Free Markets, Free People

The Left

1 2 3 27

Islam and the West: The problem in a nutshell

An interesting article I think you’ll want to read.  At least I found it interesting.  It discusses the foundations of Islam and why, essentially, it is really not a “religion of peace”.  In fact, as the author argues, as much as the West would like the name of the religion, Islam, to mean “peace”, in fact it means “submit”.  We’ve talked here before about the need of a reformation in Islam to reorient it away from violent jihad and to a religion that actually preaches and practices “peace”.  The outlook isn’t very promising.  Here’s one reason:

The Qur’an contains many peaceful and tolerant verses, and these could well be used to create a genuine reformation — something several genuine reformers have tried to do. But there is a catch. All these moderate verses were written in the early phase of Muhammad’s career, when he lived in Mecca and had apparently decided to allure people. When he moved to Medina in 622, everything changed. He was soon a religious, political and military leader. During the next ten years, as his religious overtures were sometimes not welcomed, the peaceful verses gave way to the jihad verses and the intolerant diatribes against Jews, Christians and pagans. Almost all books of tafsir take for granted that the later verses abrogate the early ones. This means that the verses preaching love for all are no longer applicable, except with regard to one’s fellow Muslims. The verses that teach jihad, submission and related doctrines still form the basis for the approach of many Muslims to non-believers.

One problem is that no one can change the Qur’an in any way. If the book contains the direct word of God, then the removal of even a tiny diacritical mark or a dot above or beneath a letter would be blasphemy of the most extreme kind.[2] Any change would suggest that the text on earth did not match the tablet in heaven — the “Mother of the Book,” much as Mary is the Mother of Christ — that is the eternal original of the Qur’an. If one dot could be moved, perhaps others could be moved, and before long words could be substituted for other words. The Qur’an itself condemns Jews and Christians for having tampered with their own holy books, so that neither the Torah nor the Gospels may be regarded as the word of God. The Qur’an traps us by its sheer unchangeability.

And, as he points out, the most “modern” interpretation does anything but put Islam in a “moderate” context:

Regrettably it is impossible to re-interpret the Qur’an in a “moderate” manner. The most famous modern tafsir, or interpretation, of the holy book is a multi-volume work entitled, In the Shade of the Qur’an. It was written by Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue often regarded as the father of modern radicalism. His interpretation leads the reader again and again into political territory, where jihad is at the root of action.

So that seems to be where we stand.  Here, however, is the problem that confronts the West:

The besetting sin of modern Western politicians, church leaders, and multiculturalists is their ready acceptance of ignorance and their promotion of their own ignorance to the rank of expertise. Islam is one of the most important topics in human history, but how many schoolchildren are given details such as the ones mentioned above in their history classes? How many textbooks paint an honest picture of how Islam began and how it continued as a background to how it continues today?

Furthermore, how many real experts are denied contact with government and politicians so that lies are not made the basis for governmental decisions in the West? How many times will truth be sacrificed to fable while Muslim extremists bomb and shoot and behead their way to power?

These facts do not come from modern Western accounts; they are there in the founding texts of Islam, in the histories of al-Waqidi and al-Tabari. No-one is making any of this up. Muslims who avoid their own history should be brought face to face with it in all future discussions.

But, of course, that isn’t what is happening is it?  We’re told over and over again that Islam is a religion of “peace” by those in the West who would rather believe that than confront the awful fact that its own founding documents portray anything but a peaceful religion — not to mention its history.  For instance, were you aware that it is estimated that “between sixty and eighty million Hindus may have been put to death during the centuries of invasions by Muslim armies from 1000 to 1525.”  That’s Stalin and Mao territory.

If you can’t or won’t deal truthfully with the problem, how can you ever expect to confront it successfully?  When you remain in denial and you let the practitioners of the religion also deny the truth, how does one “reform” anything? And what does the continuous denial portend for the West in the not to distant future?

~McQ

Only in Liberalland

It is in that benighted land that irony, reason and hypocrisy are unknown concepts:

In California, Ventura High School Principal Val Wyatt barred the football booster club from selling meals donated by Chick-fil-A at back-to-school night to raise money. Wyatt cited company President Dan Cathy’s opposition to gay marriage as the reason for the ban. Superintendent Trudy Tuttle Arriaga backed up Wyatt. “We value inclusivity and diversity on our campus and all of our events and activities are going to adhere to our mission,” she said.

What could be more “inclusive” than allowing opinion that doesn’t agree with you to “coexist” without forcing everyone to suffer your biases because you have the power?   I mean if you’re really, honestly and truly interested in “inclusiveness”.  Oh, and what happened to tolerance, Arriaga and Wyatt?  What could be more diverse than a community that welcomes all opinions as long as they don’t advocate violence or other forms of coercion?   Is there something wrong with having a differing opinion about a subject based on principles that may be different than yours but are certainly shared by much of the mainstream (such as students at this school)?  Apparently.  Conformity with the opinion in power is the rule there it seems.  The irony?  This sort of action is blatantly exclusive and it makes a laughing stock of the word “diversity”.  It says diverse opinion certainly isn’t welcome if it doesn’t conform with the people in power’s opinion.

Mouthing of platitudes doesn’t change that.  Their “mission” has nothing to do with “inclusivity and diversity”.  It has to do with ideology.   A particular ideology.  One that abuses the english language daily as well as our freedoms.

~McQ

How do you argue a point with a side which hasn’t a clue how the real world works or what a logical “non-sequitur” is?

I think we all know which side that is.

Here’s the premise put forth by an article in The New Republic:

“Libertarians Who Oppose a Militarized Police Should Support Gun Control”

Here’s a sketch of the argument:

There is indeed agreement between many liberals and libertarians that the militarization of the police, especially in its dealings with racial minorities, has gone too far. But this consensus may crumble pretty quickly when it’s confronted with the obvious police counter-argument: that the authorities’ heavy firepower and armor is necessary in light of all the firepower they’re up against. At that point, many liberals will revert to arguing for sensible gun control regulations like broader background checks to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally ill (the measure that police organizations successfully argued should be the gun control movement’s legislative priority following the Newtown, Connecticut shootings) or limits on assault weapons and oversized ammunition clips. And liberals will be reminded that the libertarians who agree with them in opposing police militarization are very much also opposed to the gun regulations that might help make the environment faced by police slightly less threatening.

But it doesn’t “crumble” at all.  You have to buy into the premise that it is a more lethally dangerous out there for police than it appears to be.  But it isn’t:

The number of law-enforcement officers killed by firearms in 2013 fell to levels not seen since the days of the Wild West, according to a report released Monday.

The annual report from the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund also found that deaths in the line of duty generally fell by 8 percent and were the fewest since 1959.

According to the report, 111 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers were killed in the line of duty nationwide this past year, compared to 121 in 2012.

Forty-six officers were killed in traffic related accidents, and 33 were killed by firearms.

The number of firearms deaths fell 33 percent in 2013 and was the lowest since 1887.

And the drop is credited to bullet proof vests, not SWAT Teams and MRAPS. Pretending that the threat is any higher now than it always has been seems obviously wrong, given the facts.  Certainly there are toxic cultures within our society who believe that violence is the answer to whatever they encounter as a problem. And yes, police have to face that potential threat all the time.  Do I think police should be armed adequately?  Yes, but that doesn’t at all begin to cover what we see among today’s police forces in terms of both equipment and tactics.  In fact, I believe it is all of these “wars” on everything from drugs to terrorists which have had a hand in helping to militarize the police.

That said, agree or disagree with that point, gun control is essentially not only been shown to be ineffective but is a non-sequitur in this “argument”.  See Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC for proof the ineffectiveness of the ban.  But you have to ask, who in this day and age but a clueless journalist would even begin to believe that “broader background checks” are going to keep guns out of the hands of “violent felons?”  Have they in the past (their answer is they just haven’t be stringent enough)?  Honestly, do they really believe a felon is going to waltz into a gun store to buy what he wants knowing full well he’ll have a background check run?  Really?

Have these rubes never heard of a black market (they can buy guns from Mexican cartels, thoughtfully provided by the DoJ)?  Do they not realize that any “violent felon” who wants a gun isn’t going to even try to get one legally?  So, knowing that, why in the world would any libertarian grant the absurd premise knowing full well that doing so only limits the freedom of the law abiding citizenry?  It’s absurd on its face.  And, logically, it is a non-sequitur to any libertarian (again, libertarianism isn’t about shrinking rights and freedoms for heaven sake).  How does making it more inconvenient for citizens who aren’t “violent felons” to buy a gun for self-protection going to stop a felon from obtaining his gun illegally?  It isn’t.

Because, of course, that’s not what they really want (i.e. incremental change via “broader background checks”).  They want a total ban on guns, for government and felons to be the only people with guns and to essentially outlaw then outright.  Obviously they are oblivious to the danger of only government having guns and they certainly don’t seem to be able to wrap their heads around the fact that felons aren’t going to pay any attention to the law.  Nor will the black market in illegal guns.  So why, again, should anyone grant this argument credence?

I swear, you just wonder at times what goes on between their ears all day, because it certainly has nothing to do with the real world or reason.

~McQ

The left’s “new” idea

I don’t think anyone would attempt to persuade us that “feminism” is a product of the right.  In fact, most feminists would argue that feminism is necessary because of the right … and men, of course.  Feminism began on the left as a fairly benignly defined movement: “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.”

Of course, that didn’t last long and feminism evolved and began characterizing women as victims – victims of men, the “system”, the “patriarchy, etc. because, well, men controlled everything (the fact that technology had advanced to a point that women were more able to participate in a vast number of more areas of life than previously, and that as such, the culture needed to go through a natural evolutionary cycle to adapt to that apparently never occurred to them) and that was bad.  And as it built up the cult of victimhood and focused on men – well, except for Bill Clinton or any other useful man on the left – it became more militant and radical.  Men went from being partners to necessary evils to just plain evil.  Stereotypes of the “typical male” became etched in the concrete of their dogma as “the truth”.  “All sex is rape” and “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” became popular catch phrases that were representative of their developing creed as the movement morphed from one to gain equal rights to one that essentially declared war on men.  It wasn’t about equality anymore, it was about rejection of men and everything they stood for.  Men, to radical feminists, were the problem … and although never said, it was clear most of the radical feminists would be quite happy if men were essentially eliminated.

Well rejoice radfems, one of your ilk has spoken what you have dared not say outloud.  The reason you’ve not said it becomes clear when you realize the natural end state of radical feminism and how it has to be achieved, at least according to this fembot.  She outlines the “utopian” vision of the radical feminist movement – and trust me there’s nothing about equality involved.  Instead it is filled with ignorance – one which imagines the “state” as the ultimate tool necessary for radfems to change the world into what this silly woman imagines would be a utopia.  What is interesting to note is what would have to happen for this “utopia” to evolve.  Yes, I know it is extraordinarily far-fetched and absurd, but then we can point to many current and past ideologies – all pointed at their own brand of “utopia” – that somehow gained credence and backing to establish itself, much to the detriment of those who were identified as “enemies” of the ideology.

Anyway the point is this particular nonsense is a good example of how leftist ideologies usually imagine their ascendence.  It is through the state and their control of it.  The state is their tool, their ideology is the weapon and the individual – well individuals don’t exist for these ideologies.  They become nothing more than pawns to be used as necessary for the “good of society” and the collective as a whole.

What you’ll read will seem radical as hell, which is why it is so perfect for the point – you don’t have to explain subtlety here – there is none.  It is pure elitist power and abuse wrapped up in what this person hopes is a benign description that shows those who can read between the lines what extent and what horrors radicals on the left would set in motion to accomplish their “utopia”:

VICE: I assume The Ratio refers to your belief the male population should be reduced to between by 90 percent.

The Femitheist: I believe that conventional equality, with a 50/50 female-to-male ratio, is an inferior system. Essentially my ideas lead to men being made a special class—a far more valued class—having choice of a myriad of women due to the difference in sex ratio. That is my intention. Men would be made more valuable, and their quality of life would be dramatically improved. They would have a subsidised existence if you will, akin to going on an all-expenses paid vacation that lasts from birth to death.

Assuming people are down for that, how could you reduce the male population by that much? Are you talking culling or selective breeding over years?

Obviously men comprise a substantial portion of the victims of violent crime and participate heavily in war, so there will always be deaths there—but certainly not culling. I don’t advocate selective slaughter or brutal processes.

The first thing to notice in this word salad is she claims not to want to do anything via a selective slaughter or anything. How nice.  Stereotypical men will kill themselves off and aid in their extermination.  Also, note the characterization of those men who are left (if you’re confused, she wants only 1 to 10% men and 90 to 99% women as the “proper ratio) as “more valuable” and that the “quality of life” would improve.

Yup, and they said the Jews were going to work camps where they’d be properly looked after in 1939, didn’t they? “Arbeit macht frei”!   This is all about the “selling” of the idea and easing the victims of the ideology into the cattle cars without a disturbance.

She says the way to ensure the ratio is reached and maintained is through genetic manipulation and abortion.  Any guess as to what would manage and mandate that process?

Another role for the state?

It’ll require the re-teaching of everyone—female and male—in classrooms, homes, through literature, media, art, and networks. It is a process that would take decades, generations, and perhaps even a few centuries. Nevertheless, these are things that should be done to forge a new and vastly superior world.

Vastly superior because, well you know, the self-appointed elite certainly have been successful creating “vastly superior” societies in the past, haven’t they?

Would men be kept in isolation like stud horses?

I believe we must remove men from the community and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidised or state-funded reservations, so they can be redefined. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. By subsidising said reservations through the state we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life. This will remove conventional inequality from society. By reducing the number of men to 10 percent of the total population, their socio-biovalue will be raised. They will live out their lives happily and safely, and male disposability will be a thing of the past.

She knows this is true because, well, because it is obvious she knows so much about men … not.  Stereotypically all men want is “sex, beer and a TV”.  Man has never striven for anything else and would obviously be content to be penned up and have their needs serviced.  History is bereft of examples of men striving for or wanting anything more.   No mention, of course, of what the “state” would do to those men who chafe at these restrictions and want more out of life.  Of course since they are reduced to a life of nothing more that of a stud horse, it is obvious that their place in any human society is substantially below that of the women in that society.  I.e. they’re the “harem” for the women who run the world.

Are you ready for the dismissal of the individual and the one-size-fits-all solution so common to these leftist dream-worlds?

What about the ambitions of the individual? Some men may aspire to more than luxury breeding pens.

Some would argue it would be a dystopian world because it wouldn’t be free in the present conventional sense. However that is misguided. It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone the point is null. Survival and socio-organic wellbeing are the most important elements in life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, and religions due to fear of oppression. So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things?

That’s kind of depressing.

The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species. If someone is willing to give you all you require to survive and live comfortably, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.

Kind of depressing?  It is staggeringly stupid not to mention incredibly oppressive.  And how about the redefinition of the “purpose of living”?  That’s all?  That’s all there is?  Well, except for the elite (among which she would likely place herself).  That’s not the sole purpose of their being – they live to control you and achieve “utopia” … their utopia.  You drones just need to fall in line and procreate.

And what about the “family” in this matriarchal wonder world:

Doesn’t all this dismiss the notion of companionship and the family unit?

Heterosexual companionship and the nuclear family model, yes.

What do you propose as alternatives?

Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy, and violence. It needs to be abolished. Bigotry, prejudice, and antiquated convictions are passed down through each generation. The conventional family unit indoctrinates our youth and drains them of their potential. My solution would be to assign children caretakers whose task would simply be to provide shelter, food, clothing, and protection for each child—all of which would be yielded by the state. Perfect girls will be conceived, developed, and engineered in state-owned breeding centers. They will be bound together in a communal venue under the instruction and control of female savants.

It takes a village, baby.  A female village.  No males allowed – well except those allowed to be born to repopulate the stud farm and they’ll be completely indoctrinated by the time they reach puberty.  Perfect girls in state-owned breeding centers … what more could you ask for?

Now you’re probably saying that this is so far fetched that it would never stand a chance of ever being established or condoned.  Why even waste time on it?

Well, I’d simply point you toward Nazism of the past century and say, “BS”.  It is the same plan with a twist.  Nazis also wanted a perfect society (they just wanted “Aryans”, not just women), they too believed everyone belonged to the state, they also pushed selective “breeding” (rewarding Aryan couples for having children and euthanizing the retarded and deformed), and through their Hitler Youth program, the state took on the total indoctrination of the youth for it’s own purposes (rat on your folks, get a reward).  They even had a program to weed out the undesirable from society.  In this woman’s case, it is men.  Then it was Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, slavs and political enemies.  So yeah, this is a rehash of the Nazi “utopia” with a twist. Instead of the “final solution” we get the “90% solution”.

 No one said the left was original.  And for the most part, it may be horrifically ignorant of history.  But it is persistent.  And that is the danger of people like this.  You never know when the events of history will converge as they did in Germany so many decades ago, to make an ideology seem “fresh” and “good” again.

~McQ

The politics of perception

One of the more surprising things of late, at least to me, is the short memory the left seems to have.  As I’ve observed them over the years, one of the things I’ve noticed is they seem to understand the saying “in politics, perception is reality.” Or at least they did.  And it was why they tried to seize and control the narrative.  If they could fashion the perception of the people to be to their advantage, then the “reality” would follow.  One only has to think back of the 8 years of GW Bush to watch that in action.

But now it seems they’ve either forgotten that point or think they’re immune to it.  Or maybe they’re just better on the offense than the defense.

Take the IRS scandal. They continue to push the line that it is a phony scandal.  But what’s the perception of the people when it comes to the IRS in general?  Well, you’ll find very few who harbor kind thoughts about the agency, even if it has never crossed their path during their lifetime.   The IRS is a tax agency and no one is particularly fond of tax collectors.  So when the agency is implicated in an apparent scandal, the left trots out the “phony scandal” meme expecting that sort of a hand-wave to magically make the scandal disappear off of the public’s radar screen.

However, it hasn’t, has it?  Why? Because the public’s perception of the IRS fully allows what is being said about the agency could be true.  They have absolutely no problem believing that the IRS was used for political purposes. The public’s interest in the scandal has remained high.  So perception being “reality”, the left trying to deny something that the public perceives as being true or at least having some truth to it isn’t a good situation to be in, is it?

Immigration has the same problem.  While the left would like to characterize what is happening on the border as something like a “children’s crusade” and then damn anyone who is against it as hating children (their usual “got to the extreme” tactic at work), the public perceives this differently.  That’s evident by the protests in various towns where the government is trying to house these illegals.  So again, the left is trying to create a meme the public just doesn’t buy.  They understand what unregulated and uncontrolled access means in terms of cost, disease and many other factors.  Perception?  That Democrats are defending the indefensible and trying to blame the problem on others.  The fact remains that this White House has never seriously addressed meaningful immigration reform … even when Democrats had solid majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democrat in the White House.

A third problem the left faces is an incompetent president.  He seems more and more disengaged, confused, and weak.   The meme the left continued to push during the earlier days of Obama’s term was that those who criticized him were racists.  But the public perception has built over the years has little to do with skin color and a lot to do with character or the lack thereof.  Foreign policy disaster after foreign policy disaster are hard to deny.  Oh Democrats have certainly tried to put a good face on all of it, but it remains a disaster to even the most low information voter.  You can almost literally see America’s power waning as this man remains in the White House.  And the lack of respect he’s shown throughout the leadership of the world points to much more that “race”.

This isn’t a secret to most of the public.  So when the left tries to fight the perception of incompetence and ineptness with “racism”, it sounds incredibly hollow.  Incompetence is usually fairly obvious.  In this case, it is very obvious.  Add to that the strident application of “racism” broadly against anyone who criticizes Obama and it fits most of the population at some point or another.  It’s not an argument meant to persuade, but instead to shame.  And when individuals assess their motives for saying what they said and realize that the left is just flinging poo in an effort to shut them up, “perception becomes reality”.

These certainly aren’t the only problems the left and Democrats face.  But they’re the most obvious.  Perception is being fashioned daily by a president who simply isn’t seen as credible anymore by a very large portion of the population.  And instead of understanding that and attempting damage control, they double down and defend the indefensible.

You have to wonder what the toll of such a defense will be in both the midterms and the next presidential election.

~McQ

The problem(s) with the left

This article has been making the rounds.  It’s a list of 10 reasons a person who was firmly ensconced on the left decided they could no longer abide on the left.  You see that on the other side as well. Just think Little Green Footballs and you’re there.

Usually these sorts of articles are all about self-justification as the person tries very hard to justify to themselves and their erstwhile friends on whichever side they’re deserting the reasons for their departure.

But the person who wrote this article does more than that. She manages to actually touch on and articulate things I’ve observed over the years as well. You might say that due to a certain amount of introspection, the scales suddenly fell away from her eyes.

What struck me as genuine was her description of someone we see show up here often and pretty much do exactly this:

Straw men and “In order to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.”

It astounds me now to reflect on it, but never, in all my years of leftist activism, did I ever hear anyone articulate accurately the position of anyone to our right. In fact, I did not even know those positions when I was a leftist.

“Truth is that which serves the party.” The capital-R revolution was such a good, it could eliminate all that was bad, that manipulating facts was not even a venial sin; it was a good. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. One of those eggs was objective truth.

Ron Kuby is a left-wing radio talk show host on New York’s WABC. He plays the straw man card hourly. If someone phones in to question affirmative action – shouldn’t such programs benefit recipients by income, rather than by skin color? – Kuby opens the fire hydrant. He is shrill. He is bombastic. He accuses the caller of being a member of the KKK. He paints graphic word pictures of the horrors of lynching and the death of Emmett Till and asks, “And you support that?”

Well of course THE CALLER did not support that, but it is easier to orchestrate a mob in a familiar rendition of righteous rage against a sensationalized straw man than it is to produce a reasoned argument against a reasonable opponent.

On June 16, 2014, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published a column alleging that a peaceful Muslim was nearly verbally lynched by violent Islamophobes at a Heritage Foundation-hosted panel. What Milbank described was despicable. Unfortunately for Milbank and the Washington Post’s credibility, someone filmed the event and posted the film on YouTube. Panel discussants, including Frank Gaffney and Brigitte Gabriel, made important points in a courteous manner. Saba Ahmed, the peaceful Muslim, is a “family friend” of a bombing plotter who expressed a specific desire to murder children. It soon became clear that Milbank was, as one blogger put it, “making stuff up.”

Milbank slanders anyone who might attempt analysis of jihad, a force that is currently cited in the murder of innocents — including Muslims — from Nigeria to the Philippines. The leftist strategy of slandering those who speak uncomfortable facts suppresses discourse and has a devastating impact on confrontations with truth in journalism and on college campuses.

Ironic chuckle bubbling up?  The “omelet/eggs” metaphor is a favorite of whom?  And who is the Don Quixote of straw men, constantly putting them up and whacking them a good one.

Read the whole thing … it’s worth it.  It’s just that particular one of the ten listed reasons hit right on the spot we’ve all witness any number of times right here at QandO with our “visiting professor”.   It’s like she knows him personally down to one of his favorite sayings.

~McQ

Watching the “progressive” left melt down over the Hobby Lobby decision

While I agree there may be far reaching implications concerning this decision and that the right might not like how all that plays out, I have got to say I have sore ribs from laughing at the hateful, screechy display put on by so-called “progressives” concerning the decision.

The first bit of nonsense they toss around is they’re being “denied” some sort of right to an abortion.  Of course, no one has denied them anything.  Planned Parenthood is ready when they are.  Abortificants are available to them through their doctor.

No the problem is they’ll have to pay for it, not someone else.  They don’t get to impose their will on others that don’t believe like they do.

And, of course, that just won’t do.  Especially when it comes to <sneer> “religious” people/companies.  Next thing you know they’ll be demanding kosher butchers sell ham and the Amish deliver goods by truck.

It is time to stem this tide of BS the left has unleashed. This cobbled up “right” to whatever they want and the equal “right” to have someone else pay for it.  The imposition of their will on others to benefit themselves.

Charles Murray explains in today’s Wall Street Journal that, in essence, what these people want is their brand of fascism imposed on all of your lesser beings and if they don’t get their way they’ll throw tantrum after tantrum:

But philosophically, the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century had roots in German philosophy ( Hegel and Nietzsche were big favorites) and German public administration ( Woodrow Wilson’s open reverence for Bismarck was typical among progressives). To simplify, progressive intellectuals were passionate advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought that individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded.

That’s not a description that Woodrow Wilson or the other leading progressive intellectuals would have argued with. They openly said it themselves.

It is that core philosophy extolling the urge to mold society that still animates progressives today—a mind-set that produces the shutdown of debate and growing intolerance that we are witnessing in today’s America. Such thinking on the left also is behind the rationales for indulging President Obama in his anti-Constitutional use of executive power. If you want substantiation for what I’m saying, read Jonah Goldberg’s 2008 book “Liberal Fascism,” an erudite and closely argued exposition of American progressivism and its subsequent effects on liberalism. The title is all too accurate.

Indeed.  Murray, however, distinguishes “progressive” from “liberal”, by claiming there is quite a degree of difference between the progressive left and the liberal left:

Here, I want to make a simple point about millions of people—like my liberal-minded dinner companions—who regularly vote Democratic and who are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Along with its intellectual legacy, the Progressive Era had a political legacy that corresponds to the liberalism of these millions of Democrats. They think that an activist federal government is a force for good, approve of the growing welfare state and hate the idea of publicly agreeing with a Republican about anything. But they also don’t like the idea of shouting down anyone who disagrees with them.

They gave money to the ACLU in 1978 when the organization’s absolutism on free speech led it to defend the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. They still believe that the individual should not be sacrificed to the collective and that people who achieve honest success should be celebrated for what they have built. I’m not happy that they like the idea of a “living Constitution”—one that can be subjected to interpretations according to changing times—but they still believe in the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the president’s duty to execute the laws faithfully.

I’m not quite sure I agree but if there is a separation between the two, there is one hell of a big, wide, fuzzy border between the two.  Given the antics of the left these past few years and their frantic attempts to expand government control along with cultural change while the Democrats hold power causes me to still lump both contingencies into the same hateful mass. Afterall, as Murray points out, “liberal” is a term stolen from an era when it described a group who believed in small, non-intrusive government, the individual and his rights and capitalism.  That hardly describes “liberals” today.  In fact, at best I’d call them “progressive light”.

Anyway, something to munch on as we watch the left continue to throw their juvenile fits over a court ruling that went against them.  Now if we can only hope that the court continues to chip away at the oppressive law passed by a Democratic Congress popularly derided as ObamaCare.  With each chip and the subsequent acting out by the left, one can only hope that the more moderate in America will become less and less enchanted with their siren song.

~McQ

The failure of the Obama presidency

On the eve of D-Day, the allied invasion of Europe during WWII, a day in which America demonstrated not only its power and honor, but its competence and leadership, we sit in a shambles of an era which is directly the result of a failed presidency.  Ron Domenech gives voice to the point:

When Obama burst onto the national scene, he almost immediately became an inspirational figure. His promise spoke to our hearts as Americans and our desire for dramatic change in the wake of the fractious Bush years. His personal story and his optimism about the future sounded an affirming and uplifting note at a time when Americans were losing their hope for what tomorrow could bring. For a moment, it seemed like the promise of a uniter, not a divider, could provide leadership which – whatever Obama’s personal ideology – could lead to a healthier politics and a less fractured society.

Obama’s tenure in office has turned all these hopes into despair – despair in the corruption of our institutions, in the capability of our government, in our ability to manage large systems and more. Consider just the events of the past few days: the slow-rolling scandal of how we care for our Veterans, full of mismanagement, denials, and a growing awareness that this problem was shoved under the rug for years; the White House’s decision to embark on a top-down monopartisan environmental policy which will squeeze the working class and make energy more expensive; and of course, Obama’s decision to trade five high ranking terrorists for an apparent American deserter in Afghanistan, a decision which directly ignores the law of the land and will almost certainly lead to future deaths.

In these arenas, we see the Obama administration at its worst: willing to engage in irresponsible and occasionally illegal acts, bowling their way through mismanagement and cronyism and the rule of law to achieve their aims, no matter the cost. It is the same approach they used in his single domestic policy achievement – Obamacare – and they have not stopped using it since.

As an aside, many of us didn’t buy into much of what Domenech outlines in the first paragraph although it is clear that’s what sold the empty suit that is Obama.  Not once, but twice.  And for that, the American population can be blamed.  It was clear from the beginning that this man didn’t have a clue how to govern or run a large organization.  If there’s a silver lining to all of this, one of Obama’s goals was to demonstrate that large government was a good thing and could run social programs well.  In that, as with everything else he’s touched, he’s been a dismal failure.  In fact, with ObamaCare and the VA scandal he’s proven the opposite to be true.

So the inevitable question:

Why did this happen? Why did Obama fail? The typical answer from the left is one of racism or bigotry or Republican extremism. More even-handed analysts seem to believe that Obama tried to do too much, that he was a poor technocrat or struggled with mismanagement, or that the job of the presidency is just too big.

The real source of the problem Cook identifies isn’t universal intolerance for other points of view, but intolerance on one side of the debate for any legitimate reasoning to legislate according to their points of view. Where in the absence of national consensus conservatives reject federal law imposing something, typically favoring state level legislation instead, liberals in the Obama era cry racism or bigotry or worse. One side of the American body politic is willing to accept principled disagreement as a signal that an issue is either unsuited to or unripe for a federal response; while the other sees it as authorization to bypass the democratic process and impose their will by any means available.

In these arenas, we see the Obama administration at its worst: willing to engage in irresponsible and occasionally illegal acts, bowling their way through mismanagement and cronyism and the rule of law to achieve their aims, no matter the cost. It is the same approach they used in his single domestic policy achievement – Obamacare – and they have not stopped using it since.

But I would suggest it’s Obama’s inability to actually live up to his promise as a unifier of people which proved his undoing. Maybe it’s not his fault. Coming up in a Democratic state and a Democratic city, he lacked the ability to work across lines of ideology from the get-go, and if he failed to initially convince people to agree with him on something, he had no desire to keep working at it to convince them otherwise or the personal diplomacy to meet them halfway. Charlie Cook’s latest piece nods in the direction of this idea, but this line strikes me as off the mark: “The notion that “where you stand depends on where you sit” seems to cut little ice in our increasingly rigid society, when tolerance for different points of view is becoming increasingly rare.”

Obama’s tenure in office has turned all these hopes into despair – despair in the corruption of our institutions, in the capability of our government, in our ability to manage large systems and more. Consider just the events of the past few days: the slow-rolling scandal of how we care for our Veterans, full of mismanagement, denials, and a growing awareness that this problem was shoved under the rug for years; the White House’s decision to embark on a top-down monopartisan environmental policy which will squeeze the working class and make energy more expensive; and of course, Obama’s decision to trade five high ranking terrorists for an apparent American deserter in Afghanistan, a decision which directly ignores the law of the land and will almost certainly lead to future deaths.

The why is pretty easy … and extraordinarily frustrating. And at the risk of boring the 2 regular readers we have, a big part of it was because he had no accomplishments.  None.  Zip.  How do you explain to Americans that the job of the presidency is to important to make it OJT?  All the man had done his entire adult life is play at work and run for office.

Now roll that in with a majority of Americans being tired of the old regime and a huge dollop of “we want to prove to the world we’re not a racist country” (aka, cashing in on “white guilt”), not to mention being at the right place at the right time against a horrible opposition candidate and you can get a sense of how he managed to pull it off.  Once.

But not twice.  Unless you believed the nonsense about how it was Bush’s fault and that the “evil Rethuglicans” were the reason for his poor showing first term … not to mention the not so subtle undertones of racism if you didn’t “believe”, then I find it difficult to understand why he got a second term.

And, of course the proof of the pudding – the proof that it has nothing to do with Republicans and Bush – is his consistent and constant failure at foreign policy.  In fact, I don’t really think he has a foreign policy – well, except for apologizing for America.  But for 6 years now he has staggered from foreign policy disaster to foreign policy disaster.    It is also hard to pin the corruption on Bush or the Republicans.  Or the incompetence as demonstrated in the rollout of ObamaCare and administration of the VA.

But I think that there is more to it than just that – the Obama administration epitomizes the degeneracy of the left.   As he points out, they don’t consider it an argument of principle, like climate change, they consider the “science to be settled”.  Consequently, for them, it’s about winning.  And they sincerely believe that “whatever it takes makes ‘right'”.  Fudged numbers, lies, reality bending narratives, half-truths, intimidation and if necessary, violence.  They are the equivalent of religious fanatics -zealots.  Argument, no matter how well reasoned, is lost on them (and it is the primary reason attempts to “debate” them are a lost cause).  They believe in power and its use.  They march to an emotional “feel good” agenda that has been proven to be bankrupt time and time again by reality and they will destroy anything that gets in their way (from reputation to, well, you name it) of implementing it – forcing it upon us – again.

One thing the left doesn’t have, however, and doesn’t understand, is the concept of “honor”.  Frankly you can’t have honor and act like they do.  And so they are constantly tripped up by it.  The Bergdahl fiasco is a perfect example.  No you may say, what the hell does “honor” have to do with all of this?  Well, honor is based in principles and is defined as “honesty, fairness, or integrity in one’s beliefs and actions.”  There is very little of that among the rabid zealotry of the left.  There is no honesty.  “Fairness” is an excuse to control money, speech and anything else they can fit under that code-word umbrella.  And integrity is the last thing most of the zealous left are concerned with.  And that points out why “argument” from a point of honor (meaning what it says) is a waste of breath and time.

But back to the Bergdahl affair as the case in point. The inability to understand the concept of honor and what it means (especially as it concerns the military), is what has turned this into a fiasco.

The left’s blinkered view of military culture is perhaps best summarized by Elias Isquith, a young writer for Salon.com, who yesterday explained the backlash against the Bergdahl deal as follows: “When a member of the military fails to adhere to the far right’s rigid formula of what a soldier should be (nationalistic, religious, obedient; conservative) right-wingers . . . come down on them [sic] like a ton of bricks.” He cited one example in addition to Bergdahl: John Kerry.

Isquith seems to imply that servicemen are fungible, each entitled to equal respect regardless of conduct. But the bitter criticism of Kerry in 2004 and Bergdahl today would carry no force if it came from mere “right-wingers.” It comes, instead, from servicemen and veterans who see the two men as having behaved dishonorably. Once again the left is being undone by its failure to comprehend the centrality of honor to military culture.

It is one of the reasons Obama garners such little respect from the military as a whole.

That’s because the left (and Obama) have so little contact with an honor society and certainly find honor (much like the Constitution) a hinderance in pursuit of their agenda. So they were blindsided by the blowback.  It would be funny if it hadn’t been such a horrible deal.  They are stunned.  Just as Kerry was stunned in 2004.  They don’t get it, they don’t understand it and that’s because they don’t believe in it and certainly don’t live it.

Why has Barack Obama failed as a president?

Why has the left failed every time it has tried to implement its agenda?

For a bunch of self-described brilliant people, you’d think they’d have figured it out by now.

~McQ

The Narcissistic Administration

America used to be famous for its men and women of action.  Now?  Now we’re governed (ruled?) by a group of narcissists who think that selfies and hashtags equal action:

In the 21st century, we have regressed to the Freudian phallic stage of development, reaching in, back in short pants with our hands all the way down them, which gives one a rather limited impression of the elephant in the room.

Slavery in Nigeria, the occupation of Ukraine, whatever: It ain’t about you, Sunshine.

The “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign, directed at the fanatical Islamist slavers in Nigeria, has inspired selfies from U.S. senators and the wife of the president of these United States, while State Department spokesman Jen Psaki, the Pippi Longstocking of the diplomatic world, took to Twitter to photograph herself with a “United for Ukraine” placard. To confront the heinous crimes of Boko Haram, a U.S. senator has many options — for example, introducing an authorization to use military force against said terrorist franchise. The U.S. State Department has many tools at its disposal for confronting the expansionist tendencies of Vladimir Putin.

The selfie is not among those tools.

But it seems to be the tool of choice with this bunch.  Well, that and deploying hashtags. How utterly useless and embarrassing is it to see our supposed leaders resorting to this sort of self-centered “action”?

Very.  Oh, it’s an action – it’s all about the PR for them.  It feeds their need to feel superior and show they “care”.  Actually do something to address the situation in question?  Yeah, that’s hard.

But that’s what we get for “leadership” from this crew:

Imagine, if you can, the abjectly juvenile state of mind necessary to contemplate the hundreds of Nigerian girls taken into slavery by a fanatical Muslim anti-education militia — whose characteristic activity beyond slave-taking is setting fire to children — and, in the face of all that horror, concluding: “You know what this situation really calls for? A cutesy picture of . . . me!” Bad enough when your cousin Caitlin at Bryn Mawr does that — but senators? State Department officials? These are men and (disproportionately, I think) women of power and influence, who have the ability to engage with the world and change it. But they are enchanted by the unique witchcraft of the age of social media, the totemic power of the digital expression of the self. It is not accidental that the only good selfie in the history of world leaders came well before the invention of Twitter from a man with an ego sufficiently robust not to require the constant reinforcement that is the psychic lifeblood of Millennials (and Washingtonians well old enough to know better), without which they find themselves paralyzed.

Can a leadership group take the reins from this group and do worse?  Oh you bet.  But with the bar set as low as the Obama administration has set it, it would take a real concerted effort to do worse.  Of course, there’s Hillary.  However the one positive thing the Obama administration has done in its seemingly endless tenure is rescue Jimmy Carter.  He is now only the 2nd worst president ever.  At least his administration was mostly peopled by adults.

~McQ

Freakin’ hilarious and so typical

What we all know about liberals is they’re big on “talking the talk”, but when it comes to “walking the walk”, yeah, not so much.

On April 10th, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) filed the forms with the National Labor Relations Board to hold an election to unionize 50 employees working for the George Soros-funded progressive media watchdog, Media Matters for America (MMFA). In response, Media Matters has hired a high priced law firm with experience combating unions to represent the company, indicating that the pro-union MMFA is fighting the action.

Oh, yeah, that’s right … union touting and supporting MMFA isn’t about to let the SEIU (who has donated to MMFA in the past) unionize their shop.  Nope.  Because, well, unions are bad?

If what the law firm they’ve hired has written about their services is any indication of MMFA’s stance on the subject, then yes, union’s are bad:

Whether directly negotiating collective bargaining agreements, developing strike contingency plans or defending unfair labor practice proceedings, Perkins Coie Labor & Employment attorneys provide employers with decades of experience managing traditional labor law issues.  We have been at the bargaining table for some of the largest union employers in the United States and regularly appear before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and in state and federal court on behalf of employers of all sizes.  Our depth of employment litigation experience contributes to cost-effective representation in arbitrations under collective bargaining agreements.

As the Obama NLRB continues to issue union-friendly decisions, we understand the attendant challenges that employers face in developing and maintaining productive employee relations and economic sustainability.

So, now that MMFA has “lawyered up” and is fighting tooth and nail against something it advocates and claims it supports elsewhere, what should we conclude about MMFA?

Yup, as with most of the left, they’re the epitome of hypocrisy.  The Dons of “do as I say, not as I do”.

Because you’re the “little people” and they’re our “betters”.  And  we should remember that the elite always know what’s best for the little people, even if they personally want no part of what they prescribe for us.

Truth Revolt lays out a nice little synopsis for us:

  • SEIU ​(a group of left-wing bullies) has donated to MMfA ​(a group of left-wing bullies) to utilize their bullying tactics against media outlets that challenge union interests
  • MMfA employees want SEIU representation to help them gain better pay and work conditions
  • MMfA is resisting the move and has forbidden open voting or “card check,” something they’ve advocated for in the past
  • SEIU is now trying to publicly shame MMfA (a tactic MMfA uses to silence their opponents) by using MoveOn.org (a group of left-wing bullies) to host a petition

You just can’t make this stuff up.

~McQ

1 2 3 27