The one that used to be but we let it get away.
Amen. The focus should be on the people murdered by a crazy SOB. But the Left never passes up a chance to push their Agenda, after all, the ends justify the means in their tiny control freak little minds.
And the spineless reactionary fear of these Agenda Nazis is no better.
And the fact that these Confederates, wer in FACT, Southern DEMOCRATS! The irony is lost on The Left, The Leftist media, the mindless and the spineless. Which is most everyone it seems.
So what will the Thought Police go after next, and when will they come after you!
In a 2001 documentary about the making of “The Dukes of Hazzard,” show creator Gy Waldron said the Confederate flag that appears on a car featured on the show — like the Good Ol’ Boys themselves — was never meanin’ no harm.
“Painting the Confederate flag on the roof of the car was done very innocently,” Waldron said, “because in the ’50s and ’60s it was very common to find Confederate flags painted on cars. There was never a political statement to be made by it. It was just part of the tradition. And once we had put it in there I saw no reason to bow to any pressure groups. We’re not making any statement regarding slavery or post-slavery or integration or anything like that.”
John Schneider — that’s Bo Duke to those who follow the Good Ol’ Boys — agreed that the General Lee, as the car is known, was far from a symbol of hate.
“It amazes me that anyone could take offense to the General Lee,” Schneider said in the documentary. “… If there was ever a non-racist family, it was the Dukes of Hazzard.” (WP)
Hollywood Reporter: The Duke boys are being put on the bench.
TV Land has pulled reruns of Dukes of Hazzard in light of the recent uproar over the Confederate flag, which is emblazoned on the roof of the show’s iconic General Lee 1969 Dodge Charger, The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed.
The show has faced criticism over the depiction of the controversial flag in the wake of the June 17 shooting in Charleston, S.C., that left nine dead, and what many viewed as South Carolina’s delayed decision to take the flag down.
Confederate merchandise has since been dropped by Walmart, Target, Amazon and other businesses after the shooting, which took place at a historic black church.
Shortly after the attack, photos surfaced showing alleged shooter Dylann Roof burning one American flag and stepping on another, while waving and posing provocatively with Confederate banners.
Warner Bros.’ consumer division announced on June 24 that it will stop licensing toy cars and models featuring the General Lee with the flag.
In a recent interview with THR, Dukes of Hazzard star John Schneider defended the series’ use of the flag. “Labeling anyone who has the flag a ‘racist’ seems unfair to those who are clearly ‘never meanin’ no harm,'” he said. His co-star Ben Jones has also come out in defense of the flag, saying it represents the “indomitable spirit of independence.”
The Parents Television Council weighed in TV Land’s decision Wednesday. Although the organization said they did not oppose the reasoning behind TV Land’s actions, the council blasted the network and its parent company, Viacom, for “blatant hypocrisy” they say the media company demonstrated.
“When media companies are criticized for marketing programs that glamorize drug and alcohol use, or for sexualizing minors in television programs and movies, or for selling violent entertainment to children – despite overwhelming evidence of harm – or for trivializing rape, child sex abuse and pedophilia, all in the name of ‘entertainment,’ they are quick to wrap themselves in the banner of Free Speech,” wrote PTC president Tim Winter.
“Restraint and responsibility do not infringe on the First Amendment and do not encroach on Free Speech rights. If TV Land is willing to pull The Dukes of Hazzard, out of concern for its harmful impact on our society (and it is good that Viacom is publicly acknowledging its programming can have a harmful impact on our society), they cannot then hide behind the First Amendment to refute the compelling evidence of harm from the violent and sexualized media content they continue to produce and air with impunity.”
Dukes of Hazzard ran on CBS from 1979 to 1985.
It’s all about “tolerance”, remember. :)
“Fundamentally transform America” — Barack Obama.
The Thought Police are Watching you!
One of the more moral, family-oriented, down home TV shows in history has been bitten by the Liberal Mob Control Freak Feeding Frenzy & Hysteria.
The debate over the Confederate flag continues to spread to the entertainment world.
What Debate??, the Liberal Thought Police don’t debate, they destroy what they can’t control.
A week after Warner Bros. announced it would no longer sanction the manufacturing of “Dukes of Hazzard” merchandise featuring the flag, TV Land announced it’s pulling reruns of the 1980s’ TV series featuring John Schneider and Tom Wopat as Bo and Luke Duke in fictional Hazzard County, Georgia.
In a statement to ABC News, the network confirmed Wednesday that the show had been “removed” from its schedule, while declining to comment further.
Reruns can still be found on CMT and online.
I’m sure they’ll be hound within days.
“That flag on top of The General Lee made a statement that the values of the rural south were the values of courage and family and good times,” he wrote on Facebook last week. “I think all of Hazzard Nation understands that the Confederate Battle flag is the symbol that represents the indomitable spirit of independence which keeps us ‘makin’ our way the only way we know how,'”
“I will fight these people until hell freezes over,” Jones wrote. “And then I will fight them on the ice.”
Ben Jones (“Cooter”), who also served in Congress as a Georgia Democrat, was responding to vows from retailers Walmart, Sears, eBay, Amazon and crafts site Etsy to ban sales of Confederate flag merchandise. (ABC)
TV Land, which is owned by Viacom (), pulling the series comes a week after Warner Bros. consumer products said that it would stop licensing General Lee toy cars and models.
So much for “tolerance” and “content of your character”.
John Schneider is blasting TV Land for its decision to erase from its schedule — due its depiction of the Confederate flag — reruns of The Dukes of Hazzard, the wholesome show that made the actor a teen idol in the 1980s.
“The Dukes of Hazzard was and is no more a show seated in racism than Breaking Bad was a show seated in reality,” Schneider told The Hollywood Reporter on Wednesday.
TV Land confirmed Wednesday that it pulled the show in the aftermath of the June 17 shooting in Charleston, S.C., perpetrated by Dylann Roof, who was a fan of the Confederacy, known in the 19th century for its defense of slavery.
Schneider says his residuals from the show “have never been much to write home about,” but he would like the show to persist because of the old-fashioned values it promotes, such as honesty, courage, chivalry, rebelliousness and the like. Those who seek to malign the show because the famous car it featured had a Confederate flag painted on the roof are missing the point, he says.
“I am saddened that one angry and misguided individual can cause one of the most beloved television shows in the history of the medium to suddenly be seen in this light,” Schneider said Wednesday. “Are people who grew up watching the show now suddenly racists? Will they have to go through a detox and a 12-step program to kick their Dukes habit? ‘Hi… My name is John. I’m a Dukesoholic.’”
“Throwing this particular baby out with the bathwater seems reactionary and overly PC to me,” Schneider told THR last week. “If the flag was a symbol of racism, then Bo and Luke and Daisy and Uncle Jesse were a pack of wild racists, and that could not be further from the truth.”(TIME)
So gaze about Evil incarnate: (one of the most famous TV icons in history, BTW)
The Temptation of the Devil himself…
Noah Wehrman: I just woke up in 1939.
In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.
To the past or to the future, to an age when thought is free, from the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man — greetings!— George Owell.
Remember in Liberal Controlled Amerika, 1 day you can be “Fighting the system like a true modern day Robin Hood,” next day you’re a symbol of oppression.
So you better watch what you watch on TV, see on the Internet, text on your phone or even say out loud because Big Brother Liberal is Watching you!!!
So you better not be watching something they disapprove of…
Have you seen the new Jurassic Park movie, “Jurassic World?”
It had the biggest opening of any movie in history. The movie tells how a reckless biotech company releases dinosaurs that kill its customers. Its tale of heroes vs. villains made me think about how America has changed since our independence, the anniversary of which we celebrate this weekend.
We call the men who fought the British “heroes.” But we no longer consider the British “villains.” We don’t even seem to hate monarchs anymore. Disney princesses and royal babies are all the rage.
Hollywood needs heroes and villains, and over time those roles changed. It was once cowboys vs. Indians, then Americans soldiers vs. Nazis and “Japs,” then Russians, then Arabs, then …
Well, now Hollywood is more careful about whom it calls a villain. But one group is always eligible — businessmen. In movies and on TV, evil corporations routinely dispatch heartless goons to rough up whistleblowers, political activists and average citizens. The new anarchist drama series “Mr. Robot” on USA Network even features a company called “Evil Corp.”
Don’t Hollywood writers realize that abusing customers would be a bad business model? No. They refuse to see that it rarely happens, and when it does it’s unsustainable.
In the real world, instead of killing customers or scheming to keep them poor, companies profit by trying really hard to give us what we want, and they prefer that we stay healthy, if only so that we keep buying their stuff and to limit their insurance liability.
I say, entrepreneurs and scientists are the world’s real heroes. They save and extend lives.
The website ScienceHeroes.com estimates how many lives scientists save. Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, whose synthetic fertilizers made food easier to grow, are credited with saving 2.7 billion lives. Blood researchers Karl Landsteiner and Richard Lewisohn saved more than a billion by making blood transfusions possible.
Others in the site’s top 10 include the creators of water chlorination and vaccines, as well as Norman Borlaug, credited with saving at least a quarter-billion lives for creating more abundant wheat strains and sparking the so-called “Green Revolution.”
Then there are the creators of CPR, AIDS drugs, bypass surgery, pacemakers, dialysis and more, each with millions of lives to their credit.
Weirdly, few monuments honor these life-saving scientists. Instead, politicians celebrate politicians. We get the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, George Bush High School and Florida’s President Barack Obama Parkway.
But how many lives did those politicians save? Any? Mostly, they presided over a bureaucracy that imposed taxes and regulations that make it harder to innovate and save lives. What’s heroic about that?
In the movies, anti-business activists like Erin Brockovich are depicted as lifesavers. Brockovich, a hustler for personal injury lawyers, used her ample charm and cleavage to recruit clients who sued Pacific Gas and Electric, claiming the power company gave them cancer.
That was highly unlikely, given that the accused chemical, hexavalent chromium, causes cancer only at much higher doses. PG&E workers, despite being exposed to much more of it, live longer than average.
But Brockovich still got PG&E to pay out over $300 million, of which she got $2 million. That makes her a hero?
Part of the problem is the way our brains have evolved to spot friends and foes. A big, faceless corporation isn’t warm and friendly, but activists have smiling faces and say they want to help us.
Who has time to calculate the number of lives they’ve each saved? Our hearts embrace the ones who sound like they have good intentions but are wary of those who are out for profit.
I wish more people thought like statistician Bjorn Lomborg. Unlike many of his fellow environmentalists, he takes the time to rank the lives saved and the money spent on various projects, and he finds that the ones that inspire the most passion, like slowing global warming, aren’t the ones where lives are most at stake.
Many more lives would be saved if we poured resources into cleaning drinking water or preventing malaria, but those crusades don’t celebrate Hollywood’s heroes or punish the “villains” in business. (John Stossel)
Many people are looking at the recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage in terms of whether they think these are good or bad policies. That is certainly a legitimate concern, for both those who favor those policies and those who oppose them.
But there is a deeper and more long-lasting impact of these decisions that raises the question whether we are still living in America, where “we the people” are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, not have our betters impose their notions on us.
The Constitution of the U.S. says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution — and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.
That is the foundation of our freedom, and that is what is being dismantled by both 2012’s and this year’s ObamaCare decisions, as well as by the Supreme Court’s decision imposing a redefinition of marriage.
The 2012 Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional says that the federal government can order individual citizens to buy the kind of insurance the government wants them to buy, regardless of what the citizens themselves prefer.
The Constitution gave the federal government no such power, but the Supreme Court did. It did so by citing the government’s power to tax, even though the ObamaCare law did not claim to be taxing.
This year’s ObamaCare decision likewise ignored the law’s actual words, and decided the decisions of 34 states not to participate in ObamaCare exchanges, even to get federal subsidies, would not prevent those subsidies to be paid anyway to exchanges set up by the federal government itself.
When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, “we the people” are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our “public servants” are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.
This decision makes next year’s choice of the next U.S. president more crucial than ever, because with that office goes the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court. Democrats have consistently nominated people who shared their social vision and imposed their policy preferences, too often in disregard of the Constitution.
Republicans have complained about it but, when the power of judicial appointment was in the hands of Republican presidents, they have too often appointed justices who participated in the dismantling of the Constitution — and usually for the kinds of social policies preferred by Democrats.
Chief justices appointed by Republicans have made landmark decisions for which there was neither constitutional authority nor either evidence or logic. The first was Earl Warren.
When Chief Justice Warren said that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” he was within walking distance of an all-black public high school that sent a higher percentage of its graduates on to college than any white public high school in Washington. As far back as 1899, that school’s students scored higher on tests than two of the city’s three white academic public high schools.
Nevertheless, Warren’s unsubstantiated assumption led to years of school busing across the country that was as racially divisive as it was educationally futile.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, also appointed by a Republican president, gave us the “disparate impact” notion that statistical disparities imply discrimination. That notion has created a whole statistical shakedown racket, practiced by government itself and by private race hustlers alike.
And now Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, gives the federal government the power to order us to buy whatever insurance it wants us to buy. With that entering wedge, is there anything they cannot force us to do, regardless of the Constitution?
Can the Republicans — or the country — afford to put another mushy moderate in the White House, who can appoint more mushy moderates to the Supreme Court?
The left has figured out how to successfully push through its agenda by using one simple tactic: demonizing the right. Even if there is no truth to the cruel labels, the left has figured out they work. Repeat the words “bigot,” “hate,” “sexist” and “intolerant” enough and they will start to stick. It’s known as the “framing war,” and Republicans aren’t very good at it, probably because we’re too nice. We’re the party of Judeo-Christian morality, so calling the opposition names isn’t considered polite. Instead, we naively think we can stick to debating the substance of issues and the truth will win out.
We saw how a very small minority within the left, the gay community – less than three percent of the population – was able to implement same-sex marriage. A small group of radicals labeled anyone who disagreed with their approach as bigots full of hate. They launched a clever ad campaign with glamorous, photoshopped pictures of celebrities in white wearing No H8 stickers on their faces and duct tape over their mouths. The approach worked, and the movement picked up steam. Support for same-sex marriage increased from 27 percent in 1996 to 60 percent this year, culminating in last week’s sweeping Supreme Court decision.
The irony was many of the activists were full of hate for anyone who disagreed with their methods – even libertarians who simply wanted government completely out of marriage. There was no room for compromise or alternative solutions. Christians found themselves on the receiving end of a barrage of profanity. But it didn’t matter, the mantra had already been successfully set, that Christians were full of hate. In the biggest show of irony, the activists brazenly tweeted out profanity using the hashtag #LoveWins toward anyone who disagreed with their methods after the Supreme Court announced its decision.
The left also had some success last week demonizing the right as racist over the Confederate flag controversy. But in reality, the Confederate flag is the legacy of Democrats, right up through recent years, and they should have been held accountable for the racism. Where were conservatives? Too busy apologizing to engage in the framing war.
The latest area the left is attempting to get ahead of the right through demonization is global warming. They’ve tried several sneaky phrases, hoping to get one to stick; the latest is “climate denier.” The right needs to respond aggressively and place an unflattering label on the left where it belongs. Perhaps a phrase like “global warming mythmakers” or “manmade global warming liars,” and use it consistently and often.
For years, when I didn’t feel like engaging in an intellectual debate with someone, I merely responded with a personal attack directed at them, and it virtually always shut them down. Someone accuses me of being racist/sexist/homophobic? Instead of trying to defend myself, I respond back and point out how they are racist/sexist/homophobic. It usually catches them off balance and they end up trying to defend the indefensible, “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
Part of the problem is the left substantially controls education and the media. Children are constantly bombarded by messages that the right is full of hate and bigots. We have a generation of Millennials who have grown up with this indoctrination. This is why it is even more imperative to counter that message with one equally as effective.
This is no longer the nostalgic era of the late William F. Buckley, Jr., where people only had a few political sources to choose from, such as reading National Review or watching Firing Line. Nowadays, there are thousands if not millions of news sources and people are overwhelmed with information. Have you seen how thin the print version of National Review is today? The right can no longer count on winning the debate with reasoned arguments alone. As we’re preaching to the choir at Tea Party meetings, the left has our children captive in school teaching them we’re haters.
The truth is, the far left does hate the right, so calling the left bigots is no longer a stretch. How many times have you been attacked on Twitter or Facebook with profane language or threats over your right-leaning viewpoints? I’m beginning to lose track of all the people I’ve had to block. The hate is increasing exponentially.
Bill Clinton was considered a genius as president for using the method of “triangulation” to get his agenda implemented. I would argue that Obama is even more of a genius. He successfully brought Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals into the White House, allowing him to accomplish his full left-wing agenda without resorting to the compromise of triangulation with Republicans.
While the right should use the Alinskyite tactic of vilifying your opponent back, they should not engage in Alinsky’s crooked methods, such as lying. A Democrat activist friend of mine told me if he ever went public about all the corruption he’s seen within his party, it would make a huge story. It is another reason we are at a disadvantage.
Yes, Jesus said to turn the other cheek. But he also threw the money changers out of the temple. Conservatives need to stop reacting and start branding the left. Repeat after me: I’m not a progressive because I’m not a hateful, racist, sexist bigot. Why are you? (Townhall)
Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.
Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.
Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.
The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.
Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.
Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.
In March, six adult children from LGBT households filed amicus briefs opposing genderless marriage: see here, here, and here. You can read testimonials of many such children in a newly released anthology by Robert Oscar Lopez and Rivka Edelman, “Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family ‘Equality.’”
Whenever a parent is missing—for whatever reason—a child feels a primal wound. In this respect, parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. We ought to recognize that privileges of civil marriage should ultimately exist for children, not for adults. Children have the right to know their origins and not to be treated as commodities. Same-sex parenting—which increasingly involves human trafficking, particularly with artificial reproductive technologies (see number eight)—deliberately deprives a child of a mother and/or a father. The “marriage equality” agenda requires that such children bear that burden alone and repress their primal wound in silence.
“Love is love” is an empty slogan when it comes to state interest in marriage. How two people feel about one another is none of the state’s business. The state’s interest is limited to the heterosexual union because that’s the only union that produces the state’s citizenry.
And it still is, whether the union happens traditionally or in a petri dish. Each and every one of us—equally and without exception—only exists through the heterosexual union. In any free and functioning society, there is a state interest in encouraging as much as possible those who sire and bear us to be responsible for raising us.
Just as the state has no litmus test for feelings or motives, it has no litmus test for any heterosexual couple who do not produce children because of intent, infertility, or age. Conflating same-sex couples with childless or elderly heterosexual couples seems to be the fallacy of composition: claiming something must be true of the whole because it’s true of some part of the whole.
Sorry, but the heterosexual union, no matter how it takes place, is the only way any citizen exists, including intersex and transgender citizens. So recognizing that union without prejudice remains the only reason for state interest in marriage.
It’s only the starting point for a glut of philosophically related demands for state recognition and approval of many other types of relationships, including polygamy and incest. This will mark the sudden beginning of an even more sudden end for same-sex marriage, not so much because those other types of relationships prove immoral, but because they serve as exhibits for the argument that all civil marriage—including same-sex marriage—is unsustainable and discriminatory.
There’s a movement waiting in the wings called “unmarried equality,” which argues that all civil marriage should be abolished because it privileges married people over singles. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, it will set the precedent for abolishing marriage. Far from getting the state out of the marriage business, it will invite the state to regulate all familial relationships, particularly those with children. Once the state doesn’t have to recognize your marriage, it is freer to treat your spouse and children as strangers to you.
Americans have not thought through the implications of same-sex marriage and how it is logically a big step to erasing all sex distinctions in law. If we become legally sexless, the implications are vast when it comes to how or whether the state will recognize family relationships such as mother, father, son, or daughter. There’s already a push to eliminate sex identification at birth, which could mean removing sex distinctions on birth certificates. This will seem logical because all gender identity non-discrimination laws already presume that everybody’s sex is something arbitrarily “assigned” to them at birth.
If we allow the abolition of sex distinctions and civil marriage—both of which are written into the social DNA of same-sex marriage—we logically allow the state to gain greater control over deciding familial relationships. Civil marriage so far has presumed that a child born into a heterosexual union has the default right to be raised by his biological parents together. How can the presumption of maternity or paternity survive in a legal system that recognizes neither sex distinctions nor a marriage relationship?
The bellwethers are out there. MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry did a “Forward” spot for the Obama administration in which she stated that all children “belong” to communities, not families. Another friend of the Obama administration, gender legal theorist Martha Fineman, calls for state-subsidized care-giving units to replace marriage and the family.
You may think artificial reproductive technologies (ART) are fine as an avenue to obtain children for those unable to conceive. But in the context of genderless marriage, ART ramps up the potential for human trafficking. Check anonymousus.com to read testimonies of grief and loss felt by children who were conceived in this manner. Check the movies “Eggsploitation” and “Breeders” by the Center for Bioethics and Culture to hear stories of the exploitation of women in the industry. There is definitely an element of human bondage in all of this, particularly because human beings are being deliberately separated from their mothers and fathers, in a way that echoes the wounds of slavery’s separations and the search for one’s roots.
The handwriting is on the wall. You need only reflect on how a screaming mob managed to conjure up total surrender from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence so he would reject that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Catholic Charities is closing its adoption services where same-sex marriage laws pressure them to reject their church’s teachings about marriage and family. Owners of businesses that serve the wedding industry are being forced to either scrap their consciences or shut their doors. Anti-discrimination lawsuits against churches that don’t perform same-sex marriages will undoubtedly increase.
Campus speech codes. Social punishment. Firing Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla for discovering his thought crime of privately believing in marriage six years prior. The utter compliance of virtually every big business in America, every media outlet, every pundit who is permitted to have a voice in the public square.
I already mentioned that abolishing civil marriage, along with legal sex distinctions, puts the government in a better position to regulate familial relationships, and probably to license parents. If we think deeply about these things, it’s hard to avoid the fact that freedom of association begins with family autonomy, a place where the state is supposed to leave you alone in your most intimate relationships. It’s hard to see how freedom of association is not affected, especially when PC speech codes have everyone constantly checking their chit chat with neighbors, co-workers, and classmates. At Marquette University, staff were told that any conversation or remarks construed to be against same-sex marriage were to be reported to Human Resources, even if just inadvertently overheard.
With the erosion of family autonomy practically guaranteed by the rainbow arc of same-sex marriage, private life will tend to evaporate, just as it always does in centrally planned societies. Distrust grows because people fear punishment for expressing dissenting views. The emphasis on political correctness in the name of equality, coupled with an ever-growing bureaucracy, is a perfect environment in which to percolate a surveillance society.
The United States is already punishing countries and threatening to cut off aid if they don’t accept the LGBT agenda. This is especially true of developing countries, in which the whole idea is foreign to over 95 percent of the population. According to a report by Rep. Steve Stockman, corroborated by a Pentagon official, the administration held back critical intelligence from Nigeria which would have aided in locating girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. The new National Security Strategy recently released by the White House makes clear that the LGBT agenda is a global agenda. And it looks a lot like cultural imperialism of the worst kind.
In the past year or two, everyone with something to lose by opposing same-sex marriage—with the honorable exception of Eich—seems to have scuttled their principles. Five years ago, the American Psychological Association voted 157-0—that’s right, ZERO—to support genderless marriage. For an excellent assessment of what this sort of conformity means for a free society, read Brendan O’Neill’s article in Spiked, entitled “Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism.” The agenda was imposed by elites, entirely due to a methodical blitzkrieg of programs and enforcement dictated from above. Same-sex marriage simply could not come about without suppressing dissent in all of our institutions.
If you think the bullying of businesses, churches, and individuals who don’t get with the LGBT program now is bad, it promises to get much worse once codified. Is this really the sort of society you wish to live in? Where expressing an opinion from your heart on faith, family, marriage, relationships, love, or the very nature of reality—is routinely attacked as hate speech? Because that is exactly what you need to expect.
Justice Anthony Kennedy made it very clear in his words of the Windsor decision that any dissent on same-sex marriage was tantamount to animus. It is but a short step from presuming animus to punishing dissent.
So perhaps the biggest question hanging in the air is this: What will the authorities decide to do to dissenters?
Well, now that the Gay Mafia has the Federal Government’s stamp of approval to destroy anyone who gets in their way I think we should turn it up a notch on them.
Where Multiple Men (or Women) can have multiple wives.
If the definition of marriage that has existed for 10,000 years is on the trash heap of Political Correctness and no longer valid, then is the 1 person and 1 person definition not the next logical step in this ridiculous arms race of hedonism and narcissism?
If marriage is solely the purview of “love” and “commitment” then why is 1 on 1 a limitation? The line we won’t cross.
If 6 guys and 15 women want to be “married” to each other why not allow it?
If a 14 year old wants to marry a 30 year old out of “love and “commitment” is it discrimination to deny them the tenet of marriage?
You broke the tenet of 10,000 years of history so why stop there?
If I want to marry my cat, is it discrimination to prohibit it?
There are no limits, or limitations now.
So I say, we need to start a campaign to legalize Polyamory and Polygamy because anything would be “discrimination”.
Wouldn’t it? :)
“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” Justice Roberts wrote.
It was about “equality”. So why is polyamory not legal then?
Is “discrimination” ok if it’s not on your ideological agenda?
And there will be no “equality” anyhow. The Leftist control freaks will see to that. But they set the standard that marriage is not strictly defined as it has been for millenia, so who is the number of men and women restricted?
Why can’t I have 15 wives if I and they choose to? Why would I be “discriminated” against? You’re just a “bigot” if you don’t allow it.
Being a single-minded ideologically zealot does have it’s consequences.
Time they paid up.
The game is afoot…
The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.
“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared.
After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.
Remember what I said about freedom of speech yesterday…. :)
The Supreme Court and the American people at the polls in 2016 need to decide whether this country will respect their First Amendment rights, including their fundamental right to dissent.
Judge Alito shares this anxiety. “Today’s decision … will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” he writes. In particular, he objects to the comparison between bans on same-sex marriage and the bans on interracial marriage that were widespread before the Court overturned them in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. “The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent,” he argues.
The Holy Warriors of The Left are far from done with you!
Opposition to their Ideology will not be permitted.
In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.
To the past or to the future, to an age when thought is free, from the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man — greetings!- Orwell
Welcome to the Age of Big Brother!
Wanna know how that Nuke Deal with Iran is going? How well Obama and Kerry have “handled” it?
Ralph Kramden or Homer Simpson could have done a better job.
It doesn’t seem to matter what they do.
Obama’s going to go ahead with a meaningless treaty, regardless because that is The Agenda and like a bull in China (or Iranian) shop he doesn’t care what the Iranians are actually doing it’s what HE’S doing that matters.
At least the Iranian lawmakers got to read the bill before they voted on it. How progressive of them!!
With some lawmakers chanting “Death to the America,” Iran’s parliament voted Sunday to ban access to military sites, documents and scientists as part of a future deal with world powers over its contested nuclear program.
The bill, if approved into law, could complicate the ongoing talks in Vienna between Iran and the six-nation group — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — as they face a self-imposed June 30 deadline. The talks are focused on reaching a final accord that curbs Iran’s nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions.
Of 213 lawmakers present on Sunday, 199 voted in favor of the bill, which also demands the complete lifting of all sanctions against Iran as part of any final nuclear accord. The bill must be ratified by the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog, to become a law.
The terms stipulated in the bill allow for international inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, but forbid any inspections of military facilities.
Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani read the bill aloud in a session broadcast live on state radio. It states in part, “The International Atomic Energy Agency, within the framework of the safeguard agreement, is allowed to carry out conventional inspections of nuclear sites.”
However it concludes that “access to military, security and sensitive non-nuclear sites, as well as documents and scientists, is forbidden.”
Mind you, this comes from the Israelis so Obama, the Agenda Anti-Semite will ignore it and just carry on because it’s WHAT HE WANTS that matters.
So what if it pointless, useless, and totally ridiculous he got it done when no one else could so that’s a success!!
You get Nukes, I get the Credit for a Deal. It’s a Win-Win!
America, What a Country…
There are no sure things in politics, but Hillary Clinton is the closest thing to a sure thing to become the Democrats’ candidate for president in 2016.
This is one of the painful but inescapable signs of our time. There is nothing in her history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her.
What is even more painful is that none of that matters politically. Many people simply want “a woman” to be president, and Hillary is the best-known woman in politics, though by no means the best qualified.
What is Hillary’s history? In the most important job she has ever held — secretary of state — American foreign policy has had one setback after another, punctuated by disasters.
U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt, undermining governments that were no threat to American interests, led to Islamic extremists taking over in Egypt and terrorist chaos in Libya, where the American ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans.
Fortunately, the Egyptian military has gotten rid of that country’s extremist government that was persecuting Christians, threatening Israel and aligning itself with our enemies. But that was in spite of American foreign policy.
In Europe, as in the Middle East, our foreign policy during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state was to undermine our friends and cater to our enemies.
The famous “reset” in our foreign policy with Russia began with the Obama administration reneging on a pre-existing American commitment to supply defensive technology to shield Poland and the Czech Republic from missile attacks.
This left both countries vulnerable to pressures and threats from Russia — and left other countries elsewhere wondering how much they could rely on American promises.
Even after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Obama administration refused to let the Ukrainians have weapons with which to defend themselves.
President Obama, like other presidents, has made his own foreign policy. But Hillary Clinton, like other secretaries of state, had the option of resigning if she did not agree with it. In reality, she shared the same flawed vision of the world as Obama’s when they were both in the Senate.
Both opposed the military “surge” in Iraq, under General David Petraeus, that defeated the terrorists there.
Even after the surge succeeded, Hillary Clinton was among those who fiercely denied initially that it had succeeded, and sought to discredit Gen. Petraeus, though eventually the evidence of the surge’s success became undeniable, even among those who had opposed it.
The truly historic catastrophe of American foreign policy — not only failing to stop Iran from going nuclear, but making it more difficult for Israel to stop them — was also something that happened on Hillary Clinton’s watch as secretary of state.
What the administration’s protracted and repeatedly extended negotiations with Iran accomplished was to allow Iran time to multiply, bury and reinforce its nuclear facilities, to the point where it was uncertain whether Israel still had the military capacity to destroy those facilities.
There are no offsetting foreign policy triumphs under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Syria, China and North Korea are other scenes of similar setbacks.
The fact that many people are still prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States, in times made incredibly dangerous by the foreign policy disasters on her watch as secretary of state, raises painful questions about this country.
A president of the United States — any president — has the lives of more than 300 million Americans in his or her hands, and the future of Western civilization.
If the debacles and disasters of the Obama administration have still not demonstrated the irresponsibility of choosing a president on the basis of demographic characteristics, it is hard to imagine what could.
With our enemies around the world arming while we are disarming, such self-indulgent choices for president can leave our children and grandchildren a future that will be grim, if not catastrophic. (Thomas Sowell)
But since it fulfills the Agenda and The Narrative the Left is perfectly ok with that, as matter of fact, they can’t conceive of anything else.
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.
Forecasts: ObamaCare advocates tout a new Congressional Budget Office report saying that ObamaCare’s repeal would boost the deficit. But read the actual report. It tells a far different, more disturbing tale about this law.
The report found that repealing ObamaCare lock, stock and barrel would boost the deficit by $353 billion. That was enough for news outlets like CNN to report that repeal would “blow out the deficit.”
Actually, given that the CBO expects deficits to total $7.2 trillion over those same years, the increase is more like a rounding error than a blowout.
But what the CBO’s latest analysis does is provide three more reasons ObamaCare is a bad deal for the American public.
• It’s bad for the economy. President Obama sold ObamaCare as a major boost to the economy. But the CBO says ObamaCare is hurting the economy and that its repeal would boost the nation’s GDP by 0.7% from 2021 to 2025. Based on the CBO’s own GDP forecasts, that translates into $886 billion. When you account for these economic effects, ObamaCare’s impact on the deficit shrinks to just $137 billion.
• It relies on phony accounting. The only way the CBO can claim that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit by any amount is by assuming — as it must — that the roughly $800 billion in Medicare provider cuts all take effect. But that’s a fantasy. The Medicare Board of Trustees says these payment cuts aren’t realistic over the long term. And Obama just signed a law repealing Congress’ last attempt to impose deep cuts to doctors.
• Past forecasts have been wildly wrong. Back in 2011, the CBO said ObamaCare would cut the 2016-21 deficit a total of $109 billion. Now it says it will boost deficits by $109 billion over those same years, once you factor in the harm ObamaCare will do to the economy.
To its credit, the CBO admits its latest forecast should be taken with heaping grains of salt. “All of the resulting estimates,” it notes right upfront, “are subject to substantial uncertainty.”
Yes, the CBO says that repealing ObamaCare would increase the number of uninsured. But as we’ve pointed out here many times, there are other, far better ways to boost insurance coverage that won’t balloon deficits, wreck Medicare and destroy the economy.
Getting rid of ObamaCare is just the first step. (IBD)
A commenter put it well:
Insurance is a transfer and spreading of risk. The “essential” contracts permitted and required under PPACA provide for payments for services and goods related to administratively determined (presumed) “needs” rather than risks.
This conflation, which began under the several states issuing “mandates” of specific provisions has shifted the functions from spreading risks to spreading costs.
This is one method of “redistribution.” Instead of taking income from one person and transferring it directly (less bureaucratic overheads) to another, this process uses the income of one to pay the costs of others -plus the bureaucratic expenses of the cost re-assignments.
That’s really what these kinds of programs are about. Sometimes it is done by regulations (as is the case of PPACA), often by taxation (and its exemptions).
Ultimately, “All oxen are gored.”
Now that’s “equality”. :)
I say this in the most sincere way possible: Get over yourselves.
Not everything is about everything, or everyone. In fact, most things are about the very few people involved in them and no one else.
From the tragic to the political, we saw a wave of people inserting their pet projects and profitmaking grievances into the events of the week like the opportunists those people are. But that’s all they are.
It started with the awful terrorist attack by a monster in South Carolina who murdered nine innocent people because he “wanted to start a race war.” He should be held in a cell used for extension cord storage with exposed pipes on the ceiling. His career of wasting oxygen can’t be ended fast enough.
But the Left needs him for their Agenda. As for “starting” a race war, hasn’t the Left and especially Obama,Holder, Shapton, et al already been doing that for many years?
But too many, unsurprisingly, are using this creature’s disgusting act of evil for their own purposes.
President Obama used it to advance gun control, something the American people routinely and roundly reject. Hillary Clinton did it to advance her relevance and to distract from her own failings. If you believe either of these people—or any of the other politicians and pundits weighing in from afar—give an honest damn about the events in South Carolina beyond how they can use it; you’re fooling yourself.
If they cared, they would show up, without announcing it, without fanfare, without cameras, and pay their respects to the families and community. Instead, the president went fundraising on the west coast and Hillary did whatever it was she was scripted to do beforehand.
Politicians aside, the clown car of media and pundits couldn’t get enough of this story. Hosts were dispatched, race-baiting pundits were released from their hermetically sealed pods and activists booked flights faster than a Kardashian can cash a check.
All had their own agenda; none really cared.
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, in a panic to get enough ratings to keep his job, made his cause the Confederate flag. He obsessed over something that is known as the paint job on the roof of the car in the Dukes of Hazzard as a contributing factor in this evil.
That flag had nothing to do with this, and Chris isn’t dumb enough to believe it did. But it’s a cause people who would be inclined to watch his show could get behind, so he went all in with it. No lives were saved, no pain was alleviated. Chris Hayes has no connection to Charleston, had no reason to be there, brought nothing of value in that community’s time of need. But there he was …, yelling about a piece of cloth, feeling important.
Is it important? Of course not. I don’t get the concept of “southern pride” to the point you’d embrace something under which so much evil was perpetrated, nor do I understand why anyone would let a dead symbol have that much power over them. I don’t associate with people who get worked up over inanimate objects or those who would wrap themselves in something so intertwined with this nation’s greatest cruelty.
While the political class was finding new and creative ways to exploit tragedy and dishonor murder victims, including a discussion of the Voting Rights Act and voter ID (see how Michael Moore did it here), Pope Francis called for a “bold cultural revolution” to combat climate change. (Read about it here.)
With all due respect to the Pope, who cares? That the head of one of the richest organizations on the planet wants to push socialism to help the poor and “save the planet” isn’t a surprise. The Catholic Church has a long history of obtuse self-observation. But that left-wingers would rally to his call is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Hillary Clinton personally sent tweets of praise for the Pope’s encyclical just 2 ½ hours after she had praised an Iowa court decision that favored abortion. (Take a look; it’s beyond irony.)
Clinton could be somewhat forgiven for her ignorance because she’s not Catholic, but Martin O’Malley is. The also-ran Democrat from Maryland penned an op-ed praising the Pope’s call to action even though he is one of the most pro-abortion politicians in the country. The “devout Catholic” O’Malley counts on people not knowing his or the Pope’s stance on the issue or hopes people think Catholicism is a buffet from which you can pick and choose which parts you like.
At least atheist Bernie Sanders is intellectually consistent – government is his God, and his will is his government.
These are but a few examples of the media, political and pundit class who saw opportunities to advance their agendas in the face of tragedy or reality. The country would be better off if we’d let a community come together and its people grieve, rather than try to gain relevancy through the misery of others. It’d also be better off if politicians and the media had a modicum of intellectual consistency; if the “party of science” either left science to scientists or at least answered for its embrace of religious doctrine only when it is convenient.
They won’t because they don’t have to. There is no price to be paid for exploitation or hypocrisy, politically or personally, if you are of the left. The right is little better, but this was the left’s week.
We’d all be better served if those in power, those who’d like to be, and those who think they are would all step back and, for once, put the interests of others before themselves. Imagine if that happened. Imagine if these camera whores actually got over themselves for one full week. Just think of what we could accomplish if they did. (Derek Hunter)
The mind boogleth at the possibilities but narcissism is the scourge of this age.
Anyone who opposes the new Manifesto of homosexuality and gender neutrality/gender identity is at risk.
You will comply, or else! That’s the American way. :)
J Mark Brewer: I was a law student when I first learned of the consequences of not being politically correct concerning homosexuality. A former Miss America’s contract as the citrus growers’ brand-ambassador was allowed to lapse because she had successfully campaigned for the repeal of a pro-homosexual ordinance in Miami-Dade County.
She was quoted as saying, “What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable, alternate way of life.” She was publicly humiliated – “pied” on national television – and her name – Anita Bryant – became synonymous with something called “homophobia” and “hate speech.”
As a new Air Force J.A.G. officer, my first court assignment was to represent the United States in an administrative discharge proceeding concerning a female service member. She was being kicked out of the service for allegedly engaging in homosexual acts. Even as an inexperienced young lawyer, I managed to prove that she had committed the requisite two homosexual acts. She was given a “general” discharge and sent back to the United States.
I don’t remember when thereafter I first noticed that there are only two instances in which “sex” occurs in the “ethics” rules for lawyers. Both are in the same, “anti-discrimination” provision: “A lawyer shall not willfully, in connection with an adjudicatory proceeding … manifest, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, or sexual orientation towards any person involved in that proceeding in any capacity.”
There it was – right there with the prohibition racial discrimination; a lawyer could not “manifest” any “bias or prejudice” based on “sexual orientation.” Hadn’t I done precisely that just a few years earlier? Hadn’t I done that on behalf of the United States government? And yet in that case, I hadn’t set out to prove that the female service-member was a homosexual. My task was limited to proving that she had engaged in homosexual conduct.
Then, suddenly, the issue of homosexual rights – that is, not the right to be a homosexual – but the right to openly engage in homosexual practices and be insulated from any push back from the rest of society – was everywhere. Suddenly it had become a daily staple of bar journals and legal news sources. I don’t remember when I first noticed that. Was it when California’s voters approved a referendum that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”? It must have been before then. It must have been as early as 1993 when I first noticed the enormous consequences of this new so-called right. That was the year Travis County, Texas legalized “domestic partnerships,” in order to attract business investment to Austin, the state capitol.
Not until the spring of 2015, however, did the consequences of this new “right” really begin to sink in for me. That’s when I knew that people who for years had thought that the emerging collection of special protections for homosexual behavior was, “no big deal,” were flat wrong. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence had signed a “religious freedom” bill. The backlash, in the name of homosexual rights, was ferocious with the now infamous threats and boycott of a small-town pizza joint whose owners had the temerity to volunteer that they would decline to cater a homosexual marriage celebration.
So, now we know that Anita Bryant was right – at least partly so – when she embarked on her doomed campaign nearly 40 years ago. Ms. Bryant primarily worried about children being confronted with a dangerous alternative way of life. Today, all opponents of special homosexual rights have cause to be worried about their very survival – legal and economic. Anyone who opposes the new Manifesto of homosexuality and gender neutrality/gender identity is at risk.
Using statutes originally and primarily (if not exclusively) designed to protect blacks from discrimination, activist homosexuals have targeted bakers, photographers, and florists, seeking to force all of them to promote a “marriage” that they believe to be immoral. One day, such laws probably will be deployed against writers of articles like this one.
In Washington State, a judge ruled that a florist violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws when she referred a longtime customer to another florist for the wedding flowers for his homosexual marriage. In New York, a husband and wife shut the doors to their business hosting weddings on their family farm, after a court fined them $13,000 for refusing to host gay marriages in their home. In Colorado, a baker faced jail time and stopped baking wedding cakes entirely, after a court ruled that he discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake them a cake for their wedding. In Oregon, a court found similarly against another baker, and he may be forced to pay a homosexual couple up to $150,000 as penalty. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that a photographer violated the state’s anti-discrimination statutes by refusing to photograph a gay wedding. Newspapers likely will be forced to publish homosexual wedding announcements, in violation of their existing editorial control over what they publish.
Even pro-same sex marriage, libertarian, John Stossel has said that the gay marriage movement “has moved from tolerance to totalitarianism.”
To homosexual activists and their political supporters, it matters not one whit that homosexuality is not consistent with Biblical sexual morality.
In this brave, new, homosexual-friendly world, every licensed professional would be required to embrace the new orthodoxy – to bow down to the idol of “non-discrimination,” or be cast out of his profession. I was co-counsel on an amicus brief against same-sex marriage in the Obergefell case; the Texas Attorney General also filed an amicus brief on behalf of the State of Texas against same-sex marriage. Does that put us in violation of the ethics rule previously quoted?
If the U.S. Supreme Court forces same-sex marriage on the states, unless the states resist such a ruling, the legal system will be employed to squash resistance to the new order. Lawyers who oppose this not-so-brave new world will begin to lose their right to practice law for violation of the new so-called “ethics” of the profession. An Obama Department of Health and Human Services will push for all physicians who stand up for Christian morality to be stripped of their hospital privileges and medical licenses.
According to the advocates of homosexual marriage in the U.S. Supreme Court, the right to a homosexual way of life is enshrined in the penumbras and emanations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection – or is it Due Process – or both. (Apparently, this even explains why the Civil War itself was fought.) In fact, this new right is said by these advocates to be so deeply embedded in the Constitution that it trumps the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. And it empowers government to run aspects of our lives that it has no business controlling.
The same people who first claimed to only want tolerance of their behavior will allow no toleration for other views. Will a physician be forced to perform an artificial insemination for a lesbian couple? Will a lawyer be forced to take a case defending gay marriage? Lawyers are already losing their “traditional prerogative to exercise absolute discretion in the selection of clients … .” Provisions designed to advance the homosexual agenda have been incorporated into many state legal ethics codes. In California, for example, it is unethical to “discriminat[e] on the basis of … sexual orientation [in] employment … or [client] representation … .” State Bar of California, Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 2-400B. If you doubt this view of the future, read R. Beg, “License to Discriminate Revoked: How a Dentist Put Teeth In New York’s Anti-Discrimination Disciplinary Rule,” 64 Albany L. Rev. 154 (2000).
I fear that the legal system has lost its way, and the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court could well lay the groundwork for government to assume the sort of totalitarian powers required to force everyone to yield to what most of us hopefully still believe to be immoral. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Instead, right-thinking people can and should not be afraid to assert their God-given rights. They should not – must not – fail in their duty to teach Biblical sexual morality to their children despite state-sponsored interference. They should accept the challenge and obey their conscience – even if that means refusing totalitarian orders to bow down at the altar of homosexuality. We did not seek this war, but if it comes, we must not shirk from it.
They’re coming for our money. OK, that’s nothing new, but this time, the Obama administration is coming for our $10 bills — the notes graced by the image of Alexander Hamilton. True to the identity politics of the Democratic Party, the Obama Treasury Department has announced that some worthy female will replace Hamilton on the currency.
The sheer arrogance, ignorance and stupidity of this move are difficult to capture in one column.
Let’s start with stupidity. If there’s one figure whose face arguably does not deserve to adorn the currency, it’s the man on the $20 bill, not the $10. That is Andrew Jackson, seventh president of the United States, adamant opponent of paper currency (!), friend of slave power and scourge of Native Americans. Who can forget that when the Cherokee appealed their treatment by the state of Georgia to the Supreme Court and won, Jackson refused to enforce the law? Jackson pushed for and signed the Indian Removal Act, which led directly to the forced deportation of nearly 17,000 Choctaw, Creek, Cherokee and others –known as the Trail of Tears. He was fiercely opposed in this by his predecessor, John Quincy Adams, who took the view (in case you’re tempted to argue that Jackson was only doing what was possible at the time) that Indians should be paid for their land if they wished to sell, and that they should be given the protections of the U.S. Constitution.
There was actually a little boomlet to replace Jackson on the $20 bill. Alas, like so much in our era, it wasn’t so much about consigning the flawed Jackson to much-deserved obscurity as about putting a woman’s face on the bill. The “Women on 20s” campaign ginned up some signatures and apparently attracted the approval of the president. But according to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, the $10 is up for a security redesign, so what the heck. Hamilton who?
Here’s the arrogance: The Treasury Department is downgrading Hamilton, without whom there might not be a United States currency, just because they yearn to check a “diversity” box, and without consulting the American people. Hamilton was a poor kid from the West Indies who immigrated to New York, joined the patriot army at age 17 or 18 and organized an artillery company, became an aide to Gen. George Washington, authored more than half of the Federalist Papers, and served as the first treasury secretary of the United States, where he structured the finances of our infant republic so that we didn’t drown in debt. He was also a fierce opponent of slavery.
Hamilton belongs in the pantheon of American heroes. Though we’re currently in a fad for the founders — countless successful biographies of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson have been published and relished over the past couple of decades — our debt to those extraordinary men is bottomless. Besides, only a tiny fraction of the public buys books. Meanwhile, the AP American history exam is being hijacked by progressives to downgrade the greatness of the founders. Hamilton deserves far more than a place on the $10 bill — and he certainly deserves no less.
Finally, ignorance. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen gushes that putting a female on the $10 will tell “young girls across this country … that they, too, can grow up and do something great for their country.” This is tiresome. Girls and women are doing great in America. Girls graduate from high school at higher rates than boys. They attend and graduate from college at significantly higher rates. U.S. Census Bureau data show that in 2012, 71 percent of female high school graduates went on to college, compared to 61 percent of young men. While men’s wages have stagnated for three decades, women’s have been rising. Women outnumber men in the workforce, even in professional, managerial and technical occupations. (Source: “Wayward Sons” a Third Way report.) So, please, spare us the patronizing “female role model” nonsense.
Here’s the solution: Upgrade the security features on the $10, but keep Hamilton in his spot. Dump Jackson from the $20 and hold an essay competition among American high school seniors for his replacement. It would be a great exercise in the appreciation of excellence. Both sexes may be nominated. There are many American women who could be chosen: Emily Dickinson, Harriet Tubman, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Susan B. Anthony? But by announcing in advance that you’re choosing a woman, you’ve guaranteed that the honor will be downgraded to the “best woman” rather than the best candidate. In short, you’d be echoing the Hillary Clinton campaign. (Townhall)
Or Hillary herself, maybe Rachel Dolezal, Caitlyn Jenner or some other ultra-leftist female “icon” they can use for totem.
They will literally put their ideology in your wallet, then take it away from you because they know how to spend it better than you do. :)
Obama’s Common Core Government Overlord education requires it, but a California educator feels there is no value in an old white male writer from 400 years ago. So what if he’s regarded as the greatest playwright in history. He’s British, He’s old, irrelevant, but mostly he’s just white.
By Dana Dusbiber
Luther Burbank High School, the largest urban high school in Sacramento, Calif. (read: non-white majority).
I am a high school English teacher. I am not supposed to dislike Shakespeare. But I do. And not only do I dislike Shakespeare because of my own personal disinterest in reading stories written in an early form of the English language that I cannot always easily navigate, but also because there is a WORLD of really exciting literature out there that better speaks to the needs of my very ethnically-diverse and wonderfully curious modern-day students.
I do not believe that I am “cheating” my students because we do not read Shakespeare. I do not believe that a long-dead, British guy is the only writer who can teach my students about the human condition. I do not believe that not viewing “Romeo and Juliet” or any other modern adaptation of a Shakespeare play will make my students less able to go out into the world and understand language or human behavior. Mostly, I do not believe I should do something in the classroom just because it has “always been done that way.”
That’s why you have to be creative, not politically correct.
I am sad that so many of my colleagues teach a canon that some white people decided upon so long ago and do it without question. I am sad that we don’t believe enough in ourselves as professionals to challenge the way that it has “always been done.” I am sad that we don’t reach beyond our own often narrow beliefs about how young people become literate to incorporate new research on how teenagers learn, and a belief that our students should be excited about what they read — and that may often mean that we need to find the time to let them choose their own literature.
I was an English major. I am a voracious reader. I have enjoyed reading some of the classics. And while I appreciate that many people enjoy re-reading texts that they have read multiple times, I enjoy reading a wide range of literature written by a wide range of ethnically-diverse writers who tell stories about the human experience as it is experienced today. Shakespeare lived in a pretty small world. It might now be appropriate for us to acknowledge him as chronicler of life as he saw it 450 years ago and leave it at that.
She lives in a very small, politically correct world herself. :)
What I worry about is that as long as we continue to cling to ONE (white) MAN’S view of life as he lived it so long ago, we (perhaps unwittingly) promote the notion that other cultural perspectives are less important. In the 25 years that I have been a secondary teacher, I have heard countless times, from respected teachers (mostly white), that they will ALWAYS teach Shakespeare, because our students need Shakespeare and his teachings on the human condition.
So I ask, why not teach the oral tradition out of Africa, which includes an equally relevant commentary on human behavior? Why not teach translations of early writings or oral storytelling from Latin America or Southeast Asia other parts of the world? Many, many of our students come from these languages and traditions. Why do our students not deserve to study these “other” literatures with equal time and value? And if time is the issue in our classrooms, perhaps we no longer have the time to study the Western canon that so many of us know and hold dear.
Why not show the commonality instead of the division? Because you’re a Liberal, that’s why…
Here then, is my argument: If we only teach students of color, as I have been fortunate to do my entire career, then it is far past the time for us to dispense with our Eurocentric presentation of the literary world. Conversely, if we only teach white students, it is our imperative duty to open them up to a world of diversity through literature that they may never encounter anywhere else in their lives. I admit that this proposal, that we leave Shakespeare out of the English curriculum entirely, will offend many.
Open up white students to “diversity” aka Liberal White guilt and Political correctness. But black kids, teach them that anything deemed “white” is not relevant to their lives.
Now that’s “education”! :)
But if now isn’t the time to break some school rules and think about how to bring literature of color to our student’s lives, when will that time be?
Let’s let Shakespeare rest in peace, and start a new discussion about middle and high school right-of-passage reading and literature study. (WP)
You can do both, but it won’t fit into your Politically Correct, White-Hate agenda though. You have limited yourself and your students to your own narrow definition of “reality” and that is not what a teacher should do.
The fact that any English teacher would remove him from the syllabus because of some haphazard, white-guilt notion that analyzing his works in class will somehow make Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, or other students of color could get depressed, or feel bad about themselves sounds like a pretty awful reason. I think Dusbiber (perhaps unwittingly) is overthinking this issue. Yet, with liberals, everything is political. That fetish of landing on the right side of history has placed Shakespeare in the crosshairs–at least with this teacher.
Matthew Truesdale, an English teacher at Wren High School in Piedmont, S.C. had this response… (WP)
Dana Dusbiber does a disservice to teachers and particularly those of us who teach English when she makes the argument that Shakespeare should be left to “rest in peace.”
Ms. Dusbiber is frustrated by the narrowness of the Western canon and by the expectation that high school students read Shakespeare. But that expectation is not a new one. Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet have been staples of any high school English curriculum for years upon years. I prefer Othello, so I teach that. But I don’t do it because I feel beholden to any set of expectations or standards–I do it because I want my students to have the experience of reading it…that’s it, and that’s all.
I often tell my students that one of the main reasons to read a Shakespeare play is simply for the privilege of telling others you’ve read a Shakespeare play. In certain arenas, being able to carry on even a brief conversation about a plot point from King Lear is important and can give one credibility. I also think it’s a neat little thing to see something in a movie, another book, or even (gasp!) real life, and think, “Hey—this reminds me of that scene in Hamlet when…”
But my complaint Dusbiber’s post is this: She argues that her students shouldn’t have to read Shakespeare because other literature “better speaks to the needs of my very ethnically-diverse and wonderfully curious modern-day students.” She then goes on to write that it might be “appropriate to acknowledge him as a chronicler of life as he saw it 450 years ago and leave it at that.”
So what Shakespeare wrote 450 years ago is not applicable to her teaching today? Ethnically diverse students don’t foolishly fall in love and over-dramatize every facet of that experience? Or feel jealousy or rage? Or fall victim to discrimination? Or act desperately out of passion? To dismiss Shakespeare on the grounds that life 450 years ago has no relation to life today is to dismiss every religious text, every piece of ancient mythology (Greek, African, Native American, etc.), and for that matter, everything that wasn’t written in whatever time defined as “NOW.” And yes– Shakespeare was in fact a white male. But look at the characters of Othello and Emila (among others), and you’ll see a humane, progressive, and even diverse portrayal of the complexities of race and gender.
If Ms. Dusbiber doesn’t want to teach Shakespeare or doesn’t like Shakespeare or thinks Shakespeare is too hard for her students, then fine…let that be her reasoning. Any teacher, myself included, has made decisions to switch out texts based on any number of factors.
What she really seems to be saying is that no one should read anything that isn’t just like them, and if that’s her position as an English teacher, then she should maybe consider a different line of work.
But then she’d be a poor Liberal “example” then. (Alinsky rule: Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.)
Shakespeare is more than just a “long dead British guy,” and I believe he has much to teach us about the modern human condition. When the general Othello, who has lived a life full of valor and who has had experiences far beyond and far greater than those of his men, still falls victim to Iago’s head games for no other reason than that he is different, an other, and can’t quite forget that, no matter his accomplishments, we empathize precisely because we’ve been there. Most of us have felt insecurities that come not because we can’t succeed or haven’t succeeded, but that instead come because of how we are seen and judged.
Also–where does it say that we can’t teach Shakespeare AND oral African tradition? In fact, why not work to draw links between the two? And should we only read authors that look like us and have experiences like us? Or for that matter, does a commonality in skin color mean a commonality in experience? I teach at a rural South Carolina school with a mostly white population—should I only teach white authors? Will all of my white students feel an immediate kinship to Faulkner or Hemingway to Twain? Will all of my female students see themselves perfectly in the characters of Flannery O’Connor? Will all of my black students read A Raisin in the Sun and immediately connect to the desperation and inner turmoil of Walter Younger? Obviously not.
Ms. Dusbiber’s argument is largely reductive, and it turns the English classroom into a place where no one should be challenged or asked to step out of their comfort zone, where we should not look beyond ourselves.
I, however, think English class is the perfect place to push and prod and even piss off students sometimes, and I can’t do that if I’m only ever holding up a mirror. Windows are good, too.
But that would be politically incorrect. White people are evil. White males, doubly so.
So the world of Liberal education is about contraction of ideas so that you don’t stray from the Politically Correct path.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. They have your young. They have your future in their hands.