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.
Showing posts with label regressives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regressives. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Thoughts and questions on various matters
A large number of Americans believe that less productive people deserve more and that more productive people deserve less. If that weren’t true, politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Patrick Leahy couldn’t get elected dog-catcher, much less to Congress.
No matter the dictates of multiculturalism and political correctness, Christmas remains the prime reason for December celebrations. “Prove it,” you say? Alright. How many people would tune in to watch the annual presentation of Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Kwanzaa?
Is it possible to sell our fellow citizens on the virtues of individual liberty and personal responsibility when so many have become quite comfortable in the veritable bondage of government dependence?
Whether a person considers a political advertisement a truthful assessment of a candidate’s positions or an unsubstantiated attack on their character rests solely on whether their preferred candidate is the ad’s target or its originator.
A sticker on a bottle of lamp oil reads, “Danger! Do not drink!” What purpose can this warning serve? If someone is so dense as to drink lamp oil, that person isn’t smart enough to read and understand the warning label.
Here is another undeniable truth of Interstate driving. You must travel 75 miles per hour to pass the same car that you were about to run over when traveling at 50 miles per hour.
No matter the trade or profession, and regardless of the employer, each shift claims to do all of the work while the other shifts laze about accomplishing nothing.
Are the people who think Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators are dangerous zealots who must be countered by the Fairness Doctrine also the people who consider Keith Olberman a reasonable, logical and balanced reporter? If I were a gambling man, I’d wager yes.
The long-term trend toward greater judicial activism, legislative hostility and public apathy bode poorly for our constitutional republic’s future. The 2010 election results can be a positive step toward correcting the first two problems, but only if it means we have rid ourselves of the third.
Not being big on conspiracy theories, the “birther” movement holds little interest for me. However, I do consider Hawaii’s certificate of live birth a redundancy. Isn’t the fact that someone is standing in front of you proof positive that the person was born alive?
When then-President Bush escalated the entitlement system (Medicare Part D) and stated that he was abandoning capitalism (TARP) in order to save the free-market system he threw open the door to Barack Obama’s presidency. When Obama escalated what Bush began (Stimulus, Healthcare Reform) he set the table for last fall’s Republican gains. Voters are now left to wonder which party will screw-up bad enough to lose in 2012.
Do whitewall tires still exist? And while we’re on the subject of tires, when and why did sporty white-letter tires decline in popularity in favor of the nondescript black wall?
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made nice livings peddling ordure under the mantle of social justice and civil rights. But have no fear; anything you’ve retained from Sharpton’s or Jackson’s rhetoric can be remedied with a dose of Ex-lax.
The bikini is far more than an eye-catching cultural icon; it is an economic anomaly. Bikinis represent one of the few transactions (lingerie being another) where customers willingly pay more to receive less.
Anyone so naïve as to believe buying carbon offsets from Al Gore’s companies will halt climate change would also buy air from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India and top soil from Chernobyl.
Why do people tie their shoes together and toss them across electrical power lines? It’s a waste of time and shoes. Plus, it’s done so frequently it can’t even qualify as an original prank.
Congress has investigated numerous baseball players for lying to Congress about steroid use. Why, then, can’t we charge Congress with lying to us about the sub-prime lending fiasco, bailouts, stimulus, healthcare reform and pretty much everything else Congress does?
No matter the dictates of multiculturalism and political correctness, Christmas remains the prime reason for December celebrations. “Prove it,” you say? Alright. How many people would tune in to watch the annual presentation of Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Kwanzaa?
Is it possible to sell our fellow citizens on the virtues of individual liberty and personal responsibility when so many have become quite comfortable in the veritable bondage of government dependence?
Whether a person considers a political advertisement a truthful assessment of a candidate’s positions or an unsubstantiated attack on their character rests solely on whether their preferred candidate is the ad’s target or its originator.
A sticker on a bottle of lamp oil reads, “Danger! Do not drink!” What purpose can this warning serve? If someone is so dense as to drink lamp oil, that person isn’t smart enough to read and understand the warning label.
Here is another undeniable truth of Interstate driving. You must travel 75 miles per hour to pass the same car that you were about to run over when traveling at 50 miles per hour.
No matter the trade or profession, and regardless of the employer, each shift claims to do all of the work while the other shifts laze about accomplishing nothing.
Are the people who think Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators are dangerous zealots who must be countered by the Fairness Doctrine also the people who consider Keith Olberman a reasonable, logical and balanced reporter? If I were a gambling man, I’d wager yes.
The long-term trend toward greater judicial activism, legislative hostility and public apathy bode poorly for our constitutional republic’s future. The 2010 election results can be a positive step toward correcting the first two problems, but only if it means we have rid ourselves of the third.
Not being big on conspiracy theories, the “birther” movement holds little interest for me. However, I do consider Hawaii’s certificate of live birth a redundancy. Isn’t the fact that someone is standing in front of you proof positive that the person was born alive?
When then-President Bush escalated the entitlement system (Medicare Part D) and stated that he was abandoning capitalism (TARP) in order to save the free-market system he threw open the door to Barack Obama’s presidency. When Obama escalated what Bush began (Stimulus, Healthcare Reform) he set the table for last fall’s Republican gains. Voters are now left to wonder which party will screw-up bad enough to lose in 2012.
Do whitewall tires still exist? And while we’re on the subject of tires, when and why did sporty white-letter tires decline in popularity in favor of the nondescript black wall?
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made nice livings peddling ordure under the mantle of social justice and civil rights. But have no fear; anything you’ve retained from Sharpton’s or Jackson’s rhetoric can be remedied with a dose of Ex-lax.
The bikini is far more than an eye-catching cultural icon; it is an economic anomaly. Bikinis represent one of the few transactions (lingerie being another) where customers willingly pay more to receive less.
Anyone so naïve as to believe buying carbon offsets from Al Gore’s companies will halt climate change would also buy air from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India and top soil from Chernobyl.
Why do people tie their shoes together and toss them across electrical power lines? It’s a waste of time and shoes. Plus, it’s done so frequently it can’t even qualify as an original prank.
Congress has investigated numerous baseball players for lying to Congress about steroid use. Why, then, can’t we charge Congress with lying to us about the sub-prime lending fiasco, bailouts, stimulus, healthcare reform and pretty much everything else Congress does?
Saturday, January 1, 2011
The five myths of Regressive politics #4: Conservatives hate the environment
Biased news reports and mindless Regressive propaganda routinely support the notion that conservatives are anti-environment. Can we pause the rhetoric for a moment and think logically? If conservatives intend to destroy the earth, and succeed, where will conservatives live? This Regressive allegation is nonsense, appealing only to the vacuous mind.
It is a conservative principle to use resources wisely, not wastefully. Compare the word “conservation” to “conservatism”. Both are rooted in the preservation and protection of that which exists. Thus it’s natural for conservatives to exercise judgment when managing resources. When environmental debates arise, conservatives will examine the various arguments and produce a viable, rational conclusion. Take climate change for instance. Conservatives see the issue without the green-colored glasses the Regressives favor.
I will say, with full confidence, that conservatives have no intention of cutting down the last tree or poisoning the sole remaining stream. There’s no right-wing plot, latent or overt, designed to foul the lone uncontaminated particle of air or consume the final bite of food with no thought for the future.
Charging conservatives with anti-environmentalism is actually paradoxical. It’s an endorsement of conservatism if we are as destructive to the environment as Regressives claim. Everyone, regardless of political ideology, needs air to breathe and water to drink. If conservatives have learned to live without these necessities then we can certainly devise a more innovative course for America than can the Regressives.
As for the Regressives themselves, are they really concerned with the environment? Or are they simply using environmentalism as a bridge toward greater statism? If enough people become convinced that using natural resources--oil, coal, trees, fish, whatever--is environmentally destructive, then the power of government can be exercised to “protect” those resources from “exploitation.” Property rights then decline in direct proportion to government’s ascent.
The only viable option for protecting natural resources, according to the green activist, is placing them off limits. Thus Regressives oppose environmentally dependent industries with fervor akin to how Nazis opposed Jewish shopkeepers, with the hunting, coal, oil and timber industries centered in their crosshairs. Using a natural resource often means wading through a maze of bureaucratic regulations. These positions render Regressives the worst enemies of the causes they claim to defend.
For instance, sport hunters have a vested interest in protecting wildlife and habitat. Without both there’s no game to hunt or fish to catch. Therefore sportsmen pay excise taxes on their equipment, benefiting both game and non-game species. Timber companies are idle without an abundant supply of mature timber. Thus common sense demands that the timber industry replant the forests they harvest.
Successful environmental dogma depends on a lack of analysis from its disciples. Only a complete idiot would believe that conservatives intend to destroy natural resources and render the earth uninhabitable. Maybe that’s why the notion is so popular among Regressives.
It is a conservative principle to use resources wisely, not wastefully. Compare the word “conservation” to “conservatism”. Both are rooted in the preservation and protection of that which exists. Thus it’s natural for conservatives to exercise judgment when managing resources. When environmental debates arise, conservatives will examine the various arguments and produce a viable, rational conclusion. Take climate change for instance. Conservatives see the issue without the green-colored glasses the Regressives favor.
I will say, with full confidence, that conservatives have no intention of cutting down the last tree or poisoning the sole remaining stream. There’s no right-wing plot, latent or overt, designed to foul the lone uncontaminated particle of air or consume the final bite of food with no thought for the future.
Charging conservatives with anti-environmentalism is actually paradoxical. It’s an endorsement of conservatism if we are as destructive to the environment as Regressives claim. Everyone, regardless of political ideology, needs air to breathe and water to drink. If conservatives have learned to live without these necessities then we can certainly devise a more innovative course for America than can the Regressives.
As for the Regressives themselves, are they really concerned with the environment? Or are they simply using environmentalism as a bridge toward greater statism? If enough people become convinced that using natural resources--oil, coal, trees, fish, whatever--is environmentally destructive, then the power of government can be exercised to “protect” those resources from “exploitation.” Property rights then decline in direct proportion to government’s ascent.
The only viable option for protecting natural resources, according to the green activist, is placing them off limits. Thus Regressives oppose environmentally dependent industries with fervor akin to how Nazis opposed Jewish shopkeepers, with the hunting, coal, oil and timber industries centered in their crosshairs. Using a natural resource often means wading through a maze of bureaucratic regulations. These positions render Regressives the worst enemies of the causes they claim to defend.
For instance, sport hunters have a vested interest in protecting wildlife and habitat. Without both there’s no game to hunt or fish to catch. Therefore sportsmen pay excise taxes on their equipment, benefiting both game and non-game species. Timber companies are idle without an abundant supply of mature timber. Thus common sense demands that the timber industry replant the forests they harvest.
Successful environmental dogma depends on a lack of analysis from its disciples. Only a complete idiot would believe that conservatives intend to destroy natural resources and render the earth uninhabitable. Maybe that’s why the notion is so popular among Regressives.
Monday, December 20, 2010
The two faces of Julian Assange
Julian Assange, Wikileaker extraordinaire, is somewhat the enigma. His appearance is, at best, unimpressive. In fact, his visage screams “metrosexual” with the subtlety of a train horn on a still summer’s eve. His sexual preference is in question even while he’s accused of raping two women. Assange is both a heroic freedom-fighter and a treasonous lout, depending on who you ask and when. Perhaps he is equally both and yet neither, all the while turning American politics on its ear.
Regressives cheered when Assange’s Wikileaks exposed information that endangered key allies and operations in Afghanistan. Kudos for open government, they crowed. To hear Regressives tell it, protecting domestic constitutional liberties meant knowing everything our military was planning on the other side of the world. Of course, contemporary Regressives would’ve considered leaking the U.S. military’s big secret on June 5, 1944 as an act of patriotism, too. Conservatives (and some Regressives) liken Assange to the second coming of the Rosenbergs, even encouraging the CIA to punch his ticket.
Assange next dumped information that embarrassed the State Department. The leaked communications revealed how U.S. emissaries spied upon both friend and foe and exercised strong-arm diplomacy with our allies. However, to spill the beans on champagne-sipping envoys doesn’t seem as evil as unveiling military secrets. Besides, anyone who doesn’t realize that we spy on our allies, and they on us, and that international negotiations aren’t invariably conducted according to Robert’s Rules is rather naïve.
Assange’s leak of Afghanistan War records harmed the military. This infuriated conservatives and caused Regressives to squeal like school girls on prom night. He then exposed the State Department’s diplomatic affairs--and diplomacy is the true love of the Left--that embarrassed the Obama administration. In a pure political sense he has offended and satisfied both the Right and the Left. Thus Julian Assange is 100-percent evil and 100-percent good, depending on what was compromised, who was embarrassed, and when. Regressives and Conservatives have political common ground; they can both love and hate the dual faces of Julian Assange.
But, not all matters should be seen through red or blue colored glasses. Sometimes there is no right, left or middle. Sometimes moral and ethical aspects transcend political advantage. That time is now, when Julian Assange’s two faces have become one. His publication of military documents potentially compromised the safety and mission of American troops fighting on foreign soil. That’s a Julian Assange that no American should excuse, regardless how thoroughly Wikileaks may have tweaked their political opponents.
Regressives cheered when Assange’s Wikileaks exposed information that endangered key allies and operations in Afghanistan. Kudos for open government, they crowed. To hear Regressives tell it, protecting domestic constitutional liberties meant knowing everything our military was planning on the other side of the world. Of course, contemporary Regressives would’ve considered leaking the U.S. military’s big secret on June 5, 1944 as an act of patriotism, too. Conservatives (and some Regressives) liken Assange to the second coming of the Rosenbergs, even encouraging the CIA to punch his ticket.
Assange next dumped information that embarrassed the State Department. The leaked communications revealed how U.S. emissaries spied upon both friend and foe and exercised strong-arm diplomacy with our allies. However, to spill the beans on champagne-sipping envoys doesn’t seem as evil as unveiling military secrets. Besides, anyone who doesn’t realize that we spy on our allies, and they on us, and that international negotiations aren’t invariably conducted according to Robert’s Rules is rather naïve.
Assange’s leak of Afghanistan War records harmed the military. This infuriated conservatives and caused Regressives to squeal like school girls on prom night. He then exposed the State Department’s diplomatic affairs--and diplomacy is the true love of the Left--that embarrassed the Obama administration. In a pure political sense he has offended and satisfied both the Right and the Left. Thus Julian Assange is 100-percent evil and 100-percent good, depending on what was compromised, who was embarrassed, and when. Regressives and Conservatives have political common ground; they can both love and hate the dual faces of Julian Assange.
But, not all matters should be seen through red or blue colored glasses. Sometimes there is no right, left or middle. Sometimes moral and ethical aspects transcend political advantage. That time is now, when Julian Assange’s two faces have become one. His publication of military documents potentially compromised the safety and mission of American troops fighting on foreign soil. That’s a Julian Assange that no American should excuse, regardless how thoroughly Wikileaks may have tweaked their political opponents.
Friday, December 10, 2010
The five myths of Regressive politics #3: Conservatives are sexists.
Women should stay home, sweep floors, prepare meals and bear their master’s children. Changing diapers and baking brownies; that’s a women’s role. Women should be seen in public only when posing for the Victoria’s Secret catalog. Isn’t that how Regressives would have you believe Conservatives view women?
This theory sounds insane, but it has a solid foundation. Conservatives recognize and accept reality. Men and women are genetically, physically and emotionally dissimilar. Sorry! That’s just how it is, has been and—genetic engineering aside—will remain. When Conservatives mention these facts Regressives play the sex card. However, the sex card is flawed beyond repair.
Conservatives really aren’t concerned with gender. It’s a person’s ideas that garner support or criticism. And conservatives certainly don’t demand that women remain barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove. That is, if you’ll pardon my sexism, an old wives’ tale. Fortunately, a growing number of women are recognizing the reality in conservatism and the respect it has for women. According to a 2009 Gallup survey, women are more conservative than liberal even though their party affiliation remains more Democrat than Republican.
Sexism was once defined as mistreating women. Not today. Sexism is whatever the Regressive feminist declares it to be. Is it sexist to buy a woman’s lunch? Is it condescending to hold the door for a lady, or to escort her to the porch following a date? Is it harassment to ask a woman for a date to begin with? Women must consider such traditional courtesies as blatant condescension to be a good feminist. Furthermore, feminist dogma must be accepted to avoid sexism charges. Such acceptance by affinity—a Regressive standard—is the worst form of denigration.
Conservatives don’t consider women inferior beings at all. They are equals worthy of respect and protection. They aren’t tools for social engineering. It is the left that manipulates women for that purpose. Thus it is the left that practices sexism.
The left’s “defense” of women is about feminism and abortion on demand. It’s not about women and is, actually, insulting to them. Forget the rhetoric about choice; choice is the last thing on the Regressive agenda. The only legitimate “choice” a woman can make is the one the Regressives demand. Remember the reaction to Tim Tebow’s mother?
Mrs. Tebow made the “wrong” choice when doctors advised her to abort the future national champion quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner. Regressives roasted her. Women are thinking independently only when walking lockstep with feminist dogma. Thus being pro-choice is the choice to abort and pro-freedom is the freedom to pursue the morals of an alley cat. It’s a tidy denunciation of personal responsibility. It is the Regressive in a nutshell.
Regressives rank ideology above a woman’s emotional and reproductive health. They rank their agenda above a woman’s ability to make individual choices. In truth, Regressives are women’s worst enemies.
This theory sounds insane, but it has a solid foundation. Conservatives recognize and accept reality. Men and women are genetically, physically and emotionally dissimilar. Sorry! That’s just how it is, has been and—genetic engineering aside—will remain. When Conservatives mention these facts Regressives play the sex card. However, the sex card is flawed beyond repair.
Conservatives really aren’t concerned with gender. It’s a person’s ideas that garner support or criticism. And conservatives certainly don’t demand that women remain barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove. That is, if you’ll pardon my sexism, an old wives’ tale. Fortunately, a growing number of women are recognizing the reality in conservatism and the respect it has for women. According to a 2009 Gallup survey, women are more conservative than liberal even though their party affiliation remains more Democrat than Republican.
Sexism was once defined as mistreating women. Not today. Sexism is whatever the Regressive feminist declares it to be. Is it sexist to buy a woman’s lunch? Is it condescending to hold the door for a lady, or to escort her to the porch following a date? Is it harassment to ask a woman for a date to begin with? Women must consider such traditional courtesies as blatant condescension to be a good feminist. Furthermore, feminist dogma must be accepted to avoid sexism charges. Such acceptance by affinity—a Regressive standard—is the worst form of denigration.
Conservatives don’t consider women inferior beings at all. They are equals worthy of respect and protection. They aren’t tools for social engineering. It is the left that manipulates women for that purpose. Thus it is the left that practices sexism.
The left’s “defense” of women is about feminism and abortion on demand. It’s not about women and is, actually, insulting to them. Forget the rhetoric about choice; choice is the last thing on the Regressive agenda. The only legitimate “choice” a woman can make is the one the Regressives demand. Remember the reaction to Tim Tebow’s mother?
Mrs. Tebow made the “wrong” choice when doctors advised her to abort the future national champion quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner. Regressives roasted her. Women are thinking independently only when walking lockstep with feminist dogma. Thus being pro-choice is the choice to abort and pro-freedom is the freedom to pursue the morals of an alley cat. It’s a tidy denunciation of personal responsibility. It is the Regressive in a nutshell.
Regressives rank ideology above a woman’s emotional and reproductive health. They rank their agenda above a woman’s ability to make individual choices. In truth, Regressives are women’s worst enemies.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
A five-step program for the Republican majority
The mid-term elections are over. Republicans celebrate their victory while Democrats chase their tails, apparently in a state of denial. The GOP won 239 House seats and control 46 Senate seats with the Alaska race still undecided. Even if Lisa Murkowski prevails she is a Republican who will be at least as dependable as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
Republicans also hold 29 governorships and a majority of statehouses, which means they will redraw the congressional districts following this census year. If Republicans have the fortitude they can align congressional districts to favor conservative candidates for the next decade.
Even seat counts don’t tell the whole story of the Republican’s November 2nd dominance. No Republican incumbent lost their Senate seat while Democrats struggled to hold serve in Regressive heavy Washington and Colorado. House Democrats lost one seat in which their candidate was a prohibitive favorite and five where they were expected to win with ease. Republicans lost nary a House race they were favored to win. Republicans won 30 tossup races, unseating Democrat incumbents in 29 of them. Democrats won only 12 such elections. Democrats unseated just three sitting Republican representatives, and one of those was in Hawaii where a Democrat victory is about as rare as spotting a corn stalk in Illinois.
What happens now? Winning elections is one thing; wielding power is quite another. How should the GOP proceed? Where should they flex their newfound muscle? What must Republicans do to prove they are a genuine conservative alternative to the defeated Democrats? Follow the five-step program.
First, Republicans must realize that America voted for conservatism, not liberalism. When a confident football team intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble they try to capitalize immediately on the momentum shift. The GOP’s strategy should be similar. Why allow the losers to define the debate? Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare. It’s won’t pass the Senate, although some Senate Democrats--like Joe Manchin (WV)--may buck their party and the administration. If repeal does survive the Senate the President will certainly veto it, which Republicans can’t override. So what? Introduce the bill again and again and again. Force the Democrats to defend their collectivist programs.
Second, avoid appeasement; it offers nothing for Republicans. Losing doesn’t equal defeat in the Regressive’s dictionary. In fact, Democrats are likely to be aggressive in defeat. What do they have to lose? Meet the lame duck Democrats with a hefty dose of obstructionism and gridlock. Republicans hold enough Senate seats right now to stonewall Democrats until the 112th Congress is seated. Just do it!
Third, ignore the Democrat’s character assassinations and obtuse rhetoric. Any conservative knows, or should know, that these tactics are the first options for Regressives and their media allies. Deal with it; it’s as common to politics as sand to the Mohave Desert. Conservatives have few friends in the media and none in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Cabal. Why try to impress them? Cater to the people who’ve granted the GOP a second chance at governing, not the Washington elitists. Their agenda is the one you were elected to stop.
Fourth, forget about bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake. There’s no compromise with Regressive Democrats. If the electorate wanted the snake oil Democrats have been peddling they wouldn’t have swept them from power. Obama himself has said that elections have consequences and that victors set the tone. Go for their jugular; don’t give them a hand up. Let the Regressives “reach across the aisle” for a change.
Fifth, the Republican Party must remember where their new lease on life came from. Conservatives are wary and watching for signs of betrayal. If Republicans promote big government, as past Republican Congresses have done, voters have no reason to trust them in 2012.
Republicans aren’t as devoted to statism as are Democrats. But the slow boat to socialism eventually docks in the same harbor. The GOP has a chance to prove that they aren’t a watered-down version of the Regressive Movement. They better make a good showing.
Republicans also hold 29 governorships and a majority of statehouses, which means they will redraw the congressional districts following this census year. If Republicans have the fortitude they can align congressional districts to favor conservative candidates for the next decade.
Even seat counts don’t tell the whole story of the Republican’s November 2nd dominance. No Republican incumbent lost their Senate seat while Democrats struggled to hold serve in Regressive heavy Washington and Colorado. House Democrats lost one seat in which their candidate was a prohibitive favorite and five where they were expected to win with ease. Republicans lost nary a House race they were favored to win. Republicans won 30 tossup races, unseating Democrat incumbents in 29 of them. Democrats won only 12 such elections. Democrats unseated just three sitting Republican representatives, and one of those was in Hawaii where a Democrat victory is about as rare as spotting a corn stalk in Illinois.
What happens now? Winning elections is one thing; wielding power is quite another. How should the GOP proceed? Where should they flex their newfound muscle? What must Republicans do to prove they are a genuine conservative alternative to the defeated Democrats? Follow the five-step program.
First, Republicans must realize that America voted for conservatism, not liberalism. When a confident football team intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble they try to capitalize immediately on the momentum shift. The GOP’s strategy should be similar. Why allow the losers to define the debate? Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare. It’s won’t pass the Senate, although some Senate Democrats--like Joe Manchin (WV)--may buck their party and the administration. If repeal does survive the Senate the President will certainly veto it, which Republicans can’t override. So what? Introduce the bill again and again and again. Force the Democrats to defend their collectivist programs.
Second, avoid appeasement; it offers nothing for Republicans. Losing doesn’t equal defeat in the Regressive’s dictionary. In fact, Democrats are likely to be aggressive in defeat. What do they have to lose? Meet the lame duck Democrats with a hefty dose of obstructionism and gridlock. Republicans hold enough Senate seats right now to stonewall Democrats until the 112th Congress is seated. Just do it!
Third, ignore the Democrat’s character assassinations and obtuse rhetoric. Any conservative knows, or should know, that these tactics are the first options for Regressives and their media allies. Deal with it; it’s as common to politics as sand to the Mohave Desert. Conservatives have few friends in the media and none in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Cabal. Why try to impress them? Cater to the people who’ve granted the GOP a second chance at governing, not the Washington elitists. Their agenda is the one you were elected to stop.
Fourth, forget about bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake. There’s no compromise with Regressive Democrats. If the electorate wanted the snake oil Democrats have been peddling they wouldn’t have swept them from power. Obama himself has said that elections have consequences and that victors set the tone. Go for their jugular; don’t give them a hand up. Let the Regressives “reach across the aisle” for a change.
Fifth, the Republican Party must remember where their new lease on life came from. Conservatives are wary and watching for signs of betrayal. If Republicans promote big government, as past Republican Congresses have done, voters have no reason to trust them in 2012.
Republicans aren’t as devoted to statism as are Democrats. But the slow boat to socialism eventually docks in the same harbor. The GOP has a chance to prove that they aren’t a watered-down version of the Regressive Movement. They better make a good showing.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The five myths of Regressive politics #2: Conservatives benefit from poverty.
Sometimes you have to hand it to your enemies. Regressives are masterful at portraying themselves as the administrators of “economic fairness.” No Regressive oration would be complete without a splash of class envy. Be it “tax cuts for the greedy rich” or “the rich getting wealthy on the backs of the poor,” the message is the same. Conservatives benefit from keeping poor Americans impoverished. But the Left’s advantage is nullified when conservatives meet their charge head-on.
Conservatism finds no joy in anyone’s economic suffering. Rather, conservatism promotes attitudes that loose people from poverty’s chain. Optimism, resilience, self-reliance and ethics are the qualities that build successful and enduring futures. While setbacks are common they aren’t cause for surrender. The individual remains superior to politicians, bureaucrats and busybody activists who display their so-called generosity in the redistribution of their neighbor’s earnings. These qualities are fundamental to conservative thought.
The notion that honor resides in effort and ingenuity is neither foolish nor outdated. And poverty isn’t a cause for shame but for resolve. Conservatives embrace this concept because the benefits are demonstrable, having lifted some of America’s highest achievers to unimagined accomplishments. That’s why conservatives resist expanding the so-called social safety net. There’s no enmity toward the poor, just toward the entitlements that encourage their economic stagnation.
The old fishing adage fit’s the conservative outlook perfectly. Give a man a fish and you’ve fed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime. Conservatives enjoy teaching people to fish.
Regressive policies ensure that the poor remain poor. According to the Cato Institute, 32-percent of America’s population was impoverished in 1947. The poverty level fell to 13.9-percent by 1965. That’s when Regressives launched Lyndon Johnson’s infamous War on Poverty. Since 1965 the poverty rate has remained relatively constant, hovering between 10 and 15-percent.
If discussing poverty with a few quick statistics sounds cold and impersonal, it shouldn’t. Each number represents millions of Americans whose faith has been diminished and whose futures have been damaged by Regressive policies.
The grandiose promises of the left’s anti-poverty crusade remain predictably unfulfilled, a vapid collection of shell games, pipe dreams and collectivist utopianism. Instead of eradicating poverty, as advertised, Regressives have stifled initiative, fostered dependency and encouraged stagnation. The role of father has been swallowed in statist bureaucracy, the family unit is fractured and inner cities--ostensibly the target of the War on Poverty--are economic disasters.
Regressives toss fish to the poor, much like a marine biologist feeds a seal, thereby ensuring that destitute people, like seals, look to Regressives each time they have a need. There’s nothing compassionate about it. In fact, it’s a heinous immorality.
Conservatism finds no joy in anyone’s economic suffering. Rather, conservatism promotes attitudes that loose people from poverty’s chain. Optimism, resilience, self-reliance and ethics are the qualities that build successful and enduring futures. While setbacks are common they aren’t cause for surrender. The individual remains superior to politicians, bureaucrats and busybody activists who display their so-called generosity in the redistribution of their neighbor’s earnings. These qualities are fundamental to conservative thought.
The notion that honor resides in effort and ingenuity is neither foolish nor outdated. And poverty isn’t a cause for shame but for resolve. Conservatives embrace this concept because the benefits are demonstrable, having lifted some of America’s highest achievers to unimagined accomplishments. That’s why conservatives resist expanding the so-called social safety net. There’s no enmity toward the poor, just toward the entitlements that encourage their economic stagnation.
The old fishing adage fit’s the conservative outlook perfectly. Give a man a fish and you’ve fed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime. Conservatives enjoy teaching people to fish.
Regressive policies ensure that the poor remain poor. According to the Cato Institute, 32-percent of America’s population was impoverished in 1947. The poverty level fell to 13.9-percent by 1965. That’s when Regressives launched Lyndon Johnson’s infamous War on Poverty. Since 1965 the poverty rate has remained relatively constant, hovering between 10 and 15-percent.
If discussing poverty with a few quick statistics sounds cold and impersonal, it shouldn’t. Each number represents millions of Americans whose faith has been diminished and whose futures have been damaged by Regressive policies.
The grandiose promises of the left’s anti-poverty crusade remain predictably unfulfilled, a vapid collection of shell games, pipe dreams and collectivist utopianism. Instead of eradicating poverty, as advertised, Regressives have stifled initiative, fostered dependency and encouraged stagnation. The role of father has been swallowed in statist bureaucracy, the family unit is fractured and inner cities--ostensibly the target of the War on Poverty--are economic disasters.
Regressives toss fish to the poor, much like a marine biologist feeds a seal, thereby ensuring that destitute people, like seals, look to Regressives each time they have a need. There’s nothing compassionate about it. In fact, it’s a heinous immorality.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The five myths of Regressive politics #1: Conservatives are racist.
Whenever conservatives comment on racial issues they’re immediately compared to the Grand Dragons of the Ku Klux Klan. Such an accusation would be laughable if it weren’t so egregious. In reality conservatives are the colorblind idealists. Since all that’s rightly promised to free people is an opportunity to use their talents for their own benefit, conservatives recognize that preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity are themselves discriminatory. Quotas aren’t necessary for success, nor are head starts required.
In reality, applying quota and preference programs to people of color is condescending. Racial quota systems promote the idea that minorities are inferior and needful of preferential treatment. Conservatives recognize the duplicitous fallacy in this argument. Therefore, under conservatism, people are evaluated on their merits, with financial compensation and cultural status reflecting each individual’s contribution to society.
In conservative thought equality means a known starting point, no more. No one is elevated or relegated based on race and no preference is given beyond that which is due to the skills and attitudes a person presents.
The left is correct in one thing; racism does endure in America. However, its home is on the political left. Liberals have no faith in minorities regardless of the preening and crowing they do on behalf of the disenfranchised. Minorities cannot succeed without the left-wing do-gooder’s social justice activism and government assistance. Success can result from welfare and entitlement programs, hiring quotas, college admission preferences, or some other means. But success must be attributable to government.
The true crime of political racism is perpetrated daily on the left. Liberal politicians work diligently to convince minorities that life is worthless and unlivable without expansive government programs, thereby maintaining their grip on power. The fact that these programs are a proven snare, trapping recipients in an endless stream of dependence is immaterial. All that matters is the electoral power that can be attained and the governmental control that can be expanded.
In reality, applying quota and preference programs to people of color is condescending. Racial quota systems promote the idea that minorities are inferior and needful of preferential treatment. Conservatives recognize the duplicitous fallacy in this argument. Therefore, under conservatism, people are evaluated on their merits, with financial compensation and cultural status reflecting each individual’s contribution to society.
In conservative thought equality means a known starting point, no more. No one is elevated or relegated based on race and no preference is given beyond that which is due to the skills and attitudes a person presents.
The left is correct in one thing; racism does endure in America. However, its home is on the political left. Liberals have no faith in minorities regardless of the preening and crowing they do on behalf of the disenfranchised. Minorities cannot succeed without the left-wing do-gooder’s social justice activism and government assistance. Success can result from welfare and entitlement programs, hiring quotas, college admission preferences, or some other means. But success must be attributable to government.
The true crime of political racism is perpetrated daily on the left. Liberal politicians work diligently to convince minorities that life is worthless and unlivable without expansive government programs, thereby maintaining their grip on power. The fact that these programs are a proven snare, trapping recipients in an endless stream of dependence is immaterial. All that matters is the electoral power that can be attained and the governmental control that can be expanded.
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.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Ballplayers aren’t Cincinnati’s only “Reds”
Is nothing sacred? Is there no limit to the lengths busybodies will go to rule every aspect of our lives? Apparently there isn’t. Not even baseball, America’s pastime, nor a victory celebration can escape the bureaucrat’s oversight or the anonymous meddler’s nosiness.
The Cincinnati Reds are the National League’s Central Division champions, heading to the playoffs for the time since 1995. It’s a monumental accomplishment, the culmination of a dream shared by innumerable ballplayers since Little League. A celebratory moment is warranted following their successful march through the tough slog of the Major League season. So Reds owner Bob Castellini distributed cigars in the Reds locker room after the team clinched and players puffed a smoky salute to their triumph. That’s where the fun ended.
The Reds’ cigar party occurred inside the team clubhouse and was broadcast on television. Five “whistleblowers” saw these outlaws and phoned Ohio’s smoking ban hotline to report their dangerous assault on public safety. While it’s possible that jealous Cubs or Cardinals fans are behind the complaints, that doesn’t mitigate the nature of the anti-smoking “whistleblowers.” They are meddlesome tattletales in desperate need of a mission other than snooping in their neighbor’s business.
The Reds’ cigar party violated Cincinnati’s indoor smoking ban. City inspectors will now investigate--including possible undercover trips to Cincinnati’s playoff games--to determine if the scofflaw Reds will continue sneaking illicit smokes. Just how many murderers, rapists, burglars and assorted thugs will wander Cincinnati’s streets while taxpayer’s money is used to ensure public safety inside the Cincinnati Reds clubhouse?
How long should we stand for such lunacy? How long should the blatant waste of resources remain acceptable? Is there no end to the gullibility that allows government to transform erstwhile private citizens into bureaucratic stooges, anonymously spying on our neighbors? Above all, how long will we tolerate the incessant assault on private property and personal decisions that pass for “public safety” initiatives?
Obviously the clubhouse at Great American Ball Park isn’t the only place to find “Reds” in Cincinnati. It isn’t the only place to find “Reds” in America. Tyranny is expected from the Nancy Pelosi sect. But it’s unnerving when “everyday” Americans consider it good citizenship to snitch on their countrymen’s private affairs. Isn’t it time to root out these useful idiots among us, these petty tyrants, and expose their treachery?
Anonymous tip lines that encourage people to tattle on their neighbor have become all too common. If the Reds’ cigars are such a serious offence, let the offended come forward, like adults, and openly air their grievance. Since they obviously lack the courage to take a public stand, let these mice return to their holes.
Move aside cowards and let the bold dogs can bark. Let the barking commence at the Reds’ first home playoff game. I’d like to see the entire Cincinnati starting nine take the field with stogies in their mouths, just for a show of solidarity.
Although I’m a non-smoker and a Yankees fan, I’ll put my head on the block alongside the Reds. I will smoke a cigar--indoors, of course--if Cincinnati wins the World Series. What’s more, I will video my tribute and send a copy to the Cincinnati Health Department. Consider it the “puff heard around the world.”
Originally published at American Thinker.
The Cincinnati Reds are the National League’s Central Division champions, heading to the playoffs for the time since 1995. It’s a monumental accomplishment, the culmination of a dream shared by innumerable ballplayers since Little League. A celebratory moment is warranted following their successful march through the tough slog of the Major League season. So Reds owner Bob Castellini distributed cigars in the Reds locker room after the team clinched and players puffed a smoky salute to their triumph. That’s where the fun ended.
The Reds’ cigar party occurred inside the team clubhouse and was broadcast on television. Five “whistleblowers” saw these outlaws and phoned Ohio’s smoking ban hotline to report their dangerous assault on public safety. While it’s possible that jealous Cubs or Cardinals fans are behind the complaints, that doesn’t mitigate the nature of the anti-smoking “whistleblowers.” They are meddlesome tattletales in desperate need of a mission other than snooping in their neighbor’s business.
The Reds’ cigar party violated Cincinnati’s indoor smoking ban. City inspectors will now investigate--including possible undercover trips to Cincinnati’s playoff games--to determine if the scofflaw Reds will continue sneaking illicit smokes. Just how many murderers, rapists, burglars and assorted thugs will wander Cincinnati’s streets while taxpayer’s money is used to ensure public safety inside the Cincinnati Reds clubhouse?
How long should we stand for such lunacy? How long should the blatant waste of resources remain acceptable? Is there no end to the gullibility that allows government to transform erstwhile private citizens into bureaucratic stooges, anonymously spying on our neighbors? Above all, how long will we tolerate the incessant assault on private property and personal decisions that pass for “public safety” initiatives?
Obviously the clubhouse at Great American Ball Park isn’t the only place to find “Reds” in Cincinnati. It isn’t the only place to find “Reds” in America. Tyranny is expected from the Nancy Pelosi sect. But it’s unnerving when “everyday” Americans consider it good citizenship to snitch on their countrymen’s private affairs. Isn’t it time to root out these useful idiots among us, these petty tyrants, and expose their treachery?
Anonymous tip lines that encourage people to tattle on their neighbor have become all too common. If the Reds’ cigars are such a serious offence, let the offended come forward, like adults, and openly air their grievance. Since they obviously lack the courage to take a public stand, let these mice return to their holes.
Move aside cowards and let the bold dogs can bark. Let the barking commence at the Reds’ first home playoff game. I’d like to see the entire Cincinnati starting nine take the field with stogies in their mouths, just for a show of solidarity.
Although I’m a non-smoker and a Yankees fan, I’ll put my head on the block alongside the Reds. I will smoke a cigar--indoors, of course--if Cincinnati wins the World Series. What’s more, I will video my tribute and send a copy to the Cincinnati Health Department. Consider it the “puff heard around the world.”
Originally published at American Thinker.
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, July 18, 2010
Leftists are neither progressive nor liberal
The left changes monikers whenever their chosen title becomes too easily identified with their collectivist political intentions. They seized the title “Progressives” in the early 20th Century and adopted “Liberal” when the progressive image became tarnished. Today, with liberalism inextricably linked to collectivism, the left has returned to the progressive label. But one problem remains. Words have meanings that defy distortion, and neither progressive nor liberal accurately reflects the left’s governing philosophy.
The case has been made, on the pages of American Thinker itself, that identifying the leftist as a Progressive or Liberal is erroneous. It has been stated that policies declared to be progressive or liberal are actually backward and authoritarian. Thus the leftist has been aptly identified, based on policy and result, as regressive.
To state the case further, not even the definition of “progressive” or “liberal” identifies with the leftist ideology. It’s just that the left has manipulated those words until the distortion has become accepted. It is a common practice, for they routinely ignore reality and wear their title du jour like camouflage.
Progressive is defined as advocating, attaining, or being characterized by improvement and forward thinking. It dates to the early 17th Century, becoming politicized in the late 1800s. The modern left isn’t progressive in the practical or classical sense of the word. In fact, much of what constituted progressivism during the early 20th Century is the antithesis of contemporary leftist beliefs.
Early Progressives certainly desired social change, but they regularly utilized private organizations--such as churches and charities--for effecting their transformations. Not even the Progressive Era’s trust-busting government regulators were kin to today’s leftists. Those reformers sought to protect the future of market competition from monopolistic mergers and thwart the fledgling communist movements. Creating a labyrinth of bureaucratic red tape wasn’t their primary objective.
Nothing in the word “progressive” and little in early progressivism describes today’s leftist. The left has no desire to defend capitalism, foster competition, or accomplish their vision of social justice via private channels. They have only an insatiable lust for control.
Leftists promote nothing new; their goals are those of an archaic doctrine. Forward thinking isn’t featured in their agenda, the purpose of which is to repackage policies that are proven failures. Bolshevik is more descriptive than progressive, for the left shares the Bolshevik’s socialistic dreams. They are mired in the past, rendering progressive an inappropriate description.
Socialist ideals quickly co-opted the early Progressive movement, giving the title a black eye. Leftists then adopted Liberal, a more inviting identifier but one that also defies their agenda.
Liberal spawns from the Latin “liberalis” and “liber” meaning noble, generous and free. A genuine liberal bristles at authoritarian attitudes and fulfills the nature of the word liberal. America’s leftists, conversely, are adamant in their support for a domineering central government and generous only when distributing their neighbor’s property.
Leftist liberalism defines not freedom but the welfare state. Their concept of liberalism frees one segment of society to live at another segment’s expense. Leftists then pat each other on the back for their thoughtfulness and generosity. It is indeed a warped vision.
Leftists have moved from Progressives to Liberals and back to Progressives, but in name only, never in definition. Their quasi-metamorphosis results from their ever-present collectivist mentality. Once the public realizes the agenda behind the name, the name is changed to obfuscate the agenda.
The left is an immutable lie; let’s call it that. Their social desires reflect a statism worthy of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. They’re trapped in the past, antiquated testaments to a flawed and failed philosophy where liberty is defined as the ability to avoid responsibility. Ignored is the unassailable truth that liberty without responsibility is nonexistent. Leftists demand allegiance to a backward dependency. To call them progressives or liberals is patently false.
The left cannot be allowed the privilege of defining their nature. Today’s “Progressive Liberal” desires to rob us of our autonomy and render us wards of a collectivist state. Their label should reflect their innate desire to move society backward. Leftists are regressive in every sense of the word. The Regressive label has been proposed for them before. Let it become their perpetual identifier.
This column first appeared on American Thinker.
The case has been made, on the pages of American Thinker itself, that identifying the leftist as a Progressive or Liberal is erroneous. It has been stated that policies declared to be progressive or liberal are actually backward and authoritarian. Thus the leftist has been aptly identified, based on policy and result, as regressive.
To state the case further, not even the definition of “progressive” or “liberal” identifies with the leftist ideology. It’s just that the left has manipulated those words until the distortion has become accepted. It is a common practice, for they routinely ignore reality and wear their title du jour like camouflage.
Progressive is defined as advocating, attaining, or being characterized by improvement and forward thinking. It dates to the early 17th Century, becoming politicized in the late 1800s. The modern left isn’t progressive in the practical or classical sense of the word. In fact, much of what constituted progressivism during the early 20th Century is the antithesis of contemporary leftist beliefs.
Early Progressives certainly desired social change, but they regularly utilized private organizations--such as churches and charities--for effecting their transformations. Not even the Progressive Era’s trust-busting government regulators were kin to today’s leftists. Those reformers sought to protect the future of market competition from monopolistic mergers and thwart the fledgling communist movements. Creating a labyrinth of bureaucratic red tape wasn’t their primary objective.
Nothing in the word “progressive” and little in early progressivism describes today’s leftist. The left has no desire to defend capitalism, foster competition, or accomplish their vision of social justice via private channels. They have only an insatiable lust for control.
Leftists promote nothing new; their goals are those of an archaic doctrine. Forward thinking isn’t featured in their agenda, the purpose of which is to repackage policies that are proven failures. Bolshevik is more descriptive than progressive, for the left shares the Bolshevik’s socialistic dreams. They are mired in the past, rendering progressive an inappropriate description.
Socialist ideals quickly co-opted the early Progressive movement, giving the title a black eye. Leftists then adopted Liberal, a more inviting identifier but one that also defies their agenda.
Liberal spawns from the Latin “liberalis” and “liber” meaning noble, generous and free. A genuine liberal bristles at authoritarian attitudes and fulfills the nature of the word liberal. America’s leftists, conversely, are adamant in their support for a domineering central government and generous only when distributing their neighbor’s property.
Leftist liberalism defines not freedom but the welfare state. Their concept of liberalism frees one segment of society to live at another segment’s expense. Leftists then pat each other on the back for their thoughtfulness and generosity. It is indeed a warped vision.
Leftists have moved from Progressives to Liberals and back to Progressives, but in name only, never in definition. Their quasi-metamorphosis results from their ever-present collectivist mentality. Once the public realizes the agenda behind the name, the name is changed to obfuscate the agenda.
The left is an immutable lie; let’s call it that. Their social desires reflect a statism worthy of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. They’re trapped in the past, antiquated testaments to a flawed and failed philosophy where liberty is defined as the ability to avoid responsibility. Ignored is the unassailable truth that liberty without responsibility is nonexistent. Leftists demand allegiance to a backward dependency. To call them progressives or liberals is patently false.
The left cannot be allowed the privilege of defining their nature. Today’s “Progressive Liberal” desires to rob us of our autonomy and render us wards of a collectivist state. Their label should reflect their innate desire to move society backward. Leftists are regressive in every sense of the word. The Regressive label has been proposed for them before. Let it become their perpetual identifier.
This column first appeared on American Thinker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
