America’s Orwellian Liberalism

America’s Orwellian Liberalism

By Marvin
Folkertsma

The ink was barely dry on the
asterisk in Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.’s rant about taking out those “son-of-a-b*tches” –
referring to Tea Party members — when the vice president made his own
contribution at a Labor Day rally.  “This is a fight for the existence of
organized labor,” the veep shouted.  “You are the only ones who can stop the
barbarians at the gate!”  And the diatribes have continued with the
establishment of a website designed to track unfair comments made by those who,
in President Obama’s words, want to “cripple” America.  Congresswoman Maxine
Waters’ snippet about telling the Tea Party to “Go to H*ll!”(that pesky asterisk
again) added a nice sentimental touch, and some Wall Street protesters are denouncing free enterprise with
words snatched from Robespierre’s rich vocabulary.

 

This is pretty harsh stuff applied to
a menagerie of mostly gentle souls whose views of constitutional government
differ from those of President Obama & Company, but such perfervid comments
take on a clearer meaning when viewed in a more appropriate context: George
Orwell’s 1984.  That is, somehow the voices of liberalism today sound
less like traditional partisan pep-talks and more like Oceania’s “Two-Minute
Hate” sessions, where party members screamed at a giant telescreen filled with
the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, one of Big Brother’s objective enemies.  The
purpose was to deflect rage against miserable social conditions by directing it
to a foreign source, to siphon off the hatred by venting against Big Brother’s
enemies.

 

The parallels go beyond hurling
epithets at that massive Leon Trotsky lookalike in one of 1984‘s most
memorable scenes.  Consider the three slogans of the Party applied to today’s
Orwellian liberalism: “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is
Strength.”  As explained in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical
Collectivism
, “the book” within the book, the purpose of war was to
preserve the domestic power structure.  As applied to today, Orwellian
liberalism’s increasingly vicious attacks against the Tea Party and Republicans
perform the same function, which is to preserve the current liberal power
structure by blaming others for its colossal failures.  High unemployment,
failed foreign policies, high energy prices, horrible housing markets,
disastrous federal deficits — they’re all the fault of liberalism’s enemies.
Republicans, Tea Party members — meet Emmanuel Goldstein.

 

“Freedom is Slavery” offers a host of
villains in civil society to whom the American public is “enslaved” under the
guise of being free, though the slogan offers a variant of what Orwell had in
mind.  Thus, freedom to choose one’s own health care plan or no health care plan
at all is slavery to the insurance companies; Americans “addicted” to oil
driving gas-guzzlers are slaves to Exxon and its partners; freedom to eat French
fries is slavery to clever McDonald’s advertising campaigns; and freedom to make
your own investment decisions is slavery to Wall Street.  In fact, Orwellian
liberalism assumes that citizens’ own decisions to live their lives pretty much
as they please constitute slavery to someone or another in a so-called “free
country,” which is why Big Brother in the form of the nanny state is becoming so
enormous, so oppressive.

 

This leaves us with what likely is
the most important slogan of Orwellian Liberalism: “Ignorance is Strength,”
which means in this context that ignorant citizens constitute the foundation of
the liberal establishment.  Indeed, there is no way America’s Oceania Big
Brother equivalent, President Obama, could get away with ludicrous statements
about “millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share” of the income
tax without the silent collusion of Americans’ stupendous ignorance about such
matters.  Similarly, the country’s energy shortages could not conceivably exist
with an informed citizenry that is aware of how well-connected environmental
activists have prevented production in resources where North America dominates,
such as coal, natural gas, and shale.  Further, the massive propaganda campaign
centering on anthropogenic global warming could not possibly succeed with an
attentive public.

 

In short, “Ignorance is Strength” for
Orwellian liberals; pierce it, and the whole century-old liberal-progressive
project collapses in a heap of prevarications and pretense.

 

If this happens, liberals’
presumption to govern on the basis of the other two slogans, as well as a thick
vocabulary of Orwellian doublespeak, will collapse as well.  The question is
whether this situation can endure indefinitely, as it did in 1984.  The
answer depends on Americans’ determination to reclaim control of their
government.  Absent that, we had all better learn to love Big
Brother.

 

Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is
a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with The Center for Vision &
Values
at Grove City College.  The author of several books, his latest
release is a high-energy novel titled
The Thirteenth
Commandment
.

Sarah Palin speaks

http://vimeo.com/18698532 to see and hear the video

Sarah Palin speaks

Clarice Feldman

 

Here is a part
of the statement
Sarah Palin issued today, something no one else in her
party (are you listening Governor Pawlenty ?) has had the wit or wisdom to say:

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and
praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled,
then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from
people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s
broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the
American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of
monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals
who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with
those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both
sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise
their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly
voted in the last election.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s
future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would
join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his
party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the
will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power
proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most
cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to
work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you
don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision.
If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But,
especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should
not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and
violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

 
Clarice Feldman

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/sarah_palin_speaks.html
at
January 12, 2011 – 10:13:37 AM CST

//  

The worst sheriff in America

The worst sheriff in America

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 12, 2011 08:25 AM

In the ignominious tradition of camera-hogging police chief Charles Moose (remember him?), Pima County (AZ) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has become America’s new worst celebrity lawman. While he cuddles up to MSNBC’s entire Tea Party-bashing line-up, more facts about Tucson massacre suspect Jared Loughner’s encounters with law enforcement are coming out. We now learn: “The police were sent to the home where Jared L. Loughner lived with his family on more than one occasion before the attack here on Saturday that left a congresswoman fighting for her life and six others dead, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department said on Tuesday…The news of police involvement with the Loughners suggests that county sheriff’s deputies were at least familiar with the family, even if the reason for their visits was unclear as of Tuesday night.”

Also still unclear: What Dupnik knew and when about Loughner’s history of making death threats.

Despite continued revelations from Loughner’s friends about his nihilist, Nietzschean nuttiness, Sheriff Dupnik is clinging to his Climate of Hate blame game embarrassing his fellow lawmen, Arizona’s largest newspaper, and the rest of decent America with every new baseless utterance aimed at suppressing conservatives’ political free speech.

I had hoped against hope that President Obama, who heads to Arizona today to speak at a memorial for the massacre victims, would spurn Dupnik’s demagoguery. But as ABC News reported last night, Obama phoned Dupnik and offered him thanks for his service. New tone? With GOP-basher-in-chief Nancy Pelosi accompanying Obama tonight, not likely.

A reader has launched a Recall Dupnik effort. It’s a longshot. But lucky for Loughner, he can always apply for a job at Arizona-bashing UC Berkeley if he needs a sanctuary.

***

The worst sheriff in America
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

There are many heroes who showed indomitable courage and grace under fire during this weekend’s horrific Tucson massacre. Blowhard Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik was not one of them.

If the White House has any sense, President Obama will stay as far away from the demagogic Dupnik and his media entourage when he visits Arizona on Wednesday to memorialize the victims. Indeed, if the White House is truly committed to unifying the country, it will explicitly disavow Dupnik’s vulture-like exploitation of the shooting rampage.

Within hours of the bloody spree, Dupnik mounted more grandstands than a NASCAR tour champion. A vocal opponent of S.B. 1070, the popular state law cracking down on illegal immigration, Dupnik immediately blamed Arizona for becoming a “mecca for prejudice and bigotry.” To date, there is no public evidence that massacre suspect Loughner was in any way motivated by the national rancor over illegal immigration and the Arizona law (though open-borders extremists from the Justice Department on down most certainly wish it were so). When he complained about non-English-speakers, Loughner’s nonsensical diatribes were aimed at illiterates in general – not illegal aliens — and “grammar control” by the government.

No matter. Dupnik vehemently singled out “people in the radio business and some people in the TV business” like Rush Limbaugh for creating the New York Times-patented “Climate of Hate.”  Sounding more like an MSNBC groupie (which, surprise, he confesses to be) than a responsible law enforcement official, Dupnik baselessly suggested that the shooting was part of a larger conspiracy and railed against “vitriol” from limited-government activists who are stoking “anger against elected officials.”

Sheriff Dupnik’s mouth has done more to stoke self-inflicted ire against elected government clowns than anything the Right could muster against him. Had the hyper-partisan Democrat been more in tune with his job than the media airwaves, the murderous, maniacal gunman might have been stopped.

As Sheriff Dupnik himself has now admitted, Loughner leveled death threats against others that were investigated by law enforcement – and then apparently shrugged off. Locals note that Loughner’s mother worked for the county and may have had some pull. Pima County College campus police reported five serious confrontations with the mentally unstable young man before he was kicked out of the school, which he decried as an unconstitutional “torture facility.” Classmates said they feared for their lives. His friends say he was a pot-head, a 9/11 Truther, and a UFO conspiracist so kooky that even flying-objects adherents spurned him.

Despite zero evidence that Rush Limbaugh, cable news, the Tea Party movement, or immigration enforcement activists had anything to do with accused shooter Jared Loughner’s warped attack, shameless Sheriff Dupnik shows no signs of shutting up.

The worst sheriff in America is walking in the footsteps of another infamous law enforcement official who put fame, ambition, and ideology above public safety: disgraced Montgomery County, Md. Police chief Charles Moose, the publicity-hungry Keystone Cop who grossly bungled the Beltway sniper attacks in 2002. Like Dupnik, Moose let politically correct assumptions drive his investigation and incessant press conferences. He insisted on hunting the wrong vehicle while the snipers’ Chevy Caprice (spotted by several witnesses and stopped at least 10 times for license-plate checks during the shooting spree) got away. The hapless Moose clung to the notion that white militants in a non-existent white box truck were to blame – leading to a string of unnecessary murders as the real shooters escaped capture for several deadly weeks. No matter. Chief Moose cashed in on his notoriety, inked a fat book deal, and beat a hasty retreat to Hawaii.

Sheriff Dupnik is now following the same ill-gotten path. But decent Americans understand that he and his civilian counterparts have traveled a smear too far. Despite desperate attempts by the progressive Left to pin the massacre on the “harsh tone” of its political opponents, a vast majority of Americans reject the cynical campaign to criminalize conservatism, suppress political free speech, and capitalize on a madman’s crime for electoral gain. At the risk of being accused of inciting violence, you might say they’ve done gone and shot themselves in the foot.

48 Hours

48 Hours


It has been almost 48 hours since a liberal lunatic shot and killed six people and grievously wounded Congressman Gabrielle Giffords.    The left immediately jumped into action, trying to blame this on the Tea Party.  That did not work out too well when the killer was identified and his friends started saying he was liberal.

Then the message changed, not because the facts changed, but because Conservatives fought back.  Remembering what happened in the past, conservatives refused to let liberals try to claim this was the act of someone on the right.  Conservatives refused to let the lunatic left define us or this tragedy.  And as it turns out, the killer was not a member of the Tea Party movement, so they’ve been forced to change the message.    Their message became this tragedy was triggered by the “hate speech” and “violent rhetoric” from conservatives.   Again, they ignore the facts, but since when have liberals ever let the facts get in their way?

The liberal hotheads have been flooding twitter and other social media outlets with claims that conservatives are “heartless” because we are talking about the facts.  What the really mean is that they are upset with us because we are not simply rolling over and letting them define us or this tragedy to suit their agenda.

The danger is not from the hotheads who run their mouths on social media.  The danger comes from those who are in a position to do some real damage and they are now starting to come out of the woodwork. 

The first is Congressman Carolyn McCarthy (Socialist-NY).  In 1993, her husband was murdered and son seriously injured by a gunman on a Long Island commuter train.   Since then she has turned that tragedy into her personal platform to try and strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights. 

McCarthy complains that the killer, Jared Loughner, should not have been able to purchase the gun because of his mental instability.   Guess what?   There are already laws in effect for that.  What McCarthy really wants is to prevent Americans from owning firearms. 

Congressman Robert Brady (Socialist-PA) wants to make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening to a federal official or a member of congress.

Perhaps this bill could be called the First Amendment repeal act. 

Senators and Congressmen from the party of treason have a real problem.  They do not like criticism.  They do not want to be accountable to the people.  Their definition of something that is perceived as threatening is simply disagreeing with them or calling for them to be replaced. 

Does anyone remember the Health Care debate?   When the members of congress from the party of treason decided to walk down the road to Capitol Hill to try and provoke the Tea Party protesters into doing something?

It did not work, so what did they do? They lied.  First they claimed they were spit on and when video disproved that, and they claimed Tea Party protesters had used racial epithets against them.  Funny, that got disproved too.

This type of lunatic legislation exists for one reason only – to try and silence political speech from conservatives.  Liberals are quite willing to lie about these things, while conservatives have enough respect for America and the rule of law, not to lie.

Finally, the left is out to destroy Sarah Palin.  We have known this for two years.   Now they are trying to use this incident to end her political career.

With the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh, there is no bigger name in conservative political circles.   The left wing media has gone after her, while ignoring identical comments from far left groups, such as the Daily Kos. 

At Tea Party Nation, we know something about having the left try to destroy you.

A year ago, as we were preparing for the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, a group of liberal journalists, led by David Weigel, now of Slate.com, tried to destroy our convention.  Sarah Palin could have cut and run because of the heat.  She did not.

Now is the time we need to stand with Sarah Palin against the left.  If the left can use this incident to destroy her, they can destroy anyone in the conservative movement. 

We need to keep turning the tables on the left and keep the pressure on them.  This shooter was a liberal lunatic.   Democratic operatives have already said they are trying to pin this on the Tea Party movement.  We need to fight back and put the blame for this anti-conservative propaganda where it belongs.

The liberal left.

Dem. operative: ‘They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers’

Dem. operative: ‘They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers’

Thomas Lifson

Politico quotes an anonymous source it identifies as a  “veteran Democratic operative”:
“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”
The game being played is obvious to anyone with eyes. Democrats are nakedly exploiting tragedy to harm the tea parties. For shame.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/dem_operative_they_need_to_def.html at January 10, 2011 – 09:30:14 AM CST

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.

When Media Become Obama PR Agents

When Media Become Obama PR Agents

By Richard Baehr

The media’s tongue bath for President Obama knows no bounds.

We all know that President Obama likes to play basketball. We also know his picks in the NCAA brackets and his percentile ranking among four million-plus entries after each round of the tournament on CBS’s website. Harry Smith of the CBS morning program interviewed the president on the court this week while he shot baskets with CBS broadcaster and former college star Clark Kellogg.
The video will be shown during the NCAA semifinals Saturday night and again Monday night during the championship game. So 30 to 40 million folks will get this puffery delivered to them. Of course, we have already had Obama in the booth for a Georgetown basketball game this year, on Monday Night Football, and at the major league baseball All Star Game.
Sad to say for Obama, he had a good first round, but he has now slipped to the 55th percentile with his NCAA picks. Since none of his final four teams are left, he may slip to the bottom half by tournament’s end. Some percentiles we will never know about the president: his SAT scores, his LSAT scores, his class rank at Columbia, his grades at Occidental (which somehow got him into Columbia as a transfer), or his class rank at Harvard Law School.
Could it be that he was outperformed in these areas by George Bush? 
It has been a wonderful tournament, so don’t let the political foreplay ruin it for you this weekend.
Do you recall ever hearing a story, no less multiple stories with updates, about President Bush’s picks in the NCAA college basketball tournament?  
President Bush was an unusually fit man for his age, by all measures in the top 1%. He jogged at a very rapid pace, and he worked out every day. He encouraged other White House staff to exercise and lose weight. Funny — we heard almost nothing about this.  
I don’t recall any journalists writing about their jogs with the president (they would have been left looking like President Carter on his infamous run when he collapsed in the Maryland hills). President Bush was also a big sports fan and a former owner of a major league baseball franchise. My guess is that he filled out a bracket each year but did not choose to make it a news story.
In December 2004, my wife and I were invited to and attended the White House Hannukah Party. Try as you might, you will not easily find anything in the mainstream media to reveal that President Bush was the first president to hold such an event. His guest list included both Democrats and Republicans.
Now we have the spectacle of the White House seder, glowingly detailed on the front page of the New York Times. We also learn from the president that the meaning of Passover is that each generation must fight suffering and oppression (and presumably redistribute the wealth of the country). And I guess that if Jerusalem came up in the president’s seder, as Professor Charles Lipson suggests, the line might have been: Next year in part of Jerusalem. 
It is possible that a few of the herd of Jews who claim to be supporters of Israel — and who were willing to ignore the president’s history with Reverend Wright, Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, and Samantha Power; and not only vote for the great leader, but empty their wallets for him; and testify to his pro-Israel bona fides — may be reconsidering. I emphasize “possible.”
Jewish liberalism is a long-term and terminal disease. Very few can think of switching horses — after all, liberal Jews grew up believing that liberals and Democrats care for the poor and are generous, and conservatives and Republicans are greedy. Hence, liberals and Democrats are better people. And of course, Franklin Roosevelt, the greatest hero prior to Obama, saved the Jews. Or a few of them, anyway.  
With the backlash against Obama’s recent outbursts and bile directed at Israel, it was time for the Times, the Torah of Jewish liberalism, to make clear that even if Obama does not love right-wing Israeli settlers, he still loves the Jews. Look — he has a seder!

Official White House photo by Pete Souza
The President is wearing a yarmulke. Blacks and Jews are sitting together, like in the glory days of the Civil Rights Movement. Let us kvell. 
Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker.

Society as Clay in Liberals’ Hands

Society as Clay in Liberals’ Hands

An enduring society is not a random assemblage of people drawn together, like pigs around the feed trough, waiting for welfare-state handouts.

Read More…

function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) { if (type == “comments”) { extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID)); } else { extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID)); } if( document.getElementById ) { if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) { if( entryLink != 0 ) { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”; htmlObj.blur(); } else { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } }
The liberal paradigm recognizes no spiritual dimension to human nature or to human society.  In the liberals’ atheistic and materialistic world, humans are merely animals a notch along the evolutionary scale from the apes and, like them, motivated only by material factors: water, food, sex, and shelter.

Societies, in that paradigm, are held together by whatever may be the currently reigning regulations governing those material wants.  A political society theoretically is a lump of clay that intellectuals are capable of shaping anyway they wish.

In contrast, Cicero, the great Roman orator and admirer of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoic philosophers, observed in the Republic:

…The commonwealth, then, is the people’s affair; and the people is not every group of men, associated in any manner, but is the coming together of a considerable number of men who are united by a common agreement about law and rights and by the desire to participate in mutual advantages.…

Aristotle, in the Politics, wrote, Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; …… the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.

For Aristotle, the highest good was a political state that structured its laws, customs, and religion with the aim of promoting moral conduct.

Many earlier postings on this website have emphasized that point.  Among the most recent:

Cultural Momentum and 1960s Freedom as Life-Enslavement in which I wrote:

When the Bill of Rights was written in the first session of Congress, liberty meant freedom from arbitrary government action that abrogated individual rights, particularly private property rights. …. Student activists in the 1960s and 1970s redefined freedom.  In the socialistic and anarchistic doctrine characterizing that movement, private property was a dirty concept associated with the power of the “establishment.”

What took the place of those rights was individual licentiousness and hedonism.  The radical new-leftists wanted to knock down everything that was a product of people over the age of 30.  …

As with almost every liberal-progressive-socialist policy, the real-life result has been disastrous to all concerned.  The historically unprecedented explosion of sexual promiscuity spread HIV and destroyed the prospects for millions of children reared in single-parent homes, in addition to rearing several generations of irresponsible, hedonistic, and self-centered young men.

In a February 14, 2007, op-ed piece in the Washington Times, Paul Belien, the editor of the Brussels Journal, laments the crumbling of European culture.  He sees the announced aims of our new Congress, dominated by liberal-progressive-socialists, as modeling the United States on that European pattern.

In his op-ed piece, Mr. Belien writes:

Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and the liberal special-interest groups that currently dominate Congress want to reshape America in Europe’s image: socialist, secularist and multicultural. [In Europe], one can see what the undermining of Judeo-Christian values, higher taxes, onerous regulations and big, intrusive government will lead to: the collapse of a civilization.

First there was the rise of the welfare state, which led to the steady emergence of highly taxed, slow-moving and maladaptive economies that must support growing and eventually unsupportable demands by the citizens.

Second, there was secularism. People who have the state taking care of them from the cradle to the grave no longer need God. The welfare state also intentionally undermined religion to crush the spirit of freedom among its subjects. And it undermined demographics, because people who do not believe in God do not believe in the future and see children as a burden.

Third, a wholly new danger emerged, namely that of welfare immigration—the immigration of people, increasingly from cultures which have not been shaped by the basic forces of European civilization, who come purely for the purpose of claiming benefits….

The native Dutch are moving out. Since 2004, more indigenous Dutchmen have emigrated each year than immigrants have moved in. People who have lost faith in God do not fight. They run. Since they do not believe in life after death, this life is the only thing they have to lose.  One emigrant Dutchman, a homosexual author who lives in Brussels, writes: “I am not a warrior. I do not fight for freedom. I am only good at enjoying it.”

……Europe has chosen the path of submission. Islamization is not the cause but the consequence of the collapse of Europe. The very word Islam means “submission.” Many Europeans have submitted already. In that sense, they have already become Muslims.

Europe’s contemporary culture is one of “repudiation,” a culture based on negatives for every aspect of the traditional European heritage (Christianity, monogamous marriage, national loyalty, monocultural identity and so on). This is the culture that Mrs. Pelosi wants to introduce in America.

Visit MoveOff Network Members

“Divine Obedience” to the Leftist Fringe

“Divine Obedience” to the Leftist Fringe
By Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 14, 2007

The National Cathedral in
Washington, D.C. – operated by the liberal Episcopal Church – will host an ecumenical antiwar rally on March 16. Several dozen leftist church groups will convene in the cathedral “to end the occupation” in
Iraq. Afterwards, the activists will march to the White House and will stage a “Christian witness” (that is, demonstration) in

Lafayette
Park, across the street from the executive mansion.
Acts of civil disobedience are being planned. “We expect that some of those who participate will feel called by God to acts of “divine obedience” by taking nonviolent actions that risk arrest in order to make clear our seriousness about ending the war,” according to the “Christian Peace Witness for Iraq” website.According to event organizer Rick Ufford-Chase, who is the former moderator of the left-wing Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the protest will be specifically Christian, as opposed to interfaith, because President Bush is a Christian.“The war in
Iraq, as well as the war on terrorism, is being promulgated by a president who insists that he is acting out of his Christian faith,” Ufford-Chase cried. “Rightly or wrongly, the perception in much of the rest of the world – especially the Muslim world – is that this is a Christian aggression.”  Ufford-Chase wants the world to know that these wars are not waged “in our names.”
The former Presbyterian official promised that the demonstrators would declare a “prophetic word” in the “place where the president went to announce his intention to invade
Iraq four years ago.” Ufford-Chase seems to be referring to President Bush’s address at a 9/11 commemorative worship service at the National Cathedral in September 14, 2001
, held weeks before the U.S. operation in Afghanistan.

Thus, the March 16, 2007, antiwar rally at the National Cathedral is the Religious Left’s revenge for September 14, 2001. The fact that Bush did not refer to
Iraq at the service
is apparently not important.

Far more important, “We must build a movement of Christians who will stand against the war on terror,” Ufford-Chase affirmed. Christians must “not stand idly by while the heart of their scriptural tradition is torn apart.” Manifestly, it is an “inescapable truth that this war is antithetical to everything that Jesus taught and did.”The ecumenical “partners” organizing the demonstration include the Quakers, the United Church of Christ, Jim Wallis’ Sojourners groups, radical Catholic groups like the Maryknollers, and unofficial caucus groups the Episcopal Church,
United
Methodist
Church, the
Evangelical
Lutheran
Church in
America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), along with the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America.

It is odd that more leftist-led official agencies of the mainline denominations did not endorse. But perhaps the demonstration will be too radical even for them. The Christian Peace Witness for Iraq will demand that all U.S. troops be removed from Iraq and that the U.S. “stop threatening
Iran and other nations.” However, the U.S. must rebuild
Iraq, to “practice the discipline of active nonviolence,” “say NO to torture,” and create a new federal budget that focuses away from war and instead on “hunger, homelessness, environmental destruction, injustice, and oppression.” (Ending environmental destruction, just like Jesus….)

“Just as Jesus wept over Jerusalem because it did not know the things that make for peace, we weep over Washington, D.C., because of the tremendous human suffering and loss of life that have resulted from our government’s policies toward Iraq,” according to the demonstration organizers. “Let us choose life that we and our children and the people of
Iraq may live.” 
Ufford Chase further explained, “We believe that we have a responsibility to affirm the fundamental truth of the Gospel – that genuine security comes only in the building of right relationships – and to make it clear that this administration does not speak for us.” In the Religious Left’s mythology, President Bush hijacked American religion at his September 14, 2001, speech at the National Cathedral. There,  surrounded by numerous senior clerics, and having shared the pulpit with evangelist Billy Graham, the president promised, “Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.”

For the president to speak of victory in the war against terrorism, from behind the altar of a supposedly enlightened Episcopal place of worship, enraged the Religious Left, which, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, dared not publicly articulate its anger. Now, it is more politically safe for the Religious Left to articulate its opposition not just to the Iraq War, but to any and all forceful
U.S. military actions, against any potential targets, as many of those “targets” plot targets of their own.

The NYTimes’ unspeakable violation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers