Public figures are bound to offend from time to time. Occasionally they'll stick their foot so far in their mouth they'll develop athlete's tongue. Enter Rush Limbaugh, who might need to brush his teeth with fast-acting Tinactin. If you missed it, Rush called Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke some unflattering names after she practically begged congressional Democrats to force Georgetown to meet her contraceptive demands.
The villain is, predictably, anyone who criticizes Sandra Fluke. But keep in mind that Fluke is no innocent bystander; she's a feminine activist. She knew full well that Georgetown didn't include contraceptives in student insurance plans before she enrolled. Sandra's an operative who used her private life to affect public policy, thus inviting criticism. Frankly, Ms. Fluke is symptomatic of the entitlement attitude that has infected our nation. She demands a benefit at someone else's expense and is willing to grovel at government's feet to get it. A freedom fighter she's not.
However, we don't really know Ms. Fluke's personal affairs, and not all women who use contraception work at the corner brothel. Rush should've chosen his words with more care. He since apologized, leaving everyone to decide for themselves whether he did so sincerely or to stem the advertising exodus from the EIB network. But if anyone thinks this is the end of the line for the Rush Limbaugh Show, they're jumping the gun.
Conservatives support Rush because he publicly articulates their views on culture and government. As the fallout continues and they see advertisers, and a few radio stations, withdraw from the king of daytime radio a sense of panic on their part is normal. Despite Rush's apology the firestorm hasn't relented, prompting grave concern about Limbaugh's survival among his supporters.
Liberals, conversely, have indulged more fantasies about Limbaugh's demise than have teenage boys about Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. He's arrogant and uninformed, a colossal blowhard who must be silenced at all cost. In wake of his Fluke rebuke, leftwing forums and message boards are joyously singing funeral dirges to the despised Rush Limbaugh.
Whichever side of that fence you're on, you're reacting prematurely. Controversy isn't new to Rush Limbaugh. He has faced it before and emerged stronger each time. Remember Donovan McNabb, and the phony soldiers? It turned out Rush was right on both topics. He survived drug addiction, hearing loss, the great Viagra airport bust, and failed marriages. Each was said to be his undoing. But he's still there, coast to coast, weekdays from noon to three Eastern Time.
Leftwing personalities have uttered far worse slurs toward conservatives than what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke. Bill Maher hosted two loons who fantasized about raping Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman. Oh, what a laugh that was. Michael Moore produces nefarious propaganda on par with Leni Riefenstahl and wins an Oscar for his documentary. Al Franken became a Senator!
So, love him or hate him, get used to him. Limbaugh isn't going away.
Showing posts with label dissent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dissent. Show all posts
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Occupy Wall Street protests capitalism and liberty
Opposition to crony capitalism, we're told, is motivating Occupy Wall Street. The protesters, we're told, are simply fed up with a business cycle wherein politicians push legislation to benefit large corporations, receiving campaign cash and other perks in return. In this the age of TARP bailouts, stimulus packages, and quantitative easing the complaint sounds reasonable, if we accept what we're told.
Many large corporations are unquestionably in bed with the federal government. Strange as it sounds, onerous government regulations offer some benefits to big businesses. For instance, regulations hinder start-up companies, preventing competition. Established companies possess the regulatory and legal experience, along with the political connections, necessary to navigate government's red tape. Small companies struggle just to gain a toehold, much less keep pace. Therefore, large companies have opportunity to bury small competitors beneath bureaucratic compliance and regulatory paperwork, and it's easier than direct competition.
However, a longing for free market competition isn't driving Occupy Wall Street. A movement dedicated to restoring market forces to our economy and breaking the bond between government and business already exists. If the occupiers actually supported such worthwhile goals they would ally the TEA Party. Yet TEA Party activists are routinely demeaned as racist, sexist, and obsessively phobic.
Pundits can compare Occupy Wall Street (OWS) to the TEA Party if they want. But the proof is in the pudding; occupiers have little in common with TEA Partiers. OWS may indeed hold corporate welfare in disdain, as does the TEA Party. But the similarity ends there. TEA Partiers also oppose the personal welfare state, the entitlement mentality that perpetuates said state, and the lack of personal responsibility that forms its foundation. Occupiers revel in entitlement, irresponsibility, envy, and wealth redistribution.
The occupations represent a segment of Americans diametrically opposite the TEA Party, a segment that is either oblivious to its surroundings or can't comprehend what it sees. Their motivations are similar to the demonstrators we've seen in European socialist democracies, notably Greece and Britain, where the economies crumble under entitlement's weight while the marchers demand even more.
Huddled in their de facto communes, the occupiers have no qualms with government choosing winners and losers, or funding more entitlement programs. They consider social spending obligatory and student loans are a basic human right. Punitive taxation on the "1-percent" is a matter of economic justice and everyone should have the job they like at the wage they desire. In short, occupiers expect Utopian results from more of the same irresponsible government spending and regulatory burdens that created the current budgetary and economic chaos.
The "99-percenters" aren't marching for freedom; they're clueless on the concept. Private property rights are a cornerstone of personal liberty. Yet they are anathema to the occupiers' worldview. The New York protesters see no contradiction in squatting on private property, dishonoring the desires of the owner, and refusing to recognize the property owner's legal and moral right to tell the occupiers to pack up their autumn of love and head for the hills. Despite an agreement that zoned Zuccotti Park for public use, the park remains privately owned. Occupiers can chant, shout, and drum about freedom until the cows come home, but it means nothing until they've shed their open contempt for property rights.
The occupiers just can't grasp the contradiction in marching for freedom while demanding more government. As previously stated, Occupy Wall Street is about government growth. The only way to achieve their goals is to centralize authority, redistribute wealth, expand the entitlement attitude, and trust in a false promise. In the name of freedom the Wall Street occupiers are demanding cradle-to-grave collectivism. They're serving government at the expense of liberty, both for their fellow citizens and themselves.
The concept is unpopular, but you can judge people -- or in this case, a gathering of people -- by the company they attract. A quick glance at organizations aligning with OWS reads like a who's who of collectivism, from labor unions and MoveOn.org to the Communist Party USA. Some of the world's most repressive regimes are lending support, too. A general in Iran's Revolutionary Guard endorsed the OWS movement as a means to end Western capitalism. And Venezuela's socialist dictator Hugo Chavez has nothing but kind words for the occupiers.
Doubtful the typical occupier is a genuine, card-carrying communist. Most occupiers would likely balk at the idea of promoting communism, or even socialism. But progressivism, labor unions, militant strongmen, and dictators don't line up on the side of human liberty, and each has cast its lot with OWS. Can we then conclude that authoritarians see Occupy Wall Street's true nature much clearer than do the occupiers themselves? I think so.
The "99-percent" are a deluded bunch. First, 99-percent of our country isn't consumed with class envy or "economic justice," however it's defined. Second, OWS protesters are simply the fertilizer from which state control of our economy, our culture, and the population overall will continue to grow. Occupy Wall Street is an instrument, a means to an end, with the typical occupier personifying everything Vladimir Lenin could've wanted in a useful idiot.
Many large corporations are unquestionably in bed with the federal government. Strange as it sounds, onerous government regulations offer some benefits to big businesses. For instance, regulations hinder start-up companies, preventing competition. Established companies possess the regulatory and legal experience, along with the political connections, necessary to navigate government's red tape. Small companies struggle just to gain a toehold, much less keep pace. Therefore, large companies have opportunity to bury small competitors beneath bureaucratic compliance and regulatory paperwork, and it's easier than direct competition.
However, a longing for free market competition isn't driving Occupy Wall Street. A movement dedicated to restoring market forces to our economy and breaking the bond between government and business already exists. If the occupiers actually supported such worthwhile goals they would ally the TEA Party. Yet TEA Party activists are routinely demeaned as racist, sexist, and obsessively phobic.
Pundits can compare Occupy Wall Street (OWS) to the TEA Party if they want. But the proof is in the pudding; occupiers have little in common with TEA Partiers. OWS may indeed hold corporate welfare in disdain, as does the TEA Party. But the similarity ends there. TEA Partiers also oppose the personal welfare state, the entitlement mentality that perpetuates said state, and the lack of personal responsibility that forms its foundation. Occupiers revel in entitlement, irresponsibility, envy, and wealth redistribution.
The occupations represent a segment of Americans diametrically opposite the TEA Party, a segment that is either oblivious to its surroundings or can't comprehend what it sees. Their motivations are similar to the demonstrators we've seen in European socialist democracies, notably Greece and Britain, where the economies crumble under entitlement's weight while the marchers demand even more.
Huddled in their de facto communes, the occupiers have no qualms with government choosing winners and losers, or funding more entitlement programs. They consider social spending obligatory and student loans are a basic human right. Punitive taxation on the "1-percent" is a matter of economic justice and everyone should have the job they like at the wage they desire. In short, occupiers expect Utopian results from more of the same irresponsible government spending and regulatory burdens that created the current budgetary and economic chaos.
The "99-percenters" aren't marching for freedom; they're clueless on the concept. Private property rights are a cornerstone of personal liberty. Yet they are anathema to the occupiers' worldview. The New York protesters see no contradiction in squatting on private property, dishonoring the desires of the owner, and refusing to recognize the property owner's legal and moral right to tell the occupiers to pack up their autumn of love and head for the hills. Despite an agreement that zoned Zuccotti Park for public use, the park remains privately owned. Occupiers can chant, shout, and drum about freedom until the cows come home, but it means nothing until they've shed their open contempt for property rights.
The occupiers just can't grasp the contradiction in marching for freedom while demanding more government. As previously stated, Occupy Wall Street is about government growth. The only way to achieve their goals is to centralize authority, redistribute wealth, expand the entitlement attitude, and trust in a false promise. In the name of freedom the Wall Street occupiers are demanding cradle-to-grave collectivism. They're serving government at the expense of liberty, both for their fellow citizens and themselves.
The concept is unpopular, but you can judge people -- or in this case, a gathering of people -- by the company they attract. A quick glance at organizations aligning with OWS reads like a who's who of collectivism, from labor unions and MoveOn.org to the Communist Party USA. Some of the world's most repressive regimes are lending support, too. A general in Iran's Revolutionary Guard endorsed the OWS movement as a means to end Western capitalism. And Venezuela's socialist dictator Hugo Chavez has nothing but kind words for the occupiers.
Doubtful the typical occupier is a genuine, card-carrying communist. Most occupiers would likely balk at the idea of promoting communism, or even socialism. But progressivism, labor unions, militant strongmen, and dictators don't line up on the side of human liberty, and each has cast its lot with OWS. Can we then conclude that authoritarians see Occupy Wall Street's true nature much clearer than do the occupiers themselves? I think so.
The "99-percent" are a deluded bunch. First, 99-percent of our country isn't consumed with class envy or "economic justice," however it's defined. Second, OWS protesters are simply the fertilizer from which state control of our economy, our culture, and the population overall will continue to grow. Occupy Wall Street is an instrument, a means to an end, with the typical occupier personifying everything Vladimir Lenin could've wanted in a useful idiot.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
The war that will not end
Thirty-five years ago the last U.S. soldiers left Vietnam. Yet the war continues because Vietnam’s veterans returned home to contempt rather than appreciation. Even today a celebration in their honor--held near Ft. Bragg in Fayetteville, NC no less--can’t escape the longstanding divisions.
Fayetteville’s mayor organized this “homecoming” celebration. But he also invited Quaker House to participate in the festivities. Quaker House represents a pacifist, anti-Vietnam War attitude, a fact readily recognized by the organization’s director, Chuck Fager. Fager defended his group’s participation on the basis that anti-war sentiment is a historical aspect of the Vietnam era. While he’s factually correct, he has missed this event’s point.
Not every celebration needs to be a history lesson. The Holocaust is a historical fact of World War II. Selling out neighbors to the British was common during the Revolutionary War. But we don’t recognize Nazis on Victory in Europe Day or Tories on Independence Day. These examples are extreme, yet the inclusion of an anti-Vietnam protest organization in a Vietnam veteran’s recognition ceremony is equally inappropriate.
The mindset represented at Quaker House had its day. Protesters received the hero’s treatment during the Vietnam War. Sure, they had their share of detractors. But media coverage gave protesters far more favor than was their due. Why can’t the Fayetteville celebration honor the soldiers who did Vietnam’s dirty work? Why should they share the spotlight with an organization promoting anti-Vietnam War films featuring the traitorous Jane Fonda, which is Quaker House’s plan?
Mr. Fager, stay home and keep your sympathizers with you. Keep your films in the can and the North Vietnamese Army’s favorite vixen off the screen. This is the soldier’s day, not yours. Fayetteville’s mayor shouldn’t have invited you and you should gracefully butt-out.
People can disagree with why Vietnam was fought and how it was managed. They’re free to question and second-guess Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, or whoever. But the men who fought, bled and died in those steamy jungles didn’t deserve the anti-war protester’s scorn.
The Vietnam soldier fought the communist expansion in Southeast Asia. They won the battles in a war where political considerations denied them victory. Vietnam’s ultimate outcome wasn’t what their efforts earned. There was no justifiable reason for a misguided generation of Mao disciples and slovenly hippies to spit on them and called them “baby-killers.”
Vietnam veterans gave what they had and proved that America wouldn’t sit idly in the face of communist aggression. They fought under restraining rules of engagement against an enemy that knew no rules. And they did so at the behest of a government that tied one hand behind their backs before sending them afield.
Sure, efforts have since been made to recognize and honor the Vietnam veteran’s service and sacrifice. But they deserved a proper homecoming when they returned from Southeast Asia. A little extra recognition now is more than justified.
Fayetteville’s mayor organized this “homecoming” celebration. But he also invited Quaker House to participate in the festivities. Quaker House represents a pacifist, anti-Vietnam War attitude, a fact readily recognized by the organization’s director, Chuck Fager. Fager defended his group’s participation on the basis that anti-war sentiment is a historical aspect of the Vietnam era. While he’s factually correct, he has missed this event’s point.
Not every celebration needs to be a history lesson. The Holocaust is a historical fact of World War II. Selling out neighbors to the British was common during the Revolutionary War. But we don’t recognize Nazis on Victory in Europe Day or Tories on Independence Day. These examples are extreme, yet the inclusion of an anti-Vietnam protest organization in a Vietnam veteran’s recognition ceremony is equally inappropriate.
The mindset represented at Quaker House had its day. Protesters received the hero’s treatment during the Vietnam War. Sure, they had their share of detractors. But media coverage gave protesters far more favor than was their due. Why can’t the Fayetteville celebration honor the soldiers who did Vietnam’s dirty work? Why should they share the spotlight with an organization promoting anti-Vietnam War films featuring the traitorous Jane Fonda, which is Quaker House’s plan?
Mr. Fager, stay home and keep your sympathizers with you. Keep your films in the can and the North Vietnamese Army’s favorite vixen off the screen. This is the soldier’s day, not yours. Fayetteville’s mayor shouldn’t have invited you and you should gracefully butt-out.
People can disagree with why Vietnam was fought and how it was managed. They’re free to question and second-guess Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, or whoever. But the men who fought, bled and died in those steamy jungles didn’t deserve the anti-war protester’s scorn.
The Vietnam soldier fought the communist expansion in Southeast Asia. They won the battles in a war where political considerations denied them victory. Vietnam’s ultimate outcome wasn’t what their efforts earned. There was no justifiable reason for a misguided generation of Mao disciples and slovenly hippies to spit on them and called them “baby-killers.”
Vietnam veterans gave what they had and proved that America wouldn’t sit idly in the face of communist aggression. They fought under restraining rules of engagement against an enemy that knew no rules. And they did so at the behest of a government that tied one hand behind their backs before sending them afield.
Sure, efforts have since been made to recognize and honor the Vietnam veteran’s service and sacrifice. But they deserved a proper homecoming when they returned from Southeast Asia. A little extra recognition now is more than justified.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Jared Loughner: Timothy McVeigh reincarnated
The similarities between the 2010 election results and those in 1994 are evident. In 1994 frustrated voters vented their disgust with a Democrat administration’s leftist direction and gave Republicans control of Congress for the first time in decades. What happened in 2010? The American people again rejected a hard-left push from the Democrat Party and Republicans won overwhelmingly. Within months of each election the Left used an unspeakably violent act to falsely portray conservatives as vicious, unstable cranks.
It was Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It’s Jared Loughner and the Arizona shooting in 2011.
Before anyone concludes that I’m launching a conspiracy theory let me state that I don’t believe the Left orchestrated either the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Arizona shooting. But their reactions to both tragedies prove that they’ve learned Rahm Emmanuel’s lesson quite well: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Arizona, like Oklahoma City before, has fueled a left-wing crusade the sole intent of which is to denigrate and silence political opposition.
To the Left, human suffering equals political opportunity. It was so with Oklahoma City, and with Hurricane Katrina, and with the Jena Six. They demagogued the massacres in Stockton (CA), Killeen (TX), Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Now they’re demagoguing the Arizona shooting. It’s shameless, and it’s time to call the Left on their duplicity.
Democrats and their media allies seized the moment when Timothy McVeigh struck, just like they’re doing now. Before the rubble had cooled at the Alfred Murrah Building they had blamed everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Before Arizona’s first victim was eulogized the Left was blaming Sarah Palin, talk radio and the “new media” for pushing Jared Loughner over the edge.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) went so far as to blame the Arizona rampage on the First Amendment. He thinks there are just too many media outlets and too much information available to those of us in the great unwashed. We simply lack the intelligence to distinguish his truth from our concocted fantasies. The accusation is perfectly clear. Conservatives are half-cocked knuckle-draggers ready to go off at the slightest provocation. We must be led on a government leash.
The prevailing media sings the chorus with equal intensity. Leftist commentators and journalists dissected the influence that conservative discourse played in driving Loughner’s rage. Their conclusion: Anyone espousing conservative thought, debate, or activism shares culpability for Loughner’s massacre. Even after acknowledging that no evidence exists to link Loughner to conservative positions or personalities, the Left continued to promote the connection.
Democrat strategists used the Oklahoma bombing to silence conservatives and quell the support for a smaller federal government that existed in 1994. There was no factual basis for their argument. McVeigh himself was something of a loner and neo-Nazi sympathizer--not a constitutional conservative. But the accusations had an affect. The game plan is the same with the Arizona shootings and Jared Loughner now. The similarities between the Left’s manipulation of Oklahoma City and Arizona cannot be dismissed, nor can they be allowed to flourish.
Little information has been verified concerning Jared Loughner’s political inclinations. The most credible evidence paints Loughner as a mentally unstable recluse motivated more by occult interests than a political agenda of any stripe. And nary shred of evidence has been presented to link Jared Loughner to conservative causes or right-wing rhetoric. Ironically, there is more hearsay evidence to link Loughner to left-wing radicalism than to right-wing conservatism.
Yet leftists continue to spin the Arizona tragedy for political advantage. It is they who are using incendiary language to divide our nation. It is they who exploit duped followers with blatant lies about political opponents. This time, unlike the spring of 1995, conservatives must hold the line against the Left’s baseless attacks.
Democrats aren’t appalled by the so-called “inflammatory rhetoric” coming from conservative politicians, talk radio hosts, or the TEA Party. They fear the substance behind the arguments. Therefore those voices must be marginalized by whatever means necessary. This time conservatives must stand their ground. History may repeat. But the end result must be changed.
It was Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It’s Jared Loughner and the Arizona shooting in 2011.
Before anyone concludes that I’m launching a conspiracy theory let me state that I don’t believe the Left orchestrated either the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Arizona shooting. But their reactions to both tragedies prove that they’ve learned Rahm Emmanuel’s lesson quite well: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Arizona, like Oklahoma City before, has fueled a left-wing crusade the sole intent of which is to denigrate and silence political opposition.
To the Left, human suffering equals political opportunity. It was so with Oklahoma City, and with Hurricane Katrina, and with the Jena Six. They demagogued the massacres in Stockton (CA), Killeen (TX), Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Now they’re demagoguing the Arizona shooting. It’s shameless, and it’s time to call the Left on their duplicity.
Democrats and their media allies seized the moment when Timothy McVeigh struck, just like they’re doing now. Before the rubble had cooled at the Alfred Murrah Building they had blamed everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Before Arizona’s first victim was eulogized the Left was blaming Sarah Palin, talk radio and the “new media” for pushing Jared Loughner over the edge.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) went so far as to blame the Arizona rampage on the First Amendment. He thinks there are just too many media outlets and too much information available to those of us in the great unwashed. We simply lack the intelligence to distinguish his truth from our concocted fantasies. The accusation is perfectly clear. Conservatives are half-cocked knuckle-draggers ready to go off at the slightest provocation. We must be led on a government leash.
The prevailing media sings the chorus with equal intensity. Leftist commentators and journalists dissected the influence that conservative discourse played in driving Loughner’s rage. Their conclusion: Anyone espousing conservative thought, debate, or activism shares culpability for Loughner’s massacre. Even after acknowledging that no evidence exists to link Loughner to conservative positions or personalities, the Left continued to promote the connection.
Democrat strategists used the Oklahoma bombing to silence conservatives and quell the support for a smaller federal government that existed in 1994. There was no factual basis for their argument. McVeigh himself was something of a loner and neo-Nazi sympathizer--not a constitutional conservative. But the accusations had an affect. The game plan is the same with the Arizona shootings and Jared Loughner now. The similarities between the Left’s manipulation of Oklahoma City and Arizona cannot be dismissed, nor can they be allowed to flourish.
Little information has been verified concerning Jared Loughner’s political inclinations. The most credible evidence paints Loughner as a mentally unstable recluse motivated more by occult interests than a political agenda of any stripe. And nary shred of evidence has been presented to link Jared Loughner to conservative causes or right-wing rhetoric. Ironically, there is more hearsay evidence to link Loughner to left-wing radicalism than to right-wing conservatism.
Yet leftists continue to spin the Arizona tragedy for political advantage. It is they who are using incendiary language to divide our nation. It is they who exploit duped followers with blatant lies about political opponents. This time, unlike the spring of 1995, conservatives must hold the line against the Left’s baseless attacks.
Democrats aren’t appalled by the so-called “inflammatory rhetoric” coming from conservative politicians, talk radio hosts, or the TEA Party. They fear the substance behind the arguments. Therefore those voices must be marginalized by whatever means necessary. This time conservatives must stand their ground. History may repeat. But the end result must be changed.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The five myths of Regressive politics #5: Conservatives stifle dissent
Whenever conservatives question stale Regressive talking points they are accused of stifling dissent. Of the five myths discussed in this series--racism, poverty, sexism and environmentalism being the first four--this is the greatest myth of all. Once again, apply the slightest common sense to the Regressive’s accusation and it melts like ice on a blistering sidewalk.
What represents today’s most popular conservative media outlet? If you answered talk radio, take a gold star. Talk radio is conservative equal time, offsetting the Regressive dominated media. If Conservatives stifle dissent, the greatest vehicle for promoting limited government vanishes in a flash.
Where would conservatism be if there were no Rush Limbaugh, no Sean Hannity, no Jason Lewis, or no hundreds more conservative radio hosts in local markets from coast to coast? Where would they be without free speech? Conservative talk radio wouldn’t exist and the Reagan Revolution would’ve long since withered away. Free speech kept conservatism viable during Bill Clinton’s early presidency and stoked the 1994 Republican Revolution.
Conservatives want to quell free speech and stifle dissent? Why not just cut off our right arms? Please. Can’t Regressives do better than that?
The left’s accusations about stifling dissent arise from the Conservative’s attitude toward content. The right to free speech compels no one to listen; audiences must be earned. Conservatives recognize this fact. But Regressives adamantly declare that their right to speak includes a right to force others to listen. This is the First Amendment, Regressive style.
Insubordination infuriates Regressives. Thus they despise having free speech employed to challenge their motives and ideologies, such as the Iraq War protests. When those protesters were challenged they accused Conservatives of stifling dissent. Actually, Conservatives were engaging in debate, something most Regressives avoid like the plague.
The left is where censorship exists in its purest form. The university, long a bastion of leftist elitism, has been home to speech codes for more than 20 years. Any discourse that may offend a protected class is summarily banned. “Hate speech” is the code word on campus.
Furthermore, it is the left that fosters the legal love affair with “hate crimes” legislation. Crime is crime, and few crimes there are that are born of a desire to do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you. Therefore hate crimes are but another means to the same end, that being the abolishment of speech, thought, opinion, belief, or content that does not follow a Regressive doctrine.
Yet another cause for left-wing resentment toward free speech is their utter failure in exercising it. Air America is exhibit A. The Regressive radio network launched in 2004 to counter conservatism’s talk radio dominance. No problem thus far. However, the network struggled from the womb, went bankrupt in 2006 and ceased operations entirely in 2010. Air America’s leadership blamed the collapse on a stagnant economy. Yet the network never generated a dependable audience or a steady revenue flow, the absence of which is a perfect recipe for bankruptcy. Their flimsy excuse begs the determination that the left’s disdain for talk radio stems from jealousy.
The Regressive playbook is based on blind allegiance to banal talking points. Since such arguments can’t stand scrutiny the left must control the debate. Therefore they accuse conservatives of stifling dissent, the very tactic they deploy at every turn.
What represents today’s most popular conservative media outlet? If you answered talk radio, take a gold star. Talk radio is conservative equal time, offsetting the Regressive dominated media. If Conservatives stifle dissent, the greatest vehicle for promoting limited government vanishes in a flash.
Where would conservatism be if there were no Rush Limbaugh, no Sean Hannity, no Jason Lewis, or no hundreds more conservative radio hosts in local markets from coast to coast? Where would they be without free speech? Conservative talk radio wouldn’t exist and the Reagan Revolution would’ve long since withered away. Free speech kept conservatism viable during Bill Clinton’s early presidency and stoked the 1994 Republican Revolution.
Conservatives want to quell free speech and stifle dissent? Why not just cut off our right arms? Please. Can’t Regressives do better than that?
The left’s accusations about stifling dissent arise from the Conservative’s attitude toward content. The right to free speech compels no one to listen; audiences must be earned. Conservatives recognize this fact. But Regressives adamantly declare that their right to speak includes a right to force others to listen. This is the First Amendment, Regressive style.
Insubordination infuriates Regressives. Thus they despise having free speech employed to challenge their motives and ideologies, such as the Iraq War protests. When those protesters were challenged they accused Conservatives of stifling dissent. Actually, Conservatives were engaging in debate, something most Regressives avoid like the plague.
The left is where censorship exists in its purest form. The university, long a bastion of leftist elitism, has been home to speech codes for more than 20 years. Any discourse that may offend a protected class is summarily banned. “Hate speech” is the code word on campus.
Furthermore, it is the left that fosters the legal love affair with “hate crimes” legislation. Crime is crime, and few crimes there are that are born of a desire to do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you. Therefore hate crimes are but another means to the same end, that being the abolishment of speech, thought, opinion, belief, or content that does not follow a Regressive doctrine.
Yet another cause for left-wing resentment toward free speech is their utter failure in exercising it. Air America is exhibit A. The Regressive radio network launched in 2004 to counter conservatism’s talk radio dominance. No problem thus far. However, the network struggled from the womb, went bankrupt in 2006 and ceased operations entirely in 2010. Air America’s leadership blamed the collapse on a stagnant economy. Yet the network never generated a dependable audience or a steady revenue flow, the absence of which is a perfect recipe for bankruptcy. Their flimsy excuse begs the determination that the left’s disdain for talk radio stems from jealousy.
The Regressive playbook is based on blind allegiance to banal talking points. Since such arguments can’t stand scrutiny the left must control the debate. Therefore they accuse conservatives of stifling dissent, the very tactic they deploy at every turn.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
A leftist confuses exceptionalism with superiority
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) summarized his Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act on the Hill website. His purpose was to outline his ideas for restoring fiscal discipline to the federal government. Not once did Sen. Thune mention “American exceptionalism,” the laws of science, religion, or race. But that didn’t stop an obvious Regressive from taking the Senator to task on each subject.
In the comments section “PGBACH” wrote:
Dear Johnny, The Founders did not embraced [sic] a "spirit of American Exceptionalism." Unlike you, they were not arrogant. There is nothing in their writings to suggest they believed they were better than anyone else. In fact, to the contrary. The Founders were rational people. They rejected delusional psychosis. At no time did they claim America was above the laws of science. I do understand, Johnny, you belong to a party that rejects rationalism and science, while embracing religious delusions. That your proposal would double the poverty rate in the USA in 24 months demonstrates the GOP's agenda for rich white folks. You nearly make me ashamed to be white.
Unsubstantiated claims accompanied by race-baiting and ignorance of the Founding Fathers. “PGBACH” is a vapid talking point, a Regressive through and through. But it’s the total misconstruction of “American exceptionalism” that warrants response.
The respondent’s hostility toward "American exceptionalism" reveals a colossal ignorance of how conservatives utilize the term. “Exceptionalism" rises not from American citizens being better than citizens of other nations, but from our society and culture being based on a more solid foundation, namely personal and economic liberty and property rights. These inalienable rights have created a greater opportunity for success in America than in nations where such ideals are uncommon or suppressed.
“PGBACH” has equated exceptionalism with attitudes of superiority, the latter being more common on the American Left than on the American Right. The Left claims the understanding necessary to dictate everyone’s affairs. It is the Left that encourages Americans to surrender their rights and decisions to government. Healthcare? Retirement? Defense of self and property? How we build our homes? The kind of car we drive and the fuel economy we receive? Energy production? All are mandated, to some extent, through legislation and bureaucracy. Some such rules are warranted, but not all.
Before taking conservatives like Sen. Thune to task the respondent should’ve gotten the facts in order. Understanding Sen. Thune’s arguments and presenting a sound opposition would’ve been a start. Knowing the difference between exceptionalism and superiority would’ve helped, too. It’s likely “PGBACH” would’ve remained wrong. But there’s no excuse, aside from stupidity and laziness, to have looked so foolish in the process.
In the comments section “PGBACH” wrote:
Dear Johnny, The Founders did not embraced [sic] a "spirit of American Exceptionalism." Unlike you, they were not arrogant. There is nothing in their writings to suggest they believed they were better than anyone else. In fact, to the contrary. The Founders were rational people. They rejected delusional psychosis. At no time did they claim America was above the laws of science. I do understand, Johnny, you belong to a party that rejects rationalism and science, while embracing religious delusions. That your proposal would double the poverty rate in the USA in 24 months demonstrates the GOP's agenda for rich white folks. You nearly make me ashamed to be white.
Unsubstantiated claims accompanied by race-baiting and ignorance of the Founding Fathers. “PGBACH” is a vapid talking point, a Regressive through and through. But it’s the total misconstruction of “American exceptionalism” that warrants response.
The respondent’s hostility toward "American exceptionalism" reveals a colossal ignorance of how conservatives utilize the term. “Exceptionalism" rises not from American citizens being better than citizens of other nations, but from our society and culture being based on a more solid foundation, namely personal and economic liberty and property rights. These inalienable rights have created a greater opportunity for success in America than in nations where such ideals are uncommon or suppressed.
“PGBACH” has equated exceptionalism with attitudes of superiority, the latter being more common on the American Left than on the American Right. The Left claims the understanding necessary to dictate everyone’s affairs. It is the Left that encourages Americans to surrender their rights and decisions to government. Healthcare? Retirement? Defense of self and property? How we build our homes? The kind of car we drive and the fuel economy we receive? Energy production? All are mandated, to some extent, through legislation and bureaucracy. Some such rules are warranted, but not all.
Before taking conservatives like Sen. Thune to task the respondent should’ve gotten the facts in order. Understanding Sen. Thune’s arguments and presenting a sound opposition would’ve been a start. Knowing the difference between exceptionalism and superiority would’ve helped, too. It’s likely “PGBACH” would’ve remained wrong. But there’s no excuse, aside from stupidity and laziness, to have looked so foolish in the process.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The First Amendment takes a hit
The Richter scale measures the magnitude of subterranean movements. But any recent seismic activity is more attributable to our Founding Fathers rolling in their graves than to tectonic shifts. Free speech has been sacrificed and it’s doubtful the Founders would be pleased.
Molly Norris is a former cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly newspaper. I say “former” because Molly no longer exists, at least not in her original form. At the FBI’s encouragement she has become something of a non-person.
No, Molly didn’t witness a mob hit nor will she provide key evidence against a drug lord. Molly Norris merely expressed an opinion, offended the “religion of peace” and became the target of an Islamic assassination order. What on earth could she have done to earn such ire? Nothing, really.
Norris satirically declared an “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” in response to the censoring of the Muslim overseer’s depiction on Comedy Central’s South Park. She never declared an actual event. She wasn’t trying to spark a “Draw Muhammad Day” movement and she apologized for any offense. Too late. Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki declared her a “prime target” fit only for hell’s fire.
Actually, it’s al-Awlaki who should be pricing asbestos underwear. But that’s a topic for another time.
What this episode says about our society, our courage and our dedication to our founding principles is deafening. An American citizen is worse than exiled--at the behest of our government--because some Muslims don’t like her views. The federal government has thus admitted that it can’t, or won’t, protect our Constitution or our people against militant Islamic threats. The politically correct atmosphere in Washington is more inclined to appease radical nutcases than to defend our culture and liberty. It is disgraceful!
Can Americans truly be as spineless and weak as this situation indicates? If so, we should admit defeat for we’re doomed where we stand. But it’s doubtful the public knows about this egregious assault on the First Amendment, from both Islam and Washington. Except for Fox News, Molly Norris’ demise has received scant attention at best. Frankly, it’s being ignored. She and the First Amendment have been sacrificed to Islamic radicalism.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We have less liberty and safety whenever we, and our government, surrender to animals like al-Awlaki and his cutthroat followers. Molly Norris certainly has no liberty or safety. She’s not even allowed to exist.
Our Founder Fathers would hold us in utter contempt. The depth of their repudiation echoes across two centuries. In fact, I can almost feel the ground trembling from their restlessness.
Molly Norris is a former cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly newspaper. I say “former” because Molly no longer exists, at least not in her original form. At the FBI’s encouragement she has become something of a non-person.
No, Molly didn’t witness a mob hit nor will she provide key evidence against a drug lord. Molly Norris merely expressed an opinion, offended the “religion of peace” and became the target of an Islamic assassination order. What on earth could she have done to earn such ire? Nothing, really.
Norris satirically declared an “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” in response to the censoring of the Muslim overseer’s depiction on Comedy Central’s South Park. She never declared an actual event. She wasn’t trying to spark a “Draw Muhammad Day” movement and she apologized for any offense. Too late. Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki declared her a “prime target” fit only for hell’s fire.
Actually, it’s al-Awlaki who should be pricing asbestos underwear. But that’s a topic for another time.
What this episode says about our society, our courage and our dedication to our founding principles is deafening. An American citizen is worse than exiled--at the behest of our government--because some Muslims don’t like her views. The federal government has thus admitted that it can’t, or won’t, protect our Constitution or our people against militant Islamic threats. The politically correct atmosphere in Washington is more inclined to appease radical nutcases than to defend our culture and liberty. It is disgraceful!
Can Americans truly be as spineless and weak as this situation indicates? If so, we should admit defeat for we’re doomed where we stand. But it’s doubtful the public knows about this egregious assault on the First Amendment, from both Islam and Washington. Except for Fox News, Molly Norris’ demise has received scant attention at best. Frankly, it’s being ignored. She and the First Amendment have been sacrificed to Islamic radicalism.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We have less liberty and safety whenever we, and our government, surrender to animals like al-Awlaki and his cutthroat followers. Molly Norris certainly has no liberty or safety. She’s not even allowed to exist.
Our Founder Fathers would hold us in utter contempt. The depth of their repudiation echoes across two centuries. In fact, I can almost feel the ground trembling from their restlessness.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Behind the mind of an American apologist
Foster Kamer has an interesting blog post on the topic at the Village Voice. It’s an enlightening journey into the mindset that thinks building a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero signifies tolerance and outreach. Kamer also proves that Regressives can’t present an argument without an expletive-laced tirade intended to cow their opponents into silence.
Kamer argues that you’re a fool if you oppose the Ground Zero Mosque because the mosque isn’t sitting on the World Trade Center site. He concludes with this intellectual masterpiece: "But now you have a map to see how wrong you are, okay? Now: F**k you. F**k you and shut up, you a**holes. Shut up and leave New Yor(k) alone."
Admittedly, Kamer’s article raised some interesting points. Americans have squabbled childishly over what should be done at the World Trade Center site to properly memorialize the dead. And there are adult establishments, fast food restaurants and other businesses that add nothing to the solemnity of the location. However, three key truths waylay Kamer’s claims.
First, such businesses existed in and around the WTC before 9/11. Second, let it be remembered that topless dancers, wholesale jewelers, street vendors and Burger King cooks didn’t fly aircraft into the Twin Towers. Third, the people who died at Ground Zero weren't defending religious freedom, as Kamer alleges. They weren’t defending anything; they simply went to work and died at the hands of assassins who considered them infidels.
Kamer says that Muslims, also, were killed on 9/11. Has anyone claimed otherwise? There were at least 18 Muslims killed, as I recall. What’s more, among those who died in those skyscrapers, the Pentagon and Flight 92 were likely Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, agnostics, atheists and a Satanist or two. What’s the point? Adherents to these beliefs weren’t represented on “the Muslim street” following 9/11—firing celebratory bursts from their AK-47s—now were they?
Sorry Village Voice, your writer’s argument is empty. No one has claimed that the mosque in question sits on the actual site of the Twin Towers. But the Park 51 area is a part of the site, a place where debris from the WTC reigned on innocent people. Therefore, if Imam Rauf were actually interested in "healing" and “building bridges” he would've planned his project in another NY location, which he has admitted. Yet, he says he can't change plans now or Islam will be offended, which raises more questions.
Hasn’t Imam Rauf now confessed to the radical hatred within the religion he teaches? Hasn’t he said that his Islamic brethren can’t be trusted to behave civilly? Yes, he has admitted just that, and with clarity that can’t be misinterpreted.
Funny, too, how the Village Voice writer claims to defend religious freedom and yet tells everyone with a different view to "shut the f**k up,” as the previous quote indicates. Where is his appreciation and respect for free speech? Where is his tolerance? I will defend religious freedom until it’s used to attack our nation, culture and civilization, or to kill our people. At that point the tolerance ends. There is no more.
I will also defend Foster Kamer’s ability to speak freely and convey the opinions he wishes. But I’ll admit that my reasons are selfish. Foster must speak because the best thing to do with fools is let them have the stage. They will invariably prove their lack of worth.
Kamer argues that you’re a fool if you oppose the Ground Zero Mosque because the mosque isn’t sitting on the World Trade Center site. He concludes with this intellectual masterpiece: "But now you have a map to see how wrong you are, okay? Now: F**k you. F**k you and shut up, you a**holes. Shut up and leave New Yor(k) alone."
Admittedly, Kamer’s article raised some interesting points. Americans have squabbled childishly over what should be done at the World Trade Center site to properly memorialize the dead. And there are adult establishments, fast food restaurants and other businesses that add nothing to the solemnity of the location. However, three key truths waylay Kamer’s claims.
First, such businesses existed in and around the WTC before 9/11. Second, let it be remembered that topless dancers, wholesale jewelers, street vendors and Burger King cooks didn’t fly aircraft into the Twin Towers. Third, the people who died at Ground Zero weren't defending religious freedom, as Kamer alleges. They weren’t defending anything; they simply went to work and died at the hands of assassins who considered them infidels.
Kamer says that Muslims, also, were killed on 9/11. Has anyone claimed otherwise? There were at least 18 Muslims killed, as I recall. What’s more, among those who died in those skyscrapers, the Pentagon and Flight 92 were likely Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, agnostics, atheists and a Satanist or two. What’s the point? Adherents to these beliefs weren’t represented on “the Muslim street” following 9/11—firing celebratory bursts from their AK-47s—now were they?
Sorry Village Voice, your writer’s argument is empty. No one has claimed that the mosque in question sits on the actual site of the Twin Towers. But the Park 51 area is a part of the site, a place where debris from the WTC reigned on innocent people. Therefore, if Imam Rauf were actually interested in "healing" and “building bridges” he would've planned his project in another NY location, which he has admitted. Yet, he says he can't change plans now or Islam will be offended, which raises more questions.
Hasn’t Imam Rauf now confessed to the radical hatred within the religion he teaches? Hasn’t he said that his Islamic brethren can’t be trusted to behave civilly? Yes, he has admitted just that, and with clarity that can’t be misinterpreted.
Funny, too, how the Village Voice writer claims to defend religious freedom and yet tells everyone with a different view to "shut the f**k up,” as the previous quote indicates. Where is his appreciation and respect for free speech? Where is his tolerance? I will defend religious freedom until it’s used to attack our nation, culture and civilization, or to kill our people. At that point the tolerance ends. There is no more.
I will also defend Foster Kamer’s ability to speak freely and convey the opinions he wishes. But I’ll admit that my reasons are selfish. Foster must speak because the best thing to do with fools is let them have the stage. They will invariably prove their lack of worth.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Tolerance for dissent depends on the dissension
The Left loves to toss around their right to dissent. They dissent against defending the country. They dissent against the Second Amendment. They dissent against private property. They especially love to accuse political opponents of stifling dissent whenever their views are rejected.
However, for the Left to appreciate and defend dissent it must conform to their approved criteria. In short, they dissent against dissent. Let’s look at it.
Remember when protesting the war was the Leftist’s favorite pastime? Protesters dressed in black pajamas, just like Hamas or Hezbollah militants, and flew the flags of our enemies. Mock graveyards adorned with red crescents were erected. US flags were set ablaze and used to burn effigies of American soldiers, which were suspended with chains.
When conservatives countered their lunacy with rational arguments we were accused of abridging the protester’s free speech, of stifling their dissent. The charge was nonsensical. Free speech is simply that: the freedom to speak. It conveys no right of audience, agreement or acceptance.
Conservatives didn’t close anti-war protests, we just disagreed. As long as the protesters didn’t aid our enemies or deny other Americans their right to conduct their lives, they could have their say.
But the Left doesn’t view conservative dissension with like tolerance, or with tolerance at all. Conservatives must be silenced. It’s a lesson Loren Spivack has experienced firsthand.
Mr. Spivack operated the Free Market Warrior, a kiosk at Concord Mills Mall in Concord, NC. I use the past tense because his lease has been terminated and his small shop closed. No, his rent wasn’t in arrears and his kiosk structure didn’t violate mall policy. In fact, he was never given reasons for his eviction, only excuses. Each explanation mall management provided was fraught with inconsistency.
The Free Market Warrior’s great offense was selling material unfriendly to Barack Obama and baby bibs that read “Thanks Mom and Dad for choosing life.” Such items were deemed offensive. Yet other stores at Concord Mills sell items promoting drug use, disrespect for parents, oral sex, masturbation and other sexual innuendo. As for complaints about Loren’s “offensive” items, there were two.
This isn’t a First Amendment issue, which Loren readily recognizes. Government didn’t silence the Free Market Warrior just as government didn’t silence war protesters, regardless of what the Left claims. Concord Mills, owned by Simon Properties, is a private entity and can regulate what is sold on its property.
Conservatives recognize such property rights even when used to our detriment. Leftists don’t. And there’s no questioning Simon Properties’ left-wing bias. Just consider CEO Melvin Simon’s history.
Melvin Simon contributes heavily to left-wing causes and political candidates. He has given to Democrat candidates, Democrat PACs and organizations such as Emily’s List. Very few Republicans have received so much as a dime from Mr. Simon.
That’s fine, it’s his money and he can do with it what pleases him. But his history does lend credence to the argument that Loren Spivack was politically targeted, which wouldn’t be acceptable if the shoe were on the other foot.
Equally contradictory is Mr. Simon’s aforementioned wealth, produced through the capitalist entrepreneurialism that his preferred candidates vilify at every turn. Furthermore, Simon’s contributions went to many staunchly anti-Second Amendment politicians. Why, then, doesn’t Simon Properties find the large array of firearms sold at Bass Pro Shops--Concord Mills’ anchor tenant--offensive? That one is easy; Bass Pro Shops generates more revenue than did Loren’s kiosk.
As stated, Simon Properties can do as it will with its malls and its money. But you can bet the farm that if a conservative-minded property group evicted a liberal tenant for similar reasons all Hades would boil over. Yet again, “dissent” proves to be the Left’s playground while conservatives are silenced whenever possible.
However, for the Left to appreciate and defend dissent it must conform to their approved criteria. In short, they dissent against dissent. Let’s look at it.
Remember when protesting the war was the Leftist’s favorite pastime? Protesters dressed in black pajamas, just like Hamas or Hezbollah militants, and flew the flags of our enemies. Mock graveyards adorned with red crescents were erected. US flags were set ablaze and used to burn effigies of American soldiers, which were suspended with chains.
When conservatives countered their lunacy with rational arguments we were accused of abridging the protester’s free speech, of stifling their dissent. The charge was nonsensical. Free speech is simply that: the freedom to speak. It conveys no right of audience, agreement or acceptance.
Conservatives didn’t close anti-war protests, we just disagreed. As long as the protesters didn’t aid our enemies or deny other Americans their right to conduct their lives, they could have their say.
But the Left doesn’t view conservative dissension with like tolerance, or with tolerance at all. Conservatives must be silenced. It’s a lesson Loren Spivack has experienced firsthand.
Mr. Spivack operated the Free Market Warrior, a kiosk at Concord Mills Mall in Concord, NC. I use the past tense because his lease has been terminated and his small shop closed. No, his rent wasn’t in arrears and his kiosk structure didn’t violate mall policy. In fact, he was never given reasons for his eviction, only excuses. Each explanation mall management provided was fraught with inconsistency.
The Free Market Warrior’s great offense was selling material unfriendly to Barack Obama and baby bibs that read “Thanks Mom and Dad for choosing life.” Such items were deemed offensive. Yet other stores at Concord Mills sell items promoting drug use, disrespect for parents, oral sex, masturbation and other sexual innuendo. As for complaints about Loren’s “offensive” items, there were two.
This isn’t a First Amendment issue, which Loren readily recognizes. Government didn’t silence the Free Market Warrior just as government didn’t silence war protesters, regardless of what the Left claims. Concord Mills, owned by Simon Properties, is a private entity and can regulate what is sold on its property.
Conservatives recognize such property rights even when used to our detriment. Leftists don’t. And there’s no questioning Simon Properties’ left-wing bias. Just consider CEO Melvin Simon’s history.
Melvin Simon contributes heavily to left-wing causes and political candidates. He has given to Democrat candidates, Democrat PACs and organizations such as Emily’s List. Very few Republicans have received so much as a dime from Mr. Simon.
That’s fine, it’s his money and he can do with it what pleases him. But his history does lend credence to the argument that Loren Spivack was politically targeted, which wouldn’t be acceptable if the shoe were on the other foot.
Equally contradictory is Mr. Simon’s aforementioned wealth, produced through the capitalist entrepreneurialism that his preferred candidates vilify at every turn. Furthermore, Simon’s contributions went to many staunchly anti-Second Amendment politicians. Why, then, doesn’t Simon Properties find the large array of firearms sold at Bass Pro Shops--Concord Mills’ anchor tenant--offensive? That one is easy; Bass Pro Shops generates more revenue than did Loren’s kiosk.
As stated, Simon Properties can do as it will with its malls and its money. But you can bet the farm that if a conservative-minded property group evicted a liberal tenant for similar reasons all Hades would boil over. Yet again, “dissent” proves to be the Left’s playground while conservatives are silenced whenever possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
