Note: CJ Pearson is probably a descendant of the African-American slaves. Barack H. Obama, by his own official biography, is not.
Remember the Left going on and on about President Bush’s supposedly “illegal” and “unilateral” Iraq war? When, in reality, the Bush administration had gone to great lengths to obtain (and did obtain) authorization for Iraq from both Congress and the U.N.
Even Senator Obama got in on the act, saying later in 2007 that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” His words were correct – but again, irrelevant to the Bush case (since Bush had Congressional, bipartisan approval).
Then President Obama felt like bombing Libya out of the blue (no terrorist threat was involved – until after Ghaddafi was gone). And he sought no authorization from Congress. Did the Left care? A little; but really not much.
President Peace Prize also went on to embroil the U.S. in wars in Syria and Ukraine – unilaterally and with no authorization. And to blow any gains of the Iraq war, allowing ISIS to take hold; an event that President Orwell referred to as his having “ended the war”.
Now that he has done so, he proposes to resume the Iraq war. Except this time, he finally wants authorization first. I suppose that’s nice of him. I suppose we must be grateful, to such a terribly great man, for the small graces that he grants to us, his subjects.
You know the saying “There are no accidents”. First, consider how the Left’s beloved fake-Native American, Elizabeth Warren, is an unusually wealthy member of Congress – probably worth over $6 million. Courtesy of ZH:
Next, consider how the Left’s beloved fake-Native American, Elizabeth Warren, opposes a bill to audit the Federal Reserve Bank.
I say the 2 things are connected. You see, Elizabeth Warren is a phony. That doesn’t only mean that she has repeatedly lied about her racial (non-)heritage for personal gain. It also means that she lies about being a populist who would support the little guy against Big Banking.
For the last 6 1/2 years, the Fed – the privately-owned, biggest bank of them all – has (in accordance with Obama’s wishes) pumped boatloads of newly-created cash into our financial markets, to make financial bubbles that benefit “the one percent” – who include the top earners of Big Government and Big Banking (plus Big Government’s general deficits being financed). And Elizabeth Warren has no real problem with any of that. She does claim to oppose it. But her actions tell another story.
If she really opposed it, she’d be leading the charge to get the Fed audited. Instead, Rand Paul leads the charge (and Ron Paul before him) – while she carps, or puts up obstacles. “Follow the money.”
Unrelated follow-up: After noting in early December that holiday spending was off to a weak start, I should note that indeed, December consumer spending plunged by the most since 2009, as people’s incomes stagnated. At least by *conventional* economic wisdom, that means a bad economy – and shouldn’t be happening.
“Why is it socially acceptable — as a form of entertainment — for men to put on dresses, make up and high heels and act out every offensive stereotype of women (bitchy, catty, dumb, slutty, etc.) — but it is not socially acceptable — as a form of entertainment — for a white person to put on blackface and act out offensive stereotypes of African Americans?”
I think the correct liberal answer is, “Because you’re a racist.” But then, that’s pretty much the all-purpose liberal response to any question they don’t have an answer to.
On a related note, a Women’s college recently canceled a performance of The Vajayjay Monologues, ostensibly so as not to offend transgendereds, but actually because social justice warriors are just completely bloody insane. (more…)
Here’s a thought: *It’s wrong to take things from people by force.*
The above is an ethical principle so basic that even leftists know it. When, say, watching a movie that has cavemen, the leftie can see that the caveman taking things (by force) is a sign of his savagery. Or, when teaching a kindergarten, even a left-wing teacher will stop the kid who grabs another kid’s toys or body parts without prior, explicit consent. The willingness to deal with others by mutual, voluntary consent is the foundation of civilized society.
But in the sphere of politics, the left-winger forgets it. Politically, her concept is that if you can get “the community” or government to take things from people by force (rather than taking things yourself)……then it’s OK. She calls that concept “progressive”. But it isn’t progressive. It’s regressive and, indeed, reactionary.
It’s reactionary because it dates back to savage times. It’s the prevailing rule in the dark(er) ages of human history. In medieval and early modern times, they called it the Divine Right of Kings. The idea was that the monarch, being answerable only to God, had the right to take anyone’s life, liberty or property at any time. Which meant, more or less, that the government had the right; government was effectively unlimited.
Beginning in the 17th and 18th centuries, unlimited government was opposed by the Lockean Revolution, a set of ideas developed by many, including John Locke. The core idea was that individuals have natural rights, superior to the government’s. The Lockeans were not anarchists; they pushed the ideas of limited government and rule of law.
The Lockean Revolution was (and still is) profoundly progressive. In itself, it is an instance of progress (over savagery). Also, to whatever extent it has been practiced, it has tended to make the surrounding society much more developed and open.
Opponents of the Lockean Revolution were reactionaries. Why? Because almost by definition they were aristocrats, defending old privileges and unjust institutions (such as slavery and unlimited government).
Eventually, the reactionaries saw that Big Government could not survive, if people understood that it was reactionary. Big Government advocates saw the need to dress themselves up as new-fangled and “progressive”. So they developed new political theories; new justifications for Big Government, that is, government which would be able to take things from people by physical force, as it pleased.
Following more socialistic philosophers such as Rousseau or Marx, advocates of Big Government chopped off the King’s head – while preserving his Big (or nearly unlimited) government, in practice. Instead of God or the King’s right, they talked about the supremacy of the People (or Nation or Race or Proletariat or Community) over the individual. (“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” – Hillary Clinton)
In chopping off the King’s head – and by their own loud, ongoing proclamation – Big Government advocates have re-branded themselves as “progressives”. But they are not. They remain reactionaries. Because, in practice, these “progressives” still oppose the Lockean Revolution – which is (in Jonah Goldberg’s phrasing) the greatest gift to humankind of the last 1,000 years.
In point of fact, limited government – and the Rule of Law – are civilization and progress; while Big Government, however left-wingers may now justify it, is still as savage and reactionary as it ever was.
We who believe in freedom and limited government may often get called reactionaries, by left-wingers. Call it example #6553 of left-wing deflection and projection.
A Christian group went to thirteen gay-owned bakeries and requested each of them to bake a cake promoting traditional marriage; and of course, recognizing that they were obligated to serve any customer regardless of ideological differences, they happily obliged.
Nope, just kidding. All thirteen not only refused, but some were very nasty about it.
Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America. They get sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. So we at Shoebat.com called some 13 prominent bakers who are either gay or pro-gay and requested that they make a pro-traditional marriage cake with the words “Gay marriage is wrong” placed on the cake. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it.
Video at link.
And you know what… I completely defend their right to refuse to bake a cake in support of something they don’t believe in; because I don’t believe people forfeit their Constitutional rights when they open businesses.
It’s the gay fascist left who are the hypocrites.
From the day he took office, [Obama has] been personally insulted, lectured, yelled at and disrespected in public, by public figures, in a way that few if any American presidents have ever faced.
For those who can’t even see the humanity in the man because of his race, try to respect the title that comes before his name. It’s there forevermore.
Ah, so we’re so supposed to respect the president… to preserve the dignity of the office. This from a guy who described George W Bush as “at home in his bathtub, painting pictures of his toenails…”
V’s post about the fakeness of the feminist “College is a Rape Zone” narrative is spot-on. Having said that: Assaults on women do happen and let’s look at one, recent, compare-and-contrast example of the media’s coverage.
- Obscure Congressional GOP staffer, Elizabeth Lauten, happens to notice on Facebook that Obama’s daughters roll their eyes way much: The media makes Lauten into a national crisis, even posting vans outside her parents’ house.
- Obscure Congressional Democrat staffer, Donny Ray Williams Jr., actually drugs and rapes women: No national crisis. Bare-bones media coverage of him.
It seems to me that, if the feminists really want to publicize the problem of assaults on women and/or to attack institutions that would demean women by their silence on such assaults, they could start by attacking the mainstream and/or left-wing media for its Democrat-rapist-protecting, crazy-double standards.
And if the media were a kitty, she’d say:
Why? Could it simply be what lefties are used to, in their own selves? Because maybe some *left-wing* gun owners are irresponsible, drunk and dangerous?
Earlier this week, Missouri state Senator Jamilah Nasheed, a Democrat who has sponsored several anti-gun bills, was arrested while protesting in front of the Ferguson Police Department…
What made the arrest interesting is that Nasheed was carrying a 9mm handgun with extra ammunition.
Authorities also said Nasheed “smelled strongly of intoxicants.” But Nasheed refused to take a breathalyzer test…
“Sen. Nasheed, along with another male, entered the street, were told numerous times by not only by the St. Louis County commander, but other officers on scene, that they needed to leave the street or they were subject to arrest,” said St. Louis County Police Sgt. Brian Schellman. “They failed to comply, and they were taken into custody.”
The arrest was conducted without incident…But her arrest and news that she was in possession of a firearm brought charges of hypocrisy. According to attorney Eric Vickers, Nasheed needs the gun for her own protection and Nasheed says she holds a concealed carry permit. But if Nasheed had her way, other Missourians would not have the same right…
Apparently, there is some debate on the left now about how much they should tolerate Islam’s basic hostility toward women, gays, and human rights generally. It was started when Bill Maher had the audacity to suggest that maybe Mohammedans should be criticized for their anti-liberal attitudes toward women and minorities. The deep progressive left thinkers like Ben Affleck, Rosie O’Donnell, and Toure have reacted by proclaiming that any and all criticism of Islam is racist and xenophobic. But it’s pretty hard to get around the fact that serious Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong will pray for those who are gay, and serious Mohammedans who think homosexuality is wrong will frakking kill you.
A graduate from Trinity Western University says that a hiring manager for Canada’s North for Amaruk Wilderness Corp. informed her that her application for an internship at the company was rejected because of her Christian beliefs and education at a Christian university.
In her complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Bethany Paquette provided a series of discriminatory emails from executives at Amaruk.One of the emails was from hiring manager Olaf Amundsen, who told Paquette that she did not meet the minimum requirements to be a guide. He then callously added:
Additionally, considering you were involved with Trinity Western University, I should mention that, unlike Trinity Western University, we embrace diversity, and the right of people to sleep with or marry whoever they want.
Amundsen explained to Paquette that most of “the guys at the management level” in the Norwegian-owned company believe Christianity is to blame for destroying Norse culture, traditions, and its way of life.
Frankly, I think employers should have a right to employ whomever they want and sell to whomever want. But why would anyone want to work for a bunch of douchebags likes that?
Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers
Yeah, racial tolerance is good and everything, but not when it results in a lesbian’s trophy baby being the wrong color.
A white Ohio woman is suing a Downers Grove-based sperm bank, alleging that the company mistakenly gave her vials from an African-American donor, a fact that she said has made it difficult for her and her same-sex partner to raise their now 2-year-old daughter in an all-white community.
According to the lawsuit, the lesbian herself isn’t racist… no… not at all… it’s all those *other* white people she lives around who are racist, and that’s why she has to sue.
Jennifer acknowledges her limited cultural competency relative to African-Americans and steep learning curve, particularly in small, homogenous Uniontown, which she regards as too racially intolerant,” the lawsuit states.
President Obama acknowledged Sunday that U.S. intelligence officials “underestimated” the threat posed by the Islamic State and overestimated the Iraqi army’s capacity to defeat the militant group…
Let’s be clear: Officials who were chosen and supported by Obama. The administration of Barack Hussein Obama underestimated ISIS.
Or else, we can make this entry #39,422 in the files of “Obama pretends that he hasn’t been president all these years”. In the interview, Obama goes on to also blame Iraq’s PM al-Maliki for the problems; never himself.
One more thing. Does Obama still have the U.S. backing the world’s evil dictators? It seems so:
Obama also acknowledged that the U.S. is dealing with a conundrum in Syria, as the U.S.-led military campaign against the Islamic State is helping Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom the U.N. has accused of war crimes.
“I recognize the contradiction in a contradictory land and a contradictory circumstance,” Obama said…
Bush practically would have been impeached, for saying that. (And Bush wouldn’t have said it because Bush did what he could, to push U.S. policy in the direction of overthrowing the world’s evil dictators.)
One more thing. Has Obama made it a thing of the past, that the U.S. might strike its enemies pre-emptively (or perhaps unilaterally, as the Left calls it)? Not so much:
Obama called the threat from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and other terror groups a more “immediate concern that has to be dealt with…” “…in terms of immediate threats to the United States, ISIL, Khorasan Group — those folks could kill Americans,” he said…
Both groups have been targeted by U.S. airstrikes in recent days…
Barack Obama: Just what the Left always *accused* Bush of being. And of course, the media lets him get away with it.
UPDATE: Some Democrats agree that it was the Obama White House, more than the U.S. intelligence community, which underestimated ISIS.
Former Rear Admiral Joe Sestak, a two-term Democratic member of the House of Representatives…appeared to surprise his MSNBC interlocutor when he noted that the only people who got ISIS wrong work in the Obama administration.
“If you remember back in January and February, the head — the general, the Defense Intelligence Agency, actually testified before the House and Senate that in 2014, ISIS would take over large swaths of territory,” the Navy veteran asserted. “In fact, at the time he testified, they had already seized Ramadi and Fallujah — 35 miles from Baghdad.”
A decade ago, Fallujah was a crucial victory for the Marines (some of whom gave their lives) against an earlier version of ISIS. I guess Obama threw it back.
UPDATE: A report that Obama was warned about ISIS in 2012. As Ed Morrissey puts it:
…the US intelligence community told him of the danger at the same time Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney during the presidential debates…for wanting a residual force in Iraq to prevent exactly what Romney warned would happen.
Obama’s aides want you to know that just because Obama was yukking it up and fist-bumping literally half an hour after eulogizing James Foley after he was beheaded by Mohammedan savages (or as Obama calls them “folks“), that his actions “did not reflect the depths of his grief” over
Foley’s brutal death missing that two-foot putt on the 13th hole.
Chicks on the Right thought you might want to know a little more about Obama’s golfing buddies.
Center: Glenn Hutchins, mutli-millionaire founder of private equity firm Silver Lake Partners (which was a defendant in a collusion lawsuit this year along with Bain Capital and recently settled out of court for $30-million)
Right: Cyrus Walker, a millionaire lobbyist for Chatman LLC, a lobbying firm for the health insurance industry in Deleware
Left: The current President who campaigned against both private equity firms and also political lobbyist organizations, whose golf game apparently comes before important matters as well as his own integrity
And yet, there are lot of stupid people who believe Democrats are “the party of the little guy.” (You know who you are.)
What could bring San Francisco Progressive Leftists and German Neo-Nazi skinheads together in harmonious unity? Why, Jew-hatred, of course. (And also authoritarian fascist socialism, but mostly Jew-hatred.)
In San Francisco (CIty Motto: “More exposed wangs than a whole season of Game of Thrones”), that bastion of progressive leftism, protesters turned out to oppose the only state in the Middle East that recognizes gay rights and support a regime where the only debate about gay rights is whether they have the right to be thrown off high buildings or crushed under rocks.
And in Berlin, a combined anti-Jew protest organized by Mohammedans and German Neo-Nazis erupted in periodic chants of “Gas the Jews! Gas the Jews!”
I guess these groups have to unite in order to destroy Jews and Christians; because Jews and Christians are so intolerant.
When a viewpoint (leftism) goes against reason, logic and civil society – when its basic doctrine is in essence an attack on the rights of the individual – we should expect at least some of its adherents to be rude, “entitled” people in the encounters of daily life. Because the person and the viewpoint gravitate toward each other. Leftism fundamentally denies other people’s rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore, committed leftists should tend – not always, but on average and over time – tend to be unreasonable people who disrespect others.
It’s much better to laugh at these people than to feel upset by them. Consider this an open thread for posting your own favorite “ridiculous leftie encounter” stories, in the comments.
I’ll start with a very little one, that just happened. Picture a large gym, a bank of 12 large TVs shared by many exercise stations. A woman is exercising in front of TV #4. She watches #4 intently, with perhaps an occasional glance to TVs 3 or 5. TV #2 is far out of her field of vision, and clearly nothing that she’s watching. So she won’t mind if I change it, as I’m about to work in front of #2. I pick a sports channel. Oops! TV #2 had been set to MSNBC, and she’s a Ridiculous Leftie who must dictate everything that happens. She stops exercising and strides to the far wall just to change #2 back to MSNBC, glaring at me with vicious hostility. And then – get this – she *still* doesn’t watch it. (Probably since she would have had to strain her neck, to keep it up for long; or do even liberals dislike MSNBC?)
The story ended OK for me (I did speak with her and have reason prevail) but that’s enough. Tell yours!
If you’re a lawyer and you defend a man who brutally raped a woman before shooting her and burying her alive, you’ll be a hero in the legal profession.
If you defend a brutal cop-killer, President Obama might appoint you to be in charge of Civil Rights for the entire country.
If you defend terrorists who murdered American soldiers and innocent civilians, Obama might appoint you Attorney General of the United States.
And if you’re an unscrupulous ambulance chaser who acquires a vast fortune by using Junk Science to sue baby doctors out of existence and cheats on your wife while she’s dying of cancer, the Democrat Party considers you presidential timber.
All of those causes… rapists, murderers, terrorists, suing baby doctors… fully supported and respectable for the legal profession.
Joan Biskupic writing for Reuters reports on the fear in the legal community that has caused large law firms to refuse to take on clients who support keeping the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage, U.S. law firms flock to gay-marriage proponents, shun other side (h/t@AdamLiptak):
In fairness, this probably has more to do with the bullying tactics of the fascist gay left than with ethics. Still, it’s worth remembering when lefty lawyers clap themselves on the back for having the “courage” to defend unpopular causes; they risk nothing for defending rapists, murderers, and terrorists are are often, in fact, rewarded for it.
The Texas GOP passed a resolution vowing to keep “Gay Reparative Therapy” legal in Texas, and the leftists are throwing their daily all-day hissy fit about it. As usual, the left, who were clearly the cultural aggressors in this (after New Jersey and California made sexuality choice therapy illegal) are now playing the victim.
It’s easy to imagine they would be equally outraged had banned sex change operations and cheered if a blue state vowed to keep them legal. Apparently, the right to undergo chemical and surgical mutilation to change one’s sexual identity is a sacrosanct right. But the right to change one’s sexual orientation, if that’s what one wants, not so much.
I’m not sure such therapy is even very effective, but I think people ought to have the right to pursue it if that’s what they want.
One wonders, if there were therapy that could make a straight person gay, would the left be against it, or would they demand that it receive federal subsidies, like Sandy Fluke’s birth control?
Those of us on the conservative/right-wing/libertarian side tend to believe that people generally have a right to make their own decisions so long as those decisions don’t hurt anyone else.
The progressive left, on the other hand, believe that people have a right to make choices so long as the progressive left approves of those choices. And, furthermore, choices the progressive left approves of should be mandatory and/or subsidized. Those the left disapproves of should be illegal.
William Nicholson complains that his movie, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, didn’t get him the accolades he was aiming for, because another movie used up audiences’ racial guilt that year:
“Unfortunately it didn’t get the kind of acclaim that I wanted. It didn’t get Oscars,” Nicholson said, because 12 Years a Slave “sucked up all the guilt about black people that was available.”
“[America] were so exhausted feeling guilty about slavery that I don’t think there was much left…”
Nicholson, however, also laid blame with…the civil rights hero’s “boring” rhetoric. “I know it sounds outrageous to say a thing like that, but when he came out of prison he made a speech and, God, you fell asleep,” he said.
- Nicholson doesn’t think all that highly of Mandela.
- He made the movie to get an Oscar.
- His intended tactic was to manipulate people, specifically their sense of guilt.
- The world cheated him of his Oscar, since another movie got to people’s guilt, first.
Umm, what about art?