Counterculture Con HQ

July 10, 2011

Cultural elite Issues new Marching orders: Skip the Fourth of July

Fourth of July: Young Republicans on parade.

While Leftist elites admit below that patriotism makes people more conservative, our Leftist media will make damn sure it doesn’t make the news.

Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.  “Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from Harvard.

“The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,” write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.  “There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization,” the two wrote.

The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:

  • When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
  • It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
  • It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they’ll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

What’s more, the impact isn’t fleeting. “Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,”said the Harvard report.

Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.”

Source

Not to worry, Libs,  There’s always May Day!

So there you have it, another reason why the Left hates America, a fundamentally patriotic country.  Yet notice how Harvard says the Right has “appropriated” patriotism, as if conservative patriotism was devised as part of a concerted political strategy in a smoky back room.  The Left is fond of making this claim in order to explain their own disgust with patriotism, as well as other aspects of our cultural heritage, which comes back to bite them at the polls.  It’s those wily Republicans!  The truth is, the Right never appropriated patriotism, nor the flag, nor the Bible, nor any of those cultural traditions that we conservatives love to celebrate.  It’s the Left who has tossed them into the rubbish bin of history.  Indeed, the very notion of nation-state is contrary to Marxist dogma, and it simply bleeds over into Liberal scorn for patriotism, and even anti-Americanism.  Recall Michelle Obama’s interesting comment about pride in America?  But don’t you DARE question their patriotism!

America is the Great Experiment.  This is a country of immigrants, a mish mash of peoples from across the globe.  As a result, we have no common blood or culture to bind us together the way virtually every other country on Earth does.  We don’t even have an official language, thanks to our good Liberal friends who oppose any such efforts.  And if you ask them, we don’t even have a common religion, as they insist America is not a Christian nation.  So what makes us American?  Why, our history!  And the democratic and freedom-loving values we derive from that history.  This is what we celebrate on the Fourth of July.   And if we don’t commemorate that, then what’s left to bind us as Americans?

Nevertheless, the all-knowing cultural elite at Harvard has issued your new marching orders, and you, the good modern Lib that you are will simply accept them because they know best.  You got the memo, now follow it.

But what are all you old school JFK Liberals waiting for?  How much more evidence do you need before you finally realize today’s Democrat party is not the party of John Kennedy?  How much more proof do you need before you decide modern Liberalism is no longer your home and you jump ship?  I did.  So join me, the water’s warm over here!

January 1, 2011

Happy New Year: Bomb kills 21 at Egypt church

Copts: victims of Christophobia

HAPPY NEW YEAR! (same as the last year)

How’s this for “fresh starts”? I suppose these Copts had it coming to them (you know, just as those “little Eichmann’s” did on 9/11).   The likes of Katie Couric say America is an Islamophobic country on the verge of an anti-Muslim pogrom.  But don’t be fooled.  This is what a REAL backlash against besieged minorities looks like .

Suicide bomber kills 21 at Egyptian church

(Reuters) – A bomb killed at least 21 people outside a church in the Egyptian city of Alexandria early on New Year’s Day and the Interior Ministry said a foreign-backed suicide bomber may have been responsible. Dozens of people were wounded by the blast, which scattered body parts, destroyed cars and smashed windows. The attack prompted Christians to protest on the streets, and some Christians and Muslims hurled stones at each other.

Mubarak promised in a televised address that terrorists would not destabilize Egypt or divide Christians and Muslims. He said the attack “carries evidence of the involvement of foreign fingers” and vowed to pursue the perpetrators.  A statement on an Islamist website posted about two weeks before the blast called for attacks on Egypt’s churches, listing among them the one hit. No group was named in the statement.

“There are people who want this country to be unstable, and all fingers point to outside hands being behind this incident,” senior group member Mohamed el-Katatni said.  The circumstances of the attack, compared with other incidents abroad, “clearly indicates that foreign elements undertook planning and execution,” the Interior Ministry said.

An Iraqi deputy interior minister, Hussein Kamal, urged Arab states to cooperate in the fight against terrorism and to help stop Arab militants training in Iraq and then returning home.  Health Ministry spokesman Abdel Rahman Shahin said 21 people had been confirmed killed so far and 97 were wounded, the official Middle East News Agency reported.

Source

November 20, 2010

Elitism: Liberals thinks you’re morons

Never fails. When Republicans lose elections they blame the Democrats.  When Democrats lose elections they blame the American people.  This is a decidedly Leftwing trait.  But remember, they’re all about “helping” you (even though they despise you).

UPDATE: Here Joe Biden says President Obama’s problem is he’s so brilliant (meaning of course, it’s you who are the morons).  And who could forget candidate Obama’s “smart power”.  They really, really do think they’re some kind of genius.

November 16, 2010

American Empire: Afghan Mineral Rights go to Japan

That’s some empire.  More proof that the democracies installed by American military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t “puppets”, but sovereign countries exercising control over their own resources.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said this week that Japan — not the U.S. — takes priority over other nations when it comes to mining his country’s vast mineral deposits.

Karzai made his proclamation during a five-day visit to Japan. Over that same time period, news reports surfaced that Afghanistan and Pakistan planned to negotiate with U.S.-NATO enemies, the U.N. reported that insurgent violence is surging, and Reuters tried to parse the Pentagon’s mixed messages over U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.

During an appearance at the Japan Institute of International Affairs, Karzai focused on his country’s mineral deposits. He pointed to Japan’s status as Afghanistan’s second-biggest donor, and reasoned that Japan should enjoy special access to Afghan resources with estimated values that range from $1-3 trillion dollars.

“Morally, Afghanistan should give access as a priority to those countries that have helped Afghanistan massively in the past few years,” Karzai told the institute.  “What . . . we have to reciprocate with is this opportunity of mineral resources, that we must return at the goodwill of the Japanese people by giving Japan priority to come and explore and extract,” Karzai said.

Looking to the future, Karzai echoed an internal Pentagon memo and said that the mining will define Afghanistan, “Whereas Saudi Arabia is the oil capital of the world, Afghanistan will be the lithium capital of the world…. And Japan is welcome to participate in the lithium exploration in Afghanistan.”

An analysis by The New York Times would suggest that the vast majority of Afghans should not share Karzai’s optimism about the deposits:

Source

First, Iraqi oil rights that go to China, France, and Norway instead of to us.  Now Afghan mineral rights that go to Japan.   So where is all that cheap oil from Iraq we were promised by the anti-war Left, anyway?  Where are the Afghan oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea?  And now they tell us we have to buy our lithium from frikin Japan?  That is outrageous.  Where are my spoils of war?  Where is my loot?  Where are my barbarian sex slaves?  What kind of an empire is this anyway?  Will those Leftists so fond of branding America an “empire” modify their narrative in the face of so many inconvenient truths?  Not in the slightest.  That’s their anti-American story, and they’re sticking to it.

Middle Schooler Told to Remove American Flag from Bike

Want more proof modern Liberalism is a cultural disease?  Here the multiculturalists order a middle schooler, a child, to remove a small American flag from his bike because it might “stir racial tension.”  On Veteran’s Day.

DENAIR – 13-year-old Cody Alicea rides with an American flag on the back of his bike. He says he does this to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He’s had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was asked told to take it down.

A school official at Denair Middle School told Cody some students had been complaining about the flag and it was no longer allowed on school property.
[…]
Cody’s grandfather says the school was concerned about racial tensions or uprisings because of the flag. He feels if there was really a problem it should have been brought up two months ago, not during Veterans week.

Source

God bless America.  Here’s how some in the community chose to respond to this madness.

November 14, 2010

The Post-American President

Shellacked and shellshocked.

I am a JFK Liberal– what today we call “conservative.”  This was American Liberalism before the Frankfurt School sunk its moral and cultural relativist hooks into it and transformed the Liberalism of our youth into an ideology of decline, mired in self-loathing and doubt after the Great Wars shattered any further illusions that modernity would usher in an era of Earthly paradise.  They would avoid another apocalypse by “not taking sides.”  To a question about American exceptionalism, President Obama uncomfortably and awkwardly answered that he believes in American exceptionalism the way the Greeks and Brits believe in their own exceptionalism (except the Greeks don’t believe in their exceptionalism unless they’re speaking about the ancient Greeks).  By equating it with mere “national pride,” this was a roundabout way of telling his European audience that he does not believe in American exceptionalism.  An answer you’d expect from a detached college professor, not our nation’s leader.  That’s why I believe the Obama presidency will fail.  Notwithstanding his own self-serving autobiographies, the book has not yet been written on the Age of Obama.  Nevertheless, it’s not looking very good at this point– and not because he is less than innately brilliant as a human being (though modern Liberalism certainly does make you more stupid). But because, well– as a child of the Left–  he can’t and won’t embrace Americanism. He won’t take sides.

No Camelot 2.0: The decline of liberal idealism

For the now aging partisans of Camelot, November is a month of anniversaries. It was 50 years ago last week when John F. Kennedy was elected to the presidency as the sophisticated champion of the new liberalism. And it was 47 years ago next week that the dreams of Camelot were cruelly snuffed out on the streets of Dallas.

The dual anniversaries signify the extreme emotions of hope and despair that recollections of the Kennedy years still provoke among those whose political outlooks were shaped during that era. They are one reason why we have yet to find closure as to the meaning of the Kennedy presidency. Still viewed from extreme and shifting perspectives, JFK’s administration has yet to come into clear focus. Nor, according to some, is Camelot yet a thing of the past. For nearly 50 years it has inspired hopes in many that Kennedy’s spirit eventually will be renewed in the person of some new champion.

Thus it was that Barack Obama came to the presidency two years ago amid breathless expectations that he would restore the spirit of Camelot and revive the fortunes of liberalism. Much as happened with JFK, Obama’s admirers showered him with superlatives out of proportion to his actual accomplishments. The Camelot legend, if it had been studied and its lessons taken to heart, might have proved a cautionary tale about the consequences of excessive ambition and of successes gained too early and without effort. The Arthurian tale, after all, does not have a “lived happily ever after” ending.

Nor, as things are beginning to look, will the Obama presidency. The “shellacking” his party took in the midterm elections has killed off all hopes that he will preside over a renewal of any kind, unless it is a renewal of conservatism in response to his missteps and miscalculations. Rarely in the past has a president been so sharply rebuked by the voters in a midterm election. Nor has a president ever squandered so quickly the kinds of political advantages that Obama carried with him into office. Understandably, then, the references to Camelot and to JFK are not much heard these days.

Obama might have learned a thing or two from the real JFK as opposed to the idealized image of the man that took shape after his death. The posthumous references to Kennedy’s idealism have obscured the fact that he was a politician of exceptional skill for whom persuasion and compromise were keys to success. He never wanted to get too far ahead of public opinion, nor did he try to ram through controversial legislation on partisan votes. Though elected by a razor-thin margin in 1960, Kennedy managed to gain a stalemate for his party in the 1962 midterm elections. He was still widely popular in late 1963 when he embarked on that visit to Texas. Had he lived, he undoubtedly would have won reelection by a comfortable margin.

In truth, the Camelot ideal never fit Obama, who brought to the presidency a sense of ambivalence about the American future and America’s role in the world. It is hard to play the role of inspiring leader while counseling one’s citizens to scale back their expectations. While President Obama is capable of eloquence, his attempts often fall short because they are accompanied by an undertow of caution and pessimism.

It is hard to imagine Obama saying, as Kennedy did, that “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Such bold calls to arms were perfectly consistent with the Liberalism of Kennedy’s time, but for many reasons are at odds with the Liberalism of today. For better or worse, Obama’s ambitions do not approach the high ideals of Camelot—and he and his admirers might be better off if they acknowledged that.

Read the rest.

November 12, 2010

FBI: More hate crimes against Jews, Christians than against Muslims

This one deserves CCHQ’s front page again given the hits it’s been getting.  After 20 years spent driving Christianity out of the public square, Progressives finally found a religion they can stand behind.  According to Time magazine, America is an Islamophobic country.  The article makes every effort to prove its case against the American people, but doesn’t lift a finger to understand the reasons why you might be afraid of Islam.  That kind of empathetic “nuance” they reserve only for our enemies and for their precious “the other”, especially when it can be used to further their Leftwing agenda.

But this time they may have a point.  Certainly in my own case, Islam scares the daylights out of me.  I canna tell a lie.  Islam is an expansionist, imperialist, totalitarian ideology, and history attests to this fact.  So there’s a real reason why folks are scared.  It’s not just “racism.”  That doesn’t mean I hate Muslims or treat them any differently than I would somebody else– any more than I would have treated a Russian less humanely during the Cold War.  In fact, I believe Islam should be viewed as we did Communism during the Cold War– as an existential threat to Western civilization.  The Constitution prevents us from discriminating on the basis of religion, so our response to this threat will be severely limited.  But that shouldn’t blind us to the threat Islam poses to the West either.

Yet despite our fear of Islamization, it doesn’t follow that we are going to chase Muslims down in the street and lynch them on sight.  They are as safe in our cities as your average Russian was during the Cold War.  And FBI statistics bear that out.

This morning there was a report that a cab driver in New York was stabbed because he was Muslim. While the facts are still emerging, all reasonable people can agree this is a shameful and un-American act if this proves to be true.

This incident will undoubtedly be used by the media to further push the narrative that the controversy over the Mosque near Ground Zero in New York shows how Americans are bigoted against Muslims. So here’s some clarifying info from the FBI. According to the latest hate crime statistics available, there were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008.  A closer look shows 65.7 percent of them were committed against Jews. Against Muslims? 7.7 percent.

Depending on which population estimates you accept for Muslims (anywhere between 4 and 7 million), hate crimes are committed against Jews at a rate three to eight times greater than against Muslims. Yet something tells me that despite all these hard numbers — as opposed to Time’sanecdotal evidence” –  that magazine is not going to run a cover anytime soon asking, “Is America Anti-Semitic?

After 9/11, there was a quick spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes — there were 28 in 2000, then 155 in 2002. In 2008, there were 123.  Even one hate crime is too many, but consider: Between 2 and 4 of every 100,000 Muslims was a hate crime victim in 2008. The murder rate in D.C. last year was about 24 for every 100,000 residents.

Another interesting data point: 4.7 percent of hate crimes in 2008 were motivated by anti-Catholic bias. Another 3.7 percent were anti-Protestant. So from a raw numbers perspective, there were more hate crimes against Christians in America in 2008 than there were against Muslims. Given our large Christian population, it’s true that each Christian is far less likely to be victimized, but the numbers still show that religious haters have not been singling out Muslims.

November 6, 2010

Senator Marco Rubio on American Exceptionalism

Filed under: Anti-Americanism, Conservatism, Tea Party — Tags: — Jesusland @ 14:32

Tea Party Senator Marco Rubio is young and untested, and not yet presidential material.  But he will be someday.  The GOP continues to push black and hispanic elected officials to the forefront, and nothing would put the Dem race baiting to rest faster than electing our first hispanic president.  The Left wants you to believe the American experiment makes our country no more special than Greece. But listen to what Marco Rubio says. Keep believing, America!

October 28, 2010

Modern Liberalism’s “bad faith in America”

Black Teabbager Shelby Steel

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.

October 24, 2010

Leftist Scolds Audience over Pledge of Allegiance

The Rightwing didn’t “hijack” the flag, mom and apple pie.  The Left tossed it to the gutter.  Via Ace:

Figures.

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.

Source

October 18, 2010

The Elitism of the Left

President Obama to Americans: you are morons

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.

Source

August 29, 2010

Contempt for the Familiar: Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting

This explains everything.  OIKO-PHOBIA:  contempt for the familiar.  From the Greek ‘oikos’, meaning family or household.  The opposite of Xenophobia, fear of the unfamiliar.  Why the Left’s invocation of “the other” has become such simple-minded cliche:

[Charles] Krauthammer writes that “the Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November,” and no one will credit him for boldness in that prediction. Some may disagree with his reckoning as to the reason for that likely loss: that “a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.”

What is the nature of this contempt? In part it is the snobbery of the cognitive elite, exemplified by a recent New York Times Web column by Timothy Egan called “Building a Nation of Know-Nothings”–or by the viciousness directed at Sarah Palin, whose folksy demeanor and state-college background seem terribly déclassé not just to liberals but to a good number of conservatives in places like New York City.

In more cerebral moments, the elitists of the left invoke a kind of Marxism Lite to explain away opinions and values that run counter to their own. Thus Barack Obama’s notorious remark to the effect that economic deprivation embitters the proles, so that they cling to guns and religion. (Ironically, Obama recently said through a spokesman that he is Christian.)  Here’s Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s labor secretary, explaining “The Anatomy of Intolerance” to readers of TalkingPointsMemo.com:

Many Americans (and politicians who [sic] the polls) don’t want a mosque at Manhattan’s Ground Zero. . . .

Where is all this coming from?

It’s called fear. When people are deeply anxious about holding on to their homes, their jobs, and their savings, they look for someone to blame. And all too often they find it in “the other”–in people who look or act differently, who come from foreign lands, who have what seem to be strange religions, who cross our borders illegally. . . .

Economic fear is the handmaiden of intolerance. It’s used by demagogues who redirect the fear and anger toward people and groups who aren’t really to blame but are easy scapegoats.

So if some Americans are afraid of people “who have what seem to be strange religions,” it must be a totally irrational reaction to “economic insecurity.” It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with an act of mass murder committed in the name of the religion in question.

And Reich doesn’t just fail to see the obvious. He dehumanizes his fellow Americans by treating their values, feelings and opinions as no more than reflexive reactions to material conditions. Americans in fact are a very tolerant people. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was no serious backlash against Muslims. What makes them angry–what makes us angry–is the bigotry of the elites.

The Ground Zero mosque is an affront to the sensibilities of ordinary Americans. “The center’s association with 9/11 is intentional and its location is no geographic coincidence,” as the Associated Press has reported. That Americans would find this offensive is a matter of simple common sense. The liberal elites cannot comprehend common sense, and, incredibly, they think that’s a virtue. After all, common sense is so common.

The British philosopher Roger Scruton has coined a term to describe this attitude:  ” What a perfect description of the pro-mosque left.  oikophobia. Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: “the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’

Scruton was writing in 2004, and his focus was on Britain and Europe, not America. But his warning about the danger of oikophobes–whom he amusingly dubs “oiks”–is very pertinent on this side of the Atlantic today, and it illuminates how what are sometimes dismissed as mere matters of “culture” tie in with economic and social policy:

The oik repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed on us from on high by the EU or the UN, though without troubling to consider Terence’s question, and defining his political vision in terms of universal values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.

The oik is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of the oik that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it. The explosive effect of this has already been felt in Holland and France. It will be felt soon everywhere, and the result may not be what the oiks expect.

There is one important difference between the American oik and his European counterpart. American patriotism is not a blood-and-soil nationalism but an allegiance to a country based in an idea of enlightened universalism. Thus our oiks masquerade as–and may even believe themselves to be–superpatriots, more loyal to American principles than the vast majority of Americans, whom they denounce as “un-American” for feeling an attachment to their actual country as opposed to a collection of abstractions.

Yet the oiks’ vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . .”

This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false. That is why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.

Source

August 27, 2010

The ACLU is PRO-Al Qaida

Here Bill O’reilly interviews a Gitmo lawyer about the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Obama administration for their drone war against Al-Qaida.  This is what anti-Americanism looks like.  Of course, cloaked in the kind of arrogant and self-deceptive moral posturing that allows the do-gooders to believe they are better people than the rest of us.  It’s a self-image I recognize well from growing up on the Left.

August 5, 2010

PROGRESSIVE: Massachusetts School District Allows Pledge of Allegiance

Progressive school district in Massachusetts relents and “allows” the pledge of allegiance to be recited again.  But just barely.

Students at Massachusetts high schools in Arlington can rejoice — they’ll be allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance this fall. Nearly two months after deadlocking on a proposal by senior Sean Harrington, the Arlington Public School Committee unanimously approved a new pledge policy on Tuesday night that allows principals at each school to determine how the pledge will be recited each day.

“Yes, the policy has been changed,” Arlington High School Principal Charles Skidmore told FoxNews.com in an email. “All principals in the district must ensure that the Pledge of Allegiance is said every school day in all classrooms.”

In June, Harrington appeared to have won his fight to bring the Pledge of Allegiance back into Arlington High School, but Skidmore, offered to allow students to recite the pledge before school begins and in the school’s foyer instead of inside the classrooms, as 17-year-old Harrington had hoped.

Skidmore now says he’s pleased with the new policy and especially the process that led up to it.

“As a result of the controversy, I heard from many people both across the country and in our community who wanted the Pledge restored to our school. That’s all I was ever looking for on this issue — widespread community buy-in so that students would feel that they wanted to say the Pledge, not just that they had to,” he said.

No student, teacher or administrator will be required to participate in a recitation, an Arlington High School official confirmed to FoxNews.com.

Harrington presented school officials with a petition signed by 700 people, along with letters of support from lawmakers including Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. But the request to have the pledge recited failed when the committee’s vote ended in a 3-3 tie.

“I was really heartbroken,” Harrington told Fox News Radio in June. “It’s hard to think that something so traditional in American society was turned down.”  Harrington, who could not be immediately reached for comment on Wednesday, said months ago that he did not intend to stop pushing for the Pledge of Allegiance until it was allowed in his classrooms.

Source

August 2, 2010

Howard Zinn Lied to Hide Communist Party Membership, FBI Files Reveal

Filed under: Academia, Anti-Americanism, Education, marxism — Tags: — Jesusland @ 00:08

Ah, the halls of Academia.  This should come as a shock to absolutely nobody.  From The Other McCain:

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document drop on the Left’s favorite anti-American historian:

On July 30, 2010, the FBI released one file with three sections totaling 423 pages on Howard Zinn, a best selling radical historian, teacher, playwright, and political activist.

Zinn was born in Brooklyn, New York and died at the age of 87 on January 27, 2010. As a young man he worked as a shipyard hand and served in the U. S. military as a bombardier during World War II. Returning from the war, he became involved in a number of left-wing political causes, some of them associated with the activities of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA).

In 1949, the FBI opened a domestic security investigation on Zinn (FBI File # 100-360217). The Bureau noted Zinn’s activities in what were called Communist Front Groups and received informant reports that Zinn was an active member of the CPUSA; Zinn denied ever being a member when he was questioned by agents in the 1950s. In the 1960s, the Bureau took another look at Zinn on account of his criticism of the FBI’s civil rights investigations. Further investigation was made when Zinn traveled to North Vietnam with Daniel Berrigan as an anti-war activist. The investigation ended in 1974, and no further investigation into Zinn or his activities was made by the FBI.

What is important to note here is that Zinn evidently joined the Kremlin-controlled CPUSA not during the “Popular Front” era of the 1930s — when many idealists were seduced — but after Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in which Stalin cruelly and cynically sacrificed Poland to the Nazis. Zinn was a card-carrying Commie who advocated Marxism-Leninism after the Red Army’s ”Iron Curtain” occupation of Eastern Europe, the 1939 after the treachery of the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss had been revealed, and even during the height of Stalin’s anti-Semitic “Doctors’ Plot” purge!

Read the rest.

July 29, 2010

Chris “Tingles” Matthews: Arizona Ruling a Windfall for GOP

It’s the nature of politics that a loss for America is a win for the party out of power. It was true when Harry Reid (D) famously wished for our defeat in the Iraq, and it’s true with Arizona’s defeat in that courtroom yesterday.  America’s loss guarantees the GOP is going to seriously kick some in November.

“It [immigration] is a killer issue for the Democrats this fall, and a huge windfall for the Right.  It will anger even those people who believe the Arizona law went too far.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

July 12, 2010

New Black Panther’s Malik Shabazz Praises Bin Laden

Attorney General Eric Holder– the guy who called us a “nation of cowards” on racial matters– sues Arizona, but lets these guys off the hook:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

They aren’t being prosecuted solely on the basis of their race– they are black, while the complainants are white.

But this is a voter intimidation case– Democrats blocking Republicans from a polling station– not a hate crime.  That’s all this really is when it comes right down to it.  It was never about race until Holder’s DOJ dropped the case based solely on race.  The case was already won on a default judgment.  Race should not even have come into play here.  But it does!  And that’s because the Left sees everything through the filter of race.  They take what should have been a simple voter intimidation case and reduce it to race. Oh, I know the Black Panthers are racist, but their racism isn’t a crime.  Their racism isn’t what’s on trial here– their illegal acts at that polling station is.  That’s the issue here– voter intimidation.  But the ideologues within the DOJ decided to make it about race, and when they did that, the outcome was inevitable.  It had to be buried.

So choose which vision of America you will serve, gentle readers– a color blind vision for America, or a RACE-OBSESSED one that divides people along racial lines and then picks the winners and losers.


July 11, 2010

New Black Panthers Behind Closed Doors

1) New Black Panthers, 2) Democratic Party collusion, 3) mainstream media blackout.  A perfect storm of modern Liberalism.

July 9, 2010

What’s So Great About America – Race Relations

What’s your operating assumption about America?  That’s the country you will find.  Another segment from John Stossel’s What’s Great About America.

July 7, 2010

What’s Great About America – Its generosity

When you love something, you find the good in it, and vice versa when you don’t.  That’s true of people, and it’s true of countries.  Thus more from John Stossel’s Fox News special, What’s Great About America.

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.