What Exactly Is a “Leftist”? And What Is a “Liberal”?

May 20 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections, Senate, Uncategorized

It is impossible to understand the world around us, or to cultivate a coherent set of core principles, if our use of language is fraught with sloppiness and imprecision. Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of politics, where emotionally charged terms are routinely bandied about with scarcely any conception of what they actually mean. “Liberal” and “conservative” are perhaps the most significant of these. Many people who describe themselves as “liberal” typically use the term as a synonym for all things noble and morally pure. The late newsman  Walter Cronkite , for instance,  equated liberalism with a “broad-minded,” “unprejudiced,” and “beneficent” mindset. Author and radio personality  Garrison Keillor – who views “conservatives” as people of “ugly and rancid” political beliefs  – proudly declares: “I am a liberal, and liberalism is the politics of kindness … tolerance, magnanimity, community spirit, the defense of the weak against the powerful, love of learning, freedom of belief, art and poetry, city life, the very things that make America worth dying for.” And the revered “Liberal Lion” of the U.S. Senate, the late  Ted Kennedy ,  defined a liberal as “someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions” and “someone who cares about the welfare of the people.” But if one merely equates liberalism with what is “good,” and conservatism with what is “bad” – or vice versa, for that matter – he or she cannot lay claim to any authentic understanding of either term. Thus we need an operational definition for each term, just as we need definitions for any other words we employ in our daily lives. Regardless of how we  feel about “liberalism” or “conservatism,” we need to know specifically what qualities give each of them their respective identities. When the term “liberalism” (from the Latin word  liberalis , meaning “pertaining to a free man”) first emerged in the early 1800s, it was founded on an unwavering belief in individual rights, the rule of law, limited government, private property, and  laissez faire economics. These would remain the defining characteristics of liberalism throughout the liberal epoch, generally identified as the period from 1815-1914. But many who call themselves “liberals” today are in fact  leftists – i.e., the very  antithesis of liberals. The modern Left – which traces its roots back to a faction of early-19th-century French liberals who proclaimed that capitalism and private property were agents of inevitable moral decay – is animated by a desire to topple the existing capitalist order and to replace it with a socialist regime where the utopian ideal of perfect equality will reign. Disingenuously portraying itself as an agent of enlightened commitment to “liberal” causes, today’s Left in fact  rejects each of the liberal ideals enumerated in the preceding paragraph. We can readily observe, for instance, that the modern Left is the stalwart champion of: group rights and  collective identity, rather than of individual rights and responsibilities (e.g., racial preferences, notions of collective guilt and innocence, and a devotion to identity politics generally); the  circumvention of law rather than the rule of law (as exemplified by the flouting of immigration laws and nondiscrimination laws, and by a preference for judicial activism whereby judges co-opt the powers that rightfully belong to legislators); the  expansion of government rather than its diminution (favoring ever-escalating taxes to fund a bloated welfare state and a government that oversees — and intervenes in — virtually every aspect of human life); and the  redistribution of wealth (through punitive taxes and, again, a mushrooming welfare state), rather than its  creation through free markets based on private property. By calling themselves “liberals,” leftists have entirely redefined the terms of debate. The media and the general public have largely gone along with this fraudulent self-identification, as evidenced by the fact that few people nowadays draw any distinction between liberalism in its original and authentic sense, and leftism — or socialism posing as “liberalism.” Indeed the terms are generally used interchangeably by people at every point along the political spectrum. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, for one,  calls Barack Obama “the most liberal president ever.” Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly similarly  calls Obama ”the most liberal president I’ve seen in my lifetime,” and then, in the next breath, says Obama “may well be the most left-wing chief executive in American history.” As a consequence of such imprecision, we witness the travesty of the “liberal” label being widely attached to leftists like Obama,  Michael Moore ,  George Soros ,  Noam Chomsky ,  Al Sharpton ,  Jane Fonda ,  Ted Kennedy , and  Hillary Clinton . In the process, the noble values and ideals that are genuinely “liberal” in the true sense of the word are wrongly conflated in the public mind with the socialist, revolutionary, and anti-American agendas of the foregoing leftists. As a result, the definition of “liberalism” continues to drift inexorably leftward. The David Horowitz Freedom Center has created a website,  DiscoverTheNetworks.org , to help explain exactly what, and who, the Left is – and how it utterly rejects every major principle that can legitimately be classified as “liberal.” This NewsReal blog post will be followed in the coming days and weeks by a series of additional posts taking you on a guided tour of  DiscoverTheNetworks and its multitude of special sections and features. We invite you to come along for the ride. If you do, you will understand the Left, its agendas, its tactics, and its key players in a profound and illuminating way. And you will see clearly how the Left has fraudulently draped itself in the vestments of a noble tradition — liberalism — thereby giving the false appearance that its own socialist objectives are somehow consistent with that tradition. They are not. For today, why not visit DiscoverTheNetworks’ section titled “ Defining and Understanding the Left ”? It’s a great starting point if you’re not yet familiar with this vast and informative website.

More here:
What Exactly Is a “Leftist”? And What Is a “Liberal”?

No responses yet

Father No Longer Knows Best: San Francisco Set to Ban Circumcision

May 19 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

It’s official. A controversial petition effort has succeeded in San Fransisco. This November, the city’s voters will decide whether or not to ban infant circumcision . If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions. This would be the first ban of its kind in the United States. It would undoubtedly trigger litigation from religious groups alleging a First Amendment violation. Circumcision has religious significance for Jews and Muslims. While religious freedom is surely threatened by the San Fran proposal, the larger threat is against parental rights. The vote evokes a question which serves as a litmus test separating libertarians from communitarians. Are parents the natural custodians of their children, or mere civil guardians beholden to the judgment of others? “Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what’s in the best interest of the child. It’s [the child's] body. It’s his choice,” said Lloyd Schofield, the measure’s lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident, who said the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize. Schofield’s view of the parental role is instructive of the Left’s war against parenthood. Unfortunately, the emotions evoked wherever children are concerned drive many well-meaning conservatives toward the same line of thinking. Opponents of parental rights like Schofield imagine some esoteric distinction between individual rights and parental authority. If an adult wants to [fill in the blank], that’s one thing. But they don’t have the right to force it on their children. This position is extremely problematic. It betrays a flawed view of individual rights, if not an outright rejection of them. Who gets to determine what is in the best interest of a child? Surely, children cannot be expected to make such decisions on their own. So who may act in their stead? Parents are the only individuals with any natural claim upon that role. In a free society, the only prohibition is against harming another. The mistake opponents of parental rights make is regarding children as that other, as if they are distinct from their parents, as if they are mere roommates whose agency is violated by parental intrusion. Of course, children are not independent agents. They are wards subject to the judgment of their custodians. Evoking their rights is therefore evoking parental rights. The threshold for state encroachment upon parental judgment is no different than the threshold for state encroachment upon individual judgment. They are, quite literally, one and the same. This is not a frivolous issue. It strikes at the core of fundamental American values – religious freedom, natural law, and individual rights. What is the principle which informs our regard for those rights? Do we let people act upon their own judgment because they always make rational decisions? Do we let people act upon their own judgment because they agree with us? Or do we let people act upon their own judgment because it is their inherent right to do so, whether they are rational or not, whether their judgment aligns with ours our not? The answer is well established. The entire concept of religious freedom proceeds from it. Your religion does not have to make sense to me. Your decisions do not require my approval. Your actions are not subject to my judgement. How quickly that falls by the wayside once we imagine the state as parent.

Visit link:
Father No Longer Knows Best: San Francisco Set to Ban Circumcision

No responses yet

UW-Milwaukee Fights to Defund College Republicans

May 19 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is the latest school doing everything they can to shut down and silence any conservative voice on campus. I am an alumnus of this school who luckily had great teachers while acquiring a major in film studies (of all things). Unfortunately, there was nothing but horror stories from my friends taking courses in communication (some of which I took) and sociology. Even worse was trying to find anyone who would refer to anything conservative as something other than “controversial.” This is a university that prides itself on bringing Martin Luther King to campus decades ago when he was a “controversial” speaker. Today, controversy is anything Right of the leftist mafia on campus. It took me a while to realize how radical the campus was because my film professors (even the far-Left ones) were willing to have civil discussions about politics, which were always pleasant and welcomed. In fact, most of them would avoid politics altogether because it wasn’t a pivotal part of the coursework in the majority of classes. What opened my eyes was the first time I saw how conservative guest-speakers were treated on campus by the students. I’ve long heard about issues of indoctrination in humanities courses, that’s not what I saw here. Instead, what I witnessed at UWM was bigger than a single academic department. As with any conservative speaker at most universities there is always an attempt from the Left’s foot soldiers to shout down the guest in an attempt to silence their voice. When I was still a student at UWM, I attended a speech by conservative activist David Horowitz which endured consistent and disrespectful disruptions (not to mention that he was subject to an anti-Semitic cartoon being distributed around campus prior to the event). The atmosphere was even worse when former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat was invited to speak about the threats of radical Islam. Neither of these speakers are “Right-wingers” by any means, but their voice was not tolerated. Because of threats, both events required security which should not have been necessary. On April 25th the UWM College Republicans invited Karl Rove to speak at their campus. Able to predict how the Left would try to disrupt the event, the College Republicans found a way to thwart leftist attempts to shout down an invited speaker to campus. They were able to distribute tickets themselves and through local conservative radio host Vicki McKenna. This helped fill the front rows with donors or supporters and also helped for security purposes. The reaction from the democrats and allies in the Student Association (SA) on campus was to attack the College Republicans, fighting to cut their funding. Read the rest at Big Government

Go here to read the rest:
UW-Milwaukee Fights to Defund College Republicans

No responses yet

Giving Illegal Immigrants The Edge Over American College Students?

May 18 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

If, let’s say, you’re a student from North Carolina, Ohio, or Arizona who wants to go to a public university in Maryland, you have to pay a higher rate than teenagers who live in the state. On the other hand, if you’re in the country illegally, you get the cheaper in-state rate . This week, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley signed a bill to require the state’s public universities to give undocumented aliens — generally illegal — in-state tuition privileges. The bill, known as the Dream Act, is already the law in ten other states, including California, New York, Texas and Illinois. But critics argue that the bill will give illegal aliens better treatment than Americans and legal immigrants — thanks to existing diversity policies at universities. University of Maryland (College Park) computer science Prof. James Purtilo told FoxNews.com that, during his time as an associate dean, he frequently saw admission officers favor students because of their “undocumented” status. “They favor students with special circumstances. ‘Undocumented alien’ would be one of these special circumstances… They help fill out the diversity picture for the admissions office.” Continue reading at Right Wing News .

Go here to read the rest:
Giving Illegal Immigrants The Edge Over American College Students?

No responses yet

Violent Jihadists: The Contemporary Left’s Freedom Riders?

May 17 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

Last night I watched an incredibly moving documentary about the early civil rights movement in America in 1961. The film is based on Raymond Arsenault’s book about the many hundreds of young volunteers who faced savage beatings and possible death as they rode buses in an attempt to end Jim Crow racial segregation laws and practices. Directly by Stanley Nelson, the film shows us the extraordinary dignity and determination of the “freedom riders” whose courage inspired and guided even the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. These young people were mainly African-Americans, but they were also white, and both male and female. They dressed conservatively and were trained not to fight back—not even when they were being beaten by racist mobs wielding baseball bats, lead pipes, sharp instruments, deadly fists, and hearts filled with hate. Buses were surrounded by mobs of 200 men. One bus was blown up. Bus drivers refused to drive the buses. Southern governors and police officers refused to protect the “freedom riders” or to stop the would-be lynch mobs. Ku Klux Klan members in full regalia literally marched over their bleeding faces. Journalists and photographers were attacked. The “freedom riders” were arrested. Finally, President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy had to send in federal marshals. They also requested that the Interstate Commerce Commission end the “white only” and “colored only” facilities for interstate travelers. I felt absolutely connected to this struggle. I felt indebted to these valiant Americans. I am sure others of my generation felt likewise. As I watched the non-violent riders—their transcendent purity, dignity, courage—I realized that many leftists of my generation have now assumed that Arabs, Muslim jihadists , and “Palestinians” are somehow the same as these brave, young Americans. They are not. Arabs are not using non-violent tactics to achieve their reactionary goals. They are violent in every way. Their goals are not to obtain rights for their people but rather to return them to the 7 th century and to destroy both the Jewish and Christian presence in Muslim-majority countries. I don’t know how to convey this insight to my generation of leftists. They do not read conservative websites. They view me as a “traitor” for having abandoned them by evolving to a deeper and greater understanding of reality. If you know any leftists, please ask them to read this piece.

More here:
Violent Jihadists: The Contemporary Left’s Freedom Riders?

No responses yet

Geert Wilders Presents: 5 Steps Americans Must Take to Avoid the Fate of Islamized Europe

May 17 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

Never before have I walked into a church to be greeted by a barrier of armed police with metal detector wands. Nor have I had to let officers open my purse to search for weapons before I could enter a sanctuary—that is, until now. That was when Geert Wilders came to speak at Cornerstone Church in Nashville, Tennessee. He came to warn America, to warn Christians. He came to wake up the Bible Belt to the threat of Islam. But before a single word was spoken, these ominous signs foreshadowed the truth of what was yet to come. Geert Wilders is not a president, royalty, or anyone most of us would recognize on the street. And yet, as he took the podium to a loud applause and standing ovation, Wilders stood flanked with security constantly scanning the crowd, reminiscent of our own presidential secret service. Why all the fuss for a representative from the Netherlands—a politician? Because he is a rare and endangered species; he is willing to speak the truth about what is happening in Europe. He refuses to submit to Islam or be bound and gagged by the power of the politically correct. For this, he is facing a 16-month jail sentence by his own government for the high crime of “hate-speech.” Even more profound is that he is the constant target for assassination from the “misunderstanders of Islam.” Wilders opened by telling the crowd he was happy to be there — happy to be able to speak freely, without the fear of being carted off to jail once he stepped out of the door. A concept hard for us here in the U.S. to grasp, but it is the stark reality of Europeans today. He came with a very sobering warning, and a list of five things we must do now without fail, if we are to save our western culture and values. “My friends, I am sorry. I am here today with an unpleasant message. I am here with a warning. I am here with a battle cry: “Wake up, Christians of Tennessee. Islam is at your gate.” Do not make the mistake which Europe made. Do not allow Islam to gain a foothold here.” “My dear American friends, you cannot imagine how we envy your First Amendment. The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called “hate speech crimes” which is only used to punish people who are critical of Islam, that day America will have lost its freedom.” Next page: How Europeans got into this mess.

More:
Geert Wilders Presents: 5 Steps Americans Must Take to Avoid the Fate of Islamized Europe

No responses yet

Glenn Beck, Pastor Hagee, and Israel’s Real ‘Amen Corner’

May 17 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

Glenn Beck has announced that he will be holding the “Restoring Courage” rally in Israel this August. This is a bold, accessible and positive event that the American Jewish establishment could not possibly bring about. There has been a significant graying of the American Jewish community’s mainstream Israel advocacy organizations in the last two or three decades. In a Jewish world where “young leadership” means under 40, this has been especially alarming. Intermarriage, assimilation and indifference have taken a toll on many pro-Israel groups. As proof of this changing reality many in the community have pointed to the creation of groups such as J Street, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and Jewish Voice for Peace to indicate where the vitality in the pro-Israel community can be found. For the sake of this the article, let’s leave aside the very real question of whether J Street and their allies can be truly considered pro-Israel when they were created by and large with the sole purpose of lobbying for the creation of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. A survey of social media paints a very different picture. It is true that much of the pro-Israel establishment has failed to embrace and profit from social media. J Street and the left have fully embraced social media but in actuality they have very, very little to show for it. To be fair the Zionist right in the U.S. has fared worse, but they have not made the effort that their competitors have. The reality is that Pastor John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel (CUFI), founded in 2006, has more backers of Israel engaged in debate concerning Israel and a future Palestinian state. For evidence of this let’s look at the top social media sites and overall Internet traffic stats. 12,629 users have “Liked” J Street on Face Book while 328,539 have “Liked” CUFI on Face Book. Jstreetdotorg has 4,397 Followers on Twitter. CUFI has 1,422 Followers on Twitter and AIPAC 4,387 Followers on Twitter. Isaac Luria is the Vice President of Communications and New Media for J Street. The J Street group Luria is the owner of on LinkedIn has six members. CUFI does not have a LinkedIn group. The AIPAC group on LinkedIn has 414 members. The AFSI / Americans For A Safe Israel LinkedIn group (of which this author is the owner) has 91 members. Alexa.com website traffic statistics show  jstreet.org ‘s Alexa Traffic Rank in the U.S. as 228,817; cufi.org ’s Alexa Traffic Rank in the U.S. is 66,472. It is also worth noting that  israelnationalnews.com ’s Alexa Traffic Rank in the U.S. is 3,864. Israel National News is also known as Arutz Sheva and is known as the Religious Zionist / pro-Israeli settlements media network. What also has to be pointed out here is that Pastor Hagee achieved this all the while enduring years of personal attacks from both liberal Jews and liberal non-Jews while steadfastly growing support for Israel not just in Texas but nationwide. The founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Hagee started the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) organization in 2006 and wrote the book  In Defense of Israel in 2007. CUFI has sponsored well over 150 “A Night to Honor Israel” events since 2006. Criticism of the pastor by Abe Foxman and the ADL have been especially shocking and over the top. Here’s Hagee, for example, at the Freedom Center’s Restoration Weekend: No one in the U.S. has impacted support for Israel in the way Pastor Hagee has in the last half decade except for perhaps…Glenn Beck. It has also been announced that Glenn Beck will give the keynote speech at the “A Night to Honor Israel” banquet on Tuesday evening, July 19 during the Christians United for Israel’s sixth annual Washington Summit. It is well worth noting here that Abe Foxman and the ADL have criticized Beck too. Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg wrote the following in his introduction to  In Defense of Israel : For many years, Pastor Hagee has lived and labored selflessly for the people of Israel. In 1981, when the world condemned Israel for bombing a nuclear reactor in Iraq, Pastor Hagee’s response to (critics of Israel) was to start “A Night to Honor Israel.” That night Pastor Hagee proclaimed, “Israel, you are not alone; Christians support you and America supports you. We love you, and we shall stand by you.” When Israel critic Pat Buchanan stated on The McLaughlin Group on August 26, 1990 that “There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East – the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States” it caused a sensation. By “amen corner” everyone thought Buchanan meant Jews (and he most likely did) but now two decades later the stronger amen is coming from Christians. Abe Foxman and the ADL should take note. And all lovers of Israel everywhere should say thank you to Glenn Beck, Pastor Hagee and everyone who is a part of CUFI.

Continued here:
Glenn Beck, Pastor Hagee, and Israel’s Real ‘Amen Corner’

No responses yet

VIDEO: A Muslim View of Peace and Tolerance

May 17 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

Let’s pretend, for a moment, that academic freedom really did reign on America’s college campuses. I know, it’s difficult to envision , but just for the sake of argument let’s pretend it exists. So into our little fantasy, let’s introduce a character. Let’s make him one of the most influential young conservative Christians in America, who is also a teaching assistant and Ph.D. candidate at Yale. (Ha ha ha! A well-known conservative Christian teaching at Yale! This is one crazy fantasy!) And let’s say that in a lecture one day, he says the following things: 1. The Bible teaches that Islam is evil. Evil, repugnant, futile and useless. 2. Muslims, therefore, are evil. 3. God says that Muslims are spiritually filthy. 4. The life and property of Muslims hold no value when we are battling them. Here in America, this is not the place and time where we can take their lives and property, but in other places, we can, and at another time, we may do it here, as well. But not here now. Not yet. Let’s further pretend that we have audio of this teaching, widely available on the internet. Care to speculate on the reaction from the Left? The mainstream media? Obama? Well, their heads would probably implode. However, last I looked, their heads are all still intact. Which means that we have one serious double standard working here. Because leaving behind our pretend scenario and turning to cold hard reality , our young influential conservative cleric at Yale is not a Christian (of course) but a Muslim. And here’s what he has to say: 1. The Koran teaches that Christianity is evil. Evil, repugnant, futile and useless. (He calls it “shirk” or polytheism, because he misunderstands the nature of the Trinity) 2. Christians are evil. It’s important to study their teachings to understand evil. 3. Allah calls Christians filthy. People who practice “shirk” (known as “mushrikoun”) are “nejjis” – filthy. 4. The life and property of Christians (mushrikoun) hold no value in the state of jihad. Not here right now, in this country. This is not the time or place. This will be the case when we are in a state of jihad, in an Islamic state, when there is a caliphate. The teacher in question, one Yasir Qadhi, emphasizes that he doesn’t mean in America – at least not now. Qadhi is described by the New York Times as: “…a fixture on the New Haven campus. He wore a trim beard and preppy polo shirts, blending in with other graduate students as he lugged an overstuffed backpack into Blue State Coffee for his daily cappuccino. A popular teaching assistant, he exuded a sprightly intensity in class, addressing the undergraduates as ‘dudes.’” Dude! You’re filthy, repugnant and evil, and a day is soon coming when your iPod and skateboard – and head – are mine. But for now… let’s grab a cappuccino. Of course, my analogy breaks down with #4, because Jesus Christ certainly does not teach that we are to take the lives or property of non-Christians. Even if we lived in a “Christian” state. Even if our leader was a pope or pastor or Billy Graham. It wouldn’t happen – that’s not what following Jesus is all about . That’s why we can live side by side with lots of other people who reject and even demonize the Bible and our teachings. Our Muslim friends, not so much. Islamists cannot live side by side with lots of other people who reject and even demonize their Koran and teachings. In fact, they’re not happy even if someone on the other side of the world burns one copy of their book. They’re so unhappy, in fact, that innocent people have to die because of it. Now, which faith tradition are we calling evil, again?

More here:
VIDEO: A Muslim View of Peace and Tolerance

No responses yet

Older posts »