Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘Liberal’ Category

You are a modern liberal …

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/21

 

 

You are a modern liberal

… and you don’t believe in natural rights.

Ok … let’s ask some questions which may even seem silly at first, but which, in the asking, will clear away some of the unhappy vagueness we tend to live with out of social politeness or the fear of seeming too radical.

So:

Do you have, let’s say, a right to breathe? If so, where does this “right” come from? An act of Congress?

Do you have a right to be served by others? If so;

Do they have a right to be served by you? If so;

Do they have a right to serve themselves by not serving you?

 

The questions are too general or abstract or silly or provocative you say? And anyway, it all depends, you say? Alright then, “it all depends”.

In hopes of making some kind of progress, let’s wave away any of the question begging “balancing of rights” or “cultural context” distractions into which you would like segue, and try to press forward instead.

To continue on a slightly different tack.

Do you (yeah you personally) let’s say, have a right to speak freely? If the answer is “yes”, is that “right” merely a contingent legal permission – be it constitutional, statutory, whatever – which you for the time being enjoy? Can you equally well be deprived of that permission in a way which would leave you with no rational cause for complaint to someone else? If you cannot so be deprived without a rational cause for complaint to someone else, do you then claim a more basic right to that express right? If so, how, or upon what, is that claim grounded?

 

You are a modern liberal; and, let’s say for the sake of argument, that I am not.

And you’re determined that you are not  going to “fall for” any of the questions I have asked. A “right” you insist and will boldly maintain, is nothing more than an arbitrarily recognized social permission – that tolerance or support which others are habituated or intimidated into conceding to you. Usually written down if it is to mean anything.

You then as a modern liberal, consistently and without exception or proviso do assert and affirm that the concept of “rights” really renders down to what are in essence, no more than social permissions; having no other objective grounding or reality.

So now, let’s say that you the modern liberal, and I the not-modern-liberal find ourselves on an island. One with no law books.

I’m stronger that you are and … Yeah, yeah, trust me, I am. And, and anyway as I was about to say, although there is enough for both of us to survive, if I kill you now, I can live more than just comfortably. Besides, I find your weakness and whiny-ness annoying.

If I do kill you, have I done anything objectively wrong? If so what is it, and how do you know? Have I thereby, on this law book free island, deprived you of anything that could be called “rights”? Is my killing of you, “unjust” in any sense, even though no judicial writ runs here? If so, then how so; and, how do you know?

Have you any reason to complain over an injustice in my act? Notice I said “reason”; and notice that your utility to me is not an issue here. How would all this be balanced out under a social permission theory of rights?

Well now, I don’t really expect you as a liberal to answer these questions, or to take them seriously, or even to grant that the framing of the speculations is something you would abide or tolerate.

Because of course, these questions are not really meant to change a liberal mind regarding the nature and status of rights by means of pointing out just how incoherent the liberal use of the term rights is, when the term is used in the sense conceived of, and conceded by, liberals.

I know this because I have wasted many hours attempting to get modern-liberals to explain themselves: and their strategy has been, without exception, to either refuse to do so, or to shelter behind the terminology of a moral worldview which they in fact reject.

You liberals, high-minded or low, already know all this too. You know, explicitly or implicitly that you are are spouting clandestinely self-serving rhetoric not reason, and emoting, not deducing, when you speak of “rights”.

So what’s the point?

The point is that: what this exercise is really meant to do is to remind non-liberals that, in the final analysis, modern liberals are motivated by a simple will to power and/or by urges which they themselves don’t care to justify or explore too deeply.

This is a fact of social life which non-liberals need to face, and of which they need to steadily keep reminding themselves.

Liberals are able not only to readily face this view of themselves, they ultimately embrace it; and when pushed to the wall, they will even proclaim it. They see it – entropy, inherent meaninglessness, and ultimate nothingness – as a state of affairs which grants them freedom from ultimate consequences. Insofar of course, as there is a coherent “they” to them, and insofar as “freedom” has any any meaning, insofar as consequences have any significance, and insofar, insofar, insofar …

So, isn’t it about time that conservatives become brave enough to face what it is that liberals are blithely admitting about themselves as liberals?

Its only prudent, after all.

 

Posted in Conservative, Culture, Liberal, Philosophy, Real Life, society, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Abortion Stories As Told By Abortion Survivors

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/20

In light of Senate Democrats’ 100 percent vote to allow abortion on demand until the day a child is born, in an attempt to stop the various States from enacting any restrictions or protections, I have decided to reprint an article I wrote in 2012.

From Teen Breaks.com:

Gianna Jessen
My name is Gianna Jessen… I was aborted, and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California, and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.

A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mother’s womb. The baby then gulps the solution. It burns the baby inside and out, and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.

This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE… in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me the abortionist was not yet on duty and had me transferred to the hospital.

I should be blind, burned… I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy.

When I was diagnosed with this, all I could do was lie there. They said that was all I would ever do! Through prayer and hard work by my foster mother, I was walking at age 3 ½ with the help of a walker and leg braces. At that time I was also adopted into a wonderful family. Today I am left only with a slight limp. I no longer have need of a walker or leg braces.

…Death did not prevail over me… and I am so thankful!

Teen Breaks has more stories from abortion survivors. Teen Breaks is ready, willing, and able to help teens out. You don’t have to be pregnant, or even a girl, to reach out to them. They’re there to provide a loving environment, information, and a community of support for you as you are bombarded by pressures and life’s travails. If you’re a “cutter”, cutting yourself to regain a sense of control or to zone out or to get relief from life’s stresses, you’re not alone. 1 in 200 teen girls have done it. Teen Breaks is there for you, ready to help you.

Pregnant and need help?
You can talk with someone by phone, e-mail, text, chat live online or be shown where there is a pregnancy center near you. And remember, everything is confidential and free!
OptionlineLogoChatFrame

Click above to chat live or text “TEEN” to 313131.

Claire Culwell’s April 2010 story from Stand For Life:

Putting a Face To What You’re Fighting For

By Claire Culwell

 

A year ago, when I was 21 years old, I met the woman who gave birth to me. I had always dreamed about the day I would meet her, and it NEVER involved the most significant part of it all…learning that I was an ABORTION SURVIVOR. She was 13 years old when she became pregnant with me and the only option she knew of (according to her mother) was abortion. She proceeded to go to an abortion clinic nearby where she had an abortion. A few weeks later she realized she was still pregnant and decided to go to an out-of-state late-term abortion clinic to have a second abortion. During her examination at the late-term abortion clinic, she was told that she had been pregnant with TWINS. One was aborted, and one survived. She was also told that it was too late to have even a late-term abortion. She decided to give me up for adoption when I was born two weeks later. If you ask her now, she will tell you that if she had known the results of abortion vs. adoption, she would have gone straight to the adoption agency instead. Putting me up for adoption (and giving me the best family I can imagine) was a life-changing decision for all of us.

Because of the abortion, I was born 2 ½ months premature and weighed 3 lbs 2 oz. I was on life support and had to stay in the hospital for 2 ½ months until I could be brought home. My hips were dislocated and my feet were turned (because during the abortion, the sac that held my body together was broken) and when I was brought home I had 2 casts on my feet and a harness. I was put in a body cast for 4 months, and I didn’t walk until I was over 2 years old. It still affects me even today.

[continue reading at the above link]

And Claire Culwell’s amazing 2011 video:

Posted in abortion, Character, Christianity, Culture, education, Elections, Health, Health Care, Law, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Pro-Life, Real Life, society, truth, Youth | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pro-Life? Can’t Vote Democrat

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/19

The Editor of The First Street Journal found another lying Democrat. There are some rules of writing that say when a word is defined in part by a qualifier, the qualifier is unnecessarily redundant; therefore, it is unnecessarily redundant to add the qualifier “lying” to the word “Democrat”. Democrats win elections by lying. There is a good chance that Democrats would never have more than a small minority position in most State Legislatures and the US government without their lies. Republicans want to throw granny over the cliff. Republicans have a war on women. Republicans are all racists. Heck, the race card has been so overplayed as to not mean anything anymore. Democrats have fought for all the Civil Rights Laws we have in this country. The long list of proven Democrat lies could go on forever. So what’s so important that the Editor of The First Street Journal would point out another Democrat lying? It’s the Pro-Life nature of the Democrat. Or, rather, it’s the lie that he’s in any way Pro-Life at all.

Well, we have just found out how pro-life Senator Casey really is. The pro-abortion forces introduced S. 1696, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is designed to eliminate state restrictions on abortion, through the entire nine months of pregnancy. It was in response to restrictions imposed in states like Texas, where abortion clinics are required to meet rigorous safety and health standards. The Texas law1 is designed, unquestionably, to reduce the number of abortion clinics in the Lone Star State, but it was also in response to “Dr” Kermit Gosnell’s little shop of horrors. When it came time to actually vote on S. 1696, the devout Roman Catholic, pro-life Senator Casey, who represents the state in which “Dr” Gosnell was “practicing,” voted for the bill, as did every other Democrat in the Senate.2

With that vote, Senator Casey just told us, through deeds, that his words are nothing but lies. Senator Casey could have attempted to provide some “moderation,” some bit of pro-life sentiment, which he claims to have, by voting against the bill, because, in the end, the bill is both symbolic and meaningless: its chance of passage by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is infinitesimally small.


If you’re Pro-Life, you cannot vote Democrat. Because Democrats are only Pro-Life to get your vote. Afterward, they are pro-abort in every sense of the word. But you also have to be careful which Republican gets your vote. Because there’s more than one Republican who is pro-abort. And no Democrat wants you to see the photos to the left, because that might make you vote against the Democrat and against abortion on demand.

Posted in abortion, Character, Christianity, Conservative, Culture, Elections, Health Care, history, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Pro-Life, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Progressives, Mainstream Media Are Anti-Semites

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/18

Sorry for the redundancy in the headline. While Truth Before Dishonor is decidedly pro-Israel, as is any Bible-believing Christian, the Democrat Party, as shown in their loudly booing the insertion of pro-Israel language in its platform in 2012, Progressives, Mainstream Media (brought to you by the Redundant Department of Redundancy) are decidedly anti-Israel. To the extreme that they support Islamic Jihadists, Islamic terrorists, child-murdering war criminals against the peace-desiring, self-defense-minded, self-preservation minded Israelis and the only nation in the Middle-East that is both Democratic and tolerant of Mohammedism, Christianity, Judaism, atheism.

From Robert Stacy McCain:

Here’s how the liberal mind works: The only thing they need to know is, “Who’s the victim of oppression?” Once the liberal media decides Palestinians are victims and Israelis are oppressors, it doesn’t matter what actually happens — Hamas suicide bombers blowing up busloads of innocent Israelis, launching missiles at Tel Aviv, whatever — the victim/oppressor dynamic controls the narrative.

Stand for Freedom.
Stand for religious tolerance.
Stand for Democratic rule of Law.
Stand against genocide.
Stand against bigotry.

Stand up for the right of Israel to exist and Jews to live.
Down with the lying Media. Down with the lying Hamas and State-sponsored Terrorism.

Posted in truth, war, Israel, politically correct, politics, Islam, terrorists, crime, society, media, Religion, Christianity, Politically Incorrect, Judaism, Philosophy, Liberal, Culture | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Wisconsin Democrat Prosecutors Not Having Fun

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/18

HT Hogewash

Wisconsin, known as “The birthplace of Progressivism” (view with a grain of salt), had recall elections that didn’t work out so well for Democrats after Governor Walker and the Republicans passed sweeping reforms that severely cut into the slush money Public Employee Unions (and their off-shoots) got out of their subjects — reforms the Democrats tried to stop by fleeing the state instead of doing their jobs.

Then came the highly partisan, highly secretive, highly unconstitutional, highly intimidating raids and political rectal exams of Conservative groups fighting the Leftist recall attempts and Leftist big money (which have never been investigated). Followed by Conservative legal pushback to protect the rights of all individuals from Fascist tyranny.

And the Democrat prosecutors, not used to having to defend their heavy-handed partisan intimidation tactics, are losing court battles and not liking it one bit.

O’Keefe and his Wisconsin Club for Growth have turned their civil rights lawsuit — a complaint many legal experts believed would be an uphill battle at best — into ground-breaking litigation to be reckoned with.

It certainly has demanded the attention of John Doe prosecutors turned defendants: Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, the Democrat who launched the secret probe into dozens of conservative organizations in the summer of 2012; two of Chisholm’s assistant DAs; John Doe special prosecutor Francis Schmitz; and Dean Nickel, a shadowy investigator contracted by the state Government Accountability Board.

Some say the prosecutors, not used to being on the defensive, are sounding a little nervous these days, maybe even hostile. Their filings in federal court of late come across as condescending, and testy.

Who could blame them? There’s much at stake for Chisholm and crew – beyond the forced termination of the probe they’ve pushed for nearly two years.

In comes Wisconsin’s Attorney General, who has declared that, according to State Law, the Government Accountability Board doesn’t have to be accountable to the general public. Orwellian barely covers what Wisconsin’s law, written by Progressives, does to actual word definitions.

MADISON, Wis. — It appears the state Government Accountability Board will be able to keep its secrets from the public eye.

In an opinion [pdf] issued Thursday, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said the GAB “may not” turn over its confidential investigative records to the Legislative Audit Bureau because “there is no specific authorization for it do so.”

Now the leaders of the Legislature’s audit committee say they might change the law to open up the records.

The Legislature has provided specific authorizations of confidential information in other circumstances, Van Hollen wrote, but the audit bureau’s right to access documents under Wisconsin statute only provides a “general right” access, and no specific authorization to access confidential records.

So, according to Wisconsin’s Attorney General, Wisconsin law states that the Government Accountability Board is not accountable to the Legislative Audit Bureau or the people who elect their government officials. Once the Federal judge who demanded the total destruction of the material unconstitutionally taken in hyper-partisan raids finds out the GAB is not releasing information, he’s going to have something to say about that.

This is Progressivism trying to hang onto its Fascist tyranny and avoid being accountable for its wholly unconstitutional intimidation of all who stand against Government Control of everything.
__________________________
For more information of who was involved in the protests, including information destroying the Leftists’ Godwinning of Walker and Republicans, see Restoring Honor Now.

Also read the 96 articles (so far) by Watchdog.org in this surreal unfolding tale of overreaching government and pushback by regular citizens.

Posted in 1st Amendment, Character, Conservative, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, crime, Culture, Elections, funny business, history, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Socialists, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Conversations with an ardent Liberal

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/08

Conversations with an ardent Liberal … another failed experiment

 

As was apparent from my earlier “We had a liberal visitor” post, I had recently engaged in the project of continuing an exchange with a self-identified liberal blogger named John, who had visited this site and commented on my post concerning the AOL/Huffington Post news comment policy: Now, it’s “Facebook Conversations

For those who might have missed it,  Huffington Post material, unlike strictly AOL articles, of which there are apparently still some, invites comment only through “Facebook conversations”.  In other words if you comment on a news article you will be doing so through your Facebook identity. Assuming you have one.

John basically agreed with my take on the issue and said so. Since he made sure to leave a link to his own blog in his response, I then reciprocated his visit here with one of my own to his site American Liberal Times.

John the Liberal’s site was and is a curious mix of material and attitudes. And to be fair, John the Liberal makes no bones about the fact that it is: stating outright that it is a blog about his opinions and views and that he doesn’t intend to be forced into the position of justifying or defending the logic and reasonableness of his views.

“TERMS OF SERVICE

Some people who stop here and read stuff might get offended at my rather strong and direct tone.

If you get offended by something you read here then I am sorry and I suggest that if you are going to get offended at the way I write my blog then you have the option to immediately leave this blog – read no further and go somewhere else to read.  It is that simple.  If you don’t like my “Program” then just turn the dial and find something else somewhere else on the Internet that you do like better.  No big deal is it?

The second point I would like to make is that I do not ordinarily allow Radical Right Wingers or those who I have come to think of as “Obama Haters” or haters of Democrats, Liberals and Progressives to leave any comments on this site. (I do make some exceptions at my discretion however.)   There are plenty of Right Wing Radical Hate-Mongering blogs on the Internet and if that is your thing then I suggest you find one of those to visit or to haunt or to hang out at because your propaganda and your attitudes are not always welcome on “AMERICAN LIBERAL TIMES”

AMERICAN LIBERAL TIMES”  is my blog and I post whatever I want to post on it and I allow whoever I want to allow to post comments on it and I prohibit anyone from posting or commenting when I don’t like what they have to say and that is my privilege as a blogger and because of the great number of Rightist Numwads and Mindless Ninkos who try to troll me on this blog I rarely – – if ever – – accept any comment from any right wing source anymore.  Too bad!

To the rest of you – – – to anyone who thinks anywhere near the same way as I do – – WELCOME! … “

 

Nonetheless, on June 18th he certainly appeared to make a stab at embracing reasonableness when he volunteered that he was considering tempering the vehemence and vitriol with which his postings were typically imbued.

Courtesy, Respect And Good Taste Never Go Out Of Style!

… I am fully convinced that it is perfectly reasonable and achievable to arrive at the point where we can inform the world we believe a certain politician might not be acting in the best interests of his constituents without resorting to such crudities as “Chief Fraud” or other such juvenile crud-encrusted delicacies of the vernacular.

One favor I would ask of my readers: If you see me engaging in any conversation that seems to you like it might qualify as “Bad Taste” please leave me a comment and alert me to my digression . . . regression. I definitely want to elevate “American Liberal Times” above the level of decency employed by a great number of what I call “Right Wing Hater Blogs.”

I cannot do it alone and that is why I ask my Readers to participate in the process of adding a little more panache to this blog.”

I even congratulated John on this, and figured that with that as a predicate, I might venture on a short-term experiment in order to see just what potential there might be for an actual dialog with a partisan liberal; notwithstanding John’s forthrightness in stating upfront that he was, in essence, interested in no such thing.

A conclusion which was,  I must admit, inescapably reinforced by posts such as this:

7/1/2014

More Changes To The Blog But I Do Not Know If They Will Last:

First of all let me say that I have no idea of whether or not a blog can be crawled by the “Crawlers” without each post being preceded by a formal “Headline.”  But I would say that I am about to find out.  I have seen other blogs with high readership that do not make use of headlines and so I am trying it myself – – for the time being.

Secondly:  I have spent considerable time today going back through the posts on this blog and deleting forever almost all comments left on here by Right Wingers over the years. …”

Now, a man determined to go back years in order to purge any trace of “right-wing” commentary from his blog is not likely to be a man reasoned with easily.

But, John seemed so inordinately grateful for the comments I left,

“Dear DNW:

First of all let me say that I sincerely appreciate your visit today and I am grateful you took your time to comment.”

Dear DNW:
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comment.

… that I wondered if he could not somehow, and against his natural inclinations, be finessed into an intelligent conversation. After all, what’s a month more?  I have already spent years trying to do so with other political progressives. That is, to discover if – contrary to all appearances –  there really is not something like a right reasoning mind behind the modern liberal face; a faculty which could be carefully teased out of the appetitive confusion behind the eyes … some residual capacity, some sputtering wisp of a reasoning soul which could be carefully fanned to life.

Now this would necessarily not be easy. Not only because John had stated that he was not particularly interested in reasoning, but in addition because he posted at such a frantic pace. For example, he placed up what I count as eight posts on July 1st, alone. Perhaps then, comments like these, made in response to my own, should have proved enough.

” … My interpreting principles change like the myriad colors of a Texas sunset because all of Creation is always in a state of flux ( evolving . . always evolving . .) and even in our social order that which was acceptable ages and ages ago ( The stoning of disobedience to death in public spectacles of death ) has now moved forward ( Progressed ) to where public stoning has become abhorrent to most people and some less severe measure has been compromised upon.

I do not care to justify moral preferences or claims because my own moral preference and claims don’t amount to anything of much significance in such a vast and diverse society as ours and in times when generational and demographic changes are on the cusp of making cataclysmic changes in many of our generally accepted perceptions of many things at many levels. I simply present what I think ( at the moment I think it ) knowing full well that it might all change dramatically as new impressions are received inside of myself either by inspiration or by being impressed from influences without. Why be a hypocrite about it?”

… and then there were discouraging things like this:

John, in the original posting:

“I have discovered over the years that (A) It is totally impossible to have a reasonable conversation with most radical Righties, …”

Me, in response:

” …What do you mean by “a reasonable” conversation? Are you referring to some lack of ability in the area of logical analysis? A specific lack of historical knowledge? Certainly you cannot be referring to a reluctance to “respond on point”, since you quite clearly stated that you would not be held to any such a standard yourself …”

John, in reply:

” … And what is my notion of a reasonable conversation? I have no concrete notions of a reasonable conversation because for one thing this blog is not intended to be a conversation or a debate . . it is an “Opinion” blog . . my opinions . . . but maybe a more reasonable “Conversation” in this instance might be condensed as “Thank you for your comments. I always appreciate receiving your comments.” (Evasive enough is it?) :)

 

And so it continued to inexorably and predictably play out.  He would not respond on point because it was an opinion blog, and was his, and he would say whatever he wanted. And while he accused conservatives of making a reasonable exchange impossible,  as we see above, he would not, or could not, say what it was he considered as reasonable.

In some ways he was remarkably like our old friend Perry Hood. Grown up poor. Grateful to the government for lifting him out of poverty; now of a certain age – 76 today apparently;  prone to quoting Christian scriptures for rhetorical purposes while making a certain contempt for Christianity itself quite clear; and, oh yes, like Perry, a one time ardent Pentecostal or Evangelical who now finds the appeal of government love and state organized wealth redistribution more emotionally powerful than a love of God and a commitment to personal charity.

In the new Religion of Progressivism, it is the “rightwads” the “teabaggers”  who are conspiring to storm the heaven known as Washington, D.C.,  and tear down our great country and all the wonderful things which divine liberalism has bestowed upon a yearning humanity. Replacing the devil he once believed to be the source of evil in the world, now stand those evil conservatives and their imagined conspiracies. And don’t try to reason him out of that view. It’s his blog and he feels the way he feels and that is all there is to it. Nothing to discuss, period.

Well, the ending was obviously foreordained.

Seeing that a month of reasoning effort was going just as far as years did with Perry Hood, which is to say absolutely nowhere substantively, I figured I might as well speak directly and let the chips fall where they may. The proximate occasion was John’s post entitled :

I Haven’t Got My Obamacare-Mandated RFID Chip Implant Yet!
Posted on July 8, 2014

DAMN! WHAT’S THE BIG HOLD UP?

He continued in the following manner …

“The Right Wing scum were screaming, yammering, bitching, moaning, crying and howling that every American Citizen was going to be forced to have some kind of microchip implanted under their skin by the year 2013. This mandatory microchip called an RFID chip ( Radio Frequency Identification Chip) is something the Right-Tighters were insisting was absolutely required by The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act ( Obamacare ) and that no American Citizen would be immune from having their government force them to have this device implanted in their skin.

Well the bastards must have either been wrong about the requirement for the implant or the government simply has not yet gotten around to implanting me with my Obamacare-Mandated RFID Chip yet and here it is 2014 ….

Could it be that the Rightscum got this one wrong? …

My desire is that when the Rightwads get their mandatory RFID chip compliments of Obamacare ( As they have been claiming ) they get it up the rear end! To know that little tidbit of knowledge would be intensely pleasing to me as a left of center moderate liberal.”

 

This of course from the man who said : “If you see me engaging in any conversation that seems to you like it might qualify as “Bad Taste” please leave me a comment and alert me to my digression . . . regression. I definitely want to elevate “American Liberal Times” above the level of decency employed by a great number of what I call “Right Wing Hater Blogs …”

Yes well, given that, the following exchange ensued.

Me to John:

DNW on July 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM said:

One of you(r) commenters asks,

*groan* Are they back on that old kick again?’

Apparently “they” ["rightwads", or whatever] , are not.The only source you cite, and from which as cited he/she could have draw such a conclusion, is a four year old, 2010 Snopes article wherein the following is stated:

” First off, the referenced information was not part of the “Obamacare” health care legislation actually enacted by Congress. … the cited wording did not appear in the replacement bill (HR 3590) eventually passed as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, … although similar language was included in initial versions of the subsequent reconciliation bill (HR 4872), it too did not appear in the final version of that bill as passed by Congress.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp#5R6LYeXixaxwE03C.99

So, although the alarm was based on proposed, rather than passed legislation, and the case for alarm overdrawn in addition, the issue of implantable RF chips has been in the news consistently, as has been government mandated individual medical reviews and health data collecting.

In fact, as you will recall, John Edwards stated that as part of his universal heath care program he was in favor of a policy of government mandated annual checkups with individual medical records being accessible by the government.

With fascistic and even apocalyptic sounding policies being noised about by mainstream Democrat candidates like Edwards, it is only expected that the casual reader might react with more alarm than justified.

But of course we are left with the question as to how many modern liberals really would object to such a mandate if it were promulgated? Certainly, numbers of “the Democratic Underground” commentators who discussed this issue, saw no problems with it, if those who were mandated, were on the government insurance plan. ….”

So, in other words, I pointed out that the old Snopes article simply addressed the language that did pass, while offering an interpretation (probably correct) of the language that was omitted.  But that that nonetheless left John’s post as little more than a  vitriolic attack on what looked to be a blatantly resurrected strawman from years past .

John, combatitively responded:

“The reason I published the RFID article was so as to keep the insanity of the right wing conspiracy nuts in front of the voting Public. The voters need to be reminded often of the nutwad mindset of the radical righties and …”

To which I replied:

In other words you dredged up a 4 year old article on an anonymous viral e-mail, not because anyone with a public profile was saying such things, nor because anyone at all was now saying such things, but because you wanted to stir the tar pot and apply the brush, just “… in case somebody who should know better is thinking of believing any of their crap.”

Better take another look at what you are really up to, John.

To which John retorted:

” My job is to expose the lies, deceit and treacheries of the radical right wing wherever I can find them and that is the mission of this blog and that is what I do. The radical right is a cancer eating at all that is decent and good about America and it is on a straightline agenda to destroy the country …”

 

This was going nowhere fast, obviously. And shortly before my remark above, and explicitly adverting to the misunderstandings of the naive or ill informed, I had also written
Ridiculing naive or gullible types for reporting liberals as promoting completely crazy and Nazi-like things, doesn’t work that well when the liberals can actually be shown as saying pretty outlandish and unmistakably fascist things, as was the case with John Edwards.
Left-fascism, that is pan-ethnic social solidarity fascism, has become, I think you will grant, pretty much the default position of the modern Democrat Party. Though they prefer to refer to it with terms such as “community values”, “solidarity”, and shared individual responsibility.
Actually the impulse dates right back to the beginnings of the social security, “social insurance” movement. Getting people insured was never the only goal: establishing a sense of collective and mutualist identity was right there from the beginning.
It’s always comforting to have neighbors who cannot say no, because the law won’t allow them to. But it isn’t freedom or dignity.
Which provoked the following retort from John as he slammed the barn door closed after the horse had departed:

John on July 8, 2014 at 6:44 PM said: The comparisons of Liberals to fascists and nazis has invoked my Godwin Law response and you can be sure you will not be commenting on this blog again. …” 

It is of course doubtful that an accurate reading of what I had written about “naive or gullible types” reporting liberals as promoting Nazi-like things, actually functions to compare liberals to Nazis.

However, indignant liberals may rest assured that I while I certainly did not myself compare liberals to Nazis, nor all liberals to fascists, I did in fact plainly state that pan-ethnic social solidarity fascism, ” … has become, I think you will grant, pretty much the default position of the modern Democrat Party.”

And so it indisputably has.

I suppose for those modern liberals of tender feelings, outright saying that left-fascism is pretty much the default position of the modern Democrat Party is almost as bad as “comparing Liberals” to fascists. LOL

As for John, well, he will go about his life just as before, feeding his spite and the appetite of his readers for venom, by posting multiple vitriolic and accusatory entries daily. Then, gushing out gratitude to the chorus of a couple, while vigilantly defending against “rightwads” who either mock him on their blogs or dare to try and reason with him on his own – by taking an eraser to whatever remarks he can.

And after all, why expect otherwise? Hasn’t he told us plainly that he is not interested in reasoning and has no principles worth discussing? He has indeed. I just could not quite believe he meant it and had to test for myself.

As for me, I will go on my way as well. Having tried one more fruitless time to reason with a self-proclaimed liberal by taking him up on the unsolicited invitation to visit his site which he left as a link after first visiting here, I’ll now go about my business.

Yet, I am still hopeful, if not confident, that there is somewhere a liberal who has not nihilistically abandoned reason for appetite, sentiment, and arbitrary will; a liberal somewhere who can be reasoned with on and about principles. It just happens that John the Liberal, like Perry is not and cannot be made into, such a person. They have both said as much themselves.

God help us if modern liberals really are in fact all intellectually and spiritually reduced to such mindless, vitriol spewing, husks.

Happy 76th birthday, John-the-liberal.

Perhaps someone else will be able to give you the appetite for careful and dispassionate reasoning which you so plainly, and admittedly, and tragically, lack.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Liberal, politics, society | 2 Comments »

Liberalism at its best …

Posted by DNW on 2014/06/30

 

… and most amusing.

I could not believe this when I first saw it in my e-mail, I thought …

Well, wait a second and let me back up.

A few years ago, more than a handful actually, I subscribed to a German news service which was headquartered in D.C.

The reason I did so was because, ironically enough, I wanted to keep abreast of legislation in Europe related to firearms ownership control, and crime trends.

It turned out that although I did receive some useful news links, especially concerning crime and economic trends in Germany, I was able to accomplish much of what I really wanted to do with my own research.

So I cancelled, and after wrangling for some months, eventually managed to put an end to the service.

Imagine my surprise then, when about a year ago I started receiving e-mails from “EIN” ( that was the name of the service) containing links to various news items from around the globe. Well, sort of from around the globe. Many concerned the United States, and I’ll be “doggoned” if the strangest thing hadn’t happened. It seemed almost as if some breathless politically “progressive”  intern from the Huffington (Facebook conversations reflecting community values only please) Post had assumed control over news item selection and captioning.

My routine became, click to open, quick to glance, click to close.

So, anyway today I opened up the latest EIN “World News Monitoring” e-mail , and found that according to EIN News Editors’ Picks for June 27, 2014, Walmart was peddling sniper rifles to all and sundry.

EGAD! SNIPER RIFLES!!!!

EGAD! SNIPER RIFLES!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My goodness! Walmart is selling Barretts? Or at least honest to goodness sniper rifles?

Gee. “How much could I pick one up for?”, I wondered. Or maybe Kathy would get me one and stash it away for Christmas?

No, no. I better get right over there and scoop up mine before the horders arrive!

So I followed the link.

Now, let’s actually  take a look at the “sniper rifle” Walmart is selling,

 

Walmart's .177 pellet gun

Walmart’s .177 pellet gun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A pellet gun! A lousy pellet gun!

This “sniper rifle” turns out to be a pellet gun – a crummy pellet gun. You know, of the same caliber as the standard BB gun, but with a higher velocity, and maybe suitable under some circumstances for dealing with smallish rodents where the law allows. Don’t shoot at that red squirrel if there is a window behind it Johnny!

Perhaps the EIN News writer, knows so little about guns that he or she doesn’t even understand the difference between a BB gun or a pellet gun on the one hand, and what they insinuate is a firearm on the other?

Well maybe. Perhaps the person I early on mocked as an apparently histrionic intern, is in fact British. That might explain it, since the alarmed reaction might then make some sense; since even toy BB or air soft guns are disallowed in that so-called “cradle of liberty”.  As is when you come right down to it, so much else illegal in Great Britain nowadays, such as for example, truly free political speech.

But, you would at least think that someone, other than a transparently lying propagandist, or a timid twenty-something ignoramus from Great Britain, or their American equivalents, would exercise a final editorial supervision over the titling of these links: so as to at least minimize, if nothing else, the ridiculousness of the situation when the redounding stupidity of their presentation became, as it inevitably would, comically apparent to all and tarred the writer with the label “IMBECILE”.

What are these idiots thinking? Oh that’s right. Idiots don’t.

That’s why they are idiots.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Culture, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Liberal, media, politically correct, politics, society | 2 Comments »

We had a liberal visitor …

Posted by DNW on 2014/06/19

 

 

This blog might be said to be  semi-inactive, receiving only modest attention from its authors as we ruminate on subjects of peculiar interest to ourselves, rather than busying ourselves trying to feed the day-to-day social frenzy.

Not infrequently though, an outsider drops by. Surprisingly, a number of them leave off a blogging “like” icon without ever commenting.

The other day, John, of the American Liberal Times, a personal blog of his, and one which is,  shall we say, intensely opinionated, stopped in to read my remarks on the AOL Huffington Post.

That post concerned their Facebook channeling of any commentary on their news articles. This action was supposedly intended to enhance civility, thoughtfulness, and community, by eliminating the option of an even thinly veiled anonymity.

The policy obviously failed in accomplishing the first two supposed aims, but succeeded in ending the use of screen names or e-mail names as commenting identities. Whether it “enhanced community” as a result of eliminating the comments of conservatives who preferred not to take the first step in making their home addresses available to politically correct activists and picketers, is probably a matter of opinion.

The Huffington Post’s action certainly does seem to have cleansed the comment section of much conservative opinion, even if it did nothing to elevate the tone or improve the quality of the comments. Whether that constitutes an improvement in “the community” is as I just stated probably a matter of opinion.

Now, John of the American Liberal Times, remarked that he agreed – sort of – with the thrust of our post. At least he agreed that it was unwise to hand out much personal information on the Internet.  And he also left us a link to his own site.

So I visited him; and just in time to see him posting notice that he was turning over a new leaf himself “tonewise”,  and that he had thought better of his former practice of giving free rein to invective and vitriol.

I commended him for this, and left some other remarks.

John was gracious and profuse in his thanks for my visit, and by way of leaving comments on my comments, precipitated something of an exchange.

Throughout it all John was reserved, moderate, and polite; always thanking me for my visits and contribution.

After concluding our series of exchanges, I then decided to go back and take a look at where it had all led us. And I am afraid that the results have pretty much matched past patterns of such exchanges; especially the pattern that seemed to develop in my exchanges with Perry, a significant difference being that John had not descended to the level of making personal accusations of treason, or hardheartedness, or that of libertarians’ having a genetic tendency toward Neanderthal-like behavior.

But what was virtually identical was the manner in which the exchanges “evolved”. Those who recall my observations regarding the lack of an “on point” quality in my exchanges with Perry or the Iowa Libs, and how the logic of the arguments as developed in the thread were consistently sidestepped will … well you can take a look if you are interested, and judge for yourself.

Unfortunately, it may be that we are ultimately fated to largely talk past one another.

 

http://americanliberaltimes.com/2014/06/18/the-neocons-should-not-be-pontificating-about-iraq/

 

 

Posted in Blogging Matters, Liberal, politics | 1 Comment »

Now, it’s “Facebook Conversations”

Posted by DNW on 2014/06/17

 

As is by now well-known, AOL/Huffington Post has been seeking to, as they say, increase the level of civility and elevate the tenor of the conversations in their news comment sections by eliminating anonymity.

Their first attempts seemed aimed at reducing the number of made up names and identities while still allowing the use of AOL account screen names or identities. Now, at least for the most part it seems, you must register through Facebook.

Not only will you have a properly registered and consistent and therefore potentially held-to-account commenting identity (all well and good), but now it will be your real life name and address, and whatever else in the way of personal information a deranged leftist might be able to ferret out.

So how is this working out for them, “Tone-wise?”

A sample provides some indications …

The “news” …

Huffington's mutual grooming crew

Huffington’s mutual grooming troupe thrown fodder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next comes the progressive Facebook echo chamber.

What passes for elevated discourse among progressives

What passes for elevated discourse among progressives

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free speech? Well, The Huffington Post is their playground and they are welcome to it. But don’t let anyone tell you that the marketplace of ideas is anything they have ever had an interest in.

 

Posted in Liberal, media, politics, society | 4 Comments »

Remember When The Democrat Convention Booed Providence And Israel?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/06/14

Check this out:

In a new Pew survey, nearly half of respondents said they would be unhappy if a member of their immediate family married an atheist, including 73 percent of conservatives, 51 percent of moderates, and 24 percent of liberals. In fact, liberals were only slightly more likely to be unhappy if a family member married a born-again Christian.

Now, why would any Christian or Jew ever align with the Left? Can you answer me that, Leftist Catholics and Jews?

Posted in Character, Christianity, Culture, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, Religion, society | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Let’s Amend The Second Amendment

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/06/12

HT Bmore (Note: His link changes on a regular basis, so it won’t always show the graphs I have below.)

Take a look at these charts and tell me what correlations you found.

gun violence voting record

I suggest we amend the Second Amendment as follows: If your voting record is to the Left of The Crying Man* you are not permitted to own guns or knives or any sharp objects. What do you think? Do you think the lying liar# who “bought his way into Heaven” by lying and demagoguery would like the idea?

I know, I know. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but the Left are always misrepresenting correlations and declaring by fiat (not the decrepit car company) that their misrepresented correlations necessarily mean causation for their pet takeover desires.

*John Boehner
#Former NYC Mayor Bloomberg

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Character, Conservative, Constitution, crime, Culture, Elections, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Law, Liberal, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Politically Incorrect, politics, Real Life, society | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Emotions as knowledge?

Posted by DNW on 2014/05/29

 

Or is it emotions, i.e., feelings, as “the only certain knowledge”?

This post is not an argument in favor of “emotional knowledge” whatever that might be taken to mean. Nor is it about some theory of psychological health, involving the integration of all aspects of the human personality.

Instead, it is a momentary reflection on the degrading effects of skepticism, both moral and perhaps epistemological as well, on the ability of the convinced skeptic – if such a term is permissible – to actually engage in moral argument.

This was brought forcefully to mind by a YouTube video posted by Yorkshire on First Street Journal.

In this video we see a youthful British woman clad in sandals and a baggy red shift-like garment reaching to well below the knees, bemoaning the manner in which radical Moslems now inhabiting her old Luton neighborhood are protesting the arrest of the wife of Moslem who had set off a bomb in Stockholm.

What seems to really upset the British girl is the Moslem vitriol; their loudly antagonistic, hateful, and contemptuously hostile way of expressing themselves with respect to the institutions of both the culture and the country which has harbored and sheltered, and if news reports are right, often literally housed and fed them.

She seems especially disturbed by the marchers’ chant that the British police should burn in hell.

Attempting to engage one contemptuous burka clad protester in conversation, she’s informed that she looks naked; and is asked if she is trying to seduce.

Put on some clothes

Put on some clothes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She is told to “Go and put on some clothes”.

She becomes indignant, sputtering, “How you chose to dress like that, I chose to dress like this”.

The British woman then protests that her female critic is “judging” her.

The female marcher cheerfully admits that she is indeed judging the indignant and whiny western woman.

The westerner babbles that she should not be judged because she is not judging the Moslem woman; just as if the Moslem woman actually believed that she and the western woman were moral peers inhabiting the same moral plane.

“I don’t judge you, because I’m above that” says the western woman, while flailing her arms about for emphasis.

“Don’t you dare speak to me like that.” she rails.  ‘This is my hometown as well”:  again, implicitly referring to a moral framework based on respect for persons – even the stupid, weak, and misguided – which assumes a vision of living space and power “sharing”,  at which the Moslems marchers obviously sneer.

The now emotionally wounded westerner continues her own feelings-jihad with, “I try my hardest to sympathize with people who may be different to me, and it’s this tiny minority …”

Ah yes, dear, please say again for the cameras how broadminded and accepting you are. I am sure that that will make the desired impression on the marchers. Once they are sure, you know, that you mean no harm and will respect them.

Hoping then to score rhetorical points along this line by appealing to a male marcher with the concept of “fairness”, she is informed in short order that it is indeed OK to shout that British police should burn in hell.  Because you see, Britain has free speech. And further, in response to your question dear lady as to whether Koran-observant Moslems ought to respect the laws of the country that hosts them?

Well, the answer is, “No”.

Eventually, she encounters some scholar type who informs her Koranic-like chapter and verse that Moslems need not observe non-Moslem law in their host countries, and, that she is going to hell to boot.

She responds with, “It hurts me to think that you think that of me because you don’t really know me …” As if that would make a difference.

To which the scholar-type replies that he knows quite enough. He knows she is not a Moslem.

Well, she tried to be understanding and fair and considerate of everyone’s feelings. What else is there to say?

A little, apparently.

She sets the tone of the wrap-up of her video adventure with a voice-over wherein she announces she, “finds it sad that anyone would preach such a damning message”.

Then, tremulously facing the camera: “To sum up in words to tell you how I’m feeling now …  I feel … gutted, completely gutted that this is happening ….”

Words failing her she goes silent; and saying no more, turns her head away from camera and toward the protesters.

A pause …. to let the profundity of the feelings sink in ….

Feelings … hurt … feelings … are her frame of reference. Along with mutual sympathy and respect for all differences; emphasizing the notion of a tolerant and accepting  “fairness” among presumed “equals”.

But she is obviously not their equal. Not in physical fact clearly, and not according to the moral theory they announce.

And what does she have in her ideological armamentarium with which to respond to them?

Feelings. She has feelings. And she wants to tell you about her feelings and how hurtful you are being to them.

I guess she imagines the Moslems must care about her feelings. Or that they should care. It is almost as if she sees her feelings as some great scale by which moral principles ought to be weighed and evaluated.

But the Moslem marchers obviously don’t care. And I don’t see how they could care, given her pathetic intellectual performance. I certainly don’t care, and like her, I am a westerner myself.

Western culture, the postmodernist, modern liberal portion of it, is not only skeptical of religious dogmatism, it is skeptical (and increasingly outright nihilistic) regarding moral knowledge in general, and quite often about the possibility of solid or enduring knowledge concerning reality itself.

Positive, empirical science, the one practice that is still thought by some of this ideological stripe to yield what can be called certain knowledge, is held by these same persons to be value free, and incapable of yielding any “is” information, which leads to “ought” conclusions.

When it comes to moral questions then, all this kind of person can do when confronted by other some person having dogmatic and insistent views is, just as C.S. Lewis and others before him long ago observed,  to remark on the state of their feelings.

Of course “way back when”, when Lewis laid out the implications of such relativism and skepticism, and then described its inevitably hapless and pathetic end-point, his reductio ad absurdum depiction had a certain flavor of the comically ironic about it. Certainly, and whatever their 20th century progressive opinion leader rhetoric, no broad segment of any society would actually embrace skepticism and relativism to a point wherein they would wind up quite so stupid and hapless in the face of a strident and mocking challenge to their assumed “values”, as we saw here?

Well, with enough propagandizing social affirmation and encouragement, they obviously can.

What then, Lewis and others presented as a warning via their careful exercises in hypothetical logic, and the inevitable conclusions of their chains of reasoning, this young woman is now living out in fact.

She embraced the skeptical milquetoast meta-values presented to her. She internalized them. She then lived comfortably among similar enabling others who had no motivation to rock or test their relativist boat,  exposing its virtually non-existent freeboard, and lack of seaworthiness.

Now however, she confronts hostile and vehement others who, in an act of modern values sacrilege, sneer at her feelings and test her values with their life and death commitments.

And all she can do is announce to the world how THAT makes her feel; and theatrically shake her head with sadness as a means of trying to elevate herself  to her lost honor and dignity. After all, she’s “above that” other stuff.

Yes … I guess she is. Just as long as those vestiges of western moral ideals more potent than the relativism and skepticism and values emotivism which she represents and lives out, continue to hold the moral barbarians somewhat at bay.

 

[Update note. I've made some wording changes in the first 2/3rds "narrative portion" of the post. Changing word order, tightening up slightly, checking punctuation and coherence, and doing the things real bloggers do when they write a draft before posting.  The more analytical remarks about postmodern culture are unchanged.]

 

 

Posted in Culture, Islam, Law, Liberal, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Religion, society, terrorists, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 7 Comments »

Obama and a Presentment of Englishry?

Posted by DNW on 2014/05/28

This Incredible Slinking Men of the Obama Administration never cease to amaze.

Not just in their leftoid, parasitical on the productive class effrontery, but in their lack of logical acumen; their inability to recognize that in breaking legal bonds in one direction, they are broken in the other.

Or perhaps they don’t believe that there is a reciprocal dynamic between leftist conqueror and the American conquered.

As the Obamanaughts phrased it: “We rule now”.  The operative term here being rule, not govern or administer. And if the legislature, that is the American Congress, will not give the Little Imperator what he wants, why he will do it by Executive Order, he threatens.

So why should we be surprised by this report which states that the Obama Administration is proposing what is basically an ethnic based regime of law in Hawaii?

AOL didn't bury this report

AOL didn’t bury this report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a few years ago no one would have believed that such a report could be credible. But now, with what we have already seen out of this administration, our natural skepticism is reduced.

Law is the embodiment of the moral sense of the people,  Blackstone is alleged to have said.

Now it is proposed we accept the notion within our polity of different laws for different moral moieties; which implies, though the advocates no doubt wish to ignore it, that we have fundamentally different peoples with irreconcilably different moral sensibilities, jostling in the same political space.

This doesn’t seem to line up with leftist moral rhetoric.

But, as we have seen in the past, leftists seem incapable of grasping simple deductive inferences, so caught up are they in their “world-creating” fantasy existence.

 

Yeah, I remember law just like that from my school days.

 

“Such of the crimes as might be prosecuted by an appeal, and for which the criminal’s lands were forfeited to his lord or to the King, and his chattels taken, or for which he lost life or member, or was outlawed, were called felonies. Misdemeanours, such as were subsequently known under a fully developed common law, were practically ignored by the justices of Henry the Third’s reign, and on the eyre rolls of that period may be said not to appear. Homicide and rape are the crimes that here pass before us. The former is the only one that need be considered. In some few cases homicide was held to be justifiable, and when such happened the slayer suffered no punishment.

Neither did he where death was caused by misadventure or in self defence.

Every other case of homicide, that is, that which was neither justifiable nor excusable, was felonious.

The difference between murder and manslaughter was then unknown.

In Glanvill’s day secret homicide, which is murdrum, had to be distinguished from homicidium, but the distinction soon died away.1 The term murdrum however survived as the name of the fine paid by the hundred when a person was slain and the slayer not produced.

The law presumed that everyone killed was a foreigner unless his English birth was proved. Possibly the origin of the doctrine is to be found in the statutes of William the Conqueror, which decreed that all men whom he brought with him or who had followed him should be in his peace.

And if one of them were slain the lord of his murderer was to seize the slayer.

But if he could not do so then the lord was to pay forty-six marks of silver as long as his possessions held out, and on their exhaustion the hundred in which the killing took place was to pay in common the balance owing.

The presentment of Englishry (Englescheria), that is proving the slain to be an Englishman by birth, was at first one of the few formal badges of distinction between the conquering and conquered race. Its practical need could not have lasted long, for at the end of the twelfth century it was impossible, except in the very highest or very lowest ranks, to distinguish Norman from Englishman.” [Pleas of the Crown for the Hundred of Swineshead and the Township of Bristol by Edward James Watson]

Looks like the Obama Administration does in fact believe itself quite capable of distinguishing Saxon from non-Saxon. At least when they see a political gain in it for themselves.

So much for any notion that the left believes or ever really believed in the first place, that mankind constituted one moral species … no matter how rhetorically useful they happen to have found the spouting of Christian and natural law doctrines in order to advance their cause – at least far enough along to subvert and displace the same.

 

 

 

Posted in Constitution Shredded, Culture, Hawai'i, history, Law, Liberal, Philosophy, politics, race, society, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

With Hillary friends like these …

Posted by DNW on 2014/05/22

One has to wonder whether the apparent solicitation for support for a draft Hillary movement, as presented on AOL was really sincere.

Is this a joke?

Is this a joke?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it is really put up by bona fide Clinton supporters, rather than those seeing to mock her as a dour, badly aging, socialist she-troll, then with friends and supporters like that, one would think she hardly needs enemies.

On the other hand, just maybe, and given what we have learned of the peculiar mentality of the left, that image is inspiring to some?

 

Hi. I'm stubby, ugly, and amoral, and I like sunglasses, and hordes of idiots worship me.

Hi. I’m stubby, ugly, and amoral, and I like sunglasses, and hordes of idiots worship me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, I held my nose and followed the web address, and it is apparently a sincere, not mocking, celebration of all political things Hillary.  Seems these were put up by her dedicated supporters.

In command

In command

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Ready for Hillary Teams Up with Top Obama Campaign Veterans to Build National Grassroots Army

July 10, 2013

MCLEAN, VA – The national grassroots organization Ready for Hillary today announced it is partnering with consulting firm 270 Strategies to harness the energy of the growing number of activists around the country who are inspired and motivated by the idea of a 2016 Clinton candidacy. 270 Strategies, whose partners engineered President Obama’s historic grassroots organizing model, will lead Ready for Hillary’s national organizing strategy and build the group’s field operation. …”

Remember to smile

Remember to smile

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I never expected to see this many people here to encourage Hillary to run,” he said. “And this goes to show you the kind of depth she has in the LGBT community for this many people to come out on a Wednesday night and basically give her the message that we want you to run. We’re ready for her.”

Added Fowlkes, “We had a black president and now we’re ready for a woman president. I’m ready.”

Gay Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Anthony Lorenzo Green, who represents an ANC district in Ward 8, said he too believes Clinton is the best-qualified candidate to succeed Barack Obama as president.

“I prefer Democrats with a backbone,” Green said. “And she has continuously proved that she is not afraid to stand up to these Republicans and let them know that there are people in this country that we really need to look out for and she is the right person to do that.”

 

 

Oh geez …

 

Maybe some of us need to start a new country with people who are interested in something other than living as a pack of nuzzling, snuffling, and mutually grooming polymorphous perverts.

 

 

 

Posted in Elections, Humor - For Some, Liberal, politics, Real Life, Socialists | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Are ‘Modern Liberals’ fit to be free?

Posted by DNW on 2014/05/08

We’ve mooted this issue before in the course of some heated exchanges on the old “Commonsense Political Thought” blog.

So, it’s not a new question, but it remains one worth considering on its own: Are political progressives, those human biological expressions we term modern liberals, in some way radically unsuited for life in the system of political liberty once bequeathed to us by our ancestors? Are they, modern liberals, in some ways and on average congenitally defective, or maybe “just fundamentally different” with regard to the possession of the (“lower case”) kind of self-governance and self-reliance capacity which presumptively (according to our Founders’ theories) makes participation in Self Government in a (“Upper Case”) political sense, a workable proposition?

Are modern-liberal hedonic utilitarianism and values nihilism even, say, the mere result of biological dispositions or attributes, rather than intellectually arrived at conclusions?

Perhaps, as Hoagie suggested the other day, while he was exasperatedly engaging in a bit of unapologetic invective, modern liberals really are, in a statistically meaningful sense, a distinct sub-population within this polity: a politically co-existing but distinguishable population of humans who have certain kinds of distinct behavioral or psychological or even morphological traits (or deficits) which make life in a constitutional polity – a limited republic – very unpleasant, un-meaningful, and even frightening for them.

The answer is probably unfolding before our very eyes.

“Men who are strong are more likely to take a right-wing stance, while weaker men support the welfare state, researchers claim.” Daily Mail | UPDATED: 19:39 EST, 16 May 2013

Given Their Manifest Natures, that is to say the somatic, the morphological and psychological manifestation that constitutes “them”, perhaps a classically liberal constitutional polity suitable for self-directing individuals just doesn’t fit with what they are capable of or able to appreciate in life.

The Depressive and Anxious Liberal

Perhaps the most revealing difference is the enhanced tendency that Liberals have for depressive and anxious disorders. We stumbled onto this phenomenon in our Spring 2005 survey, and filled in some of the details in our Summer 2005 survey.

Liberals report higher rates of major depression, mild depression, bipolar disorder, agoraphobia, OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and general anxiety. This is true for both males and females. Liberals also report higher stress levels and lower confidence levels (both soon to be reported).

Liberals are also much more likely to use anxiolytics and antidepressents. Liberals report more difficulty in maintaining attention during conversations. Liberals on average spend more time in “negative” emotional states. By “negative”, we mean mental states that seem to be contrary to their own self-interest. They also report lower rates of involvement in pair-bond relationships. Neuropolitics.org Ezine February 2006

Now we might take this too far, and certainly racists in the past have. They did so by imagining for example, that they could discern an invariable and universal gene link between somatic expressions and character traits which manifest as morally evaluable behavior.

But that seems to me to be a rather different proposition than to notice that, say, feminized males and masculinized females for instance, tend to identify as political progressives; whereas conservatives are more strongly sexually dimorphic.

Multiple research disciplines have found evidence that our male ancestors used physical aggression to compete for status. The evidence shows how this competition led to the evolution of numerous physical and psychological sex differences. Sell and team’s review highlights the sheer number of physical and mental features that show evidence of special design for physical aggression in men, compared to women. These features include abilities to dissipate heat, perceive and respond rapidly to threats, estimate the trajectory of thrown objects, resist blunt-force trauma and accurately intercept objects.
While fighting ability was undoubtedly essential when man was a hunter-gatherer, how important and influential is it today? According to Sell and colleagues’ work, man’s fighting ability is still a major influence on his attitudes and behavioral responses. Springer Select New York / Heidelberg, 10 April 2012 in “Why are action stars more likely to be Republican?”

Just how that actually works itself out in detail, is another matter.

For example, whether people who are marginalized or who feel marginalized for whatever reason tend to be more politically “liberal” on what are pretty obvious socially motivating grounds, or, whether the physical phenomenon or trait itself is what prompts a “liberal” social attitude, is a question I don’t pretend to have an answer to.

Maybe it is a mixture of both … first, congenitally divergent interests among people who find themselves associating in a political arrangement with strongly divergent others, and second, a particular strategy for jockeying for place, and status, and for the distribution of economic spoils, within that polity.

But the difference seems to researchers to be as plain as the nose on your face:

” … when it comes to female politicians, perhaps you can judge a book by its cover, suggest two UCLA researchers who looked at facial features and political stances in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker’s voting record,” said lead author Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology.

The researchers also found the opposite to be true: Female politicians with less stereotypically feminine facial features were more likely to be Democrats, and the more liberal their voting record, the greater the distance the politician’s appearance strayed from stereotypical gender norms.

In fact, the relationship is so strong that politically uninformed undergraduates were able to determine the political affiliation of the representatives with an overall accuracy rate that exceeded chance, and the accuracy of those predications increased in direct relation to the lawmaker’s proximity to feminine norms. Science Daily
September 27, 2012

Nonetheless, whatever the details, I think we see an interesting phenomenon developing in the United States, as the progressive programmatic invariably passes beyond the achievement of transactional dominance in the public realm, and relentlessly seeks to percolate all the way down to every last private relation and interpersonal transaction.

Who, or whatever these people are, it does not appear they are prepared to recognize any limits.

Now, yes, admittedly, this totalizing impulse on the part of leftism is historically well-known. It even follows from an explicit tenet of Marxist theory: base and superstructure, which rejects the realms of civil society and political society as legitimately distinct from each other – viewing such a distinction as creating a disjunction or a break in the life of the whole man.

It – classical political theory – does this they [Marx] claim[s] by formally granting man the status of a political peer or “citizen” wherein he is entitled to experience the impartial operation of the public law and to participate in public affairs, but nonetheless remains liable to the contempt of and exclusion from others within the private realm. This possibility results from allowing those potentially excluding others [through the concepts of the private family and property, and through other forms of private relations] a socially unregulated access to the material world, and to “selfishly” benefit from their “unearned personal powers”; which, in the end, gives these persons an opportunity to advantage and distance themselves from those whom they may view as unappealing or unworthy of self-sacrificial solidarity, for whatever reason or reasons.

Thus man’s nature, is itself a problem to be socially addressed through social, and other, engineering. Eventually, you may wind up with this:

“So that just as. to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a -temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their (temporary) seizure of control of human fertility – the new population biology as well as all the social institutions of child-bearing and child-rearing. And just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality Freud’s ‘polymorphous perversity’ – would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would born to both sexes equally, or independently of. either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally. The division of labour would be ended by the elimination of labour altogether (through cybernetics). The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.” Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex, http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/firestone-shulamith/dialectic-sex.htm

With then, the quote above, we have obviously passed beyond the simple question of whether “modern liberals, [are] in some way unsuited for life in the system of political liberty” to one of whether they are inevitably aiming toward another kind existence altogether. At which point the question of a shared polity becomes perhaps, the least of the questions requiring our attention.

But even the original question seems unlikely to survive as a “moral” question, if the research continues toward the conclusions which it at present seems pointing.

Ironically, the issue may have been most recently framed along these lines by political progressives themselves when they announced that “The personal is the political”

Yes, well, ideology and revolutionary rhetoric aside, we may be on the verge of finding out just how personal the political really is.

Posted in Conservative, Culture, Gender Issues, Liberal, politics, Science in the news | 12 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 153 other followers

%d bloggers like this: