Gay Patriot Header Image

Explaining the Derangement of the Progressive Left

It seems Jeff and I have been doing more than a few posts lately cataloguing the angry derangement of the left. All of this anger, shrillness, violent pathology, intolerance, rage, and rejection of logic coming from those who claim to be the most peceaful, tolerant, and rational members of society creates a paradox. How can a progressive claim to be rationale, and yet consistently favor discredited and unsustainable economic policies? How can a progressive claim to be tolerant, yet demand that all contrary opinion be shouted down and dissidents be jailed? How can a progressive claim to believe all races are equal, but demand that blacks and hispanics be treated as inferiors that need to be condescended to and acccommodated because they just can’t be expected to perform as well as white people if all are treated equally?  And the greatest paradox of all; how are progressive leftists so blind to their own contradictions and hypocrisy?

(Progressive Leftist: “Um, because You’re a RACIST!!!”)

John C. Wright Attempts to explain:

The theory must explain, first, the honest decency of the modern liberals combined with their astonishing indifference, nay, hostility to facts, common sense, and evidence; second, it must explain their high self-esteem (or, to be blunt, their pathological narcissism) combined not merely with an utter lack of accomplishment, but with their utter devotion to destructiveness, a yearning to ruin everything they touch; third, it must explain their sanctimoniousness combined with their applause, praise, support, and tireless efforts to spread all perversions (especially sexual), moral decay, vulgarity, and every form of desecration; fourth, their pretense of intellectual superiority combined with their notorious mental fecklessness; fifth, it must explain both their violence and their pacifism; sixth, the theory must explain why they hate the very things they should love most; seventh, the theory must explain why they are incapable of comprehending an honest disagreement or any honorable foe.

The essay attempts to arrive at this theory, and as such, has to cover a lot of ground, and uses a lot of big words and philosophical concepts that would be utterly lost on the typical progressive Obama-voter. But it sort of comes down to this.

How can anyone continue to be a Leftist for a week, much less for a lifetime?

The answer, allow me to remind the patient reader, grows out of their theory. Again, their theory of knowledge is that there is no knowledge, no truth, only bigoted opinion. The only way to avoid bigotry is to avoid judgment and the use of reason. Avoiding reason necessitates a theory of morality that denies cause and effect. No vice causes loss, no virtue causes happiness. Hence life is a random roulette wheel. If there are no vices and virtues, not even the intellectual virtues of honest thinking, then no independent thought is desired or permitted. Instead, all thoughts are determined by social cues. Thought is collective.

The whole point of Liberal theory from start to finish is to form earplugs to smother the ringing of that alarm clock called reality.

The Leftists are people who abandon their innate intelligence and moral stature and who  deliberately make themselves to be stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average, who at once combine the worst features of a self-deceived fool and a self-deceiving conniving con-man. The only thing that saves them from the constant pain of the dentist drill of their conscience, the constant clamor of their wretched self-esteem telling them that they do not deserve to live, the only thing, indeed, keeping them alive, is their false and inflated sense of sanctimony.

The Left Continues to be Insane

Yeah, they really believe this garbage.

We want to cut taxes’ … is a whole lot more abstract than, ‘N-gg-r, n-gg-r.’ ” It continues to be more abstract, and it continues to work.

Hat Tip: Sondra K

Update: And lest anyone say, “Oh, that’s just one person’s opinion from an obscure left-wing website,” we note that the mainstream left website Salon is making the exact same argument.

Update: Source quote used the n-word in its entirety. This has been edited here.

Pro-Abortion Leftists Gone Nanners

A couple of items. In Santa Babara, CA a bossy pro-abortion professor of ‘Feminist Studies’ is accused of assaulting a 16 year old pro-life girl.

A department of feminist studies professor [at University of California Santa Barbara] has been accused of going berserk after coming across a campus prolife demonstration that used extremely graphic displays, leading a small mob of students to chant “tear down the sign” before grabbing one of the signs, storming off with it, then allegedly engaging in an altercation with a 16-year-old prolife protestor who had followed the educator to retrieve it.

Much of the scuffle was recorded on a smartphone by the 16-year-old, Thrin Short. The yet-to-be-released video is now in the custody of Santa Barbara law enforcement officials, who are investigating the March 4 incident.

The professor at the heart of the controversy is Mireille Miller-Young, an associate professor whose area of emphasis is black cultural studies, pornography and sex work, according to her faculty webpage.

The Paradoxes of Left-Wing Feminism

Kevin Williamson spells it out.

A useful definition is this: “Feminism is the words ‘I Want!’ in the mouths of three or more women, provided they’re the right kind of women.” Feminism must therefore accommodate wildly incompatible propositions — e.g., (1) Women unquestionably belong alongside men in Marine units fighting pitched battles in Tora Bora but (2) really should not be expected to be able to perform three chin-ups. Or: (1) Women at Columbia are empowered by pornography but (2) women at Wellesley are victimized by a statue of a man sleepwalking in his Shenanigans. And then there is Fluke’s Law: (1) Women are responsible moral agents with full sexual and economic autonomy who (2) must be given an allowance, like children, when it comes to contraceptives.

Telling the Truth About a Democrat Is a Political Dirty Trick

Posted by V the K at 8:09 am - January 22, 2014.
Filed under: Hysteria on the Left

So says Texas Democrat Wendy “Abortion Barbie” Davis. A liberal reporter for the Dallas Morning News dug into her campaign biography (i.e. narrative), of the heroic single mother, who got ahead just be working really hard and being smarter than all the men. Well, there are a few holes in that story. The heroic single mother actually left her kids behind when she went to law school and gave them up entirely when she threw herself into politics. And she didn’t so much get ahead by working hard as much as marrying a sugar daddy, taking all of his money to pay for her school, and then filing for the divorce as soon as the loans were paid off.

But pointing out these inconvenient facts is considered a political dirty trick. And Wendy Davis is pretty shrill about that. Because Wendy Davis is a leftist Democrat, see. And with Democrats, it’s not the facts what matter. It’s the narrative.

Also, pointing out when a woman lies is totes sexist, apparently.

Abortion Barbie is pretty much the left’s dark answer to Sarah Palin. But where Sarah Palin is all about family, Wendy Davis is all about latching onto a Sugar Daddy and taking him for all he’s worth to advance her political career. (See also: Hillary Clinton) Where Sarah Palin stands for fiscal responsibility and limited Government, Wendy Davis stands up for partial birth abortion unsanitary abortion mills. Both are, sort of, avatars for what really matters to their constituency.  And, of course, Abortion Barbie is adored by the MFM to the same degree that Sarah Palin is reviled.

Abortion Barbie is the ideal Democrat candidate; raw ambition and power lust untempered by morals, ethics, or scruples. (See also: Hillary Clinton). One would hope these revelations about her dishonesty, and the shrill meltdown that followed, would be the end of her. On the other hand, a lot of Democrats think Fauxcahontas Warren would make a fine choice for President.

Hollywood to Make Anti-NRA Propaganda Film

Harvey Weinstein, an extremely wealthy Hollywood hypocrite, is planning a propaganda film with Meryl Streep in it with a goal of destroying the NRA and stigmatizing gun ownership.

Hollywood has a bit of history with making “message” movies to sell a progressive left agenda item to the public via cheap, exploitative melodrama: Reefer Madness (1936), The Day After (1983), The Day After Tomorrow (2004), An Inconvenient Truth (2006), and so on. These movies used to have a lot of impact. The China Syndrome (1978) virtually shut down the American nuclear power industry. Since then, people have wised up, somewhat, at least. Audiences largely ignored the slew of antiwar and anti-Bush movies of the last decade.

The danger, though, is that the anti-Second Amendment forces are well-funded and relentless; and they will not stop until they achieve their goal: the legal prohibition of privately owned firearms. And no amount of fact or reason will dissuade them from pursuing this goal.

What’s noted in the article is that Mr. Weinstein favors complete and total prohibition of firearms from private ownership. He believes, absolutely, that the Government should have a complete monopoly on the ownership and use of firearms. But when asked about how he would have resisted the Holocaust, he obliviously answers he would have used a gun to stop from going to a concentration camp if he “found a gun, and if that was happening to my people.”

No, Mr. Weinstein, real life is not a movie. The good guys don’t just happen to find guns lying around conveniently. You would have been cheering as the Nazis enacted gun control and confiscated weapons from all your neighbors; because it would have made you feel “safer.”

(more…)

Ted Cruz: Up next for destruction?

From Rich Lowry’s brief profile of Senator Cruz at Politico, he sounds pretty smart, like he might be an effective leader for small government (or the Tea Party, if you prefer).

So…is he next? As the Left has proven with Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and others: Any small-government leader with a bit of effectiveness or charisma MUST. BE. DESTROYED. REGARDLESS OF TRUTH. Especially if they could hold some appeal for women, blacks, or Hispanics.

Jammie Wearing Fools has gathered a few links on the nascent Cruz Derangement Syndrome.

Who originated the anti-Koch Brothers Hysteria?

Last night on Powerline, caught this video of Angelenos protesting against the possibility of the Koch brothers’ purchasing the Los Angeles Times:

And it got me wondering (and not for the first time) about the origins of the anti-Koch hysteria. Wonder if a Mr. D. Axelrod might have been behind this. I mean the guy did think it significant that a former Massachusetts governor once transported the family dog on the roof of his car.

RELATED: Protesters explain: Kochs must not buy LA Times because … tolerance

In Newtown aftermath, media focus on guns, portray NRA as villain

If they play CNN at your gym and you do cardio for more than 5 minutes, you will be subject to various stories and diatribes on the problem of gun violence and the imperative for increased firearms egulation.  And then, take a gander at the image AOL/Huffington Post used to illustrate and article on the NRA:

Screen shot 2012-12-21 at 3.00.08 PM

Seems the editors agree with the protestors who hoisted this banner.

Like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Family Research Council may have some strange views, but neither is a “hate group”

Disagreeing with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins’ contention that “the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] had given [the FRC shooter] ‘a license to shoot’“, saying the comment “goes too far”, the National Review’s Rich Lowry reminds conservatives that

Nothing the SPLC does sanctions violence, and [the shooter]’s alleged crime is his responsibility and his alone. But the SPLC’s designation of the Family Research Council is intolerant all the same, a bullying attempt to short-circuit free debate.

It’s not as if the SPLC considers the Family Research Council mildly offensive, or barely hateful. Asked if someone addressing a Family Research Council meeting was as guilty as someone addressing an Aryan Nation rally, the SPLC’s research director said “yes.”

I agree with Lowry that the SPLC goes too far in labeling the Family Research Council a “hate group.”  They may put out some pretty strange and generally inaccurate statements/opinions on gay people, but, like many groups with strange opinions, including the SPLC, they don’t advocate violence against the individuals or groups they criticize.  Rich laments that it’s fortunate the outfit . . .

. . . can’t tell the difference between people who hate blacks and people who support the traditional definition of marriage. . . .

The SPLC calls the Family Research Council a “hate group.” This puts it in the same league as the True Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, the Supreme White Alliance, the Old Glory Skinheads and, of course, the American Nazi Party.

As they ask in kindergarten, which of these things isn’t like all the others?

Via Instapundit.  Read the whole thing  Lowry goes on to call the SPLC’s categorizing “profoundly illiberal” and suggest is purpose is to shut down discourse on gay marriage.

They’re not the only group who wants to shut down debate on this topic.  If gay marriage advocates believe they have a strong case to make for state recognition of same-sex marriage, they should welcome criticism as it will afford them a better opportunity to make their case, which (they believe) is the stronger argument (than the case for traditional marriage).

Chick-fil-A: Latest object of the left’s “two-minute” hate
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day: response to left-wing bullying

As we’ve noted on more than one occasion, all too many on the gay left — as well as some of their straight allies — are ever ready to call opposition to gay marriage as hate speech. Their reaction to prominent defenders of traditional marriage, like Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy, resembles that of their reaction to certain prominent Republicans, from Ronald Reagan in the 1980s to Newt Gingrich in the 1990s to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin in the 2000s, to the Koch Brothers in the current decade.

Some have developed quite a habit of using harsh language to decry what they describe as “hate”.  Indeed, more often than not, their language seems far more hateful than that of the supposed haters.  Like the loyal citizens of George Orwell’s Oceania, they seem to delight in venting their negative emotions upon those deemed enemies of the party.  Yet, their venting does seem to last longer than two minutes.

Mr. Cathy’s unapologetic advocacy of traditional marriage made him — and his chicken chain — an appropriate target to which certain leftists could direct their venom.  This whole hullabaloo seemed more about the need of some to vent than about the merits (or lack thereof) of the target’s arguments.

No wonder that Glenn Reynolds, like a good number of social moderates and libertarians, doesn’t think the response to this venting, AKA Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day . . .

can be interpreted as opposition to gay marriage, so much as a response to bullying. But I do think that the bullying has probably tainted the gay-marriage brand, which is too bad. The gay-marriage argument is already winning — there’s no need to engage in Rahm Emanuel-style attacks, and doing so merely invites pushback. And, frankly, I’m happy to live in a country where people’s response to bullying is to push back.

It is those very “Rahm Emanuel-style attacks” that served as the tipping point for many social libertarians (including yours truly).  As blogging law professor William A. Jacobsen put it:

The threat to free speech represented by the actions of the liberal political leaderships in ChicagoBoston, San Francisco, D.C., New York, and Philadelphia should be the ultimate wake up call. (more…)

Why must opposition to gay marriage always be “hate”?

Since I was driving to Denver yesterday, I was unable to participate in the “Kiss-in” at the Hollywood Chick-fil-A.  Had I been in town, I may well have joined in, having fun by finding a fetching fellow to kiss in front of the franchise, then walking into the restaurant and buying him a nice chicken meal, while ordering a nice cup of their most refreshing lemonade for myself.

Given some of the photos (via Instapundit) I saw from the “Kiss-In”, it seems that most protesters were more interested in expressing themselves than in presenting a positive image of same-sex affection. Yeah, a three-person kiss and signs like “Eat More Carpet” will go a long way to changing social conservative attitudes toward gays.

Now, these folks were surely having fun.  One thing that’s great about America is that they are free to express so flamboyantly their opposition to the views of the chicken chain’s president.

But, just as such flamboyant displays of disagreement likely will make it more challenging to change minds, so too is labeling opposition to gay marriage as “hate” little likely to foster dialogue.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the Rev. Sarah Halverson of Fairview Community Church did just that, saying she

 . . . respects [Chick-fil-A President Dan] Cathy’s right to free speech, she said, but also exercised her own right to speak out against what she considers hate speech.

“We have the right to stand in disagreement with another’s speech,” she said.

At a Chick-fil-A in Torrance where vandals painted the words “Tastes Like Hate” on the side of the restaurant Thursday night, the “National Same-Sex Kiss Day” was off to a slow start.

She’s does have the right to stand in disagreement.  That said, we should also consider whether the way we stand causes those with whom we disagree to reconsider their views.  Calling those views “hate speech” is not likely to effect such reconsideration.  If anything, it may cause them to double down in disagreement.

NB:  Tweaked the conclusion to improve its flow.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Just Me finds it to be a shame that some utilize the confrontational tactics, “because I think gays would get much further by engaging in legitimate debate than the in your face, deliberately provocative displays that don’t pay any respect to the other opinion or with any attempt to find common ground.”

How Chick-fil-A haters promoted that chicken chain’s lemonade

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:44 pm - August 2, 2012.
Filed under: Freedom,Hysteria on the Left

As a lemonade lover, I find it relatively easy to order a lemonade at restaurants, but rarely, alas do I chance upon a good cup of my preferred summer drink.  Most establishments serve a processed version of that refreshing beverage.

Last night at the Hollywood Chick-fil-A, I enjoyed a deliciously tart cup of lemonade.  Had it not been for politically correct politicians  attempting to keep the chicken chain out of their cities, I likely wouldn’t have visited the local franchise.

Their demagoguery coupled with Mike Huckabee’s decision to create Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day served as promotion for the chicken chain.  Now that I know how tasty their lemonade is, I’ll likely return when I’m craving a cup.

Mayor Menino and his politically correct cohorts may have been trying to deny Chick-fil-A business because of its owners politically incorrect views, but he instead succeeded in making me aware of the restaurant’s wonderful lemonade.  How many other people yesterday discovered the quality of the chicken chain’s products and intend to return to try them again?

Emmanuel Goldstein’s Chicken Chain

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:54 pm - July 31, 2012.
Filed under: Gay PC Silliness,Hysteria on the Left,Media Bias

A week ago today, in response to a reader’s e-mail, I had begun a post on the Chick-fil-A hullabaloo.  I agreed with Mark Hemingway that the media had invented the story that Chick-fil-A’s president had condemned gay marriage. That said, I wasn’t comfortable with what that president had said about traditional marriage:

Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, said in a radio interview this week that same-sex marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

Appearing on “The Ken Coleman Show,” Cathy spoke of his company’s pride in its socially conservative character, but then offered an assessment of same-sex marriage that might lose the popular fast food chain a few customers.

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” said Cathy.

I decided to scotch the planned post.  I wouldn’t join my fellow conservatives in castigating the chicken chain’s critics nor would I join my fellow gays in branding the Christian businessman a bigot.  I would simply refrain from buying chicken there.  The story would soon fade.  It is not a matter of pressing national interest.

Many on the left, however, wouldn’t let up.  On Facebook, some friends seemed to alternate between positing attacks on Mitt Romney and issuing broadsides against Mr. Cathy — and his company.  Soon, as Ed Morrisey summarized, “politicians in several large American cities attempted to disprove” the

. . . notion of a free country in which people can operate their businesses regardless of their religion or political point of view. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent a letter to Cathy stating that “[t]here is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it.” (Chick-fil-A’s website explicitly states that they do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in employment or in commerce, by the way.)

(Morrissey via Reynolds.)  And despite that non-discrimination policy, other urban politicians vowed o keep Chick-fil-A as far from their cities as possible.  At the same time, not a such public figure could provide a single example of a gay employee mistreated or dismissed because of his sexuality or a gay customer denied service (or otherwise denigrated) because he did not accept the biblical definition of marriage. (more…)

Why do some on the left insist on calling Republicans “extremists”?

One thing John Hinderaker has “never figured out is why, if the Republicans represent only an ‘extremist fringe,’” as claims a certain Mr. A. Arnold Gore, Jr., in a fundraising letter for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), “there is such a grave danger that they will win a majority of the votes in this year’s presidential election.

Does seem some folks on the left are beholden to the notion of the Republican Party as run by a cabal of extremists.  And wonder if their prejudiced read on the GOP compromises its ability to reach out to people dissatisfied with the Democrats.

And compromising that ability is certainly part of the reason folks like Mr. Gore call the GOP extreme.

Some perspective of Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome

Obama to differentiate himself from juvenile behavior of his (gay activist) guests?

Remember all the handwringing in the media about Mitt Romney’s continued association with Donald Trump even as the presumptive Republican nominee made clear he disagreed with the celebrity entrepreneur’s continuing commentary on the president’s birth certificate?  Yahoo! even included a headline (in its top news) about Romney’s refusal to tell Trump to dial it down.

Aaron Sorkin speculates what would happen if Romney told anti-gay activists to “drop dead.”  Others faulted the Republican candidates for not repudiating a solitary boor who booed a gay service member.

Now, with gay left activists taking pictures of themselves flipping off former presidents while in the White House at the incumbent’s invitation, will those very voices in our legacy media call on the president to (borrowing and paraphrasing an expression) differentiate himself from the boorish behavior of his guests, individuals he invited to the White House?

What would the media reaction be if social conservatives had photographed themselves flipping off pictures of Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter while visiting the White House?  (Well, don’t think social conservatives would conduct themselves in such a manner.)

Gay groups should join us in condemning these antics.  These people do not provide an image of gay people that should gain currency in the media.  Such juvenile behavior should not be representative of our community.  We should look instead to people as Mary Cheney as Heather Poe as role models.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Haven’t had time to review all the comments.  Shortly after posting this, I headed up to take my nephew to some sites, including, of all places, the Reagan Library (where I honored the Gipper and renewed my membership).  midwest mama does get at the implications of these juvenile antics.

I am a middle-aged straight woman from Kansas. If it weren’t for my gay relatives, whom I love to pieces, the only picture I would have of the gay community is the “in your face” people who seem to not be able to get over their sexuality and insist that if I don’t absolutely embrace every possible permutation of the gay lifestyle, I am somehow a hater. I am willing to live and let live, but it seems to me that a lot of people in the gay community are not. I appreciate knowing there are gay conservatives out there.

If the folks at HRC, GLAAD et al are truly concerned about improving the image of gay Americans, they will denounce these antics and call on the president to repudiate them as well.

UPDATE:  The White House has criticized these antics:

“While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Most all do,” Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said. “These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House.”

Et tu, HRC?  Et tu, NGLTF?

Gay Activists Flip Off Man who Opposed Anti-Gay Briggs Amendment

What Happens,” asks Victor Fiorello of the Philly Post, “When You Let Gay Philly Activists Into the White House”?

They pose for pics giving Ronald Reagan’s portait the finger.

Guess they forgot about the ads that good man cut to oppose the anti-gay Briggs Amendment.

What a great way to create an image of gay people as responsible adults.  Via Weekly Standard via Drudge.

Democracy to Democrats: The game is not over until we win

Even after some Democrats lose an election, they want to keep fighting as one of critics demonstrated in the comments on Scott Walker’s victory Tuesday night:

Walker’s Koch money won the day. But if that’s a victory . . . .ok. Now let’s just wait and see if he survives the criminal investigation against him.

If it’s not democracy when one candidate outspends the other to secure a 7-point victory than, well, we’d better discount the results for a certain electoral contest decided in November 2008.  And if we’re going to bring it the Koch Brothers’ money (about $1 million in the Wisconsin race), let’s not forget the unions’ largesse; they spent twenty times the amount those unfairly maligned siblings doled out.

Fascinating how Democrats obsess over money when Republicans outspend them, but not when they outspend the Republicans.  Their spending advantage somehow makes Democratic victories legitimate, but a Republican advantages calls his success into question.

But, then for Democrats, almost anything calls a Republican’s victory into question.  Democracy, to them, is not what the people want, how they express their opinions in free and fair elections, but what they want.  As former* U.S Senator Russ Feingold said, “This game is not over until we win.”  (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

No wonder our reader is hoping a criminal investigation will accomplish what an election could not.

* (more…)

Wisconsin Democrats Deep Despair with Decision Day Dawning

Barely three days before the gubernatorial recall election in the Badger State, an outfit called
the Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op breaks a story about a(n illegitimate) love child Scott Walker father and left behind.  The next day the Daily Kos (the Daily Kos!) reports that the woman in question denied that the Wisconsin governor fathered her baby.

“The Democrats”, quips John Hinderaker, blogging about the news at Powerline, “are looking down the barrel of a humiliating defeat in Wisconsin’s recall election on Tuesday, so today they played their last card“.  Meanwhile Democrats are talking about some kind of investigation into Governor Scott Walker, leading that good man to say, “The Democrats are desperate. . . . They’ve got nothing else. We’ve answered this question a million different times, and they don’t want to talk about what this recall is really about.”

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse says that notions that legal cloud supposedly gathering over Walker “less of a cloud of law than a swarm of Democrats“, adding

Desperate Democrats. Embarrassing. You just had a former President appear on behalf of your candidate. Why not a little grace and dignity as you approach the end?

Indeed.

If it’s this bad right now heading into  the Wisconsin recall, can you imagine how it will be come November nationally, particularly if Obama, like the Democrat in the Badger State, is lagging in the polls in the run-up to balloting?