Ever wondered why Israel is always in the news, and why the U.N. has condemned this tiny country more than it has all the tyrannies of the world combined? It’s pretty obvious why the Arabs hate Israel. They hate Israel because of the Jews. But why does the Left also treat this tiny Jewish state as an international pariah? Look no further than this little presentation below for the answer.
October 17, 2011
October 11, 2011
Yeah, these people are EXACTLY like the Tea Party, right Joe?
“You Can Have Sex With Animals”
These people are freaking weirdos.
These guys aren’t in church, but here’s more proof Liberalism is a religion. Listen to the way they mindlessly parrot him. The speaker recites his dogma, and his Leftist drones repeat on faith, just like a liturgy. Reminds me of church. But at least in church we knew what the pastor/speaker was going to recite, and then we’d respond. As members of that church we had already agreed beforehand on a statement of faith. But these pod people just repeat after him, blindly, cult like, even when he’s just spouting puerile and obscene inanities. What’s worse is the speaker had no doubt his “have sex with animals” comment would be a big hit with this group, and they seem to agree! Blows my mind that once upon a time I would have thought it fun and cool to rub elbows with this secular progressive mob.
I don’t like to make fun of a group of people based on their fringe elements, but these people aren’t this group’s fringe, this is secular progressivism. And what do these people ultimately WANT? I still haven’t a clue! Though I suspect communism. I am open to correction if any of them would like to pipe in and set the record straight.
October 9, 2011
Sure Joe, the “Occupy” protests are just like the Tea Party. Uh huh.
If they aren’t getting arrested for storming police lines, or defecating on cop cars, or vandalizing police property, or attacking the Air and Space museum, they’re pulling weird collectivist, New Age crap like this! Watch the whole thing. That is some bizarre shyte right there. But what do the kooks WANT, you ask? I still haven’t the slightest clue. lol
October 1, 2011
Yet more proof that everything the Left does advances the clock of civilizational collapse. I only had to read the headline to instantly realize the Left’s fingerprints were all over this one.
Mexico mulls 2-year marriage
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses. Leftists in the city’s assembly — who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage — proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime. The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits. “The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill.
“You wouldn’t have to go through the tortuous process of divorce,” said Luna, from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, which has the most seats in the 66-member chamber. Luna says the proposed law is gaining support and he expects a vote by the end of this year. Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years. The bustling capital, one of the world’s largest cities, is much more liberal than the rest of the country, where the divorce rate is significantly lower although on the rise.
Abortion is legal in Mexico City, while the Supreme Court ruled this week to uphold state laws in Baja California that say life begins at conception. Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, who angered the Catholic Church when he made Mexico City the first Latin American city to legalize gay marriage in late 2009, announced this month he would soon step down to run for president. The church criticized the proposed change. “This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage,” said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese. “It’s another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral.” The Church holds considerable sway in the country with the world’s second largest Catholic population after Brazil.
Hurray! Divorce is even more hassle-free now. So why are they doing this, you ask? Because it promotes statism and the secular progressive value system. This simultaneous promotion of gay marriage while undermining traditional marriage is all part of a larger plan in furtherance of their secular progressive utopia. Leftism has always hated the institution of marriage as an instrument of oppression and the status quo. They call it “the Patriarchy.” Gay activist and atheist Martha C. Nussbaum puts it this way:
Gays and lesbians are a symbol, in much of the public imagination, for sex without reproduction, for the decoupling of marriage from commitment to raising a family in the traditional way, which has certainly been a male-dominated way. …The connection between recognition of gay unions and the erosion of traditional marriage is that if sex is thought to be available outside of the marriage bond, women will have fewer incentives to embark upon marriage and child rearing, and may not wish to do so if marriage continues to be a largely patriarchal and unequal institution.
Wow, that’s pretty blatant stuff. You won’t often hear it so candidly put. So it’s no coincidence that the same Mexican Leftists who legalized gay marriage in Mexico City are also behind this temporary idiocy. And who suffers the consequences of these broken marriages of convenience in a country without a safety net such as Mexico? Why, the children! The children who then require the State to intervene as their surrogate daddy lest they end up on the streets and starve to death. And if no such paternalistic state currently exists, why, then it shall be created! See how they operate? And now you know the ultimate reason why these Marxists are trying to destroy marriage and the “patriarchy.”
And of course, this is happening right under our noses but the dots aren’t being connected, so nobody even notices or cares.
UPDATE: Even the Huffington Post is now weighing in on this AWEMAZING idea! And don’t neglect the comments section there which is always a pretty good barometer of just how far gone those people are.
January 13, 2011
Western academics have never shown much interest in studying Communism beyond the abstract and theoretical. The fall of the Soviet Union opened up 70 years of classified documents and files for their inspection, which they have largely ignored. Perhaps it’s because they’re afraid of what they might find, such as the infamous Venona Files declassified after the fall of the Soviet Union, and which essentially affirm Joe McCarthy’s so-called paranoia about KGB infiltration into American institutions and society. Alger Hiss was a spy. True, ol’ tail-gunner Joe may have gotten some names wrong, and he implicated a few innocent people, but he was onto something. The documents prove it. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Western academics largely ignore the treasure trove placed at their disposal in the post-Soviet era. The crimes and atrocities of the 20th Century committed in the name of Communism and Atheism have largely been ignored by Academia and their pop culture missionaries in Hollywood and the Media. I believe the reason for this is their fear that it would reflect negatively on the Western Left, and thereby strengthen the Right. They don’t want the Right to use “Stalin” against them the way they use “Hitler” against the Right. It’s not an accident, therefore, that Stalin is absent in an iconic sense from the Western psyche (even after 50 years of cold war), while the name “Hitler” has been mythologized as the embodiment of all that is depraved and evil in the world. In this way they get to call you “Hitler” and “Nazi”, and you get to call them…Well, nothing. Thus, Stalin, despite a body count far exceeding that of the Nazis, does not hold a candle to Der Fuehrer in the evil department. The result is that even after nearly 50 years of Cold War with the Soviet Union, and despite most of their files thrown open for all to inspect for nearly 20 years now, academic interest in communism/marxism continues to be relegated to the theoretical, not the historical.
A Hidden History of Evil
In the world’s collective consciousness, the word “Nazi” is synonymous with evil. It is widely understood that the Nazis’ ideology—nationalism, anti-Semitism, the autarkic ethnic state, the Führer principle—led directly to the furnaces of Auschwitz. It is not nearly as well understood that Communism led just as inexorably, everywhere on the globe where it was applied, to starvation, torture, and slave-labor camps. Nor is it widely acknowledged that Communism was responsible for the deaths of some 150 million human beings during the twentieth century. The world remains inexplicably indifferent and uncurious about the deadliest ideology in history.
For evidence of this indifference, consider the unread Soviet archives. Pavel Stroilov, a Russian exile in London, has on his computer 50,000 unpublished, untranslated, top-secret Kremlin documents, mostly dating from the close of the Cold War. He stole them in 2003 and fled Russia. Within living memory, they would have been worth millions to the CIA; they surely tell a story about Communism and its collapse that the world needs to know. Yet he can’t get anyone to house them in a reputable library, publish them, or fund their translation. In fact, he can’t get anyone to take much interest in them at all.
Read the rest.
December 25, 2010
The Norks hate Christmas trees too! Remind you of somebody? lol
SOUTH Korea says a giant Christmas tree near the North Korean border will stay lit up till January 8 – a move likely to anger Pyongyang since the date marks the birthday of its heir apparent. The communist North sees the tree topped with a glowing cross as a provocative propaganda symbol.
The tree – a 29-metre metal tower strung with light bulbs – was lit up on Tuesday for the first time in seven years as marines stood guard against any cross-border attack on it. The tree, atop a military-controlled hill near the tense land border, was due to be switched off on December 26.
”However, we have decided to keep it until early January 8, in consideration of requests from religious groups,” defence ministry spokesman Kim Min-Seok told a briefing. ”At first, we planned to keep the lighting on only briefly because of (military) burdens but we had second thoughts as it may send a message of peace to the North.”
September 22, 2010
NEW YORK (AFP) – Fidel Castro, the longtime president and leftist icon who stepped aside during a health crisis but still leads the Cuban Communist Party, has told a reporter that Israel definitely has the right to exist. “Yes it does, without a doubt,” Castro, 84, told visiting US journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic magazine, according to a new article published Wednesday.
In the same interview Castro criticized Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and said in an interview Tehran should acknowledge Israel’s fears for its own survival. Asked if Cuba was ready to establish diplomatic ties with Israel, Fidel Castro said that those things took time, the report added.
“This went on for maybe two thousand years,” Castro was quoted as saying. “I don’t think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything.”
“In my judgment here’s what happened to them: Reverse selection. What’s reverse selection? Over 2,000 years they were subjected to terrible persecution and then to the pogroms. One might have assumed that they would have disappeared; I think their culture and religion kept them together as a nation.”
Castro’s conciliatory words of late about Israel come as a surprise, but they shouldn’t. The Left used to support Israel back in the day when they were still seen as socialist kibbutzim underdogs. Then all that started to change when Israel began winning unwinnable wars and embracing capitalism. But Fidel, like all those cars from the 50’s they still drive around in Cuba, is stuck in a timewarp. His views on Israel have not evolved with those of the transnational Left who want to see Israel destroyed as a state.
August 2, 2010
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 5, 2010
They claim to be “citizens of the world.” But whatever you do, do NOT question their patriotism!
Conservatives are more than twice as likely as liberals to express very strong patriotism, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll in which 48 percent of conservatives said they were “extremely patriotic,” but only 19 percent of liberals made that claim.
The poll asked respondents this question: “How patriotic are you? Would you say extremely patriotic, very patriotic, somewhat patriotic, or not especially patriotic?” The poll surveyed a random sample of 1,014 adults from June 11-13, and the margin of error was plus-or-minus 4 percentage points.
Overall, 72 percent of Americans said they were either extremely (32 percent) or very patriotic (42 percent), with another 19 percent saying they were somewhat patriotic. Only 6 percent said they were “not especially patriotic.”
No big surprise here. Patriotism is akin to Nazism to Leftists in the know. It was the punchline to their jokes at cocktail parties back in my Lib days. Patriotism is right up there with religion as the opium of the masses. It is antithetical to their utopian project on so many levels. Patriotism divides the workers of the world, rather than unite them. It’s how the likes of Haliburton and Dick Cheney get us into wars of intervention. Conservative patriotism towards America is as suspect to a Leftist as is a N. Korean’s patriotism towards the Fatherland. The object of their patriotism is irrelevant when patriotism itself is the enemy. But just don’t question a Leftist’s patriotism (in public).
July 2, 2010
Leftists of all stripes are led by the nosering by what Lenin called the “Vanguard party.” They were (and are) the small ideological, intellectual elite at the forefront of the Marxist revolution. Lenin believed that “the masses” could not conscienticize themselves on the complexities of Marxism because they were too busy laboring for a living. Therefore, the task of revolution would fall to this highly committed and disciplined intellectual global vanguard elite. Today, with the fall of the Soviet Union, Marxism no longer has a homeland, yet it nevertheless continues to thrive in exile as a transnational movement. The Vanguard Party, too, is transnational, and was therefore largely unaffected by the Soviet collapse. Lenin’s Vanguard Party was not, as you might imagine, the stuff of cloak and dagger intrigue, with agents receiving direct orders from the Kremlin via dead drops and invisible ink. Rather, it was (and is) an intellectual elite operating pretty much in the open as academics, publishers, activists, and within Leftist elements of the Church. They remain as active today as when Lenin coined the term. Here, Rev. Jeremiah Wright speaks to his fellow travellers of the Vanguard party about the evils of capitalism and its largest earthly institution, America. He uses terms like the hungry, the have-nots, the dispossessed, the “least of these”, racism, etc. All fine words, but as dissonant to my ears coming from the likes of Jeremiah Wright as the words liberty, freedom, faith, patriotism, and God bless America, etc., are to Rev. Wright coming from a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.
Rev. Wright: “Land of the greed, and home of the slave.”
Darling of the Western Left, Hugo Chavez, pulls a Robert Mugabe and nationalizes the enemy (private industry).
Venezuela to nationalize U.S. firm’s oil rigs
CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela will nationalize a fleet of oil rigs belonging to U.S. company Helmerich and Payne, the latest takeover in a push to socialism as President Hugo Chavez struggles with lower oil output and a recession.
A former soldier inspired by Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Chavez has made energy nationalization the linchpin in his ‘revolution’. He has also taken over assets in telecommunications, power, steel and banking.
The 11 drilling rigs have been idled for months following a dispute over pending payments by the OPEC member’s state oil company PDVSA. Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said on Wednesday the rigs, the Oklahoma-based company’s entire Venezuelan fleet, were being nationalized to bring them back into production.
Ramirez said companies that refused to put their rigs into production were part of a plan to weaken Chavez’s government. “There is a group of drill owners that has refused to discuss tariffs and services with PDVSA and have preferred to keep this equipment stored for a year,” Ramirez told reporters in the oil producing state of Zulia. “That is the specific case with U.S. multinational Helmerich and Payne.”
The 55-year-old leader is having a hard time in his 11th year in power. Venezuela’s economy is the worst performing in Latin America this year, a problem exacerbated by a drop in oil output since 2008, power outages and soaring inflation.
The takeover of Helmerich and Payne’s rigs was not a surprise, considering Chavez penchant for nationalizations and the company’s refusal to work before being paid the $49 million it has invoiced PDVSA.
Chavez has kept pressure up on the private sector in recent months, blaming a “parasitic bourgeoisie” for Venezuela’s recession and 30 percent annualized inflation.
Chavez in 2007 nationalized multi-billion dollar projects in Venezuela’s vast Orinoco oil region, persuading companies such as BP Plc, to accept minority stakes in facilities they had built. Last year he ordered the takeover of dozens of smaller oil service companies as PDVSA, reeling from a sharp plunge in oil prices, struggled to pay contractors.
When he was flush with oil cash during a boom in oil prices that ended in 2008, Chavez often compensated nationalized companies fairly, although the 2007 takeovers led to lawsuits from ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil. More recently Venezuela has been slower in paying compensation.
June 7, 2010
Gee, shocking. No, really. Shocking. The Leftwing/Jihadi convergence continues to emerge in the Pro-Hamas flotilla with the involvement of unrepentant terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
Ayers, Dohrn helped organize flotilla group
Former Weather Underground leaders William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as well as Code Pink founder Jodie Evans, helped organize the Free Gaza Movement, which launched the six-ship flotilla from Turkey to Israel that ended in a violent clash with Israeli Defense Forces, BigGovernment.com reported.
In January, the trio were spotted in Egypt attempting to stir up crowds on the streets with 1,400 other left-wing activists after the Egyptian government refused to allow Free Gaza Movement members to enter the Gaza Strip. About 100 marchers were eventually allowed to cross the border, where they were met by former Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh.
BigGovernment quotes author Philip Weiss, who wrote that he witnessed Ayers and Dohrn arguing with fellow activists over whether to accept Egypt’s offer to allow a small number of them into Gaza:
“Dohrn said that the principle of ‘All or none’ was a miserable one for activist politics. You always took what you could get and kept fighting for more. A European man in a red keffiyeh screamed at her that she was serving the fascisti. Her partner Bill Ayers gently confronted him and asked him why he was so out of control. Between getting on and off the bus, Dohrn, who wore a flower in her hair, said that she didn’t like the absolutist certainty of the people on the other side of the police barricades, and having been in the Weather Underground, she knew something about absolutist feeling.”
As political theater, an argument between the aging flower child/domestic terrorist and a fellow traveler over who knew more about “absolutist feelings” would be hard to top.
Read the rest.
May 16, 2010
The Western Lib Media and their godfathers in Academia hate the recounting of Communist and Atheist atrocities of the 20th Century because they fear it would be used against the Western Left in the same way they use “Hitler” against conservatives. So they essentially ignore it and then rationalize away their intellectual apathy by telling themselves the trajectory of evil in the world today has a “rightwing” bent, which therefore makes Communist/Atheist atrocities historically irrelevant. They also tell themselves it’s because YOU, the public, aren’t responsible enough to be trusted with such information because it might lead you to reach erroneous conclusions about the Left. Protecting the Left’s image is priority to them. And last but not least– the Western Left’s slobbering love affair with the Bolshevik revolution up until the time Stalin’s crimes became known to the world. The result is that even after nearly 50 years of Cold War with the Soviet Union, for example, Stalin’s massacre of 20 million people still remains a mere historical footnote. That is the power of the Perception Shapers.
Thank you: KitmanTV
April 22, 2010
UK Liberal Democrat candidate, Nick Clegg, is locked in a tight race right now with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Labour and David Cameron of the Tories. He compares Britain to Nazi Germany, and it’s hard to tell which he thinks is worse.
The Liberal Democrat leader said the British have “a misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur”. In an article written in 2002, Mr Clegg, who was then MEP for the East Midlands, described the shame he felt over an incident on a school exchange trip to Germany.
“A boy called Adrian started it,” Mr Clegg wrote. “He shouted from the back of the coach, ‘We own your country, we won the war’.”
The future Lib Dem leader said this was an example of what he described as a “warped” British obsession with Germans and the Second World War. “It is easy enough to explain the mixture of arrogance and insecurity that fuels this peculiar British obsession,” he wrote. “Watching Germany rise from its knees after the war and become a vastly more prosperous nation has not been easy on the febrile British psyche.”
He accused politicians, including Gordon Brown, of encouraging “condescension towards Germany and the rest of the EU”.
“All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism,” Mr Clegg wrote. “But the British cross is more insidious still. A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war, is much harder to shake off.”
Nicholas Soames, a Tory MP and grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, said Mr Clegg’s comments showed he was “unfit to lead a national party, let alone the country”. “People across Britain, particularly those who bravely fought for their country, will be disgusted by these comments,” said Mr Soames.
Better to keep quiet and be thought a self-loathing, culture-destroying Sec Prog, than open your mouth and remove all doubt. Here, the anti-Brit Europhile, Nick Clegg proves that truism in spades. He continues:
His outburst about World War II was not an isolated incident. In another article from June 2003, Mr Clegg continued to denounce ‘Britain’s culture of superiority’. Making clear his love affair with all things European, he condemned the British ‘belief in our innate difference from our mainland continental cousins’.
He went on: ‘No other culture in Europe is quite so enamoured by such a false notion of difference. ‘We Brits concoct a historically illiterate notion that we are divorced from outside influences. Maybe it was loss of empire, the choppy waters of the Channel, or the last war.’
Mr Clegg scored highly in last week’s first debate, but his outbursts on foreign policy will see him come under close scrutiny in tonight’s exchanges from Bristol. Those with recent experience of fighting for their country condemned his views.
Colonel Tim Collins, commander of the Royal Irish Regiment during the Iraq War, said: ‘What he’s articulating is the Liberal Democrat view of the British people. ‘They are ashamed of them. They are ashamed of British identity and pandering to those who don’t share it.’
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know where he stands on the Islamization of Britain, does it? The Gramscists on the Left have always hated primitive notions like patriotism, national pride, religion, traditional culture, and even the very idea of the nation state, all of which they believe underpin and prolong the capitalist system they so despise. Lib Dem Nick Clegg, is a child of that tradition, though it’s doubtful the gramscists of his generation are even cognizant of the origins of their modern Liberal beliefs anymore. Just as one can be “born into” Catholicism and not know anything about that religion, so are the likes of Nick Clegg born into the school of Gramsci with no discernment of it. Like catholicism is to a cultural catholic, so is Gramsci part of the modern Liberal’s DNA. Nick Clegg’s love for “Europe” over that of his native country is one of the many manifestations of this DNA, and his Nazi Germany comparison should come as no surprise. Neither of these candidates is worth a damn, Britain, but this guy sucks the worst of all.
March 8, 2010
Pilar Rahola is a Spanish politician, journalist and activist and member of the far left. Here she calls out her own, and basically illustrates why so many of us have parted company with the Left. Every single one of her points rings personally true, and each on its own was a good enough reason to walk away.
Why don’t we see demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in London, Paris, Barcelona?
Or demonstrations against the Burmese dictatorship?
Why aren’t there demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection?
Why aren’t there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs where there is conflict with Islam?
Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of Islamic dictatorship in Sudan?
Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel?
Why is there no outcry by the European left against Islamic fanaticism?
Why don’t they defend Israel’s right to exist?
Why confuse support of the Palestinian cause with the defense of Palestinian terrorism?
An finally, the million dollar question: Why is the left in Europe and around the world obsessed with the two most solid democracies, the United States and Israel, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? The two most solid democracies, who have suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and the left doesn’t care.
And then, to the concept of freedom. In every pro Palestinian European forum I hear the left yelling with fervor: “We want freedom for the people!”
Not true. They are never concerned with freedom for the people of Syria or Yemen or Iran or Sudan, or other such nations. And they are never preoccupied when Hamas destroys freedom for the Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the manipulation of the press.
She’s only getting started as she tears the Left a new orifice. The rest, here.
The Left is relentlessly anti-American because they are relentlessly anti-capitalist. End of story. Israel’s greatest crime is to be our ally. End of story. Nobody who reads her entire column can seriously dispute this, for there is no other explanation for their double standard and selective outrage. Once you clue in to this simple truth, you now can dismiss 99% of what they say for the claptrap it is.
February 15, 2010
Angry, racist, misogynist, hate-filled rightwing Teabaggers take to the streets in a violent frenzy against America’s first black president, Barack Obama.
A small joke, gentle readers. Here rather we have the usual suspects of the revolutionary Left. Regular peace-loving flower children.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia (AP) – More than 200 masked Olympic protesters splattered red paint and smashed windows of a popular downtown department store Saturday on the first day of competition at the Vancouver Games. Police say the group marched through the upscale shopping district, vandalizing cars and stores. Witnesses say protesters threw metal newspaper boxes into the display windows of Hudson’s Bay Company, where Olympic souvenirs are sold.
Police in riot gear quickly moved in and quashed the protest. Police Chief Jim Chu said seven protesters were arrested on a variety of charges, and they were being processed. One of the protesters faces weapons possession charges. Chu said the protester had a bicycle chain wrapped around his fist and was threatening passers-by. None of the protesters were immediately identified.
The protest was organized by the Olympic Resistance Network to “disturb ‘business as usual.'” The ORN is an umbrella group for many causes surrounding the games, ranging from environmental concerns to economic issues. The most prominent involved native Indians who want to reclaim their property (“No Olympics on Stolen Ancient Land”) and those angry over the amount of money spent on Olympics as opposed to public housing (“Homes Not Games”).
Read the rest, here.
The Liberal-controlled media doesn’t tell you this, but the Left is violent, angry and revolutionary. They don’t tell you this because their sympathies lie with these goons. After all, it wasn’t long ago that many, if not most, of these J-school grads were in the streets themselves protesting The Man too. So they’ve got a soft spot for these guys. But not for you! Whether the Left chooses violent rioting and mayhem vs pacifism and non-violence is merely tactical, not ideological. The image of the peaceful flower child is a media creation. Just google “Democratic convention riots”. But their violence is acceptable because their cause is just. While you teabaggers assembling peacefully are all just angry racists.
February 1, 2010
Today, the threat to free speech is coming primarily from the Left. This is just the latest example. Stay tuned for CCHQ’s take at the bottom.
The University of Northern Colorado (UNCO) has decided it’s time to prohibit “Bias Motivated Incidents.” When you hear about a “bias motivated incident,” maybe you’re thinking about a cross burning, or something of that nature. But at UNCO the “bias motivated incident” could simply be an “inappropriate joke” that is motivated by some form of bias.
The UNCO policy also says that “Any discriminatory act is a violation of the Housing & Residence Life Student Code of Conduct.” Well, what do they mean by “any discriminatory act”? According to the UNCO handbook this includes, but is not limited to, “racism, ageism, sexism, and/or homophobia.” And (get ready for this!) included in the definition is “intentionally, recklessly or negligently causing physical, emotional, or mental harm to any person.”
First, and perhaps most obviously, it empowers people to trump the speech of others by simply becoming offended. So it really protects and defends the speech of those least able to protect and defend their own speech through reasoned discourse. It is not often that the speech of the emotionally frail has much merit. People who fall apart emotionally in response to protected speech are unlikely to have the intellectual firepower needed to articulate ideas from which the rest of us can benefit. They are simply being empowered to trump the speech of their emotional and intellectual superiors.
Second, it empowers people to trump the speech of others by pretending to be offended. When this occurs, the speech code is rewarding more than just the intellectually inferior – it is rewarding the morally inferior. It is using faux outrage to cancel honest opinion.
Finally, as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) points out, laws must “give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972). If people do not know what is prohibited there will be a dramatic chilling effect on free speech.
Those who must live under UNCO’s policy cannot know what could cause another person “emotional” or “mental” harm. That is because the policy does not require that the speaker intends to cause the alleged harm. The fact that someone subjectively feels “emotionally harmed” by the speech is enough for UNCO. So the speaker who correctly imagines that just about any idea is bound to offend someone, somewhere, is deterred from speaking on any potentially controversial topic.
College administrators often fail to distinguish between speech that is severe and persistent enough to constitute harassment and simple isolated expressions of protected speech. It appears as if they are utterly unable to write a code that could pass constitutional muster. More likely, they are fully aware that they can sustain the code through the twin threat of internal formal sanction and social stigmatization. Many would like to defeat such a patently illegal policy. Few wish to be dubbed racist, sexist, or homophobic in the process.
We have also learned that it’s not only someone’s speech which is under scrutiny, but also the individual uttering it. The most recent and glaring example of this came from Harry Reid, who was given a big pass for his “negro” comment where a conservative would have been made to pay big time. Speech codes by the Left are inevitably applied in a highly selective way. They are meant to stifle you, gentle readers, not themselves. But it’s not only your speech that is the being controlled, it’s what you think. If you’re not allowed to say something, then you shouldn’t be thinking it. They use these speech codes to shape the culture, i.e., how you think. And if the culture shapers can begin their work early in the universities when their victims are still young and impressionable, then the future belongs to them. And that’s why at CCHQ we say what we think, and you should too.
January 29, 2010
At CCHQ we don’t like to deal in the currency of party politics because little to nothing can be learned from it. For every boneheaded move by the Dims there’s an equally boneheaded move by the rethugs. They both cancel each other out. Nothing is proved. But when it comes to the topic of cultural elitism, between the Dims and the rethugs there is no contest. It is strictly a domain of the Left. There are socio-historical reasons for that, but we’ll set that aside for a later date. The cultural elitism of the modern Liberal is always on full display during elections. When you, the America people, hand them a victory, they love you. Suddenly the American people are overflowing with “hope” and “passion” and “optimism.” You find redemption in their eyes. But when they lose? hoo boy! You wouldn’t like them when they’re angry. When you hand them a defeat, all the nasty things they say about you behind closed doors are laid bare for all to see. You are “small” and “angry” and “racist.” That same sneering elitism was displayed loud and clear when Scott Brown (R) won in Massachusetts.
Last week Boston Globe columnist Renee Loth described the election of Scott Brown as “a collective primal scream.” It’s an old trope, reminiscent of the late Peter Jennings’s classic declaration after the 1994 election:
Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any 2-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled 2-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week. . . . Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry 2-year-old.
Echoing this view of the voters as angry, unreasoning and immature is Time’s Joe Klein, who in the headline of a blog post describes Americans as “Too Dumb to Thrive”:
Absolutely amazing poll results from CNN today about the $787 [sic] stimulus package: nearly three out of four Americans think the money has been wasted. On second thought, they may be right: it’s been wasted on them. . . .
This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed…and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.
It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don’t make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you’re a nation of dodos.
Hey, wait! Didn’t this nation of dodos elect Barack Obama not 15 months ago? Why yes it did, and Pete Wehner digs into Klein’s archives to find that back then the Time scribe had a much higher opinion of his fellow Americans:
Klein is the same fellow who, in the aftermath of Obama’s victory, said of America: “It may no longer be as dominant, economically or diplomatically, as it once was. But it is younger, more optimistic, less cynical. It is a country that retains its ability to startle the world–and in a good way, with our freedom.” And who wrote, after Obama was sworn in as president, that his ascension to power “could force everyone to argue more carefully, to think twice before casting aspersions.”
It turns out the Wehner trick works with other commentators too. Here’s the New York Times’s Charles Blow reacting to the Massachusetts special election:
Welcome to the mob: an angry, wounded electorate, riled by recession, careening across the political spectrum, still craving change, nursing a bloodlust. . . . It seems as if Obama and the Democrats made the mistake of believing that a heart once won was forever won, that people would be patient, and that the mob would accept their reasoning for lack of results.
They were wrong. The mob is fickle. And it’s back with a vengeance.
Here was Blow on May 23, 2009:
In 1984, Ronald Reagan won every Northeastern state. Since then, the leadership of the G.O.P. has systematically shed its idealists in favor of ideologues, reducing itself to the current Cheney-Limbaugh illusionati whose strategy is to exploit faith and ignorance by fanning fear and hatred.
But, Northeasterners are not so easily duped. Voters there tend to be wealthier, better educated, less religious and more progressive than those in other regions.
Is it even possible that Massachusetts–the quintessential Northeastern state–underwent such a transformation of attitudes in a scant eight months? Is there any way the American electorate could have been as smart as Klein thought in 2008-09 and as stupid as he thinks now? Or are these guys the ones who are fickle, angry, unreasoning and immature?
You won’t find many politicians directly casting aspersions on the voters the way these angry pundits do. But this politics of contempt is of a piece with what one might call the Obama administration’s politics of condescension. The New York Times quotes White House aide David Axelrod, who argued on “This Week” that Congress should ignore the voters’ clear rejection of ObamaCare:
With House and Senate leaders trying to figure out how to proceed legislatively, Mr. Axelrod also issued a warning to Democrats who were reconsidering their support for the health care measure.
“As a political matter, the foolish thing to do would be for anybody else who supported this to walk away from it,” he said. He added, “The underlying elements of it are popular and important, and people will never know what’s in that bill until we pass it, the president signs it and they have a whole new range of protections they never had before.”
“People will never know” is gentler than “a nation of dodos,” but the underlying message isn’t that different. Axelrod, speaking of the president, tells the Washington Post: “This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein’s theory of relativity.” That’s got to be a joke, but the message is clear: President Obama and his men are a lot smarter than the average voter.
It is likely that this is true. Shockingly, half of all Americans have IQs below the median. But intelligence is not the same thing as wisdom or sense. Very intelligent people have been known to advance very compelling arguments on behalf of very bad ideas.
What’s more, there is a particular type of stupidity to which intelligent people are uniquely prone: intellectual snobbery, or the tendency to cultivate an attitude of contempt toward those who are not as bright. This may appeal to New York Times readers or voters in, say, Hyde Park–that is, to people who think they’re better than everyone else too. But it may prove Barack Obama’s undoing as a national politician.
I’ve been on both sides, gentle readers, and the contemp the Left has for the American people is strictly a Lefty thing. You know it. You feel it. I was a first hand witness to it. It always rears its ugly head when they lose elections, like they did in Massachusetts. I’ve not seen anything like it on the Right, not even when we lose an election. When the Right loses an election it’s because you’ve been conned by the crafty Libs. But our inate faith in the American people remains. When the Left loses, on the other hand, it’s proof you are morons. It’s not that we’re more graceful in defeat than they are. I don’t think that’s it. Although there is something distinctly adolescent about the Left. It has more to do with how the Left view themselves vis a vis the American people. Unlike the Right, they see themselves in contradistinction to you. To them, you are the masses they are tasked with elevating from your lowly status. They are reaching down to you from the rarified heights. Because you are “commoners”, uneducated, uncultured, boorish, untravelled, racist, individualistic (greedy), white, christianist, etc., I could go on. Basically you are a nation of Sarah Palins. Ever wondered why they hold her in such incomprehensibly visceral contempt? Now you know why. Keep in mind that self-professed Liberals–the cultural elite’s real constituency– number no more than 20% of the country’s total population. The rest of you are the people they’re trying to convince to give them the power. So when you hand them an electoral victory, you are redeemed from all that in their eyes. You have risen above your inate Sarah Palin and are evolving towards their “New Man.” But that only lasts until you hand them their next defeat. Then you’re Sarah Palin again. And you know how they feel about Sarah Palin.
January 21, 2010
January 18, 2010
HOLOCAUST HANGS OVER POPE’S VISIT TO ROME SYNAGOGUE
ROME (AFP) – The role of the Roman Catholic Church during the Holocaust hung over a landmark visit Sunday by Pope Benedict XVI to Rome’s main synagogue.
“Unfortunately many remained indifferent” as the Nazis slaughtered millions of Jews before and during World War II, the German-born pope said in a speech often punctuated by applause in the cavernous temple. But silence greeted his assertion that the Holy See “performed actions of support, often hidden and discreet.”
The Catholic Church has long argued that Pius XII, who was pope from 1939 to 1958, saved many Jews who were hidden away in religious institutions, and that his silence was born out of a wish to avoid aggravating their situation.
“Maybe he could not have stopped the death trains, but he could have sent a signal, a word of extreme comfort, of human solidarity for our brothers taken off to Auschwitz,” he said. Pacifici, whose grandparents died at Auschwitz, however said in a voice choked with emotion that he was “grateful” to Catholic nuns in Florence for sheltering his father and uncle.
In another emotion-charged moment, Pacifici paid homage to Holocaust survivors present, many of whom had tears in their eyes, as the pope rose to applaud them. The Vatican said last year that some five or six years of work remained before the secret archives on Pius XII could be opened to researchers.
Archivist Sergio Pagano said the documents would show that he had “taken risks, including personal risks, to save the Jews.” Benedict’s visit, announced in October, appeared at risk of being cancelled amid howls of protest over a papal decree bestowing the title “venerable” on Pius XII.
The myth of Pope Pius XII as “Hitler’s Pope” has endured for decades thanks in great part to a concerted effort by the KGB to tarnish the Catholic church and christianity in revenge for the Vatican’s opposition to Soviet communism. This black legend was eagerly picked up by the Western Left, as it serves their purposes, and they’ve been running with it ever since. Here you see the sad results of that propaganda campaign.
What you will rarely hear is that Pope Pius XII (who had not yet been crowned Pope) dissavowed Hitler as early as 1937. At the time, he was Eugenio Pacelli, the Vatican’s ambassador to the German state of Bavaria. Pacelli’s awakening came in the form his encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (“With burning anxiety”) which he drafted for Pius XI, and which was one of the strongest condemnations of a national regime that the Holy See had ever published. Since Pacelli was the Vatican official best informed on German matters, Pius XI asked him to draft the encyclical.
Hitler had the Catholic Church fooled for several years, but Neville “Peace in our time” Chamberlain and pacifists of his ilk were fooled until the very moment Hitler invaded Poland in ’39. Even most of the Jews living in Nazi Germany at the time refused to see what is so obvious to us in hindsight. It was only Winston Churchill and his warmongering conservatives who got it right from the beginning. Pope Pius XI followed shortly thereafter.
In fact, Pope Pius XI took pains to ensure that Nazi officials could not prohibit its distribution. Unlike most encyclicals, which are written in Latin, Mit brennender Sorge was written in German for maximum exposure. It was then smuggled into Germany, secretly distributed, and read at the Masses on Palm Sunday, 1937. Pius XI’s encyclical condemned not only the persecution of the Church in Germany, but also the use of race and bloodlines to judge human value, the idolizing of the state, and the neopaganism of Nazi theories. It declared in part:
“Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds. None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are “as a drop of a bucket” (Isaiah 11:15).
Pius’s XI’s encyclical concluded with the following words of defiance, “enemies of the Church who think that their time has come will see that their joy was premature.” Those distributing the encyclical were arrested, payments due to the Church from Germany under the concordat were elliminated, and several priests were subjected to trials on trumped-up charges. The Nazis confiscated all available copies of the encyclical, arrested printers who made copies, and shut down their printing presses.
Shortly thereafter, Hitler was quoted in a Swiss newspaper as saying, “The Third Reich does not desire a modus vivendi with the Catholic Church, but rather its destruction with lies and dishonor, in order to make room for a German Church in which the German race will be glorified.’ Pope Pius XI was henceforth considered an enemy of the Third Reich, but he died shortly thereafter.
In one of the shortest conclaves in Vatican history, the cardinals then crowned Eugenio Pacelli the new Pope in defiance of warnings by the German ambassador to the Vatican that the Third Reich would look most unfavorably on his choice as Pius XI’s successor. The Nazis, through the German media were quick to respond, “The election of Cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor,” said one Das Schwarze Korps, the official newspaper of the dreaded Nazi SS. Germany was the only country that did not send a representative to Pius XII’s coronation. He took his name, “Pius”, in honor of his predecessor who had tasked him with drafting Mit brennender Sorge. Hitler invaded Poland 3 months later.
Let there be no misunderstanding, Hitler occupied Rome from September 1943 until June 1944, and he would have overrun the Vatican had Pius sufficiently provoked him. There was even a German plot, revealed after the war, to kidnap the Pope and his Cardinals if Hitler decided the public relations nightmare merited invading Vatican territory. Nevertheless, Pius worked tirelessly to save the lives of Jews, though quietly in order to avoid provoking a military response by the Nazis. It is easy to forget there is only so much the Pope could have done. He had no army beyond his Swiss guards, who were no more than a personal bodyguard. But by working behind the scenes, Pius XII, through the Catholic Church, was directly and indirectly responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Had he decided to take to the pulpit to openly denounce Hitler’s terrible treatment of the Jews (as well as catholic clergy), Hitler almost certainly would have turned his military machine against the Catholic church, and that would have been the end of the Vatican’s behind-the-scenes activities.
Oscar Schindler, also a Roman catholic, is today regarded as a “righteous gentile” by many Jews for saving perhaps 3,000 Jewish lives. What then accounts for so much unjust criticism of Pope Pius XII, who saved many hundred thousand lives?
Below, the answer to that question. How the KGB created the myth of “Hitler’s Pope”, and it’s sad legacy today.