Iran threatens, the world silent

 
Print Edition

Photo by: Ariel Jerozolimski
Iran threatens, the world silent
By JPOST.COM STAFF
11/04/2010
 
Netanyahu warns acceptance of Iran’s genocidal intentions reminiscent of holocaust.
 
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech at the Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony at Yad Vashem Sunday evening focused on the rising Iranian threat, Iran clearly declares its genocidal intentions with regard to Israel and seeks to arm itself with nuclear weapons for that purpose.

Netanyahu’s speech came after that of President Shimon Peres who stressed as two central lessons of the holocaust for us, that the world must not display the apathy it did then in the face of a nation seeking weapons of mass destruction, having the capacity to use them to perform mass destruction and inciting mass destruction.

“The historical failure of the free world in facing the Nazi beast was in not confronting it when it could still be stopped,” Netanyahu said, “today we witness the fire of the old-new hate, the hate of the Jews being spread by the regimes and organizations of radical Islam, spearheaded by Iran and its cohorts.”

Iran’s leaders are hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons and publicly declare their intention to destroy Israel, “but in the face of the oft-repeated calls to erase the Jewish state from the face of the earth, we see at best mild protestations, and these too seem to be fading,” the Prime Minister lambasted the international community.

We do not hear the decisive condemnation required, the world stands by, some even criticize Israel, he went on, we do not see the international resolve required to prevent Iran’s nuclear armament. “From this lectern I call on the enlightened nations to rise and powerfully condemn Iran’s genocidal intentions and act with real resolve to stop Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons.”

BORDER-LINE DELUSIONAL: JOHN MCCAIN IN HIS OWN WORDS

BORDER-LINE DELUSIONAL: JOHN MCCAIN IN HIS OWN WORDS 
Phoenix, AZ (April 10) – He’s far from alone in his feelings, but even Senator John McCain feels like he has failed Arizona and the American people when it comes to securing our border with Mexico.
 
Senator McCain admitted to the Arizona Daily Star editorial board on April 1st that in losing the presidential election, he lost the battle for protecting Arizonans and the American people starting at the U.S.-Mexican border.
 
In an interview published today, the Star questioned John McCain on his plan to secure the border. McCain’s response was, “If I were President, I would have come forward with a proposal. And people keep coming to me and saying ‘what’s your proposal?’ And I say, ‘look, I lost the election.'”
 
McCain has criticized Congress for failing to secure the border which prompted the Star to ask the senator, “What have you done to secure the border?”
 
McCain’s response? “Not enough.”
 
JD Hayworth, who is mounting a conservative challenge to McCain in the August 24th Republican Primary, feels the same as McCain. John McCain hasn’t done enough.
 
“As a Senator he holds the power to introduce bills, to bring solutions to problems, and to rally support,” said Hayworth. “With 28 years in Washington – and most of that time as the darling of mainstream media – I don’t think he’s powerless to get anything done, I think he’s unwilling. He doesn’t want to lose that darling status.”
 
“That’s the primary difference between John McCain and me,” Hayworth continued. “Not only am I ready, willing and able to fight for securing the border, my “Enforcement First Act” that I introduced when I was in the House is out there for everyone to read. Unfortunately, less conservative members of Congress – like Senator McCain – weren’t willing to do what it takes to finally stop the flow of people, drugs and crime across our border.”

Report: Sarkozy Slams Obama – Says He Might Be Insane

Sunday, April 11, 2010, 6:12 AM
Jim Hoft

A recent report supposedly circulating the Kremlin quotes Sarkozy as stating that President Obama is “a dangerous[ly] aliéné”, which translates into his, Obama, being a “mad lunatic”.
The European Union Times reported:

A new report circulating in the Kremlin today authored by France’s Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) and recently “obtained” by the FSB shockingly quotes French President Nicolas Sarkozy [photo top right with Obama] as stating that President Barack Obama is “a  dangerous[ly] aliéné”, which translates into his, Obama, being a “mad lunatic”, or in the American vernacular, “insane”.

According to this report, Sarkozy was “appalled” at Obama’s “vision” of what the World should be under his “guidance” and “amazed” at the American Presidents unwillingness to listen to either “reason” or “logic”.  Sarkozy’s meeting where these impressions of Obama were formed took place nearly a fortnight ago at the White House in Washington D.C., and upon his leaving he “scolded” Obama and the US for not listening closely enough to what the rest of the World has to say.

Apparently, as this report details, the animosity between Sarkozy and Obama arose out of how best the West can deal with the growing threat posed by rising Islamic fundamentalism. Both Sarkozy and his European neighbors had previously been supported in their efforts by the United States in forming an alliance to strengthen the integration of Muslim peoples into their societies, and has including France and Belgium moving to ban the wearing of burqa’s.

Moose Hunter Bags Community Organizer… Obama Retreats on Nuke Plan

 

Sunday, April 11, 2010, 10:28 AM
Jim Hoft

On Wednesday, Sarah Palin said Barack Obama’s new nuclear policy was like, “A kid on the playground saying punch me in the face and I’m not going to retaliate.” This upset the the president who later lashed out at the former Alaska Governor on her nuclear experience on Thursday.

Which led to this–
Sarah Palin clobbered Barack Obama Friday in her speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. The former Alaska Governer responded to the “community organizer’s” attack on her nuclear experience.

She questioned what in Obama’s community organizing background led him to believe he was an expert on nuclear policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxHbD0waYxE&feature=player_embedded

Today, the Obama Administration retreated from their previous nuclear plan.
Hillary Clinton told CBS that “all bets are off” when it comes to biological weapons.

The Obama administration’s nuclear posture review may have removed some of the intentional ambiguity from U.S. nuclear policy, but it does not leave the country any less safe, President Obama’s top national security advisers said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

In fact, they said, it gives a clear warning to other state actors that the U.S. will not ignore any growing threats.

“This is putting everybody on notice,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer in an interview conducted Friday at the Pentagon. “We don’t want more countries to go down the path that North Korea and Iran are.”

The revised nuclear policy says that the United States will not use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack from a non-nuclear country. The policy, however, leaves significant contingencies, said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Countries which are non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (such as North Korea) or have been found to be non-compliant (such as Iran) are not exempt from nuclear retaliation under the Obama policy.

“We were concerned about the biological weapons,”
Gates said, “and that’s why the president was very clear … if we see states developing biological weapons that we begin to think endanger us or create serious concerns, that he reserves the right to revise this policy.”

Clinton added, “If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.”

Apparently, the former governor knows more about nuclear deterrence than the community organizer after all.
This round goes to Palin.

Sarah Palin’s Speech In New Orleans

Sarah Palin’s Speech In New Orleans

Posted on | April 9, 2010 |

by Smitty (h/t Gateway Pundit)

Sarah’s speech is a point-for-point flogging of the Administration. The folksy delivery will cause lefty heads near you to ’splode, to keep the volume low. President Sleeveheart has already publicly whined about her by name on the nuclear topic. If you follow that link, BHO claims the JCS ‘is comfortable’ with his nuclear policies. Sure.

Sarah Palin At SRLC – Don’t Retreat,Reload

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp89-6_7Zsk&feature=player_embedded

On the topic of criticism of the Lefty agenda, your attention is drawn to The Valley of the Shadow. VotS has an interesting historical sketch of the Democratic non-command of international policy, going back to LBJ. Well worth your time.

Update: Tabitha Hale has a roundup of the New Orleans conference, including Rick Perry video.

Actually, Palin’s endorsement of McCain really does stink

Actually, Palin’s endorsement of McCain really does stink

One of my fellow Green Room contributors, CK MacLeod, stirred the pot with his recent post on the topic. Now, personally, I think comments should be responded to with more comments, and not with the bullhorn of the Green Room posting privilege. However, Allahpundit, with his beta wisdom, suggested a response in kind.

My first qualm was with the designation of critics of McCain, and of this move in particular, as “McCain haters”. Apart from being a tactic usually adopted by the left to demonize their critics, it also sounds eerily familiar to the RINO-in-question’s daughter, Meghan, who created the “NO H8″ campaign. It’s a cheap shot, meant to portray one’s opponent as operating on bigotry. Disliking the guy for his statements, penned legislation, policy positions, and campaign decisions does not amount to hate. Unless, of course, you’re talking about Barack Obama(haters!).

Then we get to the meat of the issue: why did Palin endorse McCain? We’ve all got various ideas, but CK’s precis is that she simply supports him.

Gov Palin agrees with Senator McCain close to 100% on foreign policy. She respects and likes him personally. She doesn’t blame him for the actions of some of his operatives during and after Campaign ‘08, and never believed it was his responsibility to play the roll of political Dad and discipline the other kids for her. She was and is quite capable of defending herself and charting her own course, and would have found it condescending and presumptuous for him to play protector.

So he’s a hawk. Good. So is Joe Lieberman, one of his best pals. Will Palin endorse him on that basis alone? Lieberman is a liberal in almost all other ways. Additionally, foreign policy is but one of many factors to consider. I’d argue that it’s far more important to focus on that aspect of a candidate’s philosophy when they’re running for president, not for Congress. If she likes him personally, there’s really nothing to argue. Whether she blames him for the muzzling she was put under in October of ‘08, the post-campaign treatment, or not, is her business.

The key here is that Sarah Palin has been swelling her political influence at an accelerated rate in the last year, almost exclusively by weighing in on domestic issues. CK eventually gets to her compatibility with McCain’s positions:

She has no problem with the main thrust of his domestic views or his overall approach to politics. If she cares much about immigration politics – I’ve seen little evidence of it, though it’s clearly still a big deal to many grassroots conservatives – she’s happy with McCain’s post-”Shamnesty” positioning. I suspect that she cares enough about the Republican Party’s long-term prospects to want to see the issue handled soberly and positively.

Though post-’08 she’s been driven into a conservative cul-de-sac – in part by political circumstances in the US of A ca. 2010, in part by a learning experience that has included attacks on her from the left and from Brooks-Frum moderate/elitist conservatives – her political profile and her actual political conduct when in office, was moderate, bi- and non-partisan, and altogether maverick-y.

The importance of her positions is rather considerable, as people throughout the blogosphere have been casting Palin as the new face of conservatism; a latter day Reagan. If this is the case, let’s do a little comparison.

First up, the one that comes to everyone’s mind: amnesty. McCain authored the bill himself, with none other than Ted Kennedy. What’s Palin’s view on illegal aliens? Well, she’s stated she’s not for “total amnesty“. That’s sufficiently vague. Would it matter more to a Senator from a border state? Yes, but as 2007 proved, it matters to the majority of the conservative movement as well. Boiling it down to “I support his position on immigration” is not comforting, either. Tough call on that one. Perhaps they do agree.

How about global warming? Well, she was one of the first out of the gates after ClimateGate struck. In the same vein, she’s been one of the most outspoken proponents for domestic drilling, including in the ANWR area. McCain, on the other hand? He not only is against drilling in ANWR, but has long partook of the AGW kool-aid. Cap and Trade is another area where McCain and Obama get along swimmingly. Palin begs to disagree.

What about a Hot Air favorite: gay marriage? Well, we’re well aware of the McCain camp’s position, considering Meggie Mac’s approach. Sarah, once again, parts ways on the topic. Evolution? Again, they disagree. Some may say it’s a minor issue, but it’s seemed important to Sarah Palin.

Now, I’m not well known as a friend of birtherism. Hence, JD Hayworth’s membership in that group certainly gives me pause. However, at the same time, he’s anti-amnesty. He’s pro-drilling in ANWR. He doesn’t buy global warming, nor does he like the idea of cap and trade. Gay marriage? Uhhh…yeah. This is by no means an attempt to express support for Hayworth, but on the issues, he does have a more conservative scorecard than McCain.

Overall, my point is this: is Sarah Palin a strong conservative? If she is, why is she endorsing McCain? They disagree on a number of relevant domestic issues. She and Hayworth share more common views. If it’s personal, so be it. If Sarah Palin is a moderate, then very well. Let’s get that out into the open, and stop presenting her as a conservative icon, because there are few left who would consider McCain as such. Some have suggested that she is just being loyal to the man who chose her as his running mate for the presidency. Ultimately, the argument that Sarah Palin supports McCain because of his politics is frail. They’re at odds all over the place. It’s not “hatred” to point this out. Deal with it.

Tax Season

Mark Steyn

April 10, 2010 7:00 A.M.

Tax Season

For an increasing number of Americans, tax season is like baseball season: It’s a spectator sport.

We are nearing the climax of “tax season.” That’s the problem right there, by the way: Summer should have a season, and baseball should have a season, but not tax. Happily, like candy canes and Christmas-tree lights on December 26th, the TurboTax boxes will soon be disappearing from the display racks until the nights start drawing in and the leaves fall from the trees and tax season begins anew in seven or eight months’ time.

And yet for an increasing number of Americans, tax season is like baseball season: It’s a spectator sport. According to the Tax Policy Center, for the year 2009, 47 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax. Obviously, many of them pay other kinds of taxes — state tax, property tax, cigarette tax. But at a time of massive increases in federal spending, half the country is effectively making no contribution to it, whether it’s national defense or vital stimulus funding to pump monkeys in North Carolina full of cocaine (true, seriously, but don’t ask me why). Half a decade back, it was just under 40 percent who paid no federal income tax; now it’s just under 50 percent. By 2012, America could be holding the first federal election in which a majority of the population will be able to vote themselves more government lollipops paid for by the ever shrinking minority of the population still dumb enough to be net contributors to the federal treasury. In less than a quarter-millennium, the American Revolution will have evolved from “No taxation without representation” to representation without taxation. We have bigger government, bigger bureaucracy, bigger spending, bigger deficits, and bigger debt, and yet an ever smaller proportion of citizens paying for it.

The top 5 percent of taxpayers contribute 60 percent of revenue. The top 10 percent provide 75 percent. Another 40-odd percent make up the rest. And half are exempt. This isn’t redistribution — a “leveling” to address the “maldistribution” of income, as Sen. Max Baucus (D., Kleptocristan) put it the other day. It isn’t even “spreading the wealth around,” as then-senator Obama put it in an unfortunate off-the-prompter moment during the 2008 campaign. Rather, it’s an assault on the moral legitimacy of the system. If you accept the principle of a tax on income, it might seem reasonable to exclude the very poor from having to contribute to it. But in no meaningful sense of the term can half the country be considered “poor.” United States income tax is becoming the 21st-century equivalent of the “jizya” — the punitive tax levied by Muslim states on their non-Muslim citizens: In return for funding the Islamic imperium, the infidels were permitted to carry on practicing their faith. Likewise, under the American jizya, in return for funding Big Government, the non-believers are permitted to carry on practicing their faith in capitalism, small business, economic activity, and the other primitive belief systems to which they cling so touchingly.

In the Islamic world, the infidel tax base eventually wised up. You can see it literally in the landscape in rural parts of the Balkans: Christian tradesmen got fed up paying the jizya and moved out of the towns up into remote hills far from the shakedown crowd. In less mountainous terrain where it’s harder to lie low, non-Muslims found it easier to convert. That’s partly what drove Islamic expansion. Once Araby was all Muslim, it was necessary to move on to the Levant, and to Persia, and to Central Asia and North Africa and India and Europe — in search of new infidels to mug. Don’t worry, I’m not so invested in my analogy that I’m suggesting the Obama-Reid-Pelosi shakedown racket will be forced to invade Canada and Scandinavia. For one thing, pretty much everywhere else got with the Big Government program well ahead of America and long ago figured out all the angles: Two-thirds of French imams are on the dole. In the Stockholm suburb of Tensta, 20 percent of women in their late 40s collect disability benefits. In the United Kingdom, 5 million people — a tenth of the adult population — have not done a day’s work since the New Labour government took office in 1997.

America has a ways to go in catching up with those enlightened jurisdictions, but it’s on its way. Rep. Paul Ryan pointed out recently that, by 2004, 20 percent of U.S. households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. As a matter of practical politics, how receptive would they be to a pitch for lower taxes, which they don’t pay, or lower government spending, of which they are such fortunate beneficiaries? How receptive would another fifth of households, who receive about 40 percent of their income from federal programs, be to such a pitch?

And what’s to stop this trend? Democracy decays easily into the tyranny of the majority, in which 51 percent of voters can empty the pockets of the other 49 percent. That’s why a country on the fast track to a $20 trillion national debt exempts half the population from making even a modest contribution to reducing it. And it’s also why the remorseless shriveling of the tax rolls is a cancer at the heart of republican citizenship.

Pace Max Baucus, this isn’t about correcting the “maldistribution” of income. What Mal Max is up to is increasing dependency. In the newspeak of Big Government, “tax cuts” now invariably mean not reductions in the rate of income seizure but a “tax credit” reimbursed from the seizure in return for living your life the way the government wants you to. With Obamacare, we’ve now advanced to the next stage — “tax debits,” or additional punitive confiscation if you decline to live your life in accordance with government fiat. Obamacare requires you upon penalty of law to make provisions for your health care that meet the approval of the state commissars. Unfortunately, as they discovered after passing it, the bill didn’t provide for any enforcement mechanisms. But not to worry. The other day Douglas Shulman, commissioner for the Internal Revenue Service, announced that, if you fail to purchase the mandated health insurance, he’ll simply confiscate any tax refund due to you from your previous twelve months’ employment withholding.

We are now not merely disincentivizing economic energy but actively waging war on it. If 51 percent can vote themselves government lollipops from the other 49 percent, soon 60 percent will be shaking down the remaining 40 percent, and then 70 percent will be sticking it to the remaining 30 percent. How low can it go? When you think about it, that 53 percent of American households props up not just this country but half the planet: They effectively pick up the defense tab for our wealthiest allies, so that Germany, Japan, and others can maintain minimal militaries and lavish the savings on cradle-to-grave entitlements. A relatively tiny group of people is writing the check for the entire global order. What proportion of them would need to figure out that the game’s no longer worth it to bring the whole system crashing down?

Look For The Union Libel

Look For The Union Libel

Phil Boehmke

He may not be the future former president’s most frequent White House visitor (that would be the SEIU’s Andy Stern), but AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is one of Obama’s most loyal comrades. Echoing the party line during a toxic speech at Harvard on Wednesday night.

Trumka described “radio voices” as “forces of hate” for creating an us-versus-them mentality that can divide the country and hinder enacting economic policies to fix the economy.
“There are forces in our country that are working hard to convert justifiable anger about an economy that only seems to work for a few of us into racist and homophobic hate and violence directed at our President and heroes like Congressman John Lewis,” he told an audience at the Institute of Politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “Most of all these forces of hate seek to divide working people-to turn our anger against each other.”
Mr. Trumka fired up the partisan crowd by putting his proletariat pleasing stamp on the Obama talking points for the ongoing campaign against freedom. Trumka was following the party play book by labeling the patriots of the Tea Party Movement, conservative talk radio and all opponents of tyranny as racists and homophobes.
During the Q&A that followed Trumka’s baseless attack on free thinking Americans, Andrew Breitbart spoke up for us all by reminding the AFL-CIO strongman that no actual evidence of the alleged racist incident prior to the vote on ObamaCare had been presented, in spite of his personal $100,000 offer for any such evidence. The union boss responded that.
…he himself had seen the events in question. “I watched them spit at people, I watched then call John Lewis the n-word,” Trumka said. “I witnessed it, I witnessed it. I saw it in person. That’s real evidence.”
And yet somehow the incident in question was not captured on any of the numerous video cameras or cell phones. In spite of the best efforts of the Democrats to provoke an incident for the cameras and their fellow travelers in the MSM, no physical evidence was produced. Even John Lewis himself has since backed off his previous claims about the incident in question.
With regard to Trumka’s applying the union label of hate and violence to those of us who dare stand up to the leftist assault on liberty and our American way of life, we should consider the source of these allegations. The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc. reports that during Trumka’s tenure as President of the United Mine Workers.
1989 UMW strike against Pittston Coal – Virginia Circuit Court Judge Donald McGlothlin Jr. declared that “the evidence show beyond any shadow of a doubt that violent activities are being organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.”
Unanimous Virginia Supreme Court reinforced Judge McGlothlin’s findings: “Union officials took active roles in these unlawful activities. Notwithstanding the large fines, the Union never represented to the court that it regretted or intended to cease its lawless actions. To the contrary, the utter defiance of the rule of law continued unabated.”
[…]
1993 UMW strike against Peabody Coal–Eddie York, a 39 year old non-union worker, “was shot in the back of the head and killed” leaving a job in Logan County, West Virginia.
[…]
In a detailed account of the York murder and subsequent investigation, Reader’s Digest noted that “UMW President Richard Trumka did not publicly discipline or reprimand a single striker present when York was killed. In fact, all eight were helped out financially by the local.” [emphases added]
Maybe Mr. Trumka has forgotten about these and numerous other incidents which the casual observer might interpret as being hateful or violent. His urging of union members to “kick the (expletive) out of every last one of ‘em,” (regarding workers who crossed the picket line) certainly sums up Boss Trumka’s philosophy of conflict resolution.
With the recess appointment of SEIU lawyer Craig Becker to the NLRB, we have edged ever nearer to organized labor’s unholy grail of “card check.” With people like Richard Trumka and Andy Stern in control of the unions and the Obama-Reid-Pelosi crew running roughshod over the federal government is it any wonder that we are angry? Is it any wonder that the Tea Party Movement is gathering steam?
Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.
 – Ronald Reagan

Tea Party Express III: Vital Voice of We The People

Tea Party Express III: Vital Voice of We The People

Lloyd Marcus

U-Turn Joe and Wrong Way Don. These were the affectionate nick names  given to Tea Party Express PAC Coordinator, Joe Wierzbicki (pictured on the right) and Director of Merchandise Donald LaCombe (pictured below, with Lloyd Marcus) nine national tours ago. Before the fancy wrapped 45 foot professional tour buses, Joe drove a Budget truck leading his caravan of over thirty vehicles. Donald was Joe’s navigator reading the map. This was before GPS. Thus, their nick names U-Turn Joe and Wrong Way Don. Their first four tours were in support of our troops.

As Karl Rove was “the architect” of the Bush administration, the brilliant Joe Wierzbicki is “the brain” along with Sal Russo (pictured below on the left) behind the scenes of the national Tea Party Express tours.
I first had the pleasure of meeting and working with Joe and Sal when they invited me to join the Our Country Deserves Better PAC team for their national 2008 Stop Obama tour. Joe discovered me when I performed at a GOE (Gathering of Eagles) support our troops rally in Washington DC. On the Stop Obama tour, I served as a singer/spokesperson. 

I called the front lounge of our tour bus the “Command Center” with a huge flat screen TV and staff members working on laptop computers. Joe was always multi-tasking; working on his laptop, writing press releases, purchasing media, dealing with issues and planning strategy with Sal; all at the same time. Amazing. When Joe asked me to join them again on their Tea Party Express tours, I said, “Absolutely”.
Joe Wierzbicki and Sal Russo have come a long way from their early caravan days. Tea Party Express Tour III has three tour buses and is receiving mega worldwide attention. I have the uttermost respect for Joe and Sal. These guys have been supporting our troops, standing up for America and conservative principles for a long time before anyone was paying attention. Joe and Sal consistently doing the right thing has elevated Tea Party Express to become a highly respected, vital and powerful voice of We The People.
Tea Party Express III held a rally outside of a VFW hall in Bessemer, MI. It was very, very cold! Our team really appreciated the large crowd which endured the chilling temperature for their country. Their endurance is symbolic of the American people’s desperation and desire to stop Obama’s far left radical agenda.
Our Tea Party Express team spent the night at a Comfort Inn in Ironwood, MI, a small town down the road a bit from the rally. While it was not fancy, the vibe was extremely warm, friendly and charming. I chatted with the manager, Sue Spets. She proudly shared that her inn won a Choice Hotels 2010 Platinum Award! Sue’s inn is ranked 23rd out of 1300 Comfort Inns nationwide. Sue said “service” is the key to her success.

The Obama administration promotes mediocrity, entitlement, laziness and lowered standards. It was truly refreshing to meet someone like Sue Spets who takes pride in a job well done. I believe Sue reflects the mindset of the majority which has inspired American Exceptional-ism.
Folks, the day the scale tips in the opposite direction is the day we lose America. This is the reason the Tea Party movement is so important to restoring our freedoms, liberty and culture.
I wrote this update while on the Tea Party Express bus on our way to our rally in Escanaba, MI. Patriotic bikers from various motorcycle clubs are giving our bus an escort. Very cool. Talk to y’all soon.

God bless,
Lloyd

Liberal Narcissism and Anti-Christian Phobia

Liberal Narcissism and Anti-Christian Phobia

By Deborah C. Tyler

Americans have always expected national television broadcasters to steer clear of degrading epithets. On April 14, 2009, CNN’s Anderson Cooper established a new low in television journalism when he labeled millions of Americans in the Tea Party movement with a vulgar sexual term. Other mainstream media journalists and personalities gleefully followed suit. There was no outcry from the “anti-hate community.” Many liberals do not merely tolerate contumelies against conservatives, but they delight in them.
In the years after World War II, psychologists (many of whom were European Jews who had escaped Nazism) intensively studied how fascist and authoritarian states could bring ordinary people to commit extraordinary crimes against minorities. The two dominant personality theories of the twentieth century, the Freudian and Adlerian psychoanalytic models, provided theoretical frameworks for understanding bigotry and fascism as forms of individual and collective neurotic delusions. The Freudian model attributed these neuroses to a frustrated “will to pleasure,” while Adler pointed to an unhealthy expression of the “will to power” over others.
For the most part, psychologists today deny or ignore anti-Christian prejudice in the American conversation. This is because psychologists are overwhelming politically liberal and spiritually humanist. In social science, bias in is bias out. In addition, America’s dominant psychological model, behaviorism, has always been anti-theoretical and has not produced an integrated theory of personality equal in influence to either Freud or Adler.
Although Freud and Adler agreed on the existence of unconscious fear as the core of neurotic anxiety, they had different explanations for it. Freud posited that bigotry arises when a child internalizes the prejudices of the father in order to resolve unconscious sexual conflicts in the process of superego formation. This thwarted “will to pleasure” is projected as hatred onto a scapegoat minority. Culturally, fear becomes fascistic, involving rigid group conformity against a common enemy. Freud’s model is obsolete. Anderson Cooper, and the Manhattan micro-niche he typifies, is not anxiously reacting to an overbearing father-figure. It is the extreme opposite. Mr. Cooper is the son of a fantastically permissive brand of humanism. The only thing he has to feel guilty about is guilt itself.
But the Freudian model does have utility in one dimension. The aggression resulting from thwarted narcissism is gratified when projected onto a devalued minority — e.g., Tea Party participants. The core phobia is that non-approving conservatives are thwarting the “will to pleasure.” The need for perfect admiration and approval is the hallmark of narcissism, which is by definition insatiable. Narcissistic pleasure is the precursor to inevitable narcissistic rage. In the narcissistic liberal imagination, Christian conservatives stand in the way of a human heaven of sexual freedom.
Alfred Adler coined the term “inferiority complex.” He held that the neurotic complex arises from harm inherent in the “will to power” over others. His model explains liberal prejudice as an overreaction against unconscious self-doubt that projects intellectual, moral, and cultural inferiority onto others. Uppity and unmanageable conservatives, who, oblivious to their own stupidity, doggedly stand up for their inferior beliefs anger the narcissistic liberal.
Applying either Freudian or Adlerian analysis to liberal phobic structure requires updating the concept of individual anxiety, or neurosis, to the contemporary concept of group-based social phobia. Both Freud and Adler were middle-class Jewish men who assumed that neurosis developed in reaction to imbalances in the paternalistic nuclear family — the only normative child-rearing form either had ever seen.
In 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III dropped neurosis as a diagnosis and replaced it with culturally based phobias. The father-led nuclear family was no longer the social structure for incorporating values, morals, and role expectations. “Inadequacy adjustment” in relation to that family system was no longer the source of mental imbalance. Values, norms, and the power of social conditioning were moving outside the home and into the hands of “experts,” government schools, universities, and mass media — in other words, liberals.
Liberal phobic structure is a fascinating innovation in the history of prejudice and cultural fascism. It is a dread of specific forms of sin-cognizant religious belief.
Both anti-Christian phobia and narcissism result from the humanist denial of sin, heaven, and hell. Liberals believe the narcissogenic idea that they create their own heaven or hell on earth. The denial of God-defined sin leads to self-deification and the anxious business of high-stakes, self-directed life-styling. Liberals live with their eyes glued to mass media to learn what is and isn’t sin this season. People who believe that such behavior can lead to a nasty outcome beyond this life are detested. Although liberals accuse Christians of being homophobic, true Christians are hellphobic. Regardless of religious self-identification, people who are betting their immortal souls on a denial of sin and its effects beyond this life have to be crazy not to be phobic.
Every permanent theistic religion of the last seven thousand years — Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam — provides an understanding that spiritual wastefulness is sin. These religions seek to protect people from the consequences of sin beyond this life. Traditions that assume reincarnation, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, teach that sinfulness in one life leads to suffering in the next. Religions that do not incorporate reincarnation, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, explain life as a fleeting preparation before divine judgment.
The pathognomic sign that the liberal reaction to sin-cognizant belief systems is a symptom of phobic complex is that it selectively rejects the teachings of its own traditions — Judaism and especially Christianity. These cultural heritages pose a threat to the liberal wills to pleasure and power. Liberal phobia includes a complex delusional system that exempts some sin-cognizant religions. For example, liberals adore their own version of a morally permissive, designer Buddhism. Nor are they phobic toward Islam, which is based on fiercely sin-cognizant scripture. Liberals maintain mechanisms of denial regarding Islam that rise to the level of psychotic dissociation.
G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Bigots are people who have no convictions at all.” Screaming-meemies like Keith Olbermann, Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo, and all the porn-thumping preachers railing against the sin of sin-cognizance are the voices of the new cultural fascists, spittle-flinging celebrities unconsciously raging against their own fear.
I recently evaluated a 53-year-old man who has been unable to recover psychologically or physically from what appeared to be a minor accident. He was born into a devout Christian family in a small Midwestern town. He was also born gay. At about 30, he adopted a gay mode of life. His family continued to love him, but they did not alter their religious beliefs. When he discovered in 1990 that both he and his partner had contracted HIV, his family took this as a sign of the sinfulness of his lifestyle. This man’s friends, counselors, therapists, and humanistic-Christian pastors have for twenty years encouraged him to believe that his family is bigoted. His family has visited him through the years. They sit in the front room and do not stay the night. He acquired a settled resentment toward his people and never went home again. By the grace of God, he and his partner have survived for twenty years, while all of their friends have died. Ironically, he believes that this is because his family back home is praying for him. This man moved from an unyielding belief system based in divine forgiveness to a man-made culture that does not seem to value it.
Dr. Tyler can be reached at deborahtyler@intylergence.com.