, at least we have a chance to save our lives instead of dying like deer in hunting season. It may not be open season on law-abiding citizens anymore.  More and more of us are buying guns and learning how to use them .  We are coming to understand that guns don’t free-float around in the air, shooting people without anybody attached to them.  Yes, they can kill people.  But we have something to say about that. In “A Message from Christmas Guns,” Richard Simms of the Chattanooga n online writes poetically of the special bond that exists between one who loves guns – using them well – and the “inanimate combination of polished wood and metal” that can be used for either harm or good.  “This is for the young men and women who were thrilled by the sight of a new gun under the Christmas tree.”  Yes, an increasing number of women were thrilled by the sight this year.  If they do learn to use their weapons well, some who might not otherwise live to see another Christmas may survive to celebrate the yuletide again. What is the problem some leftists have with guns, anyway? Indeed, as Mr. Simms notes as he speaks for a Christmas gun, “I cannot think and I cannot do.  I am in your control and in a fraction of a second I can take a life; yours or anyone else’s who might be in my path at that dreadful moment of indecision.”  Well, leftists seem to have a lot of dreadful moments of indecision, which is why, perhaps, they shouldn’t own guns.  But I think I speak for most responsible gun owners when I say that we respect our weapons enough to take them seriously, and take the trouble to learn how to use them the right way. The choice, as he says, is ours.  Leftists seem to have no use for choice, unless it is exercised in the procurement of an abortion or to pull the lever for a candidate who will take away our choice to do anything else.  Choice is the province of rational human beings – people capable of thinking for themselves.  It is part and parcel of the befuddlement of the Left that no distinction can be made between a cold-blooded murderer, for whom every benefit of a doubt must be allowed, and a woman home alone at night who must keep that killer from making her his next victim.  To leftists, everybody is a victim, and everybody must be considered as befuddled as they are. The world they would leave us is nothing but chaos.  In the wrong hands, guns can bring nothing but more chaos.  But in the right hands, they can cut through the chaos and – in one moment of decision – snatch survival from the jaws of tragedy. Feminist Hawk

More here:
Annie Got a Gun for Christmas

No responses yet

Older posts »