The Greatest Snark of All

“To the students of color at Mizzou, we stand with you in solidarity. To those who would threaten their sense of safety, we are watching.

Yeah, they want safety from people who would disagree with their cry baby narcissism… Mommy Government make them stop! 🙂

<span class='image-component__caption' itemprop="caption">Students at Yale stand in solidarity with Mizzou. </span> Ken Yanagisawa Students at Yale stand in solidarity with Mizzou. 

The guy who started it is from a 1%er multi-million dollar capitalist family….

Oh, and it’s a Hoax, just like “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”. Gee, no one saw that coming…Least of all Zombie Liberals.

Nice COMMUNIST Symbology. Learn that in College did we? 🙂

*******

SO with that, Matt Walsh:

Dear Walmart,

I am writing to inform you of a terrible attack I suffered in one of your stores this week. The assault against me was so violent and oppressive that I had to immediately retreat to my healing space, where I lay whimpering on the floor for three and a half days, barely able to move or breathe. I emerge now, courageously, only because I must see that those responsible are made to answer for their crimes. I feel deeply triggered even speaking about it, but I must soldier on, in the name of #Justice.

Shutterstock

Shutterstock

It all started in the parking lot of my local Walmart. I was walking from my car to the store, minding my own business, when suddenly another customer, a man, walked up and accosted me. I should pause here and apologize to the transgender, agender, nongender, pangender, bigender, trigender, and quasigender communities if they feel offended or victimized because I’m labeling this individual a man. To be honest, he never mentioned his gender identity, and I would be the last person to ever assume anything about anyone. But in this case I feel comfortable guessing that the entity in question was a man because, in my experience, only cisgender white Christian Republican middle class heterosexual men are ever guilty of doing anything wrong. Anyway, I don’t really believe in labels, except for the five or six labels I just used in the previous sentence.

So, back to the incident. The man came alongside me, out of nowhere and without invitation, and immediately started sharing opinions with me. They were bad opinions. Opinions I didn’t like. Opinions that were different and confusing and scary. Opinions that shouldn’t exist. Opinions that made me feel delegimitized and otherized and vaporized. Literally vaporized. The opinions were like a death ray that zapped me and reduced me to ash and rubble.

Somehow, in the midst of this barrage, I was able to let out a desperate shriek. “STOP,” I yelled. “STOP. DEAR GOD. STOP.” He looked at me and even his look was offensive because I could tell in his head he was still thinking opinions that weren’t my opinions. “HOW DARE YOU DEVALUE MY LIFE EXPERIENCES,” I shouted.

He told me he had no idea what that meant. I could tell he’d never been to college. I put up my hands – just like they teach us in college – and started screaming “SAFE SPACE, SAFE SPACE, I’M IN MY SAFE SPACE” over and over again.

I thought that was the end of it. They told me in college nobody is allowed to think differently, and if anyone ever does think differently, all I need to do is run to my safe space. Everyone has to respect my safe space, which isn’t to be confused with my healing space, although my healing space must also be respected.

But these defenses were useless against the man. He only upped the ante. He insulted me. INSULTED ME. Do you understand what I’m saying to you? He formed words with his lips and ejected sounds from his throat and those sounds came out in the form of insults. He called me names. All kinds of names. All kinds of terrible, awful names. I’d repeat them here but I fear it would only cause others to experience the trauma I am now suffering.

I ran away from the man. I ran away as fast as I could, but he was still shouting words, and I felt like I might never escape. Eventually I made it into the store. In a haze of anxiety and confusion I grabbed several items from the shelf and tried to leave without paying for them. The manager stopped me. I explained to him that I’d just been insulted by some guy outside. He said he’s sorry about that but it doesn’t mean I get to steal.

Steal? STEAL? I’d just been mugged by opinions and insults moments earlier, and now I was being accused of doing something that I was in the process of doing? I couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe any of it. Is there no end to the intolerance?

I have been meditating on this series of tragedies ever since that day. It has become clear to me, especially in light of the inspiring protests at the University of Missouri, that I have no choice but to demand the immediate resignation of Walmart CEO Doug McMillon.

You might call me ridiculous. You might say this story sounds at least partially fabricated. You might say that even if it isn’t, it has nothing to do with the CEO of the company, nor does it have anything to do with the company at all. You might say this was one unpleasant man who said unpleasant things, and there’s no reason why anyone from Walmart should have to answer for it. You might say there’s really no reason why anything at all should be done, frankly. People say mean things to other people sometimes, you might say. There’s not always a remedy or a recourse, nor should we try to find one, you might say.

But you are only saying this because you are white and privileged. I myself do not identify as white. My mother’s step-dad’s aunt’s hairdresser’s cousin visited an Indian reservation in the 50s, so I naturally consider myself part Cherokee — or Mohican or Aztec or whatever. Indeed, I suspect the man at Walmart probably chose to attack me because he harbors bigotries against Native Americans. At one point he even said “I harbor bigotries against Native Americans.” I know that doesn’t sound like something an actual person would say, even if they do harbor bigotries against Native Americans, but anyone who accuses me of exaggerating obviously harbors bigotries against Native Americans.

So I must insist that Doug McMillon take responsibility for fostering an environment where people feel comfortable having bigotries and opinions in the parking lots of his stores. I can’t point to any one specific thing Mr. McMillon has done to create this issue, but that is precisely the problem. His inaction is the real outrage here.

Indeed, what has Mr. McMillon done? What has he done to stop people from saying mean things in and around the nation’s Walmarts? Has he posted signs reminding us not to share our opinions with one another? Has he officially declared Walmarts to be No Insult Zones? Has he made any attempt to give his customers a true understanding of the impact hurtful words have on marginalized populations? Has he set up safe spaces in his stores where those dealing with the effects of unpleasant phrases and ideas can go to regroup and share their feelings? Has he followed the progressive lead of the University of Missouri and established racially segregated healing spaces so that different minority groups can be vulnerable around others who share their authentic racial experiences? Has he instituted mandatory inclusivity and sensitivity seminars for all of his employees and customers? Has he conducted awareness campaigns to make people aware of things? Has he then followed those awareness campaigns with awareness awareness campaigns to make people aware of the awareness? Has he even taken the basic step of offering free Yoga classes in the back of every Walmart to help his customer de-stress?

Has he done any of this? No? Nothing? Exactly.

At this point, the only recourse is for Mr. McMillon to issue a public apology, resign his post, forfeit his severance, donate all of his money to a hippy commune or public university of my choice, burn his house down, and live the rest of his life under a bridge. I can see no other solution.

Next, I am forced to demand the manager of my local store resign and repay me the money he made me hand over for the items I tried to allegedly steal. Also, I demand that the governor of Maryland be arrested, the president impeached, the U.N. disbanded, and Australia nuked into oblivion. All of these people, organizations, and countries did nothing to stop that man from insulting me, and they must all pay the price, even in their own blood if necessary. I wish it did not have to come to this, but it isn’t my fault. I’m simply a man who reasonably expects to only ever encounter sweetness and smiles and happy thoughts, as is my constitutional right.

Going forward, once the requisite blood sacrifices have been made to atone for the opinions and insults of one man, I make the following further demands:

  • I demand that anyone who has been injured by emotional or mental violence be permitted to purchase products without paying for them. People cannot be financially burdened during such a difficult time. To achieve social justice, aggrieved minorities must be given free stuff. They teach this on the first day of college.
  • I demand that Walmart corporate offices hire new staff according to an arbitrary quota formula I will devise. I’ll get back to you with the specifics, but I know for sure that there should be at least 12 Native Americans, 24 black Americans, 37 homosexuals, 321 transgenders, and 600 bisexual Hispanic feminists holding high ranking positions in your company. This is just obvious. Companies that are not run by victims cannot understand victims, and if they cannot understand victims, they cannot prevent victims from being victimized, which is really the primary job of every company and every person everywhere.
  • I demand that Walmart greeters be replaced with therapeutic asexual cuddlers. It is appalling that I ran through your store with tears streaming down my cheeks and not one – not ONE – employee offered to cuddle me and make me feel better. Every employee should be given consensual cuddle training, and there ought to be at least two specialists stationed by the entrances and exits of the stores. Again, this is obvious stuff.
  • I demand that Walmart identify marginalized employees and customers and immediately make them general managers of their own stores.
  • I demand that all customers and employees be required to ride electric scooters so that the elderly and the morbidly obese don’t feel otherized.
  • I demand that Walmart develop a strategic five year plan to end hurting and sadness. During this process, you must cooperate and consult with the Social Justice Diversity Tolerance Outreach and Inclusiveness Center, which is an institution you’ll also have to create and fund and operate and staff.

I am hereby beginning a #HungerStrike until my demands are met. Some might call me a #HeroForSocialJustice but I like to think I’m just a regular guy who’s finally taking a stand. Heroically.

You have 12 hours to do everything I’ve commanded, or else your stores will be flooded with a racially and sexually diverse group of young, well-dressed, upper middle class protesters who will hold signs and chant slogans and Tweet about the oppression you’ve brought upon them.

The clock is ticking.

Sincerely,

A #Victim

AMEN, my brother. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Ministry of Microagressions

Microaggressions – considered examples of subconscious racism. Because on the left everything and everybody is about racism. It is their greatest control mechanism ( call it micro-totalitarianism– Thomas Sowell does).

It is the whip they will wield to make you obey them. Thoughtcrimes are Racist and Racism is a Thoughtcrime.

You’re all racists and everything you do and say is racist so you must controlled to stop all those racist thoughts like:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” –Dr. Martin Luther King.

Man what a naive racist! 🙂

George Orwell said, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” If one wants to discover the truth of Orwell’s statement, he need only step upon most college campuses.

Faculty leaders of the University of California consider certain statements racism and feel they should not be used in class. They call it micro-aggression. To them, micro-aggressive racist statements are: “America is the land of opportunity.” That is seen as perpetuating the myth of meritocracy. “There is only one race, the human race.” Such a statement is seen as denying the individual as a racial/cultural being. “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” That’s “racist” because it gives the impression that “people of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race.”

An initiative of UC President Janet Napolitano (former Head of Homeland Security -“Big Sis” to Big Brother- and Governor who never met an Illegal she’d didn’t love), aim to teach how to avoid offending students and peers, as well as how to hire a more diverse faculty (diverse meaning not white, not male, not christian). After all, inclusive is very exclusive. 🙂

These expressions don’t exhaust the list of micro-aggressions. Other seemingly innocuous statements deemed unacceptable are: “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” “When I look at you, I don’t see color,” or “Affirmative action is racist.” Perhaps worst of all is, “Where are you from or where were you born?” For more of this, see a document released by The College Fix titled “Diversity in the Classroom,” UCLA Diversity and Faculty Development.

Star Trek’s IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) is racist.

“And the ways our differences combine to create meaning and beauty.”— Miranda and Spock, “Is There In Truth No Beauty?”

EVIL!

“I am pleased to see that we have differences. May we together become greater than the sum of both of us.”— ‘Surak’, “The Savage Curtain”

Racist!

Actual diversity is racist but the Left does it to promote diversity. The ultimate in Orwellian Doublethink and Doublespeak.

Perfect. 🙂

The handout also describes “raising the bar” as “elitist.”

University representative Shelly Meron said in an email Tuesday that “These seminars are not an attempt to curb open dialogue, debate or classroom discussions.”

Oh really?

“The quotes you referenced are taken directly from research done on this topic. We present this research literature/climate survey responses as examples so that faculty leaders can be more aware of the impact their actions or words may have on their students, and to provide faculty members with potential strategies to create an inclusive learning environment for all students.”

The inclusiveness of exclusivity! Free Speech by limiting it. Free Thought by thoughtcrime.

Orwell would be proud.

This micro-aggression nonsense, called micro-totalitarianism by my colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell , is nothing less than an attack on free speech. From the Nazis to the Stalinists, tyrants have always started out supporting free speech, and why is easy to understand. Speech is vital for the realization of their goals of command, control and confiscation. Free speech is a basic tool for indoctrination, propagandizing, proselytization. Once the leftists gain control, as they have at many universities, free speech becomes a liability and must be suppressed. This is increasingly the case on university campuses.

You have Free Speech as long as it is not a Thoughtcrime. And since basically everything is a thoughtcrime… 🙂

Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, writes about the campus attack on free speech and different ideas in his article titled “Obama Unleashes the Left: How the government created a federal hunting license for the far left.” He says that in the Harvard Crimson, an undergraduate columnist wrote: “Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.” The student was calling for the suppression of the research of conservative Harvard government professor Harvey Mansfield.

Oberlin College proposed that its teachers be aware of politically controversial topics such as “racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, capitalism and other issues of privilege and oppression.” The presumption that students must be protected rather than challenged in a classroom is at once infantilizing and anti-intellectual.

But perfectly Orwellian. The Ministry is proud.

Last year Vassar College faculty and students held a meeting to discuss the school’s movement to boycott Israel. Before the meeting, an English professor announced the dialogue would “not be guided by cardboard notions of civility.” That professor’s vision differs little from Adolf Hitler’s brown-shirted thugs of the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party in their effort to crush dissent.

Azusa Pacific University “postponed” a speech by political scientist Charles Murray to avoid “hurting our faculty and students of color.” Brandeis University officials rescinded their invitation to Somali writer and American Enterprise Institute scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose criticisms of radical Islam were said to have violated the school’s “core values.” Brandeis officials claimed that allowing her to speak would be hurtful to Muslim students.

Western values of liberty are under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality before the law with entitlement. As such, they pose a far greater threat to our way of life than any terrorist organization or rogue nation. Leftist ideas are a cancer on our society. Ironically, we not only are timid in response, but also nourish those ideas with our tax dollars and charitable donations.

And these are the place your sending your little cherubs of joy to- to be indoctrinated and trained to be Leftist foot soldiers in the Army of Big Brother.

All Hail President Bernie Sanders! 🙂

 

Sowell Price 1

Baltimore is now paying the price for irresponsible words and actions, not only by young thugs in the streets, but also by its mayor and the state prosecutor, both of whom threw the police to the wolves, in order to curry favor with local voters.Now murders in Baltimore in May have been more than double what they were in May last year, and higher than in any May in the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the number of arrests is down by more than 50 percent.

Various other communities across the country are experiencing very similar explosions of crime and reductions of arrests, in the wake of anti-police mob rampages from coast to coast that the media sanitize as “protests.”

None of this should be surprising. In her carefully researched 2010 book, “Are Cops Racist?” Heather Mac Donald pointed out that, after anti-police campaigns, cops tended to do less policing and criminals tended to commit more crimes.

If all this has been known for years, why do the same mistakes keep getting made?

Mainly because it is not a mistake for those people who are looking out for their own political careers. Critics who accuse the mayor of Baltimore and the Maryland prosecutor of incompetence, for their irresponsible words and actions, are ignoring the possibility that these two elected officials are protecting and promoting their own chances of remaining in office or of moving on up to higher offices.

Racial demagoguery gains votes for politicians, money for race hustling lawyers and a combination of money, power and notoriety for armies of professional activists, ideologues and shakedown artists.

So let’s not be so quick to say that people are incompetent when they say things that make no sense to us. Attacking the police makes sense in terms of politicians’ personal interests, and often in terms of the media’s personal interests or ideological leanings, even if what they say bears little or no resemblance to the facts.

Of course, all these benefits have costs. There is no free lunch. But the costs are paid by others, including men, women and children who are paying with their lives in ghettos around the country, as politicians think of ever more ways they can restrict or scapegoat the police.

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice has been leading the charge, when it comes to presuming the police to be guilty — not only until proven innocent, but even after grand juries have gone over all the facts and acquitted the police.

Not only Attorney General Holder, but President Obama himself, has repeatedly come out with public statements against the police in racial cases, long before the full facts were known. Nor have they confined their intervention to inflammatory words.

The Department of Justice has threatened various local police departments with lawsuits unless they adopt the federal government’s ideas about how police work should be done.

The high cost of lawsuits virtually guarantees that the local police department is going to have to settle the case by bowing to the Justice Department’s demands — not on the merits, but because the federal government has a lot more money than a local police department, and can litigate the case until the local police department runs out of the money needed to do their work.

By and large, what the federal government imposes on local police departments may be summarized as kinder, gentler policing. This is not a new idea, nor an idea that has not been tested in practice.

It was tested in New York under Mayor David Dinkins more than 20 years ago. The opposite approach was also tested when Dinkins was succeeded as mayor by Rudolph Giuliani, who imposed tough policing policies — which brought the murder rate down to a fraction of what it had been under Dinkins.

Unfortunately, when some people experience years of safety, they assume that means that there are no dangers. That is why New York’s current mayor is moving back in the direction of Mayor Dinkins. It is also the politically expedient thing to do.

And innocent men, women and children — most of them black — will pay with their lives in New York, as they have in Baltimore and elsewhere.

Justice Served on a Political Platter

Well, the Maryland State’s Attorney came up with a solution to the Lose-Lose Scenario, it’s called the Political Red Meat Game.

Well, what if they are guilty? Fine, let the facts bear that out. But this was a Political Sacrifice. (they at least could have all been White Males that would have been so much juicier for the Leftists! 🙂 )

The Evil 6

Cheers erupted as City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced that charges were being filed against the six officers involved in the apprehension, arrest and death of Freddie Gray. That feeling of elation reverberated through the streets of Baltimore, and especially the Penn-North neighborhood that was the scene of Monday’s riots, as residents applauded the decision to indict.

RED MEAT! RED MEAT! THE GODS ACCEPT YOUR SACRIFICE!

“The city is phenomenal right now. Right now, it’s like Baltimore, thank you for listening, thank you for everyone constantly protesting for the betterment of the good. Everyone that’s being negative needs to stop being negative, it’s so simple as smiling at a baby, to let go of the nonsense,” he said. “It’s awesome, it’s super great.”

Thank you for rioting, looting and burning down and destroying businesses. Thank you for destroying lives and property.

You love me, you really love me!

“The state’s attorney, she’s the next best thing next to grape Kool-Aid. You could tell she was fed up. She was real about it, everyone on her team was real about the situation, and they made sure they got justice and justice prevailed,” he said

Notice, he thinks they’ve already been convicted. “innocent until proven guilty” isn’t even on their tiny minds.

The head of a group that is holding a march Saturday says it will now be a “victory rally” after a prosecutor charged six officers in the death of Freddie Gray.

Malik Shabazz, president of Black Lawyers for Justice, said he was pleasantly surprised by the charges and commended State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby “for standing up for justice and setting a standard for prosecutors all over the nation.”

NO VENGEANCE NO PEACE!

Within days, the State Attorney’s office determined, prosecuted, and convicted 6 people of Second Degree Murder and other charges.

Fraternal Order of Police head Gene Ryan brings up Mosby’s “personal and professional relationship with Gray family attorney” William Murphy. Murphy gave $5000 to Mosby during her campaign last year. Ryan also says, “It is clear that your husband’s [Baltimore councilman Nick Mosby] political future will be directly impacted, for better or worse, by the outcome of your investigation.”

But Progressives thrive on conflicts of interest, as long as it’s in THEIR INTEREST to do so. She said “honorable” law enforcement would “work” with her, after all. 🙂

Next up, she’ll be running for Governor soon, after all apparently “When she was growing up in inner-city Boston, her 17-year-old cousin was mistaken for a drug dealer and killed outside her home by another 17-year-old.” (NBC) So she’s not a biased Social Justice Avenger at all! Maybe she’ll run for President after Hillary.

“To the people of Baltimore and demonstrators across America, I heard your call for ‘No Justice, No peace,’” she said. “Your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man.”

Sounds like a Campaign speech to me.

charges

Amazing!

Second Degree Murder: Definition. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion”; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life.

Let’s go out and kill us some black people!! 🙂

Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

  1. Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
  2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
  3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

That’s a steep hill to climb, but NO VENGEANCE NO PEACE!
“I just heard the comment on the bus, that we’re happy, there won’t be no more fires or looting. The decision to even take the officers to court, that’s a relief off the street people, off the people in the projects, the ones who feel like we’re victims,” one man told a reporter for a local CBS affiliate in Baltimore.

“It’s absolutely a joyous occasion, some right has been done, some wrong has been righted — so far,” another resident said. “I think we’re finally getting some results.” (CBS)

THEY GOT THEIR POUND OF FLESH. THERE HAS BEEN A HUMAN SACRIFICE TO THE POLITICAL GODS.

Did it solve anything?

Only the immediate political problem and it throw 6 people to the wolves of racial politics to torn apart for the show.

“It’s symbolic not just of police brutality,” Ray said. “Maybe we are progressing toward the equality that we should have been moving toward decades ago.”–University of Maryland Sociologist Rashawn Ray.

Yeah, I think Dr. Martin Luther King would agree. 🙂

Well, what if they are guilty? Fine, let the facts bear that out.

But what if they don’t?

Will the rioters return for more Vengeance! Of course they will. It’s like a volcano that has the magma boiling under the surface and the pressure builds until it erupts. It calms down and the pressure builds up again.

Or will the State be forced to convict them no matter what so they don’t have to face the wrath of that possibility?

The “innocent until proven guilty” presumption is totally out the window. They are guilty and everyone’s happy now.

Is that how Justice works in America now?

It didn’t take the Race Baiter Supreme long to get into the act:

Rev. Al Sharpton called for the Justice Department to “take over policing in this country” and stated “we’re going to have to fight states’ rights” in comments recorded by the Baltimore Sun on Thursday.

Damn that evil 10th Amendment! We should abolish it in favor of complete Federal Control of everything and everyone!

Sharpton said, “we need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country. In the 20th century, they had to fight states’ rights in — to get the right to vote. We’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases.”

Ah, The National Police run by a Progressive Liberal Justice Department that selectively ignores laws when it doesn’t fit with their Narrative or Agenda, yeah that’s the ticket.

The THOUGHT POLICE!

Think the wrong thoughts and they will come for you too. That makes me feel so much better! 😦

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Actual Point

Conservatives spend a lot of time talking principles, but not as much time as they should telling people what they want to do for the average American. On the other hand, liberals talk incessantly about what conservatives want to do “to” the average American, but almost all of it is wrong. Here’s what conservatives actually want for Americans.

The Left is more than happy to define it’s “enemy”. So why is the “enemy” so willing to be defined by them?

1) A country where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, but isn’t dragged down by an insistence on equal results.

2) A safe neighborhood where you can let your kids go out and play in the front yard without having to worry about them being shot, kidnapped or coerced by gang members.

3) A country as free as possible of illegal aliens who commit crimes, use taxpayer services without paying, take jobs that should go to citizens and drive down wages for Americans.

4) An environment with clean air, clean water and clean soil.

5) The right to worship the God you believe in as you please, without interference from the state, as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.

6) An environment where Americans can reap rewards as large as the market is willing to pay for their particular talents, work ethic or unique skills.

7) The dignity of supporting yourself with a job, free of dependence on the government.

8) A government that will stay out of your way and allow you to reach your full potential free of interference.

9) The freedom to live as you please and do as you please with your property without interference from the government.

10) The ability of parents to be able to send their children to a school, public or private, that best fits their needs.

11) The protection of the world’s foremost military and a government that is willing to use it to insure the safety of American citizens.

12) A Medicare and Social Security program that are financially solvent long-term so they can continue to benefit retirees.

13) The freedom for people to speak their minds without being censored by the government.

14) A decent culture so that children have a chance to grow up without being morally corrupted.

15) A responsible government that keeps order in the streets, protects Americans from crimes, and enforces basic regulations to keep people from being taken advantage of by crooks or unscrupulous businesses.

16) The ability for women to achieve their fullest potential, whether that’s by being a corporate CEO, opening their own business or staying at home as a full time mom.

17) A country where people are judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. (Martin Luther King, anyone…)

18) Low taxes, so that Americans get to keep more of their hard earned money instead of sending it to the government.

19) A country where everyone from the President of the United to States to the humblest citizen has to obey the same laws or face the same potential penalties for breaking those laws.

20) A fiscally responsible government that takes great care to wisely spend the tax dollars it collects.

Maybe we should tack these theses to the doors of Congress and the White House! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez


Why it is…

This guy Christopher Cook from Western Free Press nails it. It’s a great summation of what I have said over and over again in this blog for the last 5 years.

“Conservatives see liberals as misguided; liberals see conservatives as evil.”
—Original source unknown

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with a ferocity you didn’t quite understand? Have you seen it happen to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media establishment does it to a public figure?

Of course you have. At some point or other, nearly everyone on the political right has witnessed or been the victim of an attack designed not to elucidate facts, but rather to paint him or her as a villain.

My attention was recently drawn to a typical such calumny from a Facebook exchange:

Republicans hate anything that isn’t white, wealthy, and christian at least in appearance. They hate the poor, women, and minorities. They hate science and don’t believe that the global warming we clearly are experiencing is man made. They hate any government programs that help the poor and minorities, and the particularly despise immigrants, particularly the illegal kind. They love programs that line the pockets of oil companies, mining companies, and are willing to export jobs with wild abandon.

They hate public education, and they despise public schools and the public school teachers and public university professors. And since the do not respect the market place of ideas, they hate tenure (that gives teachers academic freedom) because it prevents them from firing teachers who are Democrats and who might infect some student with their liberal ideas. They want insurance companies to make a maximum of profit, and are perfectly willing for the health insurance companies to kill people by refusing service to anyone that might cost them a buck more than the median expense. They don’t care about clean food because it might cost the food corporation a little money, and they don’t care about clean water because cleaning up the waste will cost their precious corporate persons a little money.

This is not a recitation of facts; it is a series of smears. It is the construction of a giant cartoonish super-villain, made of straw and woven together with calumny. The giant straw villain is then publicly burned, in a narcissistic orgy of self-adulation. Of course, the torches of the “best” people burn the brightest.

Or one of my favourites: “you should stop watching Faux News” end of discussion.

Another way of looking at it is this: It is the modern-day version of a witch trial. The charges are utterly farcical and cartoonish. “I saw her dancing with demons in the pale moonlight.” “She looked at me and I sneezed, and the next day, I had a terrible cold.” “She turned me into a newt.” But they are stated with great conviction and repeated incessantly, and they establish the unassailable collective will of which the accused has run afoul. The witch is made into the auslander, and the good people of the community show how “good” they are by shouting their accusations the loudest.

Either way, whether the wicker man or the witch, the effigy goes up in flames and the community is purged—for the moment—of its evil. Moral annulment now achieved, the villagers walk away feeling good about themselves. Feeling superior.

Facts are also unimportant in this perverse passion play. Like the slavering, semi-psychotic Facebook rant above, most such assaults aren’t a series of accusations backed up by facts, they are a series of character assassinations, most of which are contradicted by the facts.

The most salient example today is the charge that people of the right (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers) oppose Obama out of pure racism—simply because he is black. Though this charge is easily refuted—by common sense, widespread evidence, and actual studies—it is repeated incessantly by the media, the left’s foot-soldiers . . . even the president himself.

Anything short of full Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants is therefore, racist. Anything less than full compliance with Global Warming fearmongering is “denial” and also Racist (according to the EPA Director).

Face it, disagree with a Leftist on basically anything, eventually you’ll be  a racist. Period. End of Discussion. 🙂

When actual studies are done (as opposed to just restating what the leftist imagines to be so as if it were actual fact), we learn that real racism is distributed fairly evenly among the population without regard to political affiliation.  In 2008, a survey was done that showed similar numbers of Republicans (5.7) and Democrats (6.8) would not vote for a black presidential candidate. Such a question gives us one of the clearest possible tests of raw racism. A loaded question like, “Do you feel blacks receive too much welfare?” might confuse attitudes about race with attitudes about government welfare programs. But this gives us apples to apples: All things being equal, would you refuse to vote for someone solely because of race?

In the 2008 survey, Democrats were slightly (1.1%) more likely to show racist thinking than Republicans, though this is well within the margin of error. A similar study on senatorial candidates was far more damning to Democrats. Bottom line: there is little evidence that Republicans oppose Obama or any candidate on the basis of race to any greater degree than Democrats.

But this should be obvious based on other facts and indicators as well. Take Mia Love. If you are on the political left, you may not have heard of her, but she is a rising star on the right. She quotes Bastiat, she believes in core principles such as subsidiarity—she is dynamic, successful, and hits all the right notes. She is a black woman, and I have not met or heard of a single conservative, Republican, or tea partier who wouldn’t be delighted to support her. (Deep down, many of the left know this, which is why they have been so vicious to her.) I have worked alongside or come in contact with hundreds of activists and partisans on the political right over the last 15 years, and I cannot think of a single one who would not exult at a Mia Love victory. If she were elected president, I myself would do the happy dance on top of the tallest mountain in my area every November!

The reason is obvious: we agree ideologically. Race is unimportant. Barack Obama is, it can be fairly argued, further to the political left than any previous president. And people on the right oppose him so virulently for that very reason—not because of his race, but because of the huge ideological gulf that lies between. Imagine that.

The other painfully incessant canard is the notion that people on the right “hate the poor.” In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals by fairly significant margins, even when you adjust for a variety of factors. Rich, middle-class, and poor conservatives are all more charitable than their liberal counterparts.  It’s not that conservatives are wealthier overall, either—liberal households are 6% wealthier on average. (I bet you never heard that little fact on MSNBC.) It is also not that conservatives are more religious: new data indicate that secular conservatives give more than secular liberals. These conservatives are voluntarily helping the poor with their own money, in greater numbers than their liberal counterparts in every cohort. Conservatism is a greater predictor of charity.

Leftists (they hardly deserve the term “liberal”), by contrast, are more “charitable” with other people’s money. Leftist A votes for Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C to give it to Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B, who continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and ever-increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get together and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But we are getting dragged into the weeds here. We could go on and on refuting fact after fact, but the facts are unimportant. The leftist is creating a narrative. As a marketing guru will tell you, Facts tell, but stories sell. It’s a lesson the leftist has learned well.

Even more disturbing, in recent years, this method of “argumentation” has increasingly become the first tool pulled out of the toolbox. No longer does the leftist feel as compelled to make real arguments. All he needs to do now is shout “Racist!” or “War on Women!” and his job is done. He walks away feeling smugly satisfied of his own politically correct superiority, and the untrained observer is left addled at best, and possibly even swayed by the narrative.

So why they are so vicious?  Why do people who self-describe as “compassionate” direct such vitriolic hate and assaults at their ideological opponents? How they can justify painting you as such a monster?

Simple: To them, you are a monster. You must be.

Reason #1: Utopianism
You’re in their way

Strip everything away, and the fundamental trait of all leftists is this: The believe that through the state, they can build paradise on earth. They believe that with enough tinkering, coercion, and rule by “experts,” they can eliminate all hard choices and competing goods, perfect human nature, and bring all good things to all people.

To someone of the political right—defined by our belief in human freedom, private solutions, and individual sovereignty—this is just the modern re-telling of the age-old story: that some men should rule over other men. Ancient despotism, monarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, modern progressivism—they’re all just different flavors, and different degrees of application, of the same basic philosophy. But the person on the left does not see it that way. He wants perfection. He believes it is possible. And by gum, he’s going to get it.

This utopian thinking quickly leads to an unavoidable conclusion, echoed from the French Revolution to Lenin and Stalin to Mao to the Progressives of the modern era: “On ne fait pas d’omelet sans casser des oeufs.” (You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) To the utopian statist, “process costs” are entirely acceptable. They are building paradise, after all.

That’s why you see so much more toleration by the left’s rank and file of corruption and bad behavior by their leaders. What’s a little lying here, a little corruption there? They are building paradise. What’s a little cheating in the face of all they intend to accomplish?

That is also why you see such a prevalence of cult-of-personality adulation for strong leaders. Strong leaders resolve contradictions and sweep away the opposition. Strong leaders have the will to get the job done. Strong leaders get the trains running on time. Next stop, paradise.

But most importantly . . . these utopians—both the leaders and the rank and file—are so convinced of the nobility of their intentions that they believe that anyone who stands in their way must, by definition, have evil intentions. After all, who but a monster would stand in the way of paradise? And what consideration do monsters deserve? Why none at all, of course—they’re monsters.

That is why they do not simply disagree with you. That is why they calumniate you and attribute the worst motives to you. That is why they hate you.

Reason #2: Utopianism
The WORLD is in their way

The world refuses to conform to their utopian vision. The world isn’t the neat and tidy place they want it to be. They still hold onto the childlike belief that there can be goods with no tradeoffs, and this world of endless tradeoffs proves them wrong every day, mocking their childishness in the process. That makes them very angry.

Someone once said, “Conservatives believe what they see; liberals see what they believe.” Leftists hate you for the fact that you see the world as it is, rather than as it should be. You accept the facts of reality as they truly are, and you try to make the best of it. They believe that they can make reality conform to their vision of it. (That this effort always requires massive application of force against other human beings doesn’t bother them. It’s just another process cost.)

Your acceptance of reality as it is is pedestrian and troglodytic. Their vision of how reality should be makes them noble and romantic. They hate you for not living in the same fantasy land that they do. They hate you for recognizing that life is filled with tradeoffs. They don’t see the tradeoffs, so when you point them out, it’s as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-La-La . . . I can’t hear you! Stop making bad things happen.

Your acceptance of reality makes them so angry, in fact, that they have convinced themselves that you must be suffering from some sort of psychological malady. Over the last century, dozens of self-reinforcing  junk-science books and studies have been published labeling “conservatism” (once called “classical liberalism”) as a mental disorder. Like the mental patient permanently lost in a psychotic world of his own creation . . . he’s normal, it’s the rest of you who are nuts.

Reason #3: Preening Narcissism
They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

The ideas of the political left produce failure at best and misery, oppression, and democide at worst. In spite of this, I had long clung to the belief that at least people on the political left “mean well.”

But do they? Or do they simply want to feel as though they mean well?

Author Robert Bidinotto asks (and answers) the same question:

Have decades upon decades of liberal policy failures deterred liberals from being liberals? Have the trillions of dollars blown on welfare-state programs since the “New Deal” and the “War on Poverty” made a damned bit of difference in curing poverty? And has that failure convinced “progressives” that there is something fundamentally wrong in their worldview and approach? Have the horrendous historical consequences of appeasement policies stopped today’s politicians from appeasing international thugs and terrorists? No?

Then why does anyone assume that liberals gauge the value of their worldview by the standard of its PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES?

Practical consequences are ALWAYS trumped by the advancement and protection of one’s core Narrative: the fairy tale that gives one’s life meaning, coherence, and moral justification. [ . . . ]

Doing that makes them feel good about themselves. And they would far rather feel good about themselves than actually achieve any of their stated practical objectives. It’s not about the objectives at all. It’s about THEM.

John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

If this is true, then for many, utopianism isn’t about what they think they can achieve, it’s about their own self-image.

So is it true?

The persistence of this vision in the face of centuries of evidence would seem to indicate that it may be. We know that maximizing human freedom is more moral and produces better results—the last two centuries have made that clear. And on the flip side, we know that maximizing government at the expense of the individual produces a parade of horribles. And yet, again and again, we are told that it simply wasn’t done correctly before, or by the right people.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?
Why you are, my dear—you are so compassionate and fair and noble in every way.

The leftist looks at herself in the mirror and sees that she is one of those “right people,” because that is how she wants to see herself.

And if she is so beautiful and noble and fair . . . then how ugly you must be for standing in her way.

 

The leftist—the utopian, the statist—sees himself as on noble quest. He is the embodiment of everything good, simply because that is how he sees himself. How he wants to see himself. In order to maintain this self-image, he must make you the embodiment of everything horrible. He must make you ugly.

To statists, you are just another process cost. Their willingness to accept process costs on the road to their utopia is limited only by national context. In the United States, an exceptional nation where we still have some rule of law, they will certainly calumniate you, and they may decide to harm your finances, career, or reputation. In less exceptional countries where there is less rule of law, the harm is often to people’s freedom or even their very lives, as more than 100 million poor souls discovered in the 20th century.

The typical leftist in America, ignorant of his own philosophical pedigree, will protest this characterization. Do not let their protestations sway you. The degree to which they will treat you—the monster standing in the way of their utopia—as a disposable process cost is limited only by the degree of power they have. For your own safety, do not let them get more.

You are in the way of the utopia they are trying to create. You are in the way of the power they need to do it.

You. Are. In. Their. Way.

utopia

“The conservative “thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the liberal ideologue is merciless.”― Russell Kirk

the Ministry of Truth It is an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete rising 300 metres into the air, containing over 3000 rooms above ground. On the outside wall are the three slogans of the Party: “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” There is also a large part underground, probably containing huge incinerators where documents are destroyed after they are put down memory holes. (Hard Drives crashing anyone?)

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

154418 600 Obamas Piece Prize   Reposted cartoons

Something Worse This Way Comes?

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Chuck Norris:After 5 1/2 bumpy years of controversial service, the besieged but bolstered attorney general, Eric Holder, resigned. But is this close friend and confidant of President Barack Obama’s really stepping down for some benign reason at a critical time for our country, or is there a sinister and strategic plan behind it all?

First, it’s far more than a coincidence that the United States’ chief lawyer is leaving office with more unanswered questions about crucial life-and-death national dilemmas than any previous attorney general. Though most have been accused of sitting on issues, none has been so assailed as Holder for personally stonewalling investigations, covering up government involvement and refusing to deal with politically explosive controversies. Holder has not prosecuted such monumental and rights-infringing crimes as the Fast and Furious debacle; the Benghazi, Libya, tragedy; National Security Agency wiretappings; press infringements; drone attacks on U.S. citizens; and the Internal Revenue Service scandal.

The Bronx, New York-born 63-year-old Holder proudly boasted that he had “taken steps to protect the environment,” taken swift action in Ferguson, Missouri, and even opened a broad probe into the police department in Ferguson. However, he — like our president and even Secretary of State John Kerry — hasn’t said a single word over the past six months about Marine reservist Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi’s being wrongly imprisoned in Mexico.

Sadly, it has been recently reported that Tahmooressi, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, is “highly despondent” because of the drastic deterioration of his mental health. And still, Holder refuses to speak up on behalf of this suffering, imprisoned American patriot.

Can you say resignation of denial and avoidance?

If Obama invoked executive privilege when Holder sat before Congress to protect him from his role in Fast and Furious, who’s to say he isn’t protecting him again — or vice versa — through Holder’s resignation? What better way to avoid the line of fire than to move completely out of the way? And what if Obama and Holder are not only protecting themselves from some past public sin through his resignation but also prepping Holder for some future position by his absence from the public stage?

That’s exactly what Rush Limbaugh proposed this past week. He explained the scary scenario this way:

“After you perform your six years of government service, you then retire to the private sector and get paid off for it. People hire you who are grateful for what you did, or you go back to your law firm, where you are a rainmaker, don’t even have to do any work.

“They put your name on the letterhead, on the door, and you attract clients and get a percentage of what walks in the door. There is any number of ways this can happen. But there’s also another possibility regarding Eric Holder. I just want you to prepare yourself. It may happen. We still have two years to go.

“There may be a Supreme Court vacancy, and I can see Barack Obama nominating Eric Holder to fill it, and it would be much easier for Eric Holder to make the jump from private-sector law firm rainmaker after six years at (the Department of Justice) to the Supreme Court than from DOJ straight to the Supreme Court. I don’t know how much that would matter, but don’t rule any of that out. I don’t think there’s any scandal. I don’t think it’s Fast and Furious. I don’t think he’s worried about the Republicans investigating anything if they win the Senate.”

It is worth noting that Rahm Emanuel resigned as Obama’s chief of staff two years before the end of the president’s first term in order to attain the post of mayor of Chicago — a resignation that Obama labeled as “bittersweet,” which he also did with Holder’s.

Hillary Clinton was next, with her resignation as secretary of state, which most people think was in order to run for president in 2016.

Now, two years before the end of the president’s second term, could Obama and Holder’s scope be set on SCOTUS? Given they are the kings of corrupt calculated chess moves, I believe the odds are incredibly high.

Having finished their insider dirty work, this trinity of terror (Emanuel, Clinton and Holder) is being sent out like apostles onto the mission field to infuse Obama’s Cabinet’s secular progressive agenda into the deepest roots of the land.

Liberal legacy and progressive perpetuity is the name of their game and their master plan.

HAIL HYDRA!

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell