Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘politically correct’ Category

Hey Gun Grabbers

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/19

Can we at least try enforcing the laws already on the books before we go about violating the Second Amendment? Hmmm?

When you catch a violent felon violating gun laws by having one, and then let him go, this happens. He wouldn’t have kidnapped that teen-aged girl, raped her, tortured her, tied her up, imprisoned her, poured gasoline on her, and tried to set her on fire if you Leftists hadn’t released him from prison early.

This one, as usual, is on you!

Posted in Character, Constitution, crime, Culture, Law, Liberal, politically correct, politics, society | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

I Contributed To #GosnellMovie

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/16

I contributed to help make the Gosnell movie happen. You can, too. Go to www.gosnellmovie.com and you can help make an important movie happen. Hot Air has some important news about who is blocking the attempt to crowdfund, and two actors who have made youtube videos in support of the crowdfunding.

____________________________
Edit: For those who have not heard of the heinous mass murderer Kermit Gosnell (and mainstream media and Hollywood like it that way), read what I wrote and Dana wrote back in 2011. Fair warning: have a strong stomach (preferably empty).

Posted in abortion, Character, crime, Culture, Health Care, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Pro-Life, society | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The Atlantic and Billy Jo Bubba

Posted by DNW on 2014/04/08

[Update: This is a posting which was done primarily as an exercise last night, and which was posted prematurely, almost in real-time or on the fly. I have now made a number of "live" changes which make the references more explicit and precise, and less presumptive and garbled. It should aid in a comparatively better understanding of what I was trying to say: in the unlikely event anyone actually read it all the way through it when it first went up ...]

While commenting the other day on our post regarding AOL’s Gay Social Affirmation Hell, commenter AOTC was inspired to provide a link to “The Atlantic” online’s site, wherein an economist by the name of Noah Smith was busying himself in part, with a chirpy celebration of what he the imagines to be the permanent triumph of the so-called “progressive” side of the culture wars.

“The Culture War is over, and the liberals have won. With the legalization and broad acceptance of gay marriage, the last great bastion of government-supported traditionalism in Western society has been swept away. Elsewhere, the armies of traditionalism are collapsing on almost every front. America is becoming less religious with stunning speed. Interracial marriage, once banned, is now the norm. Marijuana is slowly being legalized for recreational use. Women are close to achieving economic equality with men, and female breadwinners are becoming the norm. Casual sex is almost universally tolerated as a permissible recreational activity.”

Now, I’m not even going to bother unpacking the logical confusions and conflations found in that rather typical piece of progressive rhetoric. It is after all rhetoric not reasoning. It’s rhetoric directed at what the polymorphous perverse community envision as the proper temperature and humidity for their planned social hothouse; and not at all what might be more coolly deduced from an objective reality; a reality the objectivity of which they are not only skeptical, but which they – or their philosophical high priests – often go on to assert as ultimately unintelligible and intrinsically pointless, anyway.

So instead, I’ll simply note the next move Noah Smith makes, which is to advise his own side that when it comes to politics, managerial prudence dictates behavioral restraint in unconditional victory. And, that in this case, it is good policy to avoid despoiling the lives and property of those bitter clingers who still retain outmoded attachments to concepts like the supernatural, teleologically premissed morals, binary gender, and quite probably, to the notion of the self itself.

Thus he announces,

“Any time you win a great victory after years or decades of bitter struggle, there is the temptation to pillage the lands of the conquered enemy. This is always a mistake.”

Yeah. They have the freedom and the strength, to actually pillage? Well, I suppose Noah Smith, along with Pajama Boy, and the rest of the kind can be forgiven for imagining that no one would even think of resisting progressive overreach in a way which they might find surprising. After all, the “Taxed Enough Already” movement protests almost caused them a psychic breakdown as it was.

Imagine then what a traditionalist’s pledge of social disengagement, taken in order to allow the progressive kind to live or die in a ditch of their own digging, to reap without underwriting or support what they have themselves sown, might do to the progressives’ mental equilibria.

Anyway, even the mooting of such questions indirectly and in a response to that precious little victory dance, appears, and I repeat here “appears”, to be out of progressive community bounds.

For I tried to do just that: that is to to say to offer up my suggestion that they in effect adopt some critical distance of their own.

However, upon following AOTC’s link to the site, and attempting to leave a WordPress comment there using this Truth Before Dishonor WordPress blogging ID, I ran into some initial difficulty. [Perhaps it was of my own making. I do not know.]

Therefore, I next tried registering to leave a comment using an alternate AOL screen name. That did not work out as I wished, either. So, I finally registered using a Google g-mail address through Disquis, employing an address name which is precisely the same name as my alternate AOL e-mail account. And, ultimately then, after some little while, I was able to post a comment under “North Charlton”. Same, same, AOL and Google. Whoopee.

Which brings us to the following observation. Left-liberals, so-called progressives, seem to be an extraordinarily sensitive lot when it comes to facing the redounding implications of their own worldview; even when so confronted temperately and in relatively sophisticated (or so one would imagine) forums.

We here have witnessed that progressive tendency to bridle in the past on a more local level: on Dana’s old Common Sense Political Thought blog. Repeat the implications of what they, the progressives, have said about reality or mankind back to them, and as specifically applying to them, and they go off the emotional rails. On Common Sense Political Thought however, they could only call for censoring, not effect it.

“Progressives” obviously talk freely of their triumphing over “the enemy”, but they apparently cannot abide “the enemy” granting them in return their assertion of enemy status, and noting that he is in fact prepared to accept that he is their enemy, and as such, an enemy in the very same existential way and sense which they originally intended.

Thus they casually speak of a supposedly justifiable impulse they have to despoil this traditionalist enemy’s life and substance; but in this case while generously refraining from doing so (only so a more efficient and pacific implementation of their vision of human re-engineering might be realized) in the name of the “nation”.

And then, they seem taken aback, or even alarmed, when their peculiar notions regarding the significance of nation or community are scoffed at.

In any event, tempted by AOTC’s pointing toward a potential challenge, I persisted and finally posted a comment.

As a result, one reader graciously remarked that she wished there were more like it.

Another, “Billy Jo Bubba”, asked me to clarify what I had meant by a certain phrase I had used concerning conservatives’ sometimes politically debilitating “moral inhibitions”. I responded to Billy Jo. I checked to see if my response to him posted up successfully, and it did. So I saved the page.

Then, my reply to Billy Jo disappeared.

Billy Jo nonetheless responded to my now missing reply: observing that he had in fact seen it, but that in the meanwhile something had happened to it and it was now gone.

Acknowledging Billy Jo again, I said I would re-post the exact reply to which he was referring for the sake of thread clarity. I did. I checked back. It took. It remained for a while.

Then, it disappeared too.

So, I left a 3rd and textually different response to Billy Jo. This one, stating that my two previous replies to his direct request for terminological clarification had mysteriously vanished, but I knew not why.

I then checked and noted that that reply had also initially posted up successfully; just as did the previous two. There it, however, unlike the preceding two, remained. And there it remains some days later.

What are we to infer from this? Well, as you can see from my remarks above, I have my suspicions based on this and past experiences with progressives. Though, I am not absolutely positive about it in this case. Just, let’s say, reasonably skeptical, that it was a pure coincidence.

I did however as I said, think to save the pages immediately after I successfully placed my original remarks.

I’ll now place the subject chain of exchanges below. I’ve read and reread them, and cannot for the life of me figure out what it was that I said which might cause a progressive, or his proxies, to interrupt a victory lap just to take it down. It was after all no more than a demurrer which was offered up based on the progressive’s own worldview.

But, provisionally, it does seem to be the case that my remarks were repeatedly taken down. I would of course be glad to learn that it was otherwise and that some defect in my browser or use of it caused the problem.

In any event, the last comment in the series is the one that repeatedly “vanished”.

Regarding then, Noah Smith and his Atlantic vaunt …

North Charlton • 2 days ago

Generous of you to forgo the indulgence of revenge.

Though, I am not sure what form of political revenge a progressive could indulge in which would leave the Democrat Party’s own client class of dependants untouched; or which would alternately fail to awaken conservatives to the fact that it has been their own moral inhibitions which have allowed the progressives to flourish as they have in the first place.

Eventually, conservatives may even get wise, and recognize that they’ve been fighting not only the left, but their own moral baggage and scrupulosity: assuming fundamentally like cases when no such fundamental likenesses obtained.

Politically progressive activists, and philosophers like Rorty for example, have long ceased pretending that their ethical claims and social shaping aims and stratagems could in any way be coherently said to follow from their nominalist metaphysical premisses. So, they decided to focus instead on what “we wish to become” rather than what we once were said, or thought, to essentially be.

However, even in a progressive moral universe, one with no notion of actually occurring natural kinds, it’s difficult to initially avoid arguing as if there were real kinds with real natures implying real rights; and maybe rhetorically unwise – even if dishonest – to try and do so.

So, issues have to be gradually re-framed conceptually in terms of emotions and expanding circles of concern for those emotion-things that now stand in place of what we once thought of as humans with intrinsic and shared natures, and objectively deducible ethical boundaries and obligations and entitlements.

It will henceforth become about what we wish to be … whatever it is “we” are made up of, or defined as, by whom or whatever. The progressive reasoning gets a little vague at that point.

Well, the problem of course is that, that “we” word, along with all its allied concepts and terms, is also clearly problematical.

And therefore when it comes to the spectacle of rhetorical flag waving, it is mightily amusing indeed to read someone from the left making concern noises about “the nation”, when the entire concept has become so ridiculously attenuated as to carry little or no emotional weight anyway; not to mention very little if anything in the way of any objectively ascertainable meaning.

Nation is no longer about “ethnicity”, and it’s certainly not about shared values and objectively deduced ideals. Nor obviously, is it about held in common goals and tastes, much less interests. Nor much of anything else as far as I can see.

It – the appeal to nation – is then more or less just the brandishing of a nowadays vaguely fascistical sounding but quickly obsolescing term, held over from the days when American post Civil War political consolidationists figured it carried a bigger emotional wallop, and therefore allowed more constitutional transgressions, than did the term “the republic”.

I guess modern progressives still figure the same.

But they figure wrong.

The question then is why anyone who is not polymorphous perverse themselves, should care to waste their time validating anyone who is, or why it would be in their interest to shore up a system that does …

After all, tolerating absurdity is one thing when it costs you nothing; or, very little apart from annoyance.

But marching in the linked-arm parade of the absurdists, as if you are morally obligated to give a damn about, or even participate in their fate, or can be intimidated to do so without the threat or use of violence, is quite another.

No, it’s probably not over. In fact, things may have just begun to get interesting.

3 △ ▽

Edit

Reply

Share ›

Ellie K > North Charlton • 2 days ago

Why are you among the tiny minority of people who articulate their opinions online? I wish I could upvote you 50 times. You are correct, in every regard. This crummy post , by crummy Noah, makes me cringe in revulsion and fear. It is oppressive and intolerant of diversity of religion (having belief, of any sort, isn’t allowed now), sexual and reproductive preference (no place for being a woman and wanting to marry a man of the same race and religion, wearing a wedding ring, then having a baby or maybe even two, and being faithful to each other all the days of one’s life) etc. There is no national cohesion, thanks to so-called modern progressives. The newly redesigned Dept of the Interior reflects this. There are no white men. There are no Asian people. There are elderly white women, no young ones with children. There are big murals of crowds of Native Americans and black people and Hispanic people, but no pictures of little families or young people going fishing or hunting. Whose land is it? Not yours and mine. It belongs to modern progressives, apparently.

2 △ ▽

Reply

Share ›

Billy Jo Bubba > North Charlton • 14 hours ago

Could you clarify what you mean by ‘moral inhibitions’ of conservatives?

△ ▽

Reply

Share ›

North Charlton > Billy Jo Bubba • 2 minutes ago

“Could you clarify what you mean by ‘moral inhibitions’ of conservatives?”

You can think of it operating in various ways, and on various levels.

My reference to Rorty’s nominalism as informing his theory – if you want to call it a theory – of ethical behavior, and the “objects” of his attention on the one hand, in contrast to what is generally some form of realism embraced by conservatives (I am speaking very generally here) on the other hand, should give you a picture of two populations having fundamentally different views about reality, and about what a human “really is”, and is entitled by that status to; if to anything.

Let’s put this in extreme terms. A Roman Catholic child, for example, is taught based on a supernaturally directed belief and a mediated and modified Aristotelian realist metaphysics, that he has a soul destined for eternity, and that what he does in relation to or to other human beings has an objective rightness or wrongness to it in the here and now, and a cosmic and eternal significance that continues beyond the present life, afterwards.

On the other hand, whatever inhibitions the progressive left may have in doing unto others, that is not one of the considerations that informs their consciences.

No Marxist Leninist has any absolute compunction about breaking eggs in order to make his social omelet; human beings are not seen as ends in themselves but social elements entitled, or not, to certain “sensual” (in the Marxist sense) satisfactions.

It is generally acknowledged by progressive writers ( and I don’t think that I need to start listing names, do I?) that politics is useful for shaping and molding society, and as a result the reproducing population, as the progressive wishes it to be.

The progressive has fewer compunctions about shaping the people through the agency of the state. Which is not to say anything particularly remarkable, but just something that needs to be borne in mind; i.e., the moral inhibitions of the parties, conservatives and libertarians on the one hand, and left-progressives on the other, are not symmetrical.

The conservative inhibition I refer to here then, is one that comes from their worldview and teleological moral lens; which sees intrinsic value in (or projects it onto) beings who themselves argue that any such framework is an illusion, and any such value a result of that illusion, or worse, a supernaturally oriented superstition.

My personal opinion is that perhaps conservatives, and most certainly libertarians, should make the following intellectual move: they should hypothetically grant the persons, or the organisms if you will, of the left the dignity of taking them seriously when they say that life has no inherent purpose, that values are radically subjective or relative, that natural kinds do not exist, or that the ends justify the means, and so forth.

And then once having granted that – at least and specifically as regards the progressive person making the claim – the person who is not a progressive, should take a careful look at the person who says he is a progressive, through the progressive’s own metaphysical lens.

And then he the non-progressive should be straight with himself, no matter how brutal the view seems, as to just what he sees when focusing on the progressives through that reducing lens of their own creation; and what ethical implications might follow or inferences be validly drawn.

If after having performed that reductio, one cannot still then see the asymmetry I refer to, then … well …

Posted in Culture, Liberal, politically correct, politics, Socialists, society | Leave a Comment »

Rat fight! Ted Rall and the Daily Kos

Posted by DNW on 2014/03/20

Rall v. Kos

Rall v. Kos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes a rat fight can be rather amusing. Just try not to let them know you’re watching, much less laughing.

Now I admit that I’ve inadvertently ruffled rat fur in the past.  I did it on another blog by making – years after the fact – what were by any rational standards temperate and measured remarks about the object lessons available from that infamous Greensboro, North Carolina gunfight which took place between Neo-Nazi’s looking for revenge and self-professed Maoist revolutionary types trolling for a second-round public confrontation with them.

There were those among that blog’s readers who were especially outraged that I looked askance at the speechifying activities of one of the ideology drunk Maoist participants; as her husband lay on the ground with the top of his head shot off.

Quivering with indignation they fumed – or pretended to fume – that I was dancing in the blood of fellow Americans.  That’s “fellow” and “Americans” in quotes of course, since we are talking here about Nazi-types on the one hand, and totalitarian disciples of a mass murdering Marxist dictator on the other. Listening to self-described leftists wave the American flag over the bodies of its enemies while hysterically shouting about human decency was pretty much worth the price of admission alone.

Anyway, those who are unfamiliar with that particular historical  event – the gunfight not the years later blog eruption – can research it all for themselves, or make a beginning by clicking on this link.

However the rat fight I have in mind here, is not between two species of rat, but a more all in the lefty-family type of brawl. And thus far there have been no known fatalities, though there has been the usual obscene speechifying.

Will rat blood be shed by rat? I doubt it. We can probably rest easy on that point.

Ted Rall versus the Daily Kos.

Gee … what more can one reasonably say?

 

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Humor - For Some, Liberal, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, race, stereotype | 2 Comments »

Harry Reid’s Koch-Addled Asininity Debunked Here — 21 Months Ago

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/03/13

That’s right, folks. Harry Reid’s Koch-addled asininity was debunked here, a full 21 months before his rectological rectory on the Senate Floor.

Let me give you a chart from those 21 months ago:

All-Time Top Contributors updated 2012

With Unions pushing that much money around, Dingy Harry has the gall to claim the Koch Brothers (who are Libertarians and not Conservatives) are the biggest danger and biggest source of outside money? He could’ve just come to my site and done a little research before looking stupid. But then again, he’s too stupid to actually, you know, do any research.

Want more information on where Unions stand in political spending, such as rankings?

From 21 months ago:

3. Public Employee Union
5. Public Employee Union
7. Public Employee Union
9. Union
10. Public Employee Union
11. Union
12. Union (that I was a forced member of, twice)
13. Union
14. union
17. Union
18. Union
20. Union
29. Union
30. group of Unions

14 of the top 30 biggest political spenders are all Unions, and yet, Unions represent less than 12 percent of the workforce. But the Union spending doesn’t stop there.

40. Union (that I was a forced member of for nearly 9 years)
43. Union
44. Union
49. Union
52. Union
57. Union
58. Union
59. Union
65. Union
75. Union
85. Union
117. Union
119. Union
128. Union
133. Union

Oh, and I had information on the Koch Brothers back then, too.

Again, since 1989, Unions have spent 667.3 million (over 2/3 of a billion) dollars on politics. How much has the Left’s bogeyman, the Koch brothers, spent? A paltry 12.7 million dollars. So, next time some radical Leftist complains about the Koch brothers, remind that person that Unions are outspending the Koch brothers nearly 55 to 1. And while you’re at it, remind them that Unions are outspending their representative proportion more than 2 to 1.

By the way, those evil Koch Brothers tried to influence me once. One of the political type organizations they’re tied to sent me an email talking about the successful recovery of a community that rejected Federal aid and the floundering of another community that took the aid. I didn’t write about it because I was too lazy to do so, not because the Koch’s are evil (which they clearly are not).

So, the continued hate-filled attacks on Libertarians Who Provide Jobs To The Middle Class are all the Socialist, Fascist, Statist Democrats have to try to scare people into a serf-state.

It didn’t take gobs of research to destroy Hairy Reed’s demagoguery which took place this week on the Senate Floor. All it took was looking up an article I wrote 21 months before the Hairy logorrhea.

You’re welcome.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, Culture, Elections, history, Insanity, Liberal, media, politically correct, politics, Socialists, truth | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

How Trayvon Martin was murdered by George Zimmerman …

Posted by DNW on 2013/07/14

UPDATE.  The following changes illustrated by the strikeouts have been made out of a respect for accuracy and fairness, something we, especially those on my side of the Martin-Zimmerman news reporting fiasco issue should be highly mindful of  – even if the attempt to be accurate and fair seems to fly in the face of what seems to be self-evident: i.e., in this case the “CBS This Morning” logo. See the latest posting on this matter.

Second update. It appears that our scrupulosity was was uncalled for.

CBS News was in fact responsible for the computer generated video insert in their report which portrayed George Zimmerman shooting down an non-aggressive and child-like Trayvon Martin (dressed in short pants) from a distance .  CBS, through one of their employees had denied that the video, or the segment, “belonged”  to them, but rather to Reuters,  whatever “belonged” was supposed to mean in their usage. I was never able to clarify it with them, and and continued attempts to do so became pointless in the face of the evidence, still available, that it was they who had in fact had published the recklessly misleading and prejudicial account of the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

 

 

 

According to CBS News … Or, maybe not CBS, but Reuters ….

This is John’s blog, so I hesitate to  quote commenter Eric on another blog accurately if vulgarly referring to leftists as being lower than snake shit.

But frankly, how could anyone deny it? How could anyone who as been watching the lead-up to the Zimmerman trial possibly argue that they, the members of the mainstream, left-leaning, almost completely populated by Democrats media,  have any interest in presenting an accurate recounting of facts?

Time after time, they persistently demonstrate they have no such  interest in getting the details right, and that they will elide, insinuate, and even deceptively edit the record for effect; as  NBC News did with the police department recording of Zimmerman speaking to the Sanford Police Department dispatcher.

Exactness, or even accuracy and truth mean nothing to them when their narrative is at stake.

They won’t even get the petty details correct for fear that exposing these details might redound negatively upon the story line they are attempting to push.

Over at the Huffington Post for example, with the trial over and while they are covering the verdict wrap-up, they are still saying Trayvon bought an “iced tea”. Whether they never paid close enough attention to the police photos to notice what it was Martin actually bought, or whether they are sensitive to either a potential racial stereotyping of the purchase, or the possible drug use implications of what it was that he did buy, in each and/or any event, they are perpetrating a fraud on those readers seeking objective information, and a truthful recounting.

“Objective and truthful”: That would be a recounting on which civil peace and other human lives might even depend.

Below is another example of the journalistic malpractice that has gone on during this case. It is illustrated by a screen capture I managed to make some months ago, and which I recently had to do a computer file search on,  in order to find again.

This is the same screen capture I had mentioned in an earlier posting as not being ready to hand.

This looked to be is taken from a “CBS This Morning” computer animation of the shooting which was Reuters apparently allowed to be re-presented on Yahoo:

Zimmerman portrayed as shooting Martin down at a distance

Zimmerman portrayed as shooting Martin down at a distance

Look what’s being shown here for God’s sake: Zimmerman, gunning down a kid in short pants from yards away. No wonder the low information types went out of their minds.

And here is a capture of the web address …

Yahoo presentation of the CBS video

Yahoo presentation of the CBS video

And this is a close up of the logo,

Logo

Logo

And here is the link: news.yahoo.com/family-florida-boy-killed-neighborhood-watch-seeks-arrest-044537742.html

Try it for yourself, and see what you come up with.

So now, what do we have here? We have as everyone already knows,  a clear pattern of the news media attempting to inflame passions and railroad a verdict with a grave indifference to the false narrative they were constructing. It may have been motivated by ideology in some cases, racial animus in others, or a “mere” desire to profit from whatever outrage and attention could be stimulated or provoked in others.

What possible excuse though could these sub-moral creatures offer up for their behavior?

Well, my experiences in dealing with the type convince me that their nihilism is so deep that they are indifferent to the harm they might wreak, and the very idea of excusing their behavior would seem as alien to them as considering it within a framework of “right and wrong” in the first place.

That, is what we are dealing with folks. We need to remember that always. As if we could ever forget, that is.

Posted in Culture, Liberal, media, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, race, society, truth | Tagged: | 9 Comments »

Recommended reading, Rorty in a nutshell

Posted by DNW on 2013/04/27

In a nutshell

In a nutshell

There are some books, whether you agree with the perspective or not, that are just so useful in epitomizing a particular matter or worldview that they become necessary reading.

This book, “Contingency, irony, and solidarity”, published way back in 1989, is one of those books. In it Rorty does the average man an immense favor by clearly and unambiguously laying out the operating assumptions of at least one version of the post-modern liberal project.

Of course just what post-moderrnism is, is somewhat in dispute, as a glance at the Wiki editorial history shows. Nonetheless, with an appropriate shrug at the disciples of irony and deconstruction, this 2010 Wiki description (and post modernists are all about description and subversive redescriptrion) serves as well as many I have seen:

Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the problematisation of objective truth and inherent suspicion towards global cultural narrative or meta-narrative. It involves the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations …

This blurb from the back of the book may help as well.

Back Cover

 

So, what else is new, you ask? This book was written 24 or more years ago!

We’ve (you say) been confronting modern-liberals for decades now who seemingly cannot or will not explain how it is that they derive their conclusion that we must yield to their direction, from their seemingly – or so we infer – ultimately nihilistic worldviews.

Yet it is a fact that we continue to ask how it is that they think this all works. How, we want to know, do they get an affirmative conclusion, or an imperative statement, from what must be, when we take their other descriptions of reality into account, negative (metaphysical, ontological, logical, take your pick)  premisses?

Well, this book explains how it is done. Here’s the secret. The secret is that there is no secret. There are no inferences derived. There are no deductions believed to be entailed. It’s all just what they want according to their own, particular sensibilities. Just as we figured.

The point of view is anti-foundational, anti essentialist, nominalist, i.e., anti essential natures and natural kinds, in extreme. Therefore there are [so they believe] no real and objectively existing universals to even fill their places in universal categorical propositions.

Nice to see one of the princes of the pack admit it so clearly.  Yet, the blithe nature of the admission made those decades ago, confirms what nearly everyone – not just intellectuals – by now intuits directly: that the modern political left, so steeped as it is in this theory of meaning,  cannot really be argued with.

Let Limbaugh fume that words have meanings. The opposition shrug and say ‘our meanings are different from yours’.

With them, it’s not as we have repeatedly inferred, a matter of dis-covering an objective reality and reasoning from axioms based on it . What is at issue as far as they are concerned are their sensitivities and their imaginations and their desires: and your reality will bend to their narrative and program, or else.

This is not the place to examine just where their belief system degenerates into incoherence.  I am not sure that incoherence or what is an admitted self-reference problem is even a troubling issue with someone whose notion of “truth” is,

” … that since truth is a property of sentences, [notice it doesn't say 'propositions' or arguments*] since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths.”

Why should it? He just previous to that writes,

“The very idea that the world or the self has an intrinsic nature … is a remnant of the idea that the world is a divine creation, the work of someone who had something in mind, who Himself spoke some language in which He described His own project … [then later] On the view I am suggesting, the claim that an adequate ‘philosophical’ doctrine must make room for our intuitions [meaning immediate apprehensions of reality] is a reactionary slogan …”

As I said, you will probably not find a more concise,  lucid, and unabashed exposition of the doctrines we confront every day as the solidarity pedlars steadily gnaw away at our formal liberties in the supposed name of relieving suffering and humiliation and exclusion -  but of just what exactly, they cannot and feel they need not, say.

Thinking back, many of us will say that this entire matter feels like a rehash. Wasn’t the debate over the bankruptcy of post-modernism and deconstruction held back in the early nineteen nineties in the universities, the important journals, and the big papers? Didn’t Alan Sokal make public fools of them? Didn’t they fold up their tents and kind of go away?

Yes, yes, and no. They not only didn’t not go away, the theorist of 25 years ago has clearly written the psychic program that the modern-liberal Democrat runs today.

From academia to the street and polling booth  in a couple decades.

Once upon a time, even Democrats referred to a common reality, imagined that humans had a moral center in addition to inchoate urges, and could be thought to understand the difference between truth and falsehood and to at least know in their consciences if they were lying or not.

Only a fool  would make that assumption now.

 

* Note. Rorty was involved, his curriculum vitae reports, in analytic philosophy before abandoning it for a kind of deconstructive and ironic pragmatism. Therefore he well knows the traditional conceptual difference between a proposition and a sentence, and his use of “sentence” is, for those of us not yet familiar with him, pregnant with meaning and intent and back references. Get the book … cheap from a remainder bin or used book shop if you can.

Posted in Culture, Liberal, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Uncategorized | 28 Comments »

Gun Show Bans Guns, Kills Show

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/01/24

Yorkshire posted an article on The First Street Journal that discussed Reed Exhibitions’ sudden and unilateral decision to side with the anti-constitutional, Second Amendment killing gun grabbers and the aftermath of that decision. One sixth of the exhibitors and celebrities pulled out of the nation’s largest outdoor sportsman’s show in a show of solidarity with the US Constitution. You can find a large (but incomplete) list of the boycotters here. That list includes Cabelas, one of the nation’s premiere big box stores dedicated to the outdoor sportsman, muzzle loaders, knife businesses, bow organizations and businesses, turkey call companies, fishing related companies and organizations, conservationists, television shows and celebrities, and much, much more.

Reed Exhibitions tried to shrug it all off as “a small percentage of more than 1,000 exhibits” as if Cabelas was equivalent to Kokosing Backwater Beaver Traps, but decided to “stop loss” (an investment term for the first rule of holes) and cancel the show. Granted, they called it “postpone” but if Reed Exhibitions continues to side with the anti-constitutionalist gun grabbers, there will be no show. Period. Because the celebrities and exhibitors necessary for such a show will not participate and the people who go to such a show will not attend. As it is, Reed Exhibitions severely and possibly permanently harmed its reputation with the very people it depends upon for millions of dollars of profit a year.

Hey, Reed Exhibitions, spoiler alert: I watched Red Dawn and your side loses.

Constitution lovers, check out the list of boycotters and support them with your outdoor recreation dollars. You don’t have to be a hunter or even a gun owner. If you’re into boating, fishing, camping, hiking, mountain climbing, conservation or any other outdoor recreation, you can find your equipment and educational needs among that list.

Posted in Constitution, Culture, economics, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Real Life, society | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Most Important Person In The World

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/12/03

“The most important person in the world to you is you, and you hardly even know you.”

 

That was the most evil, most vile, most satanic, most sadistic, most corruptive, most destructive jingle and ad campaign of the 1970s. It created tens of millions of narcissists nationwide. 50 million of them voted for the biggest narcissist ever to sit in the Oval Office in history. And they have succeeded in destroying this once great (and now crumbling) nation. And it is the fault of that ad campaign and that jingle and the radical Socialist education establishment.

J Jesus first.
O Others second.
Y Yourself last.

The only way to true joy in your life is to dedicate yourself to Jesus first, others second, and yourself last. Any other — all other — routes will lead to despair and an overwhelming feeling of neediness. You will not ever feel at peace until you exercise JOY.

And this nation will never recover from its narcissistic Socialist, nation-destroying agenda until enough people exercise JOY to counteract all the narcissists who voted for the world’s biggest narcissist (eclipsing Adolf Hitler himself).

Posted in Character, Christianity, Elections, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Socialists, society | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

What Our Future Holds

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/07

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

  • From bondage to spiritual faith;
  • from spiritual faith to great courage;
  • from courage to liberty;
  • from liberty to abundance;
  • from abundance to selfishness;
  • from selfishness to apathy;
  • from apathy to dependence;
  • from dependency back again into bondage.

–Dr Alexander Tytler, Scotsman, history professor at the University of Edinborough on The Fall of The Athenian Republic around the time of the birth of the US

Having reelected a Socialist who has vowed vengeance on us and to bypass Congress and maintained a Leftist Senate which has refused to obey the US Constitution and Federal Law by refusing to write a Budget since April 2009, here are a few things I see in our future:

1. Energy inflation and food inflation (two items left off the “official” inflation rate) will continue to far outstrip the inflation rate, as the Obama administration bankrupts electricity producers and rolling black-outs become commonplace in this land of plentiful natural resources we will not be permitted to use. The inflation rate itself will necessarily heat up heavily.

2. Businesses will continue to downsize due to the undue burdens of catastrophic regulations and taxes, reducing the number of employees and turning many full-time positions into part-time positions, causing the official unemployment numbers to climb and the real unemployment numbers to skyrocket.

3. The poverty rate and dependency rate will climb higher, as fewer people work and more people hold their hands out for “ObamaMoney”, causing even greater harm to those who are the producers. The US will further cannibalize itself.

4. The National Debt will continue to skyrocket and deficit spending will once again increase year-over-year instead of decreasing, causing two more reductions in US credit ratings. The Fed, which has caused the absolutely inevitable skyrocketing inflation rate, will no longer be able to keep interest rates artificially low. The interest rates will jump 7 to 15 points in the next 4 years, causing the US debt service portion of the (unwritten) Budget to explode.

5. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare expenses will reach half the (unwritten) Federal Budget, and beyond, as each work to bankrupt themselves and the US.

6. Religious Liberty will be curtailed as Government forces Christians to either fund that which is immoral or dissolve their outreach programs. Churches will learn they cannot preach on certain subjects without fear of criminal sanctions.

7. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to peaceably protest the Government will be restricted. Our Second Amendment rights will be severely cut. Our rights against illegal searches and seizures will be infringed upon. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, largely ignored now, will be blatantly curtailed.

In short, the “shining beacon on the hill” that was the Freedom and Liberty the US provided the world will have its 50,000 watt light removed and replaced with a half-watt red decorative light. The US has spent the last 30 years slipping from apathy into dependence. We are now sinking from dependence back into bondage. And it will take great men and women of steely resolve and moral strength to wrest this once great nation out of the entropic hands of the Socialists and the Dependent Class. And that means fighting both the Democrat leadership and the Ruling Class Republican leadership. Tooth and nail.

Are there enough of them left?

Posted in Character, Conservative, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, economics, Elections, Law, Liberal, Obama, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Religion, Socialists, society, Tax, TEA Party, war | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Dying California Cannibalizes Itself

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/07

I have written multiple articles chronicling California’s Leftism-caused death throes. Yesterday, Californians, in their great wisdom, have decided to cannibalize themselves, (HT Patterico) devouring whatever healthy parts they had left. As businesses and working families have been fleeing the state for healthier locales, Californians have just finished voting to raise income taxes on the most productive of what’s left, raise corporate tax rates for the businesses which haven’t yet fled, raise sales taxes. Californians have also voted not to curtail Public Employee Union power, that power that has already caused multiple California cities to declare bankruptcy. What does this mean for the once-great state of California? It means more business closures. It means more flight of the producers out of the state. It means less tax revenue for the state. It means higher unemployment, higher poverty rates, more personal and corporate bankruptcies. It means more cities going bankrupt.

And this time, it also means fewer places to run to. Because the next four years will be Sheol for all of the US, as Obama exacts revenge on everyone who stood in his Socialist way (meaning Conservative states and Conservative people) as he unleashes his bureaucrats to write all manner of growth-destroying laws, free of the need to even consult the US Congress.

The next four years are going to be a very bumpy ride for all of us, but never so bumpy as the ride Californians, Illinoisians, Marylanders, New Yorkers are going to take.

Welcome to the Socialist caused Sheol, folks.

Posted in economics, Liberal, Obama, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, politics, Socialists, society, Tax | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Vote For Barack Obama And Kill A Baby

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/10/22

Barack Obama is pro-abortion. He’s so pro-abortion that he voted against the partial birth abortion ban, which prevents murderers from delivering 90 percent of a baby, sucking that baby’s brains out, then delivering the rest of the baby. He’s also so pro-abortion that he voted against a law that requires doctors and nurses to care for a baby born alive after an attempted abortion, purposefully allowing that living, breathing baby to die.

From On The Issues.org:
 

1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion

In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 , Aug 1, 2008

 

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions

Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 , Aug 1, 2008

When you vote for Barack Obama, you vote for this evil monstrosity and this crime against humanity.

Posted in abortion, Character, Elections, Health Care, Law, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Photography, politically correct, politics, society, truth | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Five Truths Found On Facebook

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/10/09

From Our Country Deserves Better PAC:

It has been proven for over 400 years, in places like the old Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Greece, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony that the above Socialist program leads to impoverishment and death by starvation. The Massachusetts Bay Colony tried the “spread the wealth around” idea and half its population died due to starvation. When they switched to “you keep what you make”, the colony grew greatly in wealth, becoming a net exporter of food. And did so in extremely short order.

So, you can choose the “death by starvation” route Obama and the Liberals (and Big Government Republicans) push — OR — you can choose the “keep what you make” route that has proven to lead the most people out of poverty and into wealth in the history of the world, the route our Founders and Framers set us on, the route the TEA Party Conservatives want us to return to.

The choice has never been so obvious, so stark, so cataclysmicly important as this election cycle. The future of America and the world really does depend on this election. The future of freedom, liberty, prosperity is riding in the balance. Freedom? Or death by starvation and permanent subservience to Big Brother/Nanny State?

Posted in Conservative, economics, Elections, history, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Socialists, society, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: , | Comments Off

Socialism: The Deadly Destroyer

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/10/03

Everywhere you look, everywhere it’s been tried, Socialism has resulted in mass murder and mass impoverishment. Nowhere, no time, no ever, has Socialism ever, under any circumstances, ever improved the well-being of the masses. Oh, it has improved the well-being of the elites, but at the cost of the masses. The tippity top of the socialist pyramid are living in absolute luxury while the 99 percent are destitute and in fear for their lives, should they even think something un-socialist. Ask the 60 million Mao tse-Tung put to death. Ask the tens of millions of dead in the Soviet Union (which collapsed under its own Socialist weight). Ask the subjects of North Korea. Ask the subjects of Cuba. Ask the subjects of Venezuela. Ask the hundreds of millions of victims of Pol Pot, Stalin, Che, Chavez, Castro. Ask Europe. Ask the Massachusetts Colony!

Everywhere Socialism has been tried, it has failed. And has been a huge cost in number of lives lost due to its implementation. In what would become Massachusetts, a colony was formed which followed Socialist tenets to a “T”. It lost half its population to starvation. Do the research. It’s a fact. When the colony switched from Socialism to personal ownership and free-market principles, it suddenly became a net exporter of food, which the lack thereof had caused half its previous residents death.

Socialism has never improved the lives of the masses. It has only improved the lives of the tyrant class. The liar class. But that’s what the out-and-out liar Baraka Hussein Obama and the out-and-out liar Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware are pushing. I previously challenged Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware to point to anything –anything at all– that Socialists and Communists espouse which he opposes. He refused to take the challenge, instead accusing me of avoidance(!) because I raised the challenge he refused to accept.

Equality of Outcome, a Leftist, Democrat wet dream, is absolutely and unequivocally Socialist. And, as I already proved via histo-facts, Socialism is a philosophy that leads to mass murder on a cataclysmic scale and mass impoverishment on a cataclysmic scale and tyranny that causes both.

Here is the challenge:
Any Socialist or Communist, prove that your philosophy and agenda has actually worked better than Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, and the Free-Market principles you so despise. Prove that it has worked anywhere, and at any time. Or admit your philosophy leads to DEATH AND DESTRUCTION.

Posted in Character, Constitution, economics, history, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Socialists, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Communism, Socialism, Progressivism And The American Founding

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/09/29

[This article was originally published on the Fourth of July, 2011. I am republishing it today, the Fourth of July, 2012. As the election cycle heats up, the choices Americans make this year will decide whether the USA survives as a Free country or descends fully into Tyranny.  Brought to the front page on September 29, 2012.]

As we celebrate American Independence, it is important to know what it means and what it doesn’t mean. It is important to know what to fight for and what to fight against. After 236 years of American Independence, we are once again in a fight for the survival of the United States. While militant Islam is a grave threat from without, an even graver enemy from within is threatening to destroy the United States. That enemy is Communism, Socialism, Progressivism.

Communism, Socialism and Progressivism is essentially the same thing. Oh, there may be differences between them, but the differences are slight. As the sassafras tree has as many as four different leaf patterns on the same tree, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and Fascism are all essentially from the same tree. Fascism may be considered the most unique of the four, but like the other three, Fascism is dependent on a large, centralized, and omnipotent government.

A look at the Communist Party USA Constitution provides some scary stuff. It is definitely totalitarian in form and function. And it is dependent on class envy and class warfare. The Communist Party USA Constitution precludes individual Liberty and mandates a loss of liberty — within the document.

The document begins immediately with class warfare and class distinction and class identification. There is nothing “individual” about it.

The Communist Party USA is the party of and for the U.S. working class

The document very clearly spells out its aim, within the preamble.

Our party fights for jobs and economic security, … with socialism as our goal. Only through the abolition of the capitalist system and the socialist reorganization of society… We seek to build a socialist society…

Three calls for Socialism in the second paragraph of the preamble, with two declarations that Capitalism is to be destroyed. Communism and Socialism are two completely different things? Not so, according to the Communists’ own governing document.

Marxists have long hailed its progressive significance… This legacy gives us, the working class and its allies, the right and responsibility to build a new society. We advocate an expanded Bill of Rights to guarantee religious, political, and individual freedoms, but also freedom from poverty, hunger, joblessness, and racism.

Not only a tie to Progressivism in the third paragraph of the preamble but also a demand for Constitutional rights to not be poor, hungry, unemployed. Add in a Constitutional prohibition on racism. Now, that would destroy the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech and of the Press and of Association.

Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 of the preamble hit the class warfare gong some more, with ties into Progressivism and more attacks on capitalism. But there is something even more insidious in paragraph 6.

In the spirit of working-class internationalism, the Communist Party builds the closest bonds with Communist and Workers Parties throughout the world.

There is zero interest in National Independence and an overarching aim for One World Socialist government. Remember, the very beginning of the Communist preamble said Socialism was its goal; therefore, a single Socialist government is the Communist goal. That means the destruction of the US and everything it stands for.

Founded in Chicago in 1919, the Communist Party of the United States has an outstanding history in the struggles for peace, democratic rights, racial and gender equality, economic justice, union organization, and international solidarity.

“Economic justice” is a euphemism for taking from the rich and spreading it around. In other words, class warfare. And there’s that “union organization” thing. The Communists are very strong on unions (which, not coincidentally, are destroying government budgets nationwide). You’ll see more of that later. And once again, the internationalism and rejection of national sovereignty.

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1:

The system of organization of the Communist Party is based upon the principle of democratic centralism, which means that decisions and policies are made through democratic procedures, and that once a final decision is made, all members are obligated to carry it out.

Centralized power. And no individual liberty. Everyone is required to work to fulfill the demands of the central power. No choice in the matter. Does that sound like the America you know? Does that sound like the America you want?

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 3:

Collectivity is the basic style of work of the Party.

You work for the Collective. You are not an individual.

Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 1:

All members, including those who disagree, are duty bound to explain, fight for and carry out such decisions, as long as they do not conflict with national policies and decisions.

Nobody has a choice. Individual Liberty is lost. If the Party says it, it must be obeyed. If you disagree with it, you have no choice but to fight for it and push it. Freedom is done. The Collective, the Party rules. They own you. Is that something you want? Or is that something to fight tooth-and-nail against?

Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 2:

While the appeal is pending, the decision must nevertheless be carried out by all members of the Party.

So, you can take your problem up the Communist chain, closer to the omnipotent central power, but in the meantime, you are required to do that which you do not want to do. Because the Communist Party said so. No freedom; no individual Liberty; no individual identity.

Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 3:

Once a final decision is made, no member, club, committee or leader has the right to violate the decision or to combine with others to conduct an organized struggle against the decision.

A grass-roots campaign to shift the Communist Party in a different direction is expressly forbidden. Everyone is mandated to march in lock-step with the Central Power. Further in this insidious document, the Party allows its members to voice their differences of opinion, but only within the Communist Party structure, never in public. And then, once the Elites at the Top make their decision, all differences of opinion are vanquished. March in lock-step. No individual Freedom. No individual Liberty.

As I said, I’d get back to the union thing.

Article 6, Section 5:

All Party members who are eligible must belong to their respective labor unions. If no union exists at a Party member’s place of employment, he or she shall strive to organize, or help to organize, a labor union whenever possible.

You have zero say in the matter. You are required to be a Union member. No freedom of choice, no individual Liberty, no individual Freedom. So, you are required to pay Union Dues. Oh, and further up, you are also required to pay Communist Party Dues. No choice, no freedom, no liberty.

I almost forgot. According to the Communist Party Constitution, if you are an “informer,” you get thrown out. What is an informer? That, in itself, is insidious. That means there are Communist Party secrets it doesn’t want the people to know about. That is a major danger to a free society.

There is nothing American about the Communist Party USA. But there is plenty that is anti-American.

The Democratic Socialists of America are just as dangerous to the survivability of the United States.

American movements for social justice must of necessity adopt the internationalism of the socialist tradition.

Internationalism, One World Government, the end to National Sovereignty.

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit…

Private profit… no more small business owners working to better their situations. It must be Collectivized.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources…

Internationalism, One World Government, take it away from those who have it and give it to those who don’t. You are not allowed to become too successful, to acquire for yourself too much stuff. It must be taken away from you and spread around.

A democratic socialist politics for the 21st century must promote an international solidarity… Democratic socialists are dedicated to building truly international social movements – of unionists, environmentalists, feminists, and people of color -that together can elevate global justice over brutalizing global competition.

More Internationalism, One World Government. National Sovereignty dies. Individual Liberty, individual Freedom, individual choice die. Power to the Unions! Power to the environmentalists (while whole swaths of rich farmland become dust bowls where nothing will grow)! “Competition” also known as the Free Market is the enemy of the Socialist.

In the United States, we must fight for a humane public policies that will provide quality health care, education, and job training and that redirect public investment from the military to much-neglected urban housing and infrastructure.

Does that sound familiar? Why, yes indeed. That is the cry of the Progressives. Socialized health care system with all its mandates and freedom-stripping. Pump more money into State-run education, where all the other money did nothing to improve educational outcomes (but private education, costing much less, outperforms State-run education). Deplete the National Defense. And that “much-neglected urban housing” sounds very familiar, as well. HUD wasting billions of dollars producing next to nothing. CRA causing the mortgage bubble.

Democratic socialists recognize that for individuals to flourish, a society must be grounded in the moral values and institutions of a democratic community that provides quality education and job training, social services, and meaningful work for all. Leaving the provision of such common needs to the private marketplace guarantees a starkly inegalitarian class system of access to opportunity.

The Free Market and private enterprise are to be banished and replaced by a central power that will distribute everything evenly among everyone. You cannot become wealthy by your own ingenuity because that would mean someone else doesn’t have as much as you. And that’s a bad thing. Doesn’t sound very American, does it? Doesn’t sound like individual Liberty or Freedom, does it? And there’s that class warfare, that class envy business again. Very Communist. Very Progressive.

A democratic commitment to a vibrant pluralist life assumes the need for a democratic,responsive, and representative government to regulate the market, protect the environment, and ensure a basic level of equality and equity for each citizen. In the 21st century, such regulation will increasingly occur through international, multilateral action.

Internationalism, One World Government, the loss of National Sovereignty, the loss of Individual Liberty. And “equity for each citizen” once again means you’re not allowed to have more stuff than the person living down the street. Ironic that this was put in the “Liberty” section, no?

As democratic socialists we are committed to ensuring that any market is the servant of the public good and not its master. Liberty, equality, and solidarity will require not only democratic control over economic life, but also a progressively financed, decentralized, and quality public sector. Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.

Loss of individualism. Loss of Individual Liberty. Destroy the Free Market system. Pay lip-service to “decentralized” public sector, knowing full-well that an omnipotent Central Government must be created. And there’s that Progressivism again.

There is no difference between Communism, Socialism and Progressivism once all the masks are off. They all go to the same place: Loss of Liberty, loss of National Sovereignty, loss of the Free Market, loss of opportunity to become successful and better off than the lazy person down the street, complete loss of Freedom.

And DNW quotes Fascist Oswald Mosley:

“The Fascist principle is Liberty in private, Obligation in public life. In his public capacity a man must behave as befits a citizen and a member of the State; his actions must conform to the interests of the State, which protects and governs him and guarantees his personal freedom. In private he may behave as he likes …

Every man shall be a member of the State, giving his public life to the State, but claiming in return his private life and liberty from the State, and enjoying it within the Corporate purpose of the State. ”

Oswald Mosley, British Union of Fascists

So the Fascists are part of the same tree with the Socialists, the Communists and the Progressives. The people are to be subservient to the all-powerful Government. Individualism, individual Liberty, individual Freedom is to be a thing of the past. And Fascism works great with the Socialist, Communist, Progressivist One World Government.

But that’s not what the United States is about. That’s not what the Founders fought and died to create and protect. That’s not what the Framers worked so hard to protect. And that’s why the Socialists, Communists, Progressives, Fascists all need to destroy all meaning in the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

This Independence Day, think on those things. Consider the grave circumstances and events of the past few years and the great peril the US is now facing from within. Shall you be one of the “Good men who do nothing” or shall you fight for America’s survival?

Posted in Conservative, Constitution, economics, education, Elections, Environmentalism, Health Care, history, Liberal, military, Obama, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, TEA Party, truth, war | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: