Love it. Palin goes off on the GOP establishment, Dems and the corrupt-to-their-rotten-core Liberal media. Bastardos!
“That’s sick. Those are corrupt bastards, Chris.”
Love it. Palin goes off on the GOP establishment, Dems and the corrupt-to-their-rotten-core Liberal media. Bastardos!
“That’s sick. Those are corrupt bastards, Chris.”
LULZ. How very sane. To Leftists, everyone has AIDS and everybody is Hitler! Yipppeeee!
Oh, it’s just a few outliers you say? Too late for that. We are now defined by the outliers if we learned anything from the media’s treatment of the Tea Party.
And you don’t see any black folks mingling with the insipid, lilly white Liberals either. Seriously, where are the black folks? You might almost mistake this for a Klan Rally, or a Presbyterian church, the racists. Oh wait, there is that one black guy there… Never mind. Diversity is strength!
Of course, the threat posed to the West by Islamization can only be discussed in a “comedy” setting, complete with comedians, jokes and clapping seals to break the tension and then move onto the next topic lite. It’s all in good fun! Lighten up, PC police. It’s not like this is a real news show we’re expected to take seriously.
In the UK, the most popular name for babies this year was Mohammed. Am I a racist to feel I’m alarmed by that? Because I am.
I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam.
Patriotism, but with a knowing wink. Over the top, exaggerated, in your face. It’s the American flag, but as a comedy routine. Call it tongue in cheek patriotism. After mocking the rightwing for their sense of patriotism for going on four decades now, this contemptuous and ironic patriotism is the only kind allowed the pseudo intellectuals of the Left. They did it to themselves.
On the other hand, maybe I’m being too hard on them? Nah.
Listen to this one. North Korea? Nope, a Dem rally by the Fearless Leader. Here Obama gets heckled by his own. The Left turned on Obama when they discovered he couldn’t give them what they wanted (he’s not a freakin king). Republicans get heckled too, and when they do the crowd comes to their defense with chants of USA! USA! USA! to drown out the hecklers. To the Left it’s a sign of our crypto-fascism. But listen to the chant Dems use to drown out the hecklers. Very telling. If I was to venture a guess it would be yet more evidence of that cult of personality we call Obamamania. They mock you for your patriotism but they can’t see what they’ve become– personality worshipping collectivist O-bots.
OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!
P.S., Bush TRIPLED funding for AIDS in Africa. But I guess that wasn’t enough:
“The evangelical community raised the awareness of HIV and AIDS to the president,” said Rep. Donald M. Payne (N.J.), the top-ranking Democrat on the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa. “When the Bush administration came in, HIV and AIDS were not an overwhelming priority. Now we have seen a total metamorphosis.”
Via Gateway Pundit, an insipid White Liberal berates a black christian conservative for abandoning his “African religion” in favor of Christianity, a “white man’s religion” (It was actually a Middle Eastern religion until driven out by Islam). Then he calls Republicans racist. You see, to the modern Liberal, blacks are “Africans” being held hostage in America. This, of course, is not considered racist, while recognizing them as fully 100% American is.
These are the kind of people I was forced to rub elbows with growing up a Liberal Democrat. At the time I was perfectly willing to accept their hostility towards Christianity just to maintain my Liberal street cred. No longer. Whatever weaknesses the Left may find in the likes of Beck and Palin, I will never have to apologize to them– or anybody on the Right– for the faith of my forefathers.
More fruits of the culture-destroying, civilization-declining ideology we call modern Liberalism. As secular progressivism evicerates the Christian soul of the West, Islam rushes in to fill the void. Here white guilt meets contempt for the familiar where spiritually rootless secular progressives starved for spiritual truth deny the faith of their forefathers and turn to more socially acceptable and politically correct religious outlets.
Why ARE so many modern British career women converting to Islam?
Tony Blair’s sister-in-law announced her conversion to Islam last weekend. Journalist Lauren Booth embraced the faith after what she describes as a ‘holy experience’ in Iran. She is just one of a growing number of modern British career women to do so.
Broadcaster and journalist Booth, 43, says she now wears a hijab head covering whenever she leaves home, prays five times a day and visits her local mosque ‘when I can’. She decided to become a Muslim six weeks ago after visiting the shrine of Fatima al-Masumeh in the city of Qom, and says: ‘It was a Tuesday evening, and I sat down and felt this shot of spiritual morphine, just absolute bliss and joy.’
Before her awakening in Iran, she had been ‘sympathetic’ to Islam and has spent considerable time working in Palestine. ‘I was always impressed with the strength and comfort it gave,’ she says. How, I wondered, could women be drawn to a religion which I felt had kept me in such a lowly, submissive place? How could their experiences of Islam be so very different to mine?
According to Kevin Brice from Swansea University, who has specialised in studying white conversion to Islam, these women are part of an intriguing trend.
He explains: ‘They seek spirituality, a higher meaning, and tend to be deep thinkers. The other type of women who turn to Islam are what I call “converts of convenience”. They’ll assume the trappings of the religion to please their Muslim husband and his family, but won’t necessarily attend mosque, pray or fast.’
I spoke to a diverse selection of white Western converts in a bid to re-examine the faith I had rejected.
Women like Kristiane Backer, 43, a London-based former MTV presenter who had led the kind of liberal Western-style life that I yearned for as a teenager, yet who turned her back on it and embraced Islam instead. Her reason? The ‘anything goes’ permissive society that I coveted had proved to be a superficial void.
Is Bill Maher’s show still called “Politically Incorrect?” (Or was that his previous one) Because I can’t say I’ve ever heard him say anything particularly un-PC until now. Here he pulls a “Juan Williams” and finally says something that’s, you know, politically incorrect (as opposed to his usual atheism and Christianity-bashing, which couldn’t be more mainstream and socially acceptable in this day and age).
Those who accuse the once libertarian Bill Maher of becoming too much of a liberal apologist might want to clean their ears. Maher made a Juan Williams-esque confession on his program when he apprehensively noted that Mohammed has just become the most popular baby name in Britain. “Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that?” Maher asked his panel. “Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years?”
Notice he makes the distinction between race and religion, giving himself the benefit of the doubt he’d never grant to somebody on the Right. But poor fellow, he thinks it’ll take Islam 300 years. lol. If only…
His normally boisterous crowd fell silent as the panel responded to Maher’s admission.
“If you’re with NPR,” the conservative Margaret Hoover chimed, “You’d be fired.”
“It’s worse,” Lawrence O’Donnell told Maher. “It’s way worse than what Juan Williams said.” Hoover seemed to agree with this sentiment.
Reihan Salam, a conservative analyst with a Muslim name, also seemed irked by Maher’s comments, noting that he “has some uncles named Mohammed” that are “pretty decent guys.”
Of course, it’s not the name that Maher fears, but the religion. (Any of them, in fact — Maher’s qualms with religion of any sort, Islam or not, are long-standing and well-documented.) Hoover further stoked Maher by claiming that the U.K is saddled with a “far bigger problem” than baby names: Sharia Law, which she said is creeping into England.
“Then I’m right,” Maher said, taking her for her word. “I should be alarmed. And I don’t apologize for it.”
Wonderful! Reihan Salam knows a dude whose sisters-in-law are married to some Muslims who are pretty decent guys. Well, that settles it! Islamize away then! The classic red herring non-sequitor, reducing the argument to individuals instead of culture, and then imputing to the general from the specific. Who buys this kind of crap? It’s not about “Muslims”, Mr. Salam, it’s about ISLAM. And I don’t apologize for it.
President Obama as the Redeemer of a fallen nation, not the leader of a great one. I wish I’d thought of that line. It encapsulates the Left’s inherent “bad faith in America” (another great line). This is the elitism you sense even though you can’t always put your finger on it or describe to others. It results not in merely a desire to improve the country, but for “fundamental transformation.” And not gradually and organically, but rapidly and cataclysmically.
By SHELBY STEELE
Whether or not the Republicans win big next week, it is already clear that the “transformative” aspirations of the Obama presidency—the special promise of this first black president to “change” us into a better society—are much less likely to materialize. There will be enough Republican gains to make the “no” in the “party of no” even more formidable, if not definitive.
But apart from this politics of numbers, there is also now a deepening disenchantment with Barack Obama himself. (He has a meager 37% approval rating by the latest Harris poll.) His embarrassed supporters console themselves that their intentions were good; their vote helped make history. But for Mr. Obama himself there is no road back to the charisma and political capital he enjoyed on his inauguration day.
How is it that Barack Obama could step into the presidency with an air of inevitability and then, in less than two years, find himself unwelcome at the campaign rallies of many of his fellow Democrats?
The first answer is well-known: His policymaking has been grandiose, thoughtless and bullying. His health-care bill was ambitious to the point of destructiveness and, finally, so chaotic that today no citizen knows where they stand in relation to it. His financial-reform bill seems little more than a short-sighted scapegoating of Wall Street. In foreign policy he has failed to articulate a role for America in the world. We don’t know why we do what we do in foreign affairs. George W. Bush at least made a valiant stab at an American rationale—democratization—but with Mr. Obama there is nothing.
All this would be enough to explain the disillusionment with this president—and with the Democratic Party that he leads. But there is also a deeper disjunction. There is an “otherness” about Mr. Obama, the sense that he is somehow not truly American. “Birthers” doubt that he was born on American soil. Others believe that he is secretly a Muslim, or in quiet simpatico with his old friends, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, now icons of American radicalism.
But Barack Obama is not an “other” so much as he is a child of the 1960s. His coming of age paralleled exactly the unfolding of a new “counterculture” American identity. And this new American identity—and the post-1960s liberalism it spawned—is grounded in a remarkable irony: bad faith in America as virtue itself, bad faith in the classic American identity of constitutional freedom and capitalism as the way to a better America. So Mr. Obama is very definitely an American, and he has a broad American constituency. He is simply the first president we have seen grounded in this counterculture American identity. When he bows to foreign leaders, he is not displaying “otherness” but the counterculture Americanism of honorable self-effacement in which America acknowledges its own capacity for evil as prelude to engagement.
Bad faith in America became virtuous in the ’60s when America finally acknowledged so many of its flagrant hypocrisies: the segregation of blacks, the suppression of women, the exploitation of other minorities, the “imperialism” of the Vietnam War, the indifference to the environment, the hypocrisy of puritanical sexual mores and so on. The compounding of all these hypocrisies added up to the crowning idea of the ’60s: that America was characterologically evil. Thus the only way back to decency and moral authority was through bad faith in America and its institutions, through the presumption that evil was America’s natural default position.
Among today’s liberal elite, bad faith in America is a sophistication, a kind of hipness. More importantly, it is the perfect formula for political and governmental power. It rationalizes power in the name of intervening against evil—I will use the government to intervene against the evil tendencies of American life (economic inequality, structural racism and sexism, corporate greed, neglect of the environment and so on), so I need your vote.
“Hope and Change” positioned Mr. Obama as a conduit between an old America worn down by its evil inclinations and a new America redeemed of those inclinations. There was no vision of the future in “Hope and Change.” It is an expression of bad faith in America, but its great ingenuity was to turn that bad faith into political motivation, into votes.
But there is a limit to bad faith as power, and Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party may have now reached that limit. The great weakness of bad faith is that it disallows American exceptionalism as a rationale for power. It puts Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great nation. They bet on America’s characterological evil and not on her sense of fairness, generosity or ingenuity.
Our great presidents have been stewards, men who broadly identified with the whole of America. Stewardship meant responsibility even for those segments of America where one might be reviled. Surely Mr. Obama would claim such stewardship. But he has functioned more as a redeemer than a steward, a leader who sees a badness in us from which we must be redeemed. Many Americans are afraid of this because a mandate as grandiose as redemption justifies a vast expansion of government. A redeemer can’t just tweak and guide a faltering economy; he will need a trillion- dollar stimulus package. He can’t take on health care a step at a time; he must do it all at once, finally mandating that every citizen buy in.
Next week’s election is, among other things, a referendum on the idea of president-as- redeemer. We have a president so determined to transform and redeem us from what we are that, by his own words, he is willing to risk being a one-term president. People now wonder if Barack Obama can pivot back to the center like Bill Clinton did after his set-back in ’94. But Mr. Clinton was already a steward, a policy wonk, a man of the center. Mr. Obama has to change archetypes.
Read the rest.
George Clooney is smart. He doesn’t care if his movies tank at the box office when they insult and take gratuitous shots at conservatives. He knows he’ll get the roles regardless. But Darfur is close to his heart and he doesn’t want to alienate his conservatives backers. Bill Maher, unlike Clooney, is just a talker, not a doer like Clooney, so it doesn’t matter who he offends as long as he has his clapping seals on board.
Islam will not achieve final victory over Christendom. Or so says a German scholar who is now taking tremendous heat for saying so. He warns of a violent end to Islam’s European adventure. I fear he is correct if we don’t dump this scourge of cultural Marxism right now.
“The majority in journalists in Europe come out of a Leftwing generation who clearly wanted to have a new human being mixed from different cultures of the world.”
NPR says they fired Juan Williams because he engaged in commentary and opinion, as opposed to “analysis”. That is a laughable claim, as I grew up listening to the likes of Daniel Schorr and Nina Totenberg give me their personal opinions in the guise of analysis (the “fine line” between the two is a journalistic fiction) for 20 years at NPR. But what if the firing of Juan Williams wasn’t just about his comments regarding Muslims at airports? What if there is more to this than just a simple case of PC run amok? Yes, I know his comments served to trigger his firing, but what if the rabbit hole goes a little deeper? There are so many insidious levels to this scandal.
A Witch Hunt for Bigots Singes American Media
“Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis, where you don’t address reality,” Juan Williams observed rather prophetically on Bill O’Reilly’s show Monday night, before he made the comments that got him fired from his assignment as senior news analyst for National Public Radio.
This is what Williams said: “I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. “Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America’s war, is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.”
Williams tempered those remarks with the caveat that President George W. Bush clearly stated that America is not at war with Islam. And: “Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy.”
Too late. Williams already had handed ammo to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad called on NPR to investigate Williams on Wednesday. In a statement Awad charged, “NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats.”
CAIR is an identity-politics organization that trolls for opportunities to take offense. Whenever anyone acknowledges the nexus between terrorism and radical Islam — not Islam, but radical Islam — CAIR cries foul. Wednesday afternoon within hours of the CAIR complaint, NPR rewarded CAIR’s campaign of intimidation with a scalp.
On Thursday, NPR President Vivian Schiller denied that the firing was about Fox News. I don’t buy that. As Politico reported last year, NPR tried to pressure political correspondent Mara Liasson to sever her ties as a commentator on “Fox News Sunday” and its “Special Report.” In 2009, NPR asked Williams to not use his NPR identification when appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor.” (Monday night, O’Reilly no doubt tweaked NPR management when he said to Williams, “You actually work for NPR, OK?”)Indeed, NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard told “Talk of the Nation” Thursday that the network should have given Williams an ultimatum — NPR or Fox News.
Eric Boehlert of the left-wing MediaMatters used Williams’ firing to call on NPR to sever its association with Liasson, as well. Wrote Boehlert, “I’m not suggesting Liasson has said anything as offensive as Williams, or that she has that kind of track record while appearing on Fox. I’m just saying that if you look at NPR’s code of ethics, there’s simply no way Liasson should be making appearances on Fox.”
What an insidious pursuit. MediaMatters lives to pillory Fox News for being too conservative — at the same time, it tries to drive moderate commentators off Fox programming.
MediaMatters doesn’t want balance on Fox News. MediaMatters doesn’t want an exchange of ideas. MediaMatters wants to push Fox further to the right. Its toxic tactics are designed to widen the left-right divide in America by marginalizing not only conservatives, but anyone who associates with conservatives.
Read the rest.
I said essentially the same thing months ago in defense of Fox News when NPR attacked them for being too partisan, while simultaneously criticizing Mara Laissan for appearing on Fox News to cover the leftwing flank on the issues. It seems the insular bubbleheads at tax-payer funded NPR see no irony whatsoever in accusing Fox of being biased—even as they tried to prevent Fox News from including Mara Liasson and Juan Williams on their panels. No irony whatsoever! Or maybe they do see the irony, but in their intellectual elitism expect the American public won’t. After Juan William’s firing, you better believe Mara will now be walking on eggshells at Fox. You better believe that other moderates and Liberals will think twice before accepting an invitation to appear with Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Bill O’reilly lest the Fox News “taint” rub off on them. And I suppose that was precisely the desired effect.
The Rightwing didn’t “hijack” the flag, mom and apple pie. The Left tossed it to the gutter. Via Ace:
If you’re just catching up to this story (like me)…on Wednesday at a candidate debate hosted by the Illinois League of Women Voters, the audience spontaneously decided at the beginning of the debate to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance. The debate moderator, Kathy Tate-Bradish, tried to stop them and then scolded them when they went ahead and did it anyway.
She then took the opportunity to complain vocally in the media that it was all the fault of throwback Republicans. According to Tate-Bradish, spontaneously saying the Pledge was just “phony patriotism.” YID with LID notes that [the speaker] Tate-Bradish (the hyphenated name should be a dead give-away) is a longtime Democratic activist who has been particularly active in the past few years.
“Culture jihad” or stealth jihad. Call it what you want, it’s real. CCHQ isn’t a faith blog, but I am a Christian and this one is just too good to ignore (good enough to get me fired from NPR).
As previously noted here, here, here, and here, when the Republicans lose elections they blame the Democrats (and conservatives blame Republicans). When the Democrats (and Liberals) lose elections they blame the American people. This is a decidedly Leftwing trait. Is this a surprise given they see themselves as “citizens of the world” internationalists, and therefore separate and distinct from, and superior to regular rube Americans like you and me? Back in my Lib days it was a given among my fellow travellers that the American people were stupid, and we took great delight in counting the ways. After all, they had decisively rejected Mondale and Dukakis! Even President Obama’s carefully calibrated language can’t hide his innately Liberal and elitist contempt for you. What can I say, they are anti-American. Nauseating.
Obama’s Dime Store Sociology
This recent story from Politico caught my attention.
President Barack Obama said Americans’ “fear and frustration” is to blame for an intense midterm election cycle that threatens to derail the Democratic agenda.
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”
Not the first time we’ve heard comments like this. Remember these comments about the Israeli people?
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that “some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.”
And who could forget this shot at the bitter clingers of small town Pennsylvania?
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
This kind of dime store sociological explanation is pretty common for the president, despite the fact that it landed him in hot water back in the spring of 2008. These comments have three traits in common.
(a) He doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. Obama might seem like a sociological expert, but he really just plays one on television. For instance, explaining the cultural conservatism of small town Pennsylvania as an artifact of economic decline sounds extremely ill-informed to anybody with at least passing familiarity of the subject.
(b) Hardships generate a false consciousness that always seems to manifest itself as irrational opposition to…Obama. As far as Obama is concerned, the fact that the country is disappointed with his performance is not a sign that he hasn’t done what he promised, but that the country is not thinking clearly.
(c) He turns fellow citizens into sociological subjects. It is one thing for a professor doing a study to treat other human beings as subjects; it’s another for the president of the United States to do it. There is a condescending, anti-republican quality to these statements. Rather than take opposition at face value – President Obama locates the hidden causes behind it, causes that his fellow citizens do not even understand themselves.
This is a terribly bad habit of President Obama’s. It comes across as arrogant and condescending, and it doesn’t do a thing to help persuade people.
This is HUGE. The West is waking from it’s Leftwing multicultural slumber. Angela Merkel isn’t some obscure member of parliament from a small and insignificant European country speaking here. As prime minister of Germany, she is essentially leader of the European Union. We’ve been ahead of the curve by almost a decade on this one, gentle readers. We called it. And now the elites are beginning to come around, and for that I believe Geert Wilders takes the credit. But is it too late?
Merkel says German multicultural society has failed
Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have “utterly failed”, Chancellor Angela Merkel says. In a speech in Potsdam, she said the so-called “multikulti” concept – where people would “live side-by-side” happily – did not work. Mrs Merkel’s comments come amid recent outpourings of strong anti-immigrant feeling from mainstream politicians. A recent survey showed that more than 30% of Germans believed Germany was “overrun by foreigners”.
The study – by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think-tank – also showed that roughly the same number thought that some 16 million of Germany’s immigrants or people with foreign origins had come to the country for the social benefits.
Mrs Merkel told a gathering of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party on Saturday that at “the beginning of the 60s our country called the foreign workers to come to Germany and now they live in our country… We kidded ourselves a while, we said: ‘They won’t stay, sometime they will be gone’, but this isn’t reality.
“And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed.” In her speech, the chancellor specifically referred to recent comments by German President Christian Wulff who said that Islam was “part of Germany” like Christianity and Judaism. While acknowledging that this was the case, Mrs Merkel stressed that immigrants living in Germany needed to do more to integrate, including learning to speak German. “Anyone who does not immediately speak German”, she said, “is not welcome”.
By speaking now, Mrs Merkel has now joined the increasingly hot debate on multiculturalism, coming down on the side of those who are uneasy about immigration, says the BBC’s correspondent in Berlin, Stephen Evans. Her comments come a week after she held talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in which the two leaders pledged to do more to improve the often poor integration record of Germany’s estimated 2.5 million-strong Turkish community.
Earlier this week, Horst Seehofer, the leader of the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, CSU, said about integration that it was “obvious that immigrants from different cultures like Turkey and Arab countries, all in all, find it harder”. “‘Multikulti’ is dead,” Mr Seehofer said.
Borders, language, culture (but not race). But is it too late? Can the inevitable be averted? Even if immigration from Muslim countries grinds to a standstill that would only slow the rate of Islamization because we still have Muslim fertility rates to deal with. What to do, what to do? The answer is integration and assimilation. No more apologizing for our traditions, culture and history. Embrace the familiar. No more multiculturalism. No more Leftist relativism. To immigrants– Westernize, or pack your bags and leave.
They tell us Hollywood just wants to make money. To the extent that’s true, they only make that kind of movie to underwrite financial losers like this. The anti-Christian Left has used Hollywood to wage their war of destruction on Christianity for the last 50 years or so. Thus far, the Nihilists have focused their efforts on safe and easy targets like evangelicals and the Pope. As a young Lib, I generally managed to find safe passage among the Left even though I was a Christian, but only after persuading them of the fact that I wasn’t “that kind of Christian”– meaning the kind of Christian that actually stands up to the Left’s culture-destroying agenda. The more passive brand of Christianity of which I was a member at the time generally had been spared the Leftist onslaught. But only temporarily it now turns out. With the character assassination of conservative Christianity thoroughly accomplished in the popular perception, it was only a matter of time before the Gramciist Left turned their sights on…Episcopalians? lol
Watch for ‘Crazy Christian’ Sucker Punches in ‘Stone’
If there’s one thing criminals generally do well, it’s instinctively spot another’s inner demons and then mess with their minds to exploit them. In “Stone” (in theaters now), that street psychologist is the incarcerated arsonist Gerald “Stone” Creeson (Edward Norton) and his prey is Jack Maybrey (Robert De Niro), the prison parole officer who will decide whether Stone gets out early or stays in the bar hotel for his full stretch. But while their mind game is going on between characters in front of the camera, there’s another one playing the audience from behind the lens. For the words the actors are saying and the situations they are in have been intentionally scripted by director John Curran and writer Angus MacLachlan to sell their own apparent nihilism, according to Norton at a Q&A I attended.
“John told me we have to do this film now while things are bad,” Norton said. “We have to show that traditional establishments like religion and marriage that people have relied on for truth have failed them.” Curran does that by showing those institutions as hypocrisies that are the refuge of hypocrites like Maybrey, a deeply flawed, nasty man who, in his heart, may be little better than the convicts he judges for early release.
A flashback prologue shows young Maybrey sitting in a Lazy Boy and sipping whiskey while watching golf on TV. When his wife says she’s leaving because “you imprison my soul” amid the buzz of a metaphorical angry bee swarm, Maybrey threatens to kill their baby daughter unless she promises to stay. She does. Thirty years later, Maybrey is still sipping whiskey in the same Lazy Boy and watching golf on the same TV — at least when he and his wife (Frances Conroy) aren’t attending Episcopalian church services and reading Bible verses to each other. In his car, in one of the believability disconnects that betray the Curran/MacLachlan agenda, Maybrey augments those passages by listening to the kind of “Brother Al’s Hellfire and Brimstone Belchin’ Beat the Hades Outa Beelzebub’s Sneaky Serpent Send Me Yo Money Church of the Almighty Me” radio that no High Whiskeypalian (whenever four are gathered in His name, there is a fifth) that I ever encountered during my years in that church would sit through.
Read the rest.