Sowell on Obama: Textbook Fascist

Columnist Thomas Sowell delivers yet another succinct analogy in his latest article in which he delves into the finer points as to whether President Obama, utilizing standard definitions, quilifies as a socialist or a fascist. His answer may suprise you.

"It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time...

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left."

I recall Goldberg mentioning that the great author George Orwell once remarked that the meaning of the term fascism had been so hijacked by others and over used and inaccurately applied that "'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable" But if one accepts the definition of fascism in it's historical context as a political system, them Obama certainly fits the bill.

Catholics Prepare for Civil Disobedience

Fresh on the heels of the MSM attempting to downplay and ignore what is quite possibly 'the biggest religious lawsuit in US history', we now learn that the Catholic Church is bracing it's membership for civil disobedience as Chairman Zero attempts to force the church to abandon it's belief's for his own...

"“Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified,” the bishops state in a document developed to be inserted into church bulletins in Catholic parishes around the country in June.

“Every effort must be made to repeal them,” the bishops say in the document, which is already posted on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need to witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties.”..

The bishops have noted that June 21, when this fortnight will begin, is the Vigil of the Feast of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More. Fisher was a Roman Catholic cardinal whom the English monarch Henry VIII beheaded in 1535 after he refused to act against his conscience and take an oath asserting that Henry was the supreme authority over the church in England. That same year, Henry VIII also beheaded Thomas More (above), his former chancellor, for the same reason."

This clown is easily the most devisive president over the last century. The only reason this isn't being discussed in such terms is because the media is all too willing to acquiesce to this charlatan, going so far as to creepily airbrush recent news stories concerning his family.

Dexter: How Gay Divorce Cheapens Traditional Marriage

In Penna Dexter's (above, right) latest article, she provides her reasoning as to why the divorce rate among married gays cheapens the institution on traditional marriage as it has been understood for centuries...

"How much divorce is there in the same-sex "marriage" world? It turns out there's a lot.

The United States' history with same-sex "marriage" is short, but Scandinavian countries have been at this much longer. A Stockholm University professor of demography found that in Sweden and Norway male same-sex "marriages" are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages.

In Sweden, the divorce rate for female couples is twice that of male couples. And in Norway, lesbian "married" couples are 167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

Despite the many efforts to usher in civil unions and same-sex "marriage" in the United States, when laws are changed, the number of couples registering their partnerships is surprisingly low.

Charles Cooke of National Review wrote that since 1997, when Hawaii was the first state to allow registration of same-sex partnerships, only about one in five self-identified same-sex couples have taken advantage of the various ways states register such couples so they can receive benefits. Same-sex "marriage" actually is declining in popularity in the Netherlands."

In the headlong rush to dismantle one of the great pillars upon which Western civilization is built around in the name of such abstract terms as 'tolerance' and 'inclusion' never once are the predictable societal effects taken into account.

Before any gay apologists start popping off about a 50 percent divorce rate among heterosexual marriages, I would suggest that they actually research the matter first. It turns out that in many surveys, 2nd and 3rd marriages that end with divorce are often lumped in with first marriages and the actual divorce rate of first marriages may be as low as 20 percent.

EDIT: And just how is that technique of 'jamming' working out for the Gay Left? It appears that the logical firstfruits of stigmatizing principled, civil disagreement (or any disgreement for that matter) with the gay agenda as 'bigoted', 'intolerant' or 'homophobic' is now coming to fruition.

A Principled defense of Traditional Marriage; Two Arguments

Kelly O'Connell's recent article raises the above question and provides a number of defenses re: traditional marriage. Being that Western society is becoming increasingly irreligious, I won't even touch upon the religious arguments raised by Ms. O'Connell for the simple fact that in today's world, religious arguments are completely lost upon people who have almost no grounding in Biblical history or study. John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, (above) recently presented a balanced, civil and principled argument against gay marriage (without appealing to religion) in which he basically stated redefining marriage to include same-sex couples 'would benefit nobody'...

"I firmly believe that redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would mean diminishing the meaning of marriage for most people, with very little if anything gained for homosexual people. If I am right, in the long term we would all be losers.

Of course, if someone should ask, "how will my marriage be affected if couples of the same sex can marry?", the answer is: not at all. But let me put the question another way: what sort of a society would we have if we came to see all family relationships primarily in terms of equal rights? The family is designed to meet the different needs of its different members in different ways. It is the model of the just society that responds intelligently to differences rather than treating everyone the same...

Unless one believes that every difference between the sexes is a mere social construct, the question of equality between the sexes cannot be completely addressed by the paradigm of racial equality. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not discriminatory against same-sex couples. What I am pressing for is a kind of social pluralism that does not degenerate into a fancy-free individualism."

And how is Archbishop Sentamu treated for daring to differ with the enlightened idealogues of The New World Order? He's advocating 'bigotry' of course. No dissent, no matter how well laid out and completely absent of ill will is allowed being that the more vocal supporters of gay marriage obviously ascribe to the viewpoint of 'gay marriage uber alles'.

Ms. O'Connell meanwhile, cites some statistics in her defense of traditional marriage such as the following...

• 
  
  63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census)—5 times the average.



• 
  
  90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes—32 times the average.



• 
  
  85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
  


• 
  
  80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes—14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)



• 
  
  71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes—9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)



• 
  
  70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes—9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
  
  


• 
  
  85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
  
  
  "Now, one can assume that a female playing the male role in a lesbian relationship would erase this problem, if such a dynamic exists. But frankly, why would a female attempting to act masculine take the place of a real man? This assumes that the problem with being fatherless is due entirely to there being only half a couple responsible for the children. It also assumes men and women are utterly interchangeable. And yet we know for a fact that men and women, even when undertaking the same tasks, are still radically different (see here).
  
  
  
  It also assumes that male and female homosexual couples model male and female behavior effectively, which is crucial since young children learn much by mimicking. In fact, many experts are concerned that gay parenting will be brought in with anodyne claims of its harmlessness, and only after it becomes an institution, will we be told it is harmful but its too late to call it off. But what could possibly be done after it is legally and culturally established as a norm if it is found deleterious? For instance, in dealing with cases which came before a court, one author wrote:
  
  
  
  "A systematic analysis of appeals court cases or cases cited in those appeals cases regarding custody of children in which a homosexual parent was involved. Here, 82% of the homosexual vs 18% of the heterosexual parents and 54% of the homosexual’s associates vs 19% of the heterosexuals’ associates were recorded as having poor character in cases involving a homosexual claimant."

When taken as a whole, all of this adds up to criteria in which a reasonable person could say 'Wait a minute, let's put the brakes on this whole 'gay marriage' thing and study the effects of such institutions on a society before rushing forward, pell-mell style, utilizing emotional rather than scientific arguments in this case'. That's if that reasonable person doesn't mind being accussed of hatred for daring lift their head on this subject.

An Open Letter to Rachel Held Evans‏

If anyone wants to see an example of Hand-Wringing Over Homogamy-Christian Style! look no further than this tear-jerker posted by Rachel Held Evans. I doubt I ever could invent a more sloppily put together, parody of an argument based solely on emotionalism if I actually tried. The entire article is so filled with errors that I scarcely know where to begin!

"When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.”

Really? And why do you think that is Ms. Evans? Being that the church has been buffeted by years of trumped up accusations of intolerance and seldom, (if ever) are the churched allowed to respond in a public forum where they are treated with dignity rather than disdain, is it any wonder that people of that age bracket have probably never even heard one of the better Christian apologists in their lives? Could they even name a Christian apologist if you offered them 20 bucks to do so? Could they even accurately define the word 'apologetics' if asked?

When a well known newspaper reporter for the New York Times openly declares that "three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals” then is it really any wonder that the religious aren't getting a fair shake by the MSM?

Next, I'd like to address the following nonsense put forward as serious commentary re: the outcome of North Carolinians thoroughly rejecting pretend, sodomy-based marriage in favor of traditional marriage...

As I watched my Facebook and Twitter feeds last night, the reaction among my friends fell into an imperfect but highly predictable pattern. Christians over 40 were celebrating. Christians under 40 were mourning. Reading through the comments, the same thought kept returning to my mind as occurred to me when I first saw that Billy Graham ad: You’re losing us."

Billy Graham is 'losing you'? I would argue that it is you and your ilk that are losing Billy Graham as various churches are submitting to heresy in the name of feel-goody platitudes rather than actually analyzing scripture in a critical and open-minded manner for it's central message.

When reading your article Ms. Evans, I admit that I am concerned as to how remarkably and dangerously misinformed you truly are. You seem to subscribe to the utterly unfounded notion that "the Church’s response to homosexuality is partly responsible for high rates of depression and suicide among..gay and lesbian friends" as expresssed to you by students. However how do you explain that in highly secular European countries where same-sex marriage has been legal for a decade or more, suicide is endemic among homosexuals? This holds true for such countries as the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and especially Norway where about one in four homosexuals under the age of 25 have attempted suicide at least once.


Again, given that these nations are highly secular, it's hard to hang this one on Pat Robertson et al Ms. Evans.

Furthermore, when one compares the statistics of suicide among gays in the US as compared to those countries, we seem to be doing something right when it comes to gay suicide...

"Now let's look at the facts. We will define a tolerant society where homogamy or civil unions are recognized; here are six tolerant societies: Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, France, Sweden, the Netherlands. Next we will define moderate religious society, where homosexuality is generally considered to be wrong, but not illegal: Ireland, USA, Italy, Mexico, Honduras, Paraguay...

According to the World Health Organization, the average male suicide rate for tolerant secular societies is 21.6 per 100,000. The average male suicide rate for moderate religious societies is 9.6 per 100,000."

Also, when one looks closer to home here in the US, it appears that highly gay friendly San Francisco has by far the highest suicide rate among young people of any county of California at 9.0 per 100,000 which is more than double that of San Mateo county which stands at 4.1 per 100,000 of the population.

All of these statistics are there for your verification and edification Ms. Evans. I guess the only question I have for you is why do you support putting conditions in place that, statistics show, would lead to higher rates of suicide among homosexuals? From whence this vitriolic hatred of your's Ms Evans?

Obama 2012 campaign slogan 'Forward' shared by Hitler Youth, Marxists, Socialists

Filed under the category of 'Color Me Suprised' the Obama administration again takes off it's mask to reveal it's true nature, absorbing the terminology of other leftist organizations from the past...

 "Barack Obama’s latest campaign slogan “Forward!” also happens to be a Nazi marching tune. Vorwärts! Vorwärts! was a marching song of the Hitler youth."

"Mussolini was editor of the Socialist newspaper, Avanti (Forward), in April 1912. Avanti took its name from Vorwarts, the German Socialist paper. He was eventually kicked out of the party but they gave him his start because Socialism is the way Forward. L’Avanti still exists today." Link

And from the pages of the Washington Times..

"The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word "Forward" with the "O" having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign's official beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named "Vorwaerts" (the German word for "Forward"). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany's SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).

Vladimir Lenin founded the publication "Vpered" (the Russian word for "forward") in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary whose title is sometimes translated as "Forward, Soviet" (though also and more literally as "Stride, Soviet")."

So again we see the familiar terminology of over-arching government control morphing into a stunningly oversimplified mantra to be repeated by the mind-numbed masses that is only half as hard to remember as "Hope and Change'. Forward!  

Racism of the Left Becoming More Pronounced‏

A couple of articles in the news this week helped give credence to the oft-quoted line from Tyrone over at Wake up Black America, that quote being "Liberals can't let go of race for one nanosecond"

The first was Time magazine interviewing South Carolina governor Nikki Haley (R) (Who is of Indian ancestry) and asking her, quote "In New York City, which you're visiting for a couple of days, a lot of our taxi drivers are Sikhs. If you get one, are you going to give them a slightly bigger tip?"

Not that the champions of equality aren't taking a dig at a woman who they probably view is the wrong political party for somebody who is both a woman AND a minority. Could you imagine if somebody stereotyped Obama? They'd be calling for someone's head on a platter.

Now it seems that the family of accused gunman George Zimmerman is perplexed that Obama's Justice department is strangely silent regarding the very public threats leveled against Zimmerman by the New Black Panthers...

"In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, a family member of George Zimmerman asked the nation’s top law enforcement officer why he has chosen to not arrest members of the New Black Panther Party for their rhetoric — some of which may fit the federal government’s definition of a hate crime — throughout the Trayvon Martin case.

The family member believes the reason Holder hasn’t made those arrests is because he, like the members of the New Black Panther Party, is black.

“I am writing you to ask you why, when the law of the land is crystal clear, is your office not arresting the New Black Panthers for hate crimes?” the family member wrote to Holder.

“The Zimmerman family is in hiding because of the threats that have been made against us, yet the DOJ has maintained an eerie silence on this matter. These threats are very public. If you haven’t been paying attention just do a Google search and you will find plenty. Since when can a group of people in the United States put a bounty on someone’s head, circulate Wanted posters publicly, and still be walking the streets?”

The New Black Panthers have issued ultimatums to the Sanford authorities, saying they want Zimmerman arrested “dead or alive.” They have placed a bounty on Zimmerman’s head, and have called for the building of an army of vigilantes to track him down and effect a citizen’s arrest."

I really wouldn't be suprised if Zimmerman voted for Obama in '08. Wouldn't that be ironic?

It's not all bad news though. Proving the old adage "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" extreme left-wing commentator Chris Matthews got a full dose of hate-filled gay activism recently at a book signing and flat-out told the activists "Youre trying to silence people". That being said, I believe Matthews is too closely wedded to the leftist ideals to actually change his mind on anything.

The Mind-Numbingly Stupid Arguments of the Left Re: Obamacare‏

As a precursor, earlier this week, Jeffrey Lord succinctly explained the mindset of the Left when arguing social policy (or anything else for that matter) in an article appearing in The American Spectator re: the recent spate between radio personality Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke...

""..remember: this is the way the Left -- the global left throughout history, not simply the American Left today -- has always behaved. A fanatical intolerance is part of the leftist DNA.

The late Austrian free-market economist Ludwig von Mises described the leftist method of operation as "fanatical and intolerant." It works, he said, this way: 'Socialism… works on the emotions…to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts.'

Primitive instincts...

Fear.

The skillful, clever use of fear (not to mention hate) is the defining trait of leftists throughout history. Fear is the primitive emotion the left feeds on like a junkie needs drugs. It is a trait repeatedly manifested in history by the use of intimidation or bully-boy tactics to assert raw power. It is the vividly identifiable scarlet thread of intolerance that has shown itself in one leftist movement after another on down through the centuries, regardless of nationality...

In America, the leftists beneath the hoods of the Ku Klux Klan lynched terrified blacks at night while running America's Democratic Party by day. No less than future president Ronald Reagan was threatened with having acid tossed in his face if he didn't cease fighting the infiltration of Communists in Hollywood. Today SEIU thugs are captured on video beating up those who dissent on Obamacare, calling their victim the "n--word".

Fear. Intimidation. Bullying. Racism. Hatred of the "other." Without these tactics, the left is naked in the war of ideas."

So it came as no great suprise that later this week, the Left is shocked, shocked I tell you, that their empty, emotion based arguments aren't passing muster at the Supreme Court when Leftist are trying to argue the legality of Obamacare...

"The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.

They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so...

Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker and CNN confidently asserted on Charlie Rose at the beginning of the week that the court would rule 7-2, maybe even 8-1 in favor of ObamaCare. The previous week, he called the anti-ObamaCare arguments “really weak.”

His view was echoed by an equally confident op-ed assertion by the veteran court reporter Linda Greenhouse, who in The New York Times declared the case against ObamaCare “analytically so weak that it dissolves on close inspection.”

It was quite a change, then, to see Toobin emerge almost hysterical from the Supreme Court chamber after two hours of argument on Tuesday and declare the proceedings “a train wreck for the Obama administration.”

Yesterday, after another two hours of argument, he suggested it might even be a “plane wreck.”

That was the general consensus across the board. It held that the two lawyers arguing against ObamaCare — Paul Clement and Michael Carvin — were dazzlingly effective, while the administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, put in a mediocre performance."

Color ME suprised! You mean to tell me that the idiotic argument advanced ad mauseum that B-b-b-but you just wnat people to get sick and DIE! simply didn't work? For an encore, now I imagine you'll try to tell me that these are not the droids that I'm looking for. When Justice Scalia advanced the broccoli argument and yet the Left had no clear response to it whatsoever.

I think I will be celebrating the complete crash and burn of Obmacare in June with a Pennsylvania lager. How about you?

Obama muzzles Catholic chaplains

As Obama's poll numbers plummet, it seems that in the waning days of his soon to be one-term presidency that there is a greater urgency to implement his ideals for a leftist utopia. Why worry about violating Freedom of Religion and Free Speech rights when you have a shot at remaking society?

"The Obama administration has been accused of telling Catholic military chaplains what they can and cannot say from their pulpits after the Army ordered Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners from their archbishop.

The Secretary of the Army feared the letter could be viewed as a call for civil disobedience.

The letter called on Catholics to resist the policy the Obama Administration’s policy that would force institutions affiliated with religious groups to provide coverage for birth control, sterilization and “abortifacients.” The Catholic Church believes the mandate represents an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told Fox News Sunday the Army violated its chaplains’ constitutional rights by barring them from reading the letter – calling for resistance to the contraceptive coverage mandate.

“The Army and the Obama administration said they couldn’t even issue the letter to complain about the Obama administration’s plan on this policy,” Santorum said, calling it a violation of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

“This is the problem when government tells you they can give you things,” said Santorum, a Catholic. “They can take it away but even worse they can tell you how they are going to exercise this new right consistent with their values instead of the values guaranteed in the Constitution.”

For a better idea of what of Archbishop Broglio's letter contained, just click here. The increasingly authoritarian stance of this administration imposing it's will on Americans is troubling and its no wonder that Americans fear the reelection of Obama by a 2 to 1 margin.

Obama alienating the Catholic Left

Liberal Catholics reliably voted for a complete unknown in 2008 and were hoping for the best. It seems that now some are coming to the realization that they've been had and that the person that they put in office isn't quite so hopey-changey as they desired and instead is ramming mandatory birth control/sterilization coverage by employers down their collective throats. Conscientoius objector? Not allowed in the New World Order of Obama...

"The liberal Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, blogged that he "cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience"—and he urged people to fight it. Another liberal favorite, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., has raised the specter of "civil disobedience" and vowed that he will drop coverage for diocesan workers rather than comply. They are joined in their expressions of discontent by the leaders of Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, which alone employs 70,000 people.

In the run-up to the ruling, the president of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins, suggested a modest compromise by which the president could have avoided most of this strife. That would have been by allowing the traditional exemption for religious organizations. That's the same understanding two of the president's own appointees to the Supreme Court just reaffirmed in a 9-0 ruling that recognized a faith-based school's First Amendment right to choose its own ministers without government interference, regardless of antidiscrimination law.

A few years ago Father Jenkins took enormous grief when he invited President Obama to speak at a Notre Dame commencement; now Father Jenkins finds himself publicly disapproving of an "unnecessary government intervention" that puts many organizations such as his in an "untenable position."

Here's just part of what he means by "untenable": Were Notre Dame to drop coverage for its 5,229 employees, the HHS penalty alone would amount to $10 million each year.

The irony, of course, is that the ruling is being imposed by a Catholic Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, working in an administration with a Catholic vice president, Joe Biden. A few years back the voluble Mr. Biden famously threatened to "shove my rosary beads" down the throat of those who dared suggest that his party's positions on social issues put it at odds with people of faith. Does he now mean to include Mr. Winters, Cardinal Mahony and Father Jenkins?"

Barry is doing a wonderful job of alienating a core group that supported him in 2008. One thing that liberals never seem to like to admit or are completely oblivious to is the authoritarian streak inherent in alot of liberal policies and ideas. Their ideas aren't popular to begin with and the only way they can implement them is through judicial rulings and presidential orders rather than any sort of debate and subsequent voting by congress.

A Refreshingly Honest View of How an Atheist Perceives Morality

For those who are Political Science/Pop Philosophy enthusiasts like myself, today's in-depth article by Robert P. Kraynak is pure gold. In it, Kraynak takes a close look at the writings of American philosopher and atheist Richard Rorty. Kraynak demonstrats brilliantly how atheists are basically moral parasites, absorbing the morality of the culture they live in. For example, check out this quote from Rorty that Kraynak mentions...

"With intentional irony, Rorty describes people like himself as “free-loading atheists.” He also displays exquisite sensitivity to human dignity in making this admission: he imagines “a child found wandering in the woods, the remnant of a slaughtered nation,” and asks if such a lost person should have “no share in human dignity.” He explains:

'..it does not follow that she may be treated like an animal. For it is part of the tradition of our community that the human stranger from whom all dignity has been stripped is to be taken in, to be reclothed with dignity. This Jewish and Christian element in our tradition is gratefully invoked by free-loading atheists like myself.... The existence of human rights, in the sense in which it is at issue in this meta-ethical debate, has as much or as little relevance to our treatment of such a child as the question of the existence of God. I think both have equally little relevance'.

Rorty’s point is that seeing a lost child wandering around as a naked, shivering homeless person inspires in him a strong sense of moral duty to “reclothe” that person with dignity (an elegant phrase), but not because he believes in God or in Kantian moral duties and rights. His justification is that he is part of a community of moral traditions inherited from Judaism and Christianity, which teaches us to care for a homeless person like the Good Samaritan would do. The problem is that our belief in God or rationally grounded moral duties turns out to be relevant after all: we have and need these beliefs, too, because we have been so taught by “the tradition of our community.” Rorty argues that we can subscribe to parts of our inherited traditions simply because they are inherited, but offers no grounds for why we can adhere to some parts and not others. He is thus a “free-loading atheist” because he lives off of the moral inheritance of the biblical tradition without contributing to it, and even while undermining it."

Kraynak goes on to point out the authoritarian streak prevelent in atheism through Rorty's musings..

"..'When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists ... we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank....

I do not claim to make the distinction between education and conversation on the basis of anything except my loyalty to a particular community, a community whose interests required re-educating the Hitler Youth in 1945 and required re-educating the bigoted students of Virginia in 1993. I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [free from moral authoritarianism] about my handling of my fundamentalist students. Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.... It seems to me that I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause. I come from a better province.'

Rorty’s technique is to use disarming candor in referring to himself as a benevolent Nazi rather than a rational educator, and in admitting that he is not free of moral authoritarianism. The effect is to shock or lull the reader into overlooking the contradiction between claiming his views are merely contingent on his accidental upbringing (namely, that he comes from a different province than Nazis or his bigoted students) while also claiming that he is “benevolent” rather than “vicious” and serves a “better cause.” In other words, Rorty says that he imposes his political views on others simply because he is more willful, while also claiming that his views are objectively better than Nazi ideology or religious fundamentalism. Yet he feels no obligation to give a rational justification for the moral superiority of his beliefs: he simply enjoys the luxury of imposing justice without foundations."

There is ALOT of information in the Kraynak article and if anyone would like to offer up their thoughts on it, please feel free to do so in the comment box below.

Leftist Intolerance of Freedom of Religion

"If you look at the history from the mid-1960s, we've gone from a request for toleration to an imposition of intolerance. We've gone from a quest to understand others to a determination to close down those who hold traditional values." Newt Gingrich (above)

Timothy P. Carney's article from today highlights how the secularist Left is steadfastly against religious freedom. No matter how much they bandy about such terms as 'tolerance' and 'inclusion', the end result shows that it is quite Orwellian for them to do so....

"Social liberals claim they promote tolerance, preventing oppressive Christian conservatives from "imposing their morality" on everyone. But the state of the culture war in America today is almost exactly the opposite: The secular Left is using the might of government to make it harder for religious people to live their own lives according to their faith.

Nancy Pelosi, who regularly and loudly declares herself a faithful Catholic, last week belittled Catholic hospitals: "They have this conscience thing," she sneered about the hospitals that want to be free not to abort unborn babies. How ironic that Pelosi and like-minded liberals call themselves "pro-choice."...

Obamacare gives us the latest case study. The bill gave the secretary of Health & Human Services unprecedented power to regulate insurance plans, while also forcing individuals and employers to buy health insurance. Department Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a rule outlawing any new insurance plan that doesn't fully cover the cost of all contraception, including "morning-after" pills that can also cause abortions.

The rule included a conscience exemption for "religious employers," but it defined "religious" so narrowly that it applies to virtually no one. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote that "not even the ministry of Jesus and the early Christian Church would qualify as 'religious'" because they served and preached to non-Christians.

Belmont Abbey College is a Catholic college in North Carolina that was founded by Benedictine monks. In all likelihood, the "religious employer" exemption won't protect Belmont Abbey, and the school will be forced to buy contraceptives for its students, in violation of the Church's teaching.

College President Bill Thierfelder wrote in a memo, "As a college, we find our center in Jesus Christ. Not only in our teaching, but also in our actions. Our policies must mirror our beliefs -- we simply cannot do what we believe is morally wrong."

He added, "We are not imposing our beliefs upon anyone else. We respect the constitutional right of all faiths to freely exercise their religion. We simply want that constitutional right given to us as well."

I wish Belmont Abbey College all the best in their fight against anti-Christian bigotry. I would suggest to them that if they wished the blessings of the Obama administration while in holding on to religious values, then perhaps they should support Sharia as this seems to be the cause celebre when this administration mulls over who the winners and losers are going to be when it comes to support in matters of faith.

Liberals and Mohammedans: Making children the world over miserable together‏

Yes folks its true. We just can't go around giving gifts to the most dirt poor kids around the world. That just might mean that we are following Christ's command to 'Love thy neighbor'.....

"The Air Force Academy apologized Thursday night after it was accused of religious intolerance for promoting Operation Christmas Child – a program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said military commanders crossed the line when they promoted the gift program, sponsored by Samaritan’s Purse, an organization run by Franklin Graham.

Operation Christmas Child said they expect to send more than 8 million shoe box gifts to underprivileged children in 100 countries. Around 60,000 churches and 60,000 community groups in the United States are participating.

MikeyWeinstein, of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said an evangelical Christian message is also included in the boxes.

“This is a proselytizing entity of Franklin Graham,” said the group’s president, Mikey Weinstein. He filed a complaint on behalf of 132 Academy personnel including two sets of Muslim-American parents."

Thanks imbeciles. I'd really like to see somebody defend this lunacy. Exactly WHAT is this 'message' that is included in these boxes? Telling some kid that receives nothing all year and is lucky to even eat that they are important to someone? What next? That they actually matter and have value? We can't have that now, can we?


EDIT: While the Obama administration is curiously absent from weighing in on this contaversy, it has no problems telling the WWII memorial that FDR's prayer cannot be included. Link

Making 'intolerance' their god

Recent news articles seem to be reinforcing specific groups one must be tolerant towards while ignoring the plight of others. First, we read in Thomas Sowell's column from today...

"Back in the 1920s, the intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic were loudly protesting the execution of political radicals Sacco and Vanzetti, after what they claimed was an unfair trial. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote to his young leftist friend Harold Laski, pointing out that there were "a thousand-fold worse cases" involving black defendants, "but the world does not worry over them."


Holmes said: "I cannot but ask myself why this so much greater interest in red than black."


To put it bluntly, it was a question of whose ox was gored. That is, what groups were in vogue at the moment among the intelligentsia. Blacks clearly were not.


The current media and political crusade against "bullying" in schools seems likewise to be based on what groups are in vogue at the moment. For years, there have been local newspaper stories about black kids in schools in New York and Philadelphia beating up Asian classmates, some beaten so badly as to require medical treatment.


But the national media hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Asian Americans are not in vogue today, just as blacks were not in vogue in the 1920s.

Meanwhile, the media are focused on bullying directed against youngsters who are homosexual. Gays are in vogue.

Most of the stories about the bullying of gays in schools are about words directed against them, not about their suffering the violence that has long been directed against Asian youngsters or about the failure of the authorities to do anything serious to stop black kids from beating up Asian kids.

Where youngsters are victims of violence, whether for being gay or whatever, that is where the authorities need to step in. No decent person wants to see kids hounded, whether by words or deeds, and whether the kids are gay, Asian or whatever."


Indeed, for a more recent example of "Red Trumps Black", even within the black community, Dennis Prager reminds us that "In 2009, nine left-wing Democratic congressmen, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, visited Fidel Castro in Cuba and came back awestruck by the dictator. They even refused to meet with one of Cuba’s leading pro-democracy dissidents, Jorge Luis Garcia Pérez, an African Cuban."

But insofar as gays being the preferred mascots of the media elites these days, one need look no further than the recent case involving a New Jersey school teacher...

"In New Jersey, the Township of Union Public School District has suspended a special education teacher named Vicki Knox because she sat in her own home, on her own computer, and expressed her Christian faith on her personal Facebook page.


After seeing a quasi-shrine that had been erected at her school, honoring Harvey Milk, Neil Patrick Harris, and Virginia Woolf for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History month, Knox expressed disapproval of “homosexuality based on her Christian faith.”


Just think of it – although the Bible unequivocally denounces practicing homosexual behavior, groups like Garden State Equality (GSE) have come out against Knox as if she invented Christianity’s teaching on homosexual practices, and they’re actually calling for her to lose her job.


Said Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein: “I find what she wrote on Facebook endangers the learning atmosphere for students beyond repair and violates the school district’s own policy of a safe and comfortable environment for all. She’s no longer in a position to teach in the classroom because she will make many students fearful of her hatred.”..


This point is made even more poignant when one considers the fact that Knox went out of her way to say that she prays for those who are persecuting her and tells them that God loves them (which is now apparently the same thing as expressing “hatred”)."

Which leads to a question I have asked before, is there any criticism of the gay lifestyle allowed whatsoever? Check out some of the comments from self-identified gays in the link for the above article. It seems that even members of the gay community are themselves concerned about such anti-Christian bigotry. Kelly Boggs explains why the teacher was within her rights as an American citizen to expess her opinions...

"It really does not take a constitutional scholar to understand the simple, straightforward wording established by our nation's founders.

First, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Put simply, the phrase makes it clear that the government must not pass legislation forcing a person to practice or pay homage to a particular religion. In other words, the state will not establish an official religion or church.

Second, "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the simplest of terms this statement makes it clear that the government will not seek to restrict an individual's practice of his or her faith. A person is free to believe, or not to believe as the case may be, as he or she desires.

To sum up the two parts of the opening portion of the First Amendment, when it comes to the practice of religion in America, the government will not tell citizens that they "must" or that they "can't."...

It would seem that when a public school seeks to keep students or teachers from respectfully expressing religious beliefs that the government is telling them they "can't" exercise their religion or the freedom to express their beliefs.

It does not require a juris doctor degree to understand the plain language of the First Amendment."

The Pink Swastika inspires hate crime act

Really. Read it for yourself...

"A Christian school in Illinois reported its glass entry door being smashed by bricks with hateful messages on them early Saturday morning.

The vandalism, recorded by Christian Liberty Academy’s security cameras, came on the eve of a banquet being hosted by the academy, a school run by the Church of Christian Liberty in Arlington Heights. The event, planned by Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), was designed to discuss the homosexual activist agenda, and to honor pro-family activist and author of The Pink Swastika, Dr. Scott Lively.

AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera, Church of Christian Liberty Pastor Calvin Lindstrom and the Chicago Independent Media Center received an email from the perpetrators of the attack a few hours after the incident. The email reads, “If this event is not shut down, and the homophobic day trainings do not end, the Christian Liberty Academy will continue to be under constant attack."

...The bricks thrown at the school’s entry door had hateful messages written on them, such as “Shut down Lively” and “Quit the homophobic s---!” Other notes threatened both the school and the church with more violence if they continued to host "homophobic" guests."

Here is the link for the entire, cited article.

Exactly where are to free-thinking, open-minded and allegedly 'inclusive' champions of free speech on this matter? For those of you who are not familiar, The Pink Swastika was a book I examined here and offered up for discussion on my blog and is one off the most viewed pages here of all time at Trees For Lunch. (Click here for the link to The Pink Swastika Part II)

Basically, The Pink Swastika posits that the leadership and membership of the NSDAP skewed highly disproportionate in the percentage of it's homosexual (butch, as opposed to femme) membership.

Lest you dismiss such a charge like this out of hand, this assertion is supported by no less than Walter C. Langer, psychoanalyst for the OSS, (which was the indirect forerunner to today's CIA) and author William L. Shirer, whose impeccable and exhaustive work on the subject of Nazi Germany The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is the standard to which all other works on the topic are measured and judged.

Rather than attempting to disprove anything contained in the book by Lively utilizing facts, it seems much more important for the Pink Hand (or if you prefer, Gay Inc.) to silence rational discussion through, (dare I say it?) Nazi tactics of intimidation. If anything, this only lends further credence to Lively's propositions as the Gay Gestapo cannot tolerate any dissent from the Happy=Gay, pre-approved party line. It is becoming increasingly obvious that no criticism of the gay lifestyle is allowed whatsoever in the Liberal New World Order.

Gallagher: From whence 'the moral authority of gay men'?

In her most recent column, Maggie Gallagher hits the nail on the head when describing the state of affairs in the ongoing culture war between radical gay activism and mainstream America....

"Moral authority is, of course, in itself a curious phenomenon. Where does it come from? Who has it? How is it made visible in the external and everyday world?

Every human child begins with anxiety: Am I OK? Is what I do good enough? Am I a good person?

The reassurance that mothers and fathers give ultimately passes to some external force in human affairs, one that defines and binds a society together: Moral authority is that influence over the human mind that requires no external backing. We crave it, we seek it, we respond to it. Human beings are made that way.

The moral crisis that the gay rights movement poses for American civilization is ultimately a crisis in moral authority.

The original civil rights movement built upon a Judeo-Christian and biblical foundation, used the power of suffering, with dignity and courage, to call for social respect for African-Americans.

The new civil rights movement takes Christian pity and uses it as a weapon to unmoor the Christian tradition itself of all moral authority in our society in order to accomplish the "transvaluation of all values."

The phrase is Nietzsche's, of course.

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity. ... I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind. ... And one calculates time from the dies nefastus on which this fatality arose -- from the first day of Christianity! Why not rather form its last? From today? Revaluation of all values!" he wrote in "The Antichrist."

For Nietzsche, the two great besetting sins of Christianity were its elevation of pity -- the moral authority of the weak -- and chastity; both in his mind were violations of the natural order in which desire and the strength to attain desire were the natural basis of morality. Christianity was "anti-life" because it interfered with the twin goods of strength and desire.

The genius of modern Progressivism is to instead take these two Christian virtues, pity and chastity, and pit them against each other -- to take pity for human suffering and direct it against the restraint of sexual desire..

To the gay rights movement, a strong moral confidence in the goodness of our marriage tradition is in itself the core moral offense, which requires disciplining, punishing, silencing, shunning.

Why? So that legitimate pity for the gay man, and his suffering as a child, can be turned against the moral authority of chastity, for that system of sexual ethics that begins not with our desires but with our responsibility to discipline and elevate them."

Bravo to Gallagher for the willingness to stand up against the Pink Hand and speak truth to power.

Given the economic downturn of recent years, I wonder if hard times really will produce hard men with the absence of decadence and wealth as one author has posited. Perhaps all of the moral posturing of homosexual activism might all go for naught as we may very well have already experienced Peak Gay.

Why I Find it Difficult to Take Atheists Seriously

Two recent examples that have made the news this week have reaffirmed my belief that many, if not most, atheists are intellectual Lilliputians who have a hard time trying to convince people that they aren't bitter, nihilistic, socially autistic, mental midgets. First, in yesterday's Christian Post we read...

"The "jail or church" program in Bay Minette, Ala., that gives first-time, nonviolent offenders a choice between doing time and paying a fine or attending church once a week for a year has been delayed as the town's lawyers face pressure to ensure that it does not violate any church and state separation laws.

The Restore Our Community (ROC) program caught national media attention for what many believe to be a veiled attempt to coerce criminal offenders into going to church. Despite Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland’s insistence that the program does not "coerce" church attendance because the offender is given the option of participating, groups like the ACLU, Freedom from Religion, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) have complained that ROC is a "flagrant" violation of the Constitution."

How are they trying to establish a state religion? The convict can opt not to go to church and thus they aren't being forced to do so. This objection flies in the face of empirical evidence for those who supposedly champion empirical evidence when one considers that those who attend church regularly are less likely to commit crime. Perhaps, just perhaps, being held accountable by a body of believers just might be beneficial for certain ne'er-do-wells and they just might want to reprioritize their selfishness and weigh it against the consequences of their actions.

I doubt that the ACLU would object if they were being schooled on the benefits of the religion of Secular Humanism though.

The second example is from earlier in the week when I read that a group of California atheists paid to have the following billboard put up...

"One of the billboards located in the city of Orange states, "Make this a better world. Reject all religious superstitions." Listed underneath the proclamation are 36 different references to Christianity, other religions, and cults. Included in the list are: "Talking Snakes," "Burning Bushes," "Resurrection," "Salvation," and "Sin."

Lumped in with the Christian references are "Voodoo," "Magic Underwear," "Astrology," and "Hand of Fatima."

Such lumping in together of all of these items implies that all religious beliefs are of equal weight when nothing could be further from the truth. They should be judged on their own merits and decisions made according to their veracity accordingly.

Thank You Allen West!

I had heard earlier in the day that Rep. (and DNC Chairperson) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL, above, right) had gotten into a public tizzie with someone, but I now just found out with whom. Apparently, after Rep. Allen West (above left, R-FL) had left the floor of the US House of Representatives yesterday, Rep. Wasserman-Schultz singled out West for his support of the so-called "Cut, Cap and Balance" budget. Wasserman-Schultz, who isn't West's favorite person anyway, was then the recipient of of an email directly from West....

"From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz


Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!


I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.


You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!


Steadfast and Loyal


Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)"

West is correct, in my estimation, that Wasserman-Schultz is indeed the " most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives" Her assertion that republicans were "literally" trying to drag the country back to Jim Crow era laws was particularly low, even for her shoddy standards.



Ms. Wasserman-Schultz continues to live down to the reputation so pervasive among democrats of trying to balkanize various groups and capitilize on their grievances rather than attempting to work together to achieve a mutually agreeable end.

Why is the Left so Obsessed with Race?

"Now I am going to address a moronic liberal ass clown Chris Matthews on the left. This guy is so obsessed with race, it is defies logic. For a white guy, Chris Matthews seem to suffer from a self identification problem with "white people". Chris believes that everybody who is apart of the tea party movement are "all white". Liberals can't let go of race for one nanosecond." Tyrone from the blog Wake up Black America,

That the Left is obsessed with the topic of race is hardly in dispute. Jonah Goldberg mentions this after he fielded some questions from callers on a C-SPAN interview..

"Speaking of those callers, I must say that the more I think about it, the more revealing they were. I haven’t counted or anything, but it seems to me that a plurality of the lefty callers were simply obsessed with race. I suspect that one or two of them were professionally invested in the topic (the guy who plugged FAIR and Media Matters smelled like a seminar caller to me). Regardless, it was fascinating how so many of them simply needed me/conservatives/National Review/Sean Hannity/et al. to be racists. It’s a small example of how so many liberals ground their identities in race and can’t conceive of the idea that their ideological opponents aren’t racists."

Indeed. As to why they "ground their identities in race", I came across two examples that explore the 'why' of the whole situation. First a helpful, explanatory quote from Ann Coulter...

"If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?"

"With their infernal racial set-asides, racial quotas, and race norming, liberals share many of the Klan's premises. The Klan sees the world in terms of race and ethnicity. So do liberals! Indeed, liberals and white supremacists are the only people left in America who are neurotically obsessed with race. Conservatives champion a color-blind society."

Perhaps most telling is the explanation offered by Representative Allen West, with which I whole-heartedly agree. (He's just much more articulate about it than I am :-)

"Liberal Racism does not believe in One Nation under God. They believe in a Nation of subjects organized into collective groups under which they shall rule, not govern, in a secular humanist based society.

Indivisible, Liberal Racism does not believe in "e pluribus unim", they prefer a balkanized America where they can pit us against each other through their manipulated messages....such as Tea Party racism.

Liberal racism does not believe in Liberty and Justice for All, they believe in freedom defined by a ruling class elite while creating more victims who become dependent upon their dishonest benevolence."

So there you have it. In a nutshell, the Left is obsessed with race because...

A. Their arguments aren't nearly as good, so why not change the topic to an accusation of racism? And,

B. It's part of an overall strategy to pit different groups against one another, impede any progress toward racial indifference, harmony and acceptance and create strife at every turn in order to create various sub-categories of victims.

There. That was easy!

They're already blaming it on the Right

"Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat who has openly criticized the Tea Party, blamed the shooting on "vitriolic rhetoric" of political groups and transmitted by media outlets.

"When the rhetoric is about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia about how the government operates to try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day," Dupnik said, "it has an impact on people, especially people who have unbalanced personalities to begin with."

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that the Tea Party needs to dial back the rhetoric, citing Palin's May 23, 2010, tweet: "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: Don't Retreat, Instead -- RELOAD!"

"These sorts of things," Durbin said, "I think invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response."

There is no evidence Loughner took action in response to anything said or published by the Tea Party or any other group. If anything, his political views appear muddled and some have described him as "goth" and "left wing."

"You know, his favorite books are the 'Communist Manifesto' and 'Mein Kampf,' " Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said on "Fox News Sunday". "I think it's important that we recognize that this is an individual that has mental challenges, and we need to act appropriately in dealing with him and making sure that justice prevails here." Link to full article.

It's as predictable as it is unfortunate that when a deranged individual commits such a senseless act of violence that the Stalinist Left will try to utilize the event for political gain. Never mind that the shooter has been described as "left wing" and liberals engage in the same type of "hyperbolic metaphors used for rallying supporters" by utilizing 'target lists' themselves. The important thing in their minds is that they don't let this horrible event go to waste by not leveraging it to their advantage.