text:
TRUMP IS AMERICA'S GREAT LIBERATOR
-- Liberating Americans from Leftist authoritarianism and hate.
Senate panel suspends a rule to OK Trump Cabinet picks
Once again, Democrats are undone by their living in an eternal present, with no thought of yesterday or tomorrow. What the GOP did here was follow a precedent set by Harry Reid, when he showed that you could bypass important checks and balances through a simple rewriting of the Senate rules.
Reid had no respect for precedent and now the GOP have followed suit. Reid quite amazingly abolished the filibuster for all but approval of SCOTUS judges. That insouciance has now come back hard to bite the Donks on the butt. They set a dangerous precedent for temporary gain and now are virtually disarmed in resisting Trump appointees
This is of course not the end of Senate scrutiny for the appointees but it clears away a roadblock. And final approval should now follow easily
Republicans muscled through committee approval of President Donald Trump's nominees for Treasury and Health on Wednesday, suspending a key Senate rule in the latest escalation of partisan tensions in Congress.
Democrats boycotted a Finance Committee meeting and Republicans responded by temporarily scuttling a rule requiring at least one Democrat to be present for votes. The committee then approved Representative Tom Price to become Health secretary and financier Steve Mnuchin to be Treasury secretary.
Hoyer: U.S. Should Not Give Priority to Refugee Claims of Persecuted Christians
Hoyer is Jewish. I'm guessing that he would make an exception for endangered Jews. When Britain controlled Palestine, they tried to send back Jewish refugees. Does Hoyer agree with that?
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the United States should not give priority to the refugee claims of persecuted religious minorities.
Doing so is one element of the execuitive order that President Donald Trump issued Friday to protect the United States from entry by foreign terrorists.
At his weekly Capitol Hill press briefing, CNSNews.com asked Hoyer: "President Trump's order on protecting the U.S. from foreign terrorists calls for prioritizing the refugee claims of persecuted religious minorities. Do you agree that the U.S. should prioritize refugee admissions for persecuted religious minorities?"
"No," Hoyer said. "I think the criteria should not be religion."
Levin on Trump's Refugee Executive Order: Nobody Has a Right to Come Into America – None
On his nationally syndicated radio talk show Monday, host Mark Levin ripped the Left for their onslaught against Donald Trump's executive order on refugees saying, "Nobody has a right, of any kind, to come into America – none."
"Nobody has a right, of any kind, to come into America – none," said Mark Levin. "Now I know the crackpot ultra-Libertarians and the crackpot ultra-Leftists seem to think that people can come willy-nilly, but they're wrong. That's never been American history, and no nation can survive that. None. That's why no nation does it. None."
Below is a transcript of Levin's comments from his show:
"Now, let's start from the beginning so I can unravel all of this and then ram it down their throats.
"What's the purpose of government? Its primary purpose is to secure America and to protect the life, liberty and property of the American people. I said, the American people.
"What's the purpose of immigration? It is to improve America, to improve America.
"No society is immortal. None. No nation is immortal. None.
"And yet, there are people who keep preaching the transformation of America. They've been eviscerating our Constitution. They are eviscerating our borders, and they're doing the latter through immigration. They lecture us about the Constitution.
"Foreign citizens who've never set foot in America don't have constitutional rights. Seven billion people who aren't Americans don't fall within the jurisdiction of our Constitution or our statutes.
"Nobody has a right, of any kind, to come into America – none.
"Now I know the crackpot ultra-Libertarians and the crackpot ultra-Leftists seem to think that people can come willy-nilly, but they're wrong. That's never been American history, and no nation can survive that. None. That's why no nation does it. None.
"All you've heard today is about the poor, would-be immigrant – not the actual immigrant – the poor, would-be immigrant from seven countries, six would be for a four-month temporary ban, not permitted to come into the country. In Syria it would be indefinite, until the situation settles down.
"And you would have thought Donald Trump was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. You would have thought Trump was rounding up Muslim-Americans and Americans of Muslim decent, ordering his military to issue an order like 9066, rounding up Muslim-Americans and bringing them to internment camps in the center of the country.
"Did he do that? No.
"No, he didn't do that.
"He hasn't violated anybody's rights. He hasn't violated anybody's due process. There aren't any rights. There isn't any due process. The people aren't even here yet. The people aren't even here yet.
"And they say this is un-American. What's un-American. There's nothing un-American about this.
"I don't know what the courts will do now, but in the past the courts have upheld every single syllable of what Donald Trump did with his executive order.
"Nobody has a right to come into this country. Nobody has the right to demand to come into this country. I don't give a d--- what their faith is, or their race, or their ethnicity.
"This country belongs to the American citizen. The citizen of America comes first, not the citizen of Yemen, or Libya, or the Sudan, or Iran, or all the rest of it.
"The problem we have, ladies and gentleman, is that we have people who are trying to blow up our cities and cut the throats of your children, and we can't simply identify them because they won't self-identity. They don't wear scarlet letters.
"They're terrorists. And terrorists, unlike a standing military, secrete themselves among the people. They hide among the people in order to slaughter the people. So when you have people coming into this country from parts of the world where we cannot be sure who they are because there's no effective government, or there's a hostile government, or there's no effective database, what's a president of the United States supposed to do? 'Hey, come on in. We'll ask you 12 questions.' And that will be that.
"Trump is trying to prevent carnage in the United States of American citizens on his watch, and he's being brutalized for it. He's being attacked for it. "I've never seen anything so disgusting."
The Left are full of fake horror over an affectionate pat on the bottom
Ivanka's husband still finds her attractive
It is good to see such magnetism between them after years of marriage and three children
Very selective horror. By contrast, ripping a baby out of its mother's womb and killing it is no trouble at all to the Left.
Ivanka still Daddy's girl too
How idiotic are the feminists who say Trump is a misogynist
Trump took her with him when he made an unannounced trip to honor the returning remains of a U.S. Navy SEAL killed during a weekend raid on an al-Qaida base in Yemen
Columbia invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak. He spoke. Milo Yiannopoulos got the reception below at UC Berkeley. The Nazi-Left prevented him from speaking
The demonstrating Left and their supporters are the true heirs of Nazism in America today
A Trump supporter was giving her statement to ABC7 News when someone pepper sprayed her on camera
BERKELEY, Calif. (KGO) -- Violent protests moved through downtown Berkeley Wednesday night after the cancellation of a speaking engagement scheduled for controversial Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
There were plenty of sub-plots at the protest against Yiannopulos, but also against people who were protecting the suppression of free speech. The conflict arrived in the form of polytechnics, smoke, strife, and anger--not only about the speaker and what he might say, but also about his right to say it, even in the birthplace of the free speech movement.
"Well I carried my sign, Free speech is protected even for Milo," said Mike Sherman, a protester.
The protests began at U.C. Berkeley in front of the Martin Luther King Student Union around 5 p.m. and left only after U.C. Berkeley police threatened to arrest anyone who remained.
As to what happened in between, there may have been 400 active protesters and some 300 people looking on. Some of them came hoping to hear the speech.
Kiara Robles braved the crowd wearing a red "Make Bitcoin Great Again" hat in the style of President Trump's red hats, which made her and our crew a target. The video in the player above shows the graphic exchange between a protester and Robles, who was pepper sprayed. "I'm looking to make a statement by just being here and I think the protesters are doing the same. Props to the ones who are doing it non-violently, but I think that's a very rare thing indeed."
She later told ABC7 News she was alright.
She was not the only person attacked at the protest Wednesday. "I hope I don't have a broken nose over this," said Joe Scherer, an observer. "The first amendment is fundamental to our Constitution."
By 9 p.m. protesters had taken to the streets of Berkeley carrying protest signs. Some marched while others threw rocks at buildings. A Chase location and a Wells Fargo location were vandalized. Broken glass could be seen flying into the streets from Sky7.
The violence and vandalism spread far beyond the school's campus.
U.C. Berkeley police and university officials issued warnings to the students not to exit their dorms. A shelter-in-place was ordered as well.
In a free country with free speech in iconic Berkeley, no matter what a person's politics we were all witness to violence
For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated), a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in). GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.
Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Pictorial) or here (Personal)
Posted by JR at 1:24 AM 2 comments Links to this post
Message to the Trump-haters
by Paul Genova
I'm noticing that a lot of people aren't graciously accepting the fact that their candidate lost. In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those who voted for Trump. Some are apparently "triggered" because they are posting how "sick" you feel about the results. How did this happen you ask? Well, here is how it happened!
You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
You created "us" when you attacked our flag.
You created "us" when you took God out of our schools.
You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.
You created "us" when you began to emasculate men.
You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft.
You created "us" when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
You created "us" when you attacked our way of life.
You created "us" when you decided to let our government get out of control.
You created "us" the silent majority.
You created "us" when you began murdering innocent law enforcement officers.
You created "us" when you lied and said we could keep our insurance plans and our doctors.
You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created "us" when you took a knee, or stayed seated or didn't remove your hat during our National Anthem.
You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
With ballots, not riots.
With ballots, not looting.
With ballots, not blocking traffic.
With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of "us".
"YOU" created "US".
It really is just that simple
Trump travel ban: Prince Charles says we are in danger of forgetting the lessons of the past
He seems to have forgotten the lessons of the present: worldwide Jihad
The vast worldwide shrieks by Leftists and comfortable elites drown out a lot of ordinary people who think it is about time that Muslims got some of their own back. There is majority support for Trump's order
Prince Charles has warned the "horrific lessons" of the Holocaust and World War II "seem to be in increasing danger of being forgotten" in what is being interpreted as a veiled reference to the rise of nationalism, populism and US President Donald Trump.
The heir to the throne, who was speaking at a fundraising dinner for the World Jewish Relief charity in London on Monday night, also urged people of faith to "extend a helping hand" "across the boundaries" of their own religions to wherever aid is needed.
In his speech, the Prince of Wales paid tribute to the work of the charity as well as a number of Jewish refugees and survivors of the Holocaust he had met throughout his life, including champion weightlifter Ben Helfgott.
"To meet Ben, and others who, like him, have endured indescribable persecution, is to be reminded of the danger of forgetting the lessons of the past," he said.
"The work of World Jewish Relief enables us to rally together, to do what we can to support people practically, emotionally and spiritually – particularly at a time when the horrific lessons of the last War seem to be in increasing danger of being forgotten."
The Left have no principles and no shame
Donald Trump way ahead of his critics
By Rita Panahi, an Iranian-born Australian
IF THE Left wants to see Donald Trump elected to a second term, it should continue its current antics. Every Trump move, no matter how benign or insignificant, has been met with a reaction ranging from agitation to full-blown hysteria.
There'll be plenty more protests to come as the Trump administration implements its "America-first" policies. The so-called "Muslim ban", which is, in fact, nothing of the sort, has elicited the strongest response and much of it is based on misinformation, half-truths and imagined injustices.
For the record, I don't support blanket bans on travellers from particular countries, or religions, but only a naive fool would deny that Trump's policy is popular among voters — and not just in the US. Trump is doing precisely what he promised during the marathon presidential election campaign.
He is executing policies, including limiting migration from terror hot spots, until improved vetting practises can be established.
Did Trump's political opponents think he was bluffing or expect him to abandon the populist policies that got him elected?
According to the independent Quinnipiac University Poll released earlier this month, 48 per cent of Americans support "suspending immigration from terror prone regions, even if it means turning away refugees", while 42 per cent are opposed.
Of the Republican voters polled, 72 per cent supported the bans with only 17 per cent opposed.
The poll also showed that 53 per cent backed "requiring immigrants from Muslim countries to register with the federal government", with 41 per cent against the idea.
A poll released on Tuesday by Rasmussen Reports, considered a conservative polling company, showed even greater support for the measures. Of likely US voters, 57 per cent were in favour of the bans on refugees until the federal government can better screen potential terrorists, with 33 per cent opposed to Trump's policy.
The bans were hugely popular with Republican voters (82 per cent) while 59 per cent of voters not affiliated with either party also backed the move.
It's worth noting that the seven countries affected by the 90-day travel ban — Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and Syria — not only support terror but most have chaotic governments unwilling or simply incapable of providing pertinent information about citizens travelling to the US.
Trump's immigration crackdown also included a ban on refugees from the seven banned countries for 120 days and the suspension of the Syrian refugee admissions program indefinitely.
Those countries were selected not because they are Muslim-majority but because they were identified by the Obama administration as "countries of concern". The asinine argument that such measures will lead to the "radicalisation of more Muslims" are best ignored; there has never been an anti-terror policy that has not been derided as "playing into the hands of terrorists".
I wonder if the Left realises how Islamophobic it is to suggest that otherwise peaceful Muslims will become jihadis if they are banned from entering the US for a few months. The same people who tell us terror has no religion are warning that Muslims will react with violence to the bans.
Why do so many progressives use the bigotry of low expectation when speaking about the Muslim world? Do Israelis, banned from multiple Muslim-majority countries, turn to terror? Indeed there are many Muslim nations that ban anyone who has been to Israel from entering their country, which is why the Israelis no longer stamp the passports of visitors.
Despite the reports of worldwide chaos, there were relatively few passengers, a few hundred, immediately affected by Trump's sudden announcement.
By Monday night the media was becoming desperate for tales of traumatised passengers caught up in the confusion. The Independent reported on Iranian-born BBC journalist Ali Hamedani being detained for two hours and "subjected to invasive checks" before being released.
Two hours? I've been held up longer in Heathrow and as for the invasive checks, the US officials checked Hamedani's phone and social media accounts.
For a couple of days there were about 110,000 Australians, including my parents, born in the banned countries who may have been affected. However, on Tuesday the Turnbull government confirmed that Australian dual citizens would be exempt from the visa restrictions. It remains to be seen whether the negative media coverage will sway public opinion.
One wonders why we didn't hear sob stories from those affected by the Obama administration's visa restrictions and record number of deportations. Yes, Obama, hero of the tolerant Left, deported more people than any other US president — but that wasn't met with massive protests and media campaigns.
Trump is clearly not the type of politician to be swayed by political protests, nor will he try to appease those who loathe him.
One significant achievement for which he deserves praise is securing agreement from Saudi Arabia's King Salman to set up safe zones in Yemen and Syria, a move that would ease the refugee crisis.
Just How Much Voting Fraud Does Exist?
Early this week Donald Trump leveled the claim that three to five million illegal votes were cast during this past election, and he has called for an investigation into voter fraud. That stunning accusation — stunning only for the high numbers claimed — predictably brought howls of outrage from the Leftmedia, which lambasted Trump for yet more fake news and baseless claims. Hypocritically, the Leftmedia offered no evidence to prove that Trump's accusation was "baseless."
And it's not as if there are no facts supporting at least the need for a greater investigation into voter fraud, as several recent lawsuits brought by the Public Interest Legal Foundation demonstrate. In fact, why did the government see fit to pass the National Voting Registration Act of 1993 if it wasn't intended to combat potential voting fraud? In other words, it would be ridiculous to assert that voter fraud didn't happen. The real question is just how bad of a problem it is. If no comprehensive investigations are done, then the argument merely continues to be the spitting contest it currently has become.
It's rather dubious for the Leftmedia to call out Trump as a liar and yet argue against investigating his claims. The truth is, the Leftmedia isn't interested in knowing the actual number of illegal immigrants who voted or how many votes dead people cast or how many individuals voted multiply times. So long as official data is unavailable, leftists can continue to claim voter fraud is really not a problem — that it's simply the boogie man conservatives like to drag up as a political scare tactic designed to disenfranchise minority voters. The Leftmedia's stance essentially cheapens the unique privilege of American citizenship.
Psychopathy and IQ
Leftists such as the Clintons have a lot of psychopathic traits and it is clear that most psychopaths don't get into trouble with the law and can be fairly successful in business and politics. So it is a condition that we do well to know about.
Because of some prominent examples of psychopaths who have high IQs, there has developed an impression that psychopaths are generally of above average IQ. It is always unsafe to generalize from a few examples, however, so a paper that looks at a full range of the evidence on the subject is very welcome. And the finding (see below) is that ON AVERAGE, psychopaths are in fact a bit dim.
There is a fuller discussion of the matter here
On the relationship between psychopathy and general intelligence: A meta-analytic review
Olga Sanchez de Ribera et al.
Over recent decades, a growing body of research has accumulated concerning the relationship between indicators of general intelligence and the personality construct known as psychopathy. Both traits represent key correlates of life outcomes, predicting everything from occupational and economic success, to various indicators of prosocial behavior (including avoiding contact with the criminal justice system). The findings to date regarding the association of the two traits, however, have been somewhat inconsistent. Thus, there remains a need for a more systematic investigation of the extant empirical literature. The current study reports a meta-analysis conducted to evaluate the direction and overall effect size of the relationship between these two constructs. Our analyses revealed a small, but significant, negative effect of intelligence on psychopathy. The results and impact of possible moderating variables such as type of intelligence test used are discussed. Finally, the study limitations, and possible directions for further research on this issue are detailed prior to concluding.
There was much vitriol surrounding the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States. One thing that struck me was the frequency with which commentators threw around the words fascism and fascist. For example, The Huffington Post warned that Trump's Emerging Fascism Threatens the Nation; Salon chastised the country with the headline Congratulations, America– you did it! An actual fascist is now your official president; The Nation predicted that Anti-Fascists Will Fight Trump's Fascism in the Streets. There is even a website called refusefascism.org that urges Americans to "stay in the streets to stop the fascist Trump/Pence regime."
With all the voices warning of the rise of fascism in America, it would serve us well to define fascism to ensure we understand each other and can discuss the matter with intelligence and civility. Our friend Sheldon Richman is helpful on this point with his thorough entry in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Here is an excerpt:
"As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. . . . Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism –"blood and soil"–for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism. . . .Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society's economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. . . . Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and "excess" incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or "loans."
Trump is undoubtedly a nationalist and protectionist and proudly declared during his inauguration address that he would put "America First." Inasmuch as nationalism is a critical ingredient of fascism, it is indeed present. But notably absent from the Trump agenda is cartelization of American business, planning boards, or control of economic activity or consumption. Instead, Trump seeks to reduce government regulation, has imposed a hiring freeze on federal agencies, and advocates cutting taxes–the lifeblood of the state.
While there are many criticisms one can raise about Trump and certain of his policies, fascism is not one of the them. Unfortunately, fascism has become a label attached to anything a speaker does not like. Modern use of "fascism" is empty and imprecise. If you want to criticize Trump feel free to do so—but please offer reasoned arguments rather than lazily labeling the man as something that he clearly is not.
That Time Clinton Got Tough on Illegal Immigration
If Trump is a reprobate, what does that make former president Bill Clinton?
Said Bill:
"All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more, by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it." —Bill Clinton, 1995 State of the Union
Compare Bill's remarks to Hillary's immigration platform. Contrary to the Left's narrative that accuses today's Republicans of being hostile and unsympathetic, it's liberals whose worldview is now unrealistic and, as Bill put it, ultimately self-defeating.
For the record, The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel points out: "Barack Obama put a pause for six months on refugees coming from Iraq back in 2011. I don't remember protestors and I don't remember lawsuits." There's hypocrisy alright — on the Left.
A changed tune from a leading Democrat
Behind the Immigration Ban Hysterics
Trump's travel ban on foreigners is not what the Left claims it is
From references made by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to the Statue of Liberty crying to CNN running the headline, "Trump bans 134,000,000 from the U.S.," the Left and the mainstream media are jumping up and down in hysteria over Donald Trump's Friday executive orders on vetting refugees. Adding fuel to the controversy were stories of green card holders being prevented entry, forcing the administration to offer a clarification, with Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly stating,
"In applying the provisions of the President's executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest. Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations."
Even The Wall Street Journal headlined a story that read, "Donald Trump's Immigration Ban Sows Chaos."
So what's the deal here? Are Trump's actions as "extreme" as the mainstream media insists? Has the White House been taken over by a nativist? Is Trump Hitler 2.0? The facts reveal quite a different story from the hysteria currently being peddled by the Leftmedia.
First, motive. Trump maintained during his entire campaign that the safety of Americans would be a top priority. The order states in part, "In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its found principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.
In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation."
His actions on Friday are yet another example of him following through on his promises. Trump has correctly assessed that Washington's politically correct attitude toward immigration has created a climate ripe for a Trojan horse-like infiltration taking advantage of the nation's lax controls. His order is not an attack on a religion, ethnic group or region of the world.
Trump's concerns or actions are not new or unprecedented, as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and, yes, even Barack Obama enacted similar temporary bans, and justified those bans out of concern for the safety of Americans. And Trump is rightly acting within the president's legal authority.
Second, the "extreme" adjective that has been bandied about by media pundits from all sides is quite simply absurd. A quick look at history and numbers confirms this. Trump's capping of refugees at 50,000 per year is nothing new. Both George W. Bush and Obama averaged the same number until 2016, when Obama expanded the number significantly. In reality, Trump is simply bringing the numbers back down to previously established levels. If anyone is to be faulted for extreme actions on refugees, it's Obama.
Third, the order will seek to revamp the refugee processing in order to prioritize those of minority religious groups fleeing the persecution of radical Islamists. This will specifically help Christians but also other minorities who have suffered from rising persecution over the last few years. This is a significant change from Obama's policy that did not favor minority religions in the refugee processing.
Fourth, the ban is temporary — 120 days — as DHS determines the "information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat." And the ban has an exemption clause: "Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked."
In reality, the Leftmedia's exasperation over Trump's actions is a strategy aimed at delegitimizing Trump in a effort to subvert his unapologetic "America First" policy. The Left is committed to its globalist vision and will do everything it can to derail Trump.
In hindsight, Trump may have acted too quickly, especially if he failed to fully vet the plan internally. This has allowed the Leftmedia to unleash a barrage of misinformation that is proving to sow confusion and creating the false perception of the order being extreme.
Some comments about the Left from a Christian psychologist who works in counselling and social services
Counselling is an area heavily populated by the Left so he sees them close-up daily
I am well aware of the amount of hatred in the world, in both the non-western world and the hatred that the left has for the western world and western society. Western society, free society, Christianised society, is the target of the world's hatred. The overall force of hatred in the world is directed at us. Other hatreds are secondary, reactionary and minor in comparison.
The Left really does hate us. They want to see our society collapse. I hear all types of leftists say so frequently. Whether economic, social, political, spiritual or religious leftists, they all want and foresee the collapse of western society as we know it. Socio-political leftists-feminists (including psychologists, counsellors, social welfare workers, most teachers, university academics, media workers, lesbians and homos) are convinced that if they keep working at it that they will turn society into a socialist, non-white, non-capitalist, non-Christian, non-patriarchal, equalised society, where even gender will not exist.
The "spiritual-but-not-religious" leftists fantasise that a utopian society will come about when our current society collapses. That people will live in happy little villages without technology and close to nature.
Leftists are generally ignorant of how things are and how things work, and the smarter ones amongst them are determined to dumb others down, they deprive students of learning true political history, they discourage morality, teach that there is no truth, no right or wrong, no good or bad, they teach emotionalism as a religion, they encourage feeling in place of thinking, they indoctrinate children and youth with a sense of un-fairness and resentment, and with a sense of ignorant knowing better how things should be, they encourage cannabis use, homosexuality, ill-discipline and hatred in all its forms.
Just as anger always feels itself to be in the right, so does hatred always feel itself to be right, always feel good and justified. Leftists teach that feeling right is being right. They teach jealousy, resentment, anger and hatred as being feel-good emotions, as guiding personal lights. They teach jealousy, resentment and hatred as if they are good emotions to have, as if they are love and caring. They teach a sick kind of false love and caring driven by hatred, that is not love at all, just hatred dressed as love and caring.
They lead naive people astray, into a delusion of false virtue. And they teach these awful things to primary children, youths, university students, to women and mothers, to counselling clients, to people in all sorts of support groups, corrections rehabilitation programs, drug and alcohol programs, through the media, and through every avenue they can.
It all gets me down. Most of the time I soldier on in my little life, doing what I can to relieve hardship on others, to encourage in my fellow humans a love of freedom, and individual strength and virtue. I create my own little bubble of goodwill around me that, along with prayer, protects me from the oppressive radiance of disguised hatred that exists around me, for hatred by definition is the desire to harm, the desire for destruction, and lefties I mix with have lots of that.
But sometimes my protective bubble seems to burst and I feel the hatred and the false virtue of the world come upon me like finding oneself deep under the sea with no air to breathe, just water. My heart aches for something but I don't know what for – for a home? Where could that be? Where is there a place like me? Possibly nowhere. I expect it will pass. I will walk and do my prayers and fortify myself, rebuild my protective bubble of forgiveness for others that enables me to work amongst deluded lefties who hate society and want it destroyed while believing they are society's good people, the caring ones, and I will get back to work doing what I can, at least until another change comes along.
Now we have Trump on the scene, a man at the helm who vows to fight back against the illogicality of leftism, promising to take the fight to the forces of destruction and defeat them.
Other leaders like him are stirring in other parts of the western world. Not all of these rising anti-leftists are truth attuned, some are reacting emotionally against what they see as the illogicality of leftism, and in so doing are themselves expressing a different form of leftism just as prone to error as the leftism they oppose. So leftism fights leftism.
Emotions seldom make good decisions. I cannot see how it is possible to turn the tide of leftism without bringing things to a head. Great societal pendulums don't swing back without great social upheavals. I doubt that Trump can do what he says he will do. Only people en masse can do that. If he tries to turn things around on his own, out of synch with the turning of sufficient masses, then he will fail.
I think success or failure will be in the timing. And either way there is sure to be conflicts and upheavals. Through history left and right have been steadily becoming more intelligent, more polarised, and more powerful. Leftist intelligence manifests as cunning.
Now, with instant communications between individuals and leaders, and rapid transport of individuals, armies, and goods, the world has become one great stage, no longer many stages as it has been through history. The opposing forces of left and right, of emotion and reason, of false and genuine goodness, that exist in potential in every individual, are now manifesting collectively and positioning themselves across the entire world stage like never before. Like a giant chess game.
I think the beginning game is past, and the mid game is building. And I think every seven billion of us, each in our own way, in our own sphere of influence, play a role in this battle.
I think it is the great battle between desire and better judgement from which all other battles stem. I think what we are seeing is the collective human organism living itself out as a result of how each individual is living themselves out.
Reforming CFPB Isn't Enough. Eliminate It
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a positive-sounding name. But in five and a half years since its creation, the CFPB has proven that the agency is merely an excuse for a massive expansion of federal regulatory power. The CFPB doesn't protect consumers, as its name suggests. Rather, the American people need protection from the CFPB.
It's time to end this failed experiment. Let's return the CFPB's regulatory responsibilities to the specific departments and agencies covering the relevant industries, and of course, to the states that have been responsible for basic consumer protection for a long, long time. I should know. As a former attorney general of Virginia, I took my responsibility to protect consumers seriously.
The Dodd-Frank Act created the CFPB as an unaccountable agency, with a director that could not be removed, a budget from the Federal Reserve that was self-determined, and sweeping legislative, judicial and executive powers vested in the person of the director. Indeed, this design was such an affront to the U.S. Constitution that a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared the agency's single-director structure unconstitutional. In what should be an unsurprising development, the CFPB has abused its unaccountable power.
When will drug prohibitionists learn what alcohol prohibitionists found out?
January marks the 97th anniversary of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which in 1920 banned the manufacture, sale, and transport of "intoxicating liquors." Backers hailed Prohibition as a cure for many of society's problems, arguing it would reduce crime and corruption, prevent the disintegration of American families, and lower the tax burden from prisons and poorhouses.
Despite these good intentions the 18th Amendment failed. Although alcohol consumption sharply decreased at the beginning of Prohibition, it quickly rebounded. Within a few years consumption was between 60 and 70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. The quality and potency of bootleg liquor varied greatly, resulting in deaths from poisoning and overdoses.
Barred from buying legal alcohol, many former drinkers switched to opium and cocaine. Organized crime flourished.
In light of all those failures, Prohibition was repealed in 1933 by ratification of the 21st Amendment.
The idea that banning a product can stop its sale and use should be laughable even to those untrained in economics. Alas the 18th Amendment wasn't the government's last foray into prohibition. For more than 40 years, the U.S. government has waged the War on Drugs.
Proponents of drug prohibition promise many benefits, like reducing crime, preventing the spread of drug-related illnesses, and dismantling criminal cartels. Just like alcohol prohibition, however, these policies have failed. For example, overdoses have skyrocketed. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 1980, 2.7 deaths per 100,000 people in the United States were drug-related. By 1990 that toll rose to 3.4. But in 2014, 40,055 people died of overdoses—14.7 per 100,000 people.
As alcohol prohibition showed, crime thrives in the black market. Today organized drug enterprises like Mexican cartels flourish. Joaquín Guzmán, better known as "El Chapo," sells more drugs today than the notorious Pablo Escobar did at the height of his cocaine empire.
The problems associated with U.S. drug policy have not lessened under the Obama administration. In 2010 President Obama launched a new National Drug Control Strategy, which was to lower overdose deaths, overall use, and use by young people, among other things, by 2015.
By its own measurements, however, the administration's strategy has been an utter disaster. Between 2013 and 2014 alone, heroin overdose deaths increased 28 percent. They are 440 percent higher today than they were under President Bush. And despite Obama's goals, prescription-opioid deaths have also increased.
Marijuana use by high school students remains roughly constant, though it was supposed to decline by 15 percent. For 18-25-year-olds the "past-month" rate of use was projected to fall 10 percent. Instead it increased 12 percent. Other statistics tell similar stories. "Lifetime" drug use by eighth-graders, for example, is up 8 percent since 2007. Driving under the influence of drugs has also increased.
It's unclear whether drug policy will improve under the Trump administration, but many are pessimistic. In a recent interview Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a well-known drug-policy-reform advocate, expressed concerns over the appointment of John Kelly as secretary of homeland security, stating that "the Trump administration looks like bad news for almost every element of drug policy reform—from sentencing to marijuana … to the international aspects, to the you name it." In another interview, Nadelmann referred to Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump's nominee for attorney general, as a "drug war dinosaur." He noted Sessions's support of Nancy Reagan's antiquated "Just Say No" campaign despite overwhelming evidence of failure. More than 1,200 law professors published an open letter opposing his nomination, citing among other issues "regressive drug policies."
Drug policy is the concern of all Americans. In 2010 the U.S. government spent some $50 billion on the War on Drugs—that's $500 a second on policies that have failed.
When policies don't deliver on their promises, policymakers have two options. They can repeal the policies and try something new or double down on their mistakes. After 13 years, the failure of the 18th Amendment was clear for all to see. The drug war is now more than 40 years old. When will the prohibitionists learn?
NEWS: Chris Brand is still in hospital and still recovering but still in good spirits, thanks in part to Shiou, his dedicated wife
Politician does what he says he was going to do. World reels.
Leftists are a thousand times more upset at people from terror-linked countries being banned than actual Islamic terror attacks. Amazing.
Funny, but the only time Leftists pretend to support religion is when a Republican President tries to protect America from Islamic terrorism
Obama banned Muslims entering the USA in 2011 for 6 months. Not a word
The elites are horrified at Trump leaping to keep his promises about immigration. How gauche that is, they appear to think.
But the uproar the elites have created has provided billions of dollars worth of worldwide free publicity for the new policy. It will immediately be known to just about everybody in the target countries. In his election campaign, DT got immense publicity by saying "extreme" things. Now he is getting immense publicity by DOING "extreme" things. He is a master media manager. So whatever happens subsequently everyone will know now that getting to America is no longer a soft touch.
And the elites have long ago shot their bolt with Trump. They have abused him so often and for so much that they are now like the boy who cried wolf. Their bucketsfull of abuse will bounce right off as they always have from Trump. Had they been polite and measured in their comments about him they might now have been listened to. But they were not. So Trump has no reason to respect their claims and arguments. He has every reason to ignore them. The only question for Trump will be what his voters think. And you can be sure that they will be ecstatic at his quickness to keep his promise
Note that there is in fact no actual Muslim Ban. There's a temporary ban for 90 days from 7 countries. That's it.
Top Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway took to Twitter to praise the president's executive actions halting refugee admission to the United States
"Get used to it. @POTUS is a man of action and impact," Conway tweeted, along with a link to a Fox News segment in which she talked about how Trump followed through on his campaign promise to implement "extreme vetting" of refugees and migrants from certain countries.
"I don't think Washington is accustomed to somebody who's just been a brilliant businessman, who's accustomed to delivering and producing results, who's accountable to, in this case, the people," Conway said during her Fox News interview.
"Promises made, promises kept," her tweet continued. "Shock to the system. And he's just getting started."
Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday that banned refugees from entering the US for 120 days. Syrians have been banned indefinitely, and asylum-seekers from six Muslim-majority countries -- Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Lebanon, and Yemen -- have been barred entry for at least the next three months.
Critics of Trump's refugee ban say it is discriminatory and violates the Constitution's religious freedom guarantees.
"Today's executive actions dishonor our values and do not address the threat of terrorism," said a statement released by House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Friday. "Americans of all faiths must confront and reject any attempt to target for exclusion or discrimination anyone on the basis of their religion."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also slammed the president's executive actions. "Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight as a grand tradition of America, welcoming immigrants, that has existed since America was founded has been stomped upon, taking in immigrants and refugees is not only humanitarian but has also boosted our economy and created jobs decade after decade," Schumer said.
He continued: "This is one of the most backward and nasty executive orders that the president has issued."
Trump Immigration Ban Still In Place Despite Court Ruling, Says DHS
Hours after a federal judge issued a stay on President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily restricting entry to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and a senior White House adviser issued robust responses, emphasizing that the order remains in force.
In a statement issued in the early hours of Sunday, the Department said: "President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety."
The responses came just hours after federal Judge Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York granted an emergency stay on parts of the order late Saturday. Her ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of two Iraqi refugees who had been detained at New York's John F. Kennedy airport.
The stay will prevent the government from deporting citizens from the affected countries that had already arrived in the U.S.The ACLU estimated that around 200 people would be affected by the ruling.
For travelers outside of the U.S. however, even those with valid visas, the ruling will not change the restrictions imposed on them by the order.
The hypocrisy of the Left still thriving
A new alignment with Labor unions?
The picture of the new president sitting with some of his most ardent opponents from organized labor has got to send shivers down the spines of Democratic Party insiders.
Open Secrets reports that private sector unions contributed more than $25 million in political donations in 2016, with an overwhelming majority going to Democrats. But the real political power of labor unions within the Democratic Party is their established political network, which provides instant trained grassroots to benefit candidates they support.
Trump's White House invitation and meeting threaten to rip asunder the out-of-power Democrat establishment's precariously balanced coalition of environmental anti-economic-growth elitists and labor union-identifying blue-collar workers.
To date, the top-down rule of labor organizations has assured the Democratic Party the benefits of the money and muscle that these groups can provide, while increasingly losing their voters' support.
In the first 100 hours of the Trump administration, Democratic Party hegemony through that top-down rule has been shaken, as many of the leaders who visited the White House received access they never had to Barack Obama, who was pivoting toward a loose coalition of millennials, Silicon Valley elites and identity politics-based voters, and away from the blue-collar voters who had been a mainstay of decades of electoral success.
The meeting with the labor leaders preceded Trump's signature on a memorandum withdrawing the United States' signature from the crown jewel of Obama's trade policy, the Trans-Pacific Partnership — giving the union leaders a big win. Less than two hours later, Trump was signing another memorandum undoing the Democrat policy of administratively killing the job-creating Keystone XL pipeline, a high priority of many of the union leaders who were in the Oval Office.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters General President James Hoffa Jr. applauded President Trump, crowing in victory: "This is a major step toward putting more Americans to work, building the infrastructure that we need and creating economic prosperity."
Just as Candidate Trump dismantled conventional wisdom by ripping through the Democrats' vaunted Blue Wall of Rust Belt states, President Trump seems intent on moving forward with policies he perceives will help rebuild our nation's manufacturing base. However, unlike those Republicans in the 1950s who declared that whatever was good for General Motors was good for America, Trump's cry seems to be, whatever is good for the American worker who makes, builds and extracts wealth, is good for the country and the world.
Anti Trump Leftists thought it would be cute to block a street. The police weren't playing
A group of Portland, Oregon anti-Trump rioters who consider themselves "The Resistance" thought it would be fun to trap people on a bus as they blocked traffic.
Bringing downtown traffic to a halt, the protesters thought they would be greeted with cheers. Boy, were they wrong.
Video captured by Fox 12 reporter Kelsey Watts shows the protesters surrounded by screaming commuters, who cursed at them and told them to stop blocking traffic.
And that's when the police showed up. In riot gear. The video shows armored police running into the mob of protesters at full speed, plowing them across the pavement like a bulldozer. The protest was cleared in seconds. 14 liberals were arrested.
As police smashed their way into the protest the crowd in this notoriously liberal city…burst into wild cheers. "Take them all down!," shouted a man. "Some of us just want to get home," said a woman.
Between this, and Washington, D.C. charging anti-Trump leftists with felony rioting, it appears big cities are getting sick and tired of dealing with liberal lunacy.
Left wing hate groups on the rise
I have been saying for a long time that hate is the chief identifier of Leftists so I am pleased that David Horowitz (below) has also taken up that theme -- JR
Last weekend's "women's marches" (which actually should have been called "left wing women's marches") had many elements that should make us shudder...
They were filled with embarrassing lewdness and obscenity.
They allowed speakers like actress Ashley Judd to make fools of themselves and showcased politically senile retreads like Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem.
They were accompanied by violent mobs that trashed shopping centers and fought with police. They might have been dressed up in light heartedness, but the silly hats couldn't disguise the fact that they were hatefests in action.
But this shouldn't surprise us. Hatred is the lifeblood of the Left and has been since the French Revolution. Hate is the Left's political homeland and its reason for being.
You see, one of the biggest of the Left's Big Lies is that conservative political groups and movements are universally motivated by hatred – of blacks, Hispanics and other ethnic groups; of homosexuals, transsexuals and other gender minorities; of immigrants, Muslims and others who are "marginalized" and therefore vulnerable.
This Big Lie is an exercise in what Freud called "projection" and which psychologists define as denying abhorrent emotions in oneself by attributing them to others.
There are indeed haters on the Right, but for the most part they are on its fringe – demented individuals or tiny groups whose political apparatus consists of little more than an obscure post office box and a toxic website.
For the Left, however, hatred is a mass movement. Left hate groups swim successfully in the American mainstream.
And because of the Left bias in our culture and media, their followers, like those at the women's marches, can posture as idealists and protectors of the downtrodden while spewing hate. For them, hatred is no fault.
These groups don't operate in the dark. They spew their hate every day as proud members of the vast leftwing network that supported Barack Obama's efforts to "radically transform America" and they've already declared open war on the Trump administration.
Just look at the Southern Poverty Law Center that raises millions of dollars every year attacking respected conservatives like Charles Murray as "racists" and anti-Islamist intellectuals like Ayaan Hirshi Ali as "Islamophobes..."
Or how Black Lives Matters hate-filled rhetoric has had deadly consequences for police officers...
And let's not forget Students for Justice in Palestine, which has become the chief organizer and sponsor of anti-Israel hatefests that have become common occurrences on our campuses!
Via email. See also the booklet "Left Wing Hate Groups" for more extensive coverage
The two-faced Left
Ever thought of blowing up the White House? Madonna has. Addressing the Women's March in Washington, the star said she'd thought about doing it "an awful lot."
Imagine if Donald Trump had said that before he was elected president. Or if our own Pauline Hanson had made a quip about bombs and parliaments in Australia.
Live feeds from Sunday's Washington march were cut by some networks when Madonna's rant took an expletive-laced turn for the worse. Many were angered by her threats.
Newt Gingrich thought Madonna should be arrested for her remarks. He accused her of being part of "an emerging left-wing fascism."
"I spoke in metaphor," Madonna pleaded in self-defence. "I'm not a violent person." She said she was simply trying to express the outrage she felt about the election of Trump.
The so-called 'fascist Left' does outrage well. During the campaign, candidate Trump prevaricated about accepting the election result. He was roundly condemned by the left.
But when the result became known, it was the tribunes of outrage on the Left who rejected the result. Thousands took to American streets in violent protest at Trump's victory.
The Women's March in DC, a circus of identity politics, was held days after the inauguration — before many appointments to the Trump administration had even been completed.
There was no basis for such a protest other than "perceived" fear and "perceived" threats said to be felt by women whose preferred candidate had been defeated.
Madonna said she hopes to effect change "with love." But the American people have effected change already in a fully constitutional presidential election, without bomb threats.
Outrage, violence and vandalism are all now firmly established in the arsenal of the left who claim to be motivated by passion and love, and not hatred. Protest is what they do best.
The hatred of the protesting, fascist Left is not just emerging, as Gingrich suggested. It is already with us.
Trump's America First Policy Is Conservative Policy
"My goal," said candidate Donald Trump, "is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations."
He spoke these words last April in a prepared address delivered, not at a massive rally in a basketball arena, but before a few Washington insiders at the Mayflower Hotel.
After this speech, Inside-the-Beltway elitists scoffed at what they tried to depict as Trump's simple-minded views on foreign affairs.
The Washington Post was happy to report that Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina had tweeted: "Not sure who is advising Trump on foreign policy, but I can understand why he's not revealing their names."
Dana Milbank, a columnist for the Post, wrote: "This speech was at an eighth-grade comprehension level, five years beyond Trump's usual."
The Post's own editorial was headlined: "Trump's incoherent, inconsistent, incomprehensible foreign policy."
But whose policies have put America in greater peril in recent years?
The foreign policies of the last two administrations - one Republican and one Democrat - were not only simple-minded, but also disastrous.
"It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western democracy," Trump told the Washington insiders assembled at the Mayflower.
"We tore up what institutions they had," he said, "and then were surprised at what we unleashed."
One of President Barack Obama's defining moments in foreign policy was his unilateral and unconstitutional decision to order the U.S. military to intervene in Libya's civil war.
"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," Obama said at the time.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to determine when this nation will use military force - except, as James Madison recorded in his notes on the Constitutional Convention, when it is necessary for the president to "repel sudden attacks."
Obama never argued he was acting in defense of the United States - or on congressional authority - when he intervened in Libya. He said he was acting in defense of a U.N. resolution.
"Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced," Obama said. "That is the cause of this coalition."
Obama's use of the U.S. military to defend the "writ of the international community" helped precipitate the fall of Muammar Qaddafi - an authoritarian one-time terror backer who had given up his weapons-of-mass-destruction programs and restored diplomatic relations with the United States. It also facilitated the rise of radical Islamic terrorists who murdered American diplomats-and, ultimately, the rise of the Islamic State, which demonstrated its own vision by beheading Christians on a Libyan beach.
In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush expressed a vision consistent with Obama's intervention in Libya and his own invasion of Iraq.
"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," said Bush.
This vision, exemplified by Bush's removal of the secular Iraqi authoritarian Saddam Hussein, resulted in the rise of the Islamic State in Sunni-dominated regions in Iraq and Syria.
Now, the Islamic State is committing genocide against Christians there - and sending thousands of Sunni Muslim refugees, whose backgrounds and intentions cannot be adequately vetted, into Europe and the United States.
"We are going to finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon American interests, and the shared interests of our allies," Trump said in his speech at the Mayflower.
"We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability in the world," he said.
"Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction," he said. "The best way to achieve those goals is through a disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy."
It means following a prudential path that puts America first - not some utopian, unachievable internationalist ideal.
"Many Americans must wonder why our politicians seem more interested in defending the borders of foreign countries than their own," Trump said.
"Americans must know that we are putting the American people first again," he said. "On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy - the jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority."
"I will view the world through the clear lens of American interests," he said. "We will no longer," he said, "surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism."
This is not a naive vision. It is a realistic, achievable conservative vision - that, if pursued as Donald Trump promised, can help preserve American prosperity and American freedom.
Home (Index page)
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party. And now a "Deplorable"
Social justice is injustice. What is just about taking money off people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it? You can call it many things but justice it is not
But it is the aim of all Leftist governments to take money off people who have earned it and give it to people who have not earned it
Envy was once considered to be one of the seven deadly sins before it became one of the most admired virtues under its new name, 'social justice.' - Thomas Sowell
At the most basic (psychological) level, conservatives are the contented people and Leftists are the discontented people. Conservatives don't think the world is perfect but they can happily live with it. And both those attitudes are largely dispositional, inborn -- which is why they so rarely change
The Left Doesn't Like Christmas because Christmas is just too happy for them
As a good academic, I define my terms: A Leftist is a person who is so dissatisfied with the way things naturally are that he/she is prepared to use force to make people behave in ways that they otherwise would not.
So an essential feature of Leftism is that they think they have the right to tell other people what to do. They see things in the world that are not ideal and conclude therefore that they have the right to change those things by force. Conservative explanations of why things are not ideal -- and never can be -- fall on deaf ears
Who is this Leftist? Take his description of his political program: A "declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists". You could hardly get a more change-oriented or revolutionary programme than that. So whose programme was it? Marx? Lenin? Stalin? Trotsky? Mao? No. It was how Hitler described his programme towards the end of "Mein Kampf". And the Left pretend that Hitler was some sort of conservative! Perhaps it not labouring the point also to ask who it was that described his movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, _ no permanency, only eternal change'. It could very easily have been Trotsky or Mao but it was in fact Hitler (O'Sullivan, 1983. p. 138). Clearly, Nazism was nothing more nor less than a racist form of Leftism (rather extreme Leftism at that) and to label it as "Rightist" or anything else is to deny reality.
The fundamental aim of Leftist policy in a democracy is to deliver dismay and disruption into the lives other people -- whom they regard as "complacent" -- and they are good at achieving that.
As usual, however, it is actually they who are complacent, with a conviction of the rightness and virtue of their own beliefs that merges into arrogance. They regard anyone who disagrees with them with contempt.
Leftists are wolves in sheep's clothing
Liberals are people who don't believe in liberty
Leftist principles are as solid as foam rubber. When they say that there is no such thing as right and wrong they really mean it.
There is no dealing with the Left. Their word is no good. You cannot make a deal with someone who thinks lying and stealing are mere tactics, which the Marxists actually brag about
Montesquieu knew Leftists well: "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice."
Because they claim to have all the answers to society's ills, Communists often seem "cool" to young people
German has a word that describes most Leftists well: "Scheinheilig" - A person who appears to be very kind, soft natured, and filled with pure goodness but behind the facade, has a vile nature. He is seemingly holy but is an unscrupulous person on the inside.
The new faith is very oppressive: Leftist orthodoxy is the new dominant religion of the Western world and it is every bit as bigoted and oppressive as Christianity was at its worst
There are two varieties of authoritarian Leftism. Fascists are soft Leftists, preaching one big happy family -- "Better together" in other words. Communists are hard Leftists, preaching class war.
Equality: The nonsensical and incoherent claim that underlies so much Leftist discourse is "all men are equal". And that is the envier's gospel. It makes not a scrap of sense and shows no contact with reality but it is something that enviers resort to as a way of soothing their envious feelings. They deny the very differences that give them so much heartburn. "Denial" was long ago identified by Freud as a maladaptive psychological defence mechanism and "All men are equal" is a prize example of that. Whatever one thinks of his theories, Freud was undoubtedly an acute observer of people and very few psychologists today would doubt the maladaptive nature of denial as described by Freud.
Socialism is the most evil malady ever to afflict the human brain. The death toll in WWII alone tells you that
American conservatives have to struggle to hold their country together against Leftist attempts to destroy it. Maduro's Venezuela is a graphic example of how extremely destructive socialism in government can be
The standard response from Marxist apologists for Stalin and other Communist dictators is to say you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. To which Orwell retorted, 'Where's the omelette?'
You do still occasionally see some mention of the old idea that Leftist parties represent the worker. In the case of the U.S. Democrats that is long gone. Now they want to REFORM the worker. No wonder most working class Americans these days vote Republican. Democrats are the party of the minorities and the smug
"The tendency of liberals is to create bodies of men and women — of all classes — detached from tradition, alienated from religion, and susceptible to mass suggestion — mob rule. And a mob will be no less a mob if it is well fed, well clothed, well housed, and well disciplined." —T.S. Eliot
We live in a country where the people own the Government and not in a country where the Government owns the people -- Churchill
"Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others" -- Cicero. See here
The Left have a lot in common with tortoises. They have a thick mental shell that protects them from the reality of the world about them
Definition of a Socialist: Someone who wants everything you have...except your job.
ABOUT: Postings here from Brisbane, Australia by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party. And now a "Deplorable"
When it comes to political incorrectness, I hit the trifecta. I talk about race, IQ and social class. I have an academic background in all three subjects but that wins me no forgiveness
Let's now have some thought-provoking graphics
Israel: A great powerhouse of the human spirit
The current Leftist mantra
The difference in practice
The United Nations: A great ideal but a sordid reality
Leftism in one picture:
R.I.P. Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet deposed a law-defying Marxist President at the express and desperate invitation of the Chilean parliament. Allende had just burnt the electoral rolls so it wasn't hard to see what was coming. Pinochet pioneered the free-market reforms which Reagan and Thatcher later unleashed to world-changing effect. That he used far-Leftist methods to suppress far-Leftist violence is reasonable if not ideal. The Leftist view that they should have a monopoly of violence and that others should follow the law is a total absurdity which shows only that their hate overcomes their reason
Leftist writers usually seem quite reasonable and persuasive at first glance. The problem is not what they say but what they don't say. Leftist beliefs are so counterfactual ("all men are equal", "all men are brothers" etc.) that to be a Leftist you have to have a talent for blotting out from your mind facts that don't suit you. And that is what you see in Leftist writing: A very selective view of reality. Facts that disrupt a Leftist story are simply ignored. Leftist writing is cherrypicking on a grand scale
So if ever you read something written by a Leftist that sounds totally reasonable, you have an urgent need to find out what other people say on that topic. The Leftist will almost certainly have told only half the story
We conservatives have the facts on our side, which is why Leftists never want to debate us and do their best to shut us up. It's very revealing the way they go to great lengths to suppress conservative speech at universities. Universities should be where the best and brightest Leftists are to be found but even they cannot stand the intellectual challenge that conservatism poses for them. It is clearly a great threat to them. If what we say were ridiculous or wrong, they would grab every opportunity to let us know it
A conservative does not hanker after the new; He hankers after the good. Leftists hanker after the untested
Just one thing is sufficient to tell all and sundry what an unamerican lamebrain Obama is. He pronounced an army corps as an army "corpse" Link here. Can you imagine any previous American president doing that? Many were men with significant personal experience in the armed forces in their youth.
'Gay Pride' parades: You know you live in a great country when "oppressed" people have big, colorful parades.
A favorite Leftist saying sums up the whole of Leftism: "To make an omelette, you've got to break eggs". They want to change some state of affairs and don't care who or what they destroy or damage in the process. They think their alleged good intentions are sufficient to absolve them from all blame for even the most evil deeds
In practical politics, the art of Leftism is to sound good while proposing something destructive
Leftists are the "we know best" people, meaning that they are intrinsically arrogant. Matthew chapter 6 would not be for them. And arrogance leads directly into authoritarianism
That Leftism is intrinsically authoritarian is not a new insight. It was well understood by none other than Friedrich Engels (Yes. THAT Engels). His clever short essay On authority was written as a reproof to the dreamy Anarchist Left of his day. It concludes: "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means"
Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out
Insight: "A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him." —Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)
Leftists think of themselves as the new nobility
Many people in literary and academic circles today who once supported Stalin and his heirs are generally held blameless and may even still be admired whereas anybody who gave the slightest hint of support for the similarly brutal Hitler regime is an utter polecat and pariah. Why? Because Hitler's enemies were "only" the Jews whereas Stalin's enemies were those the modern day Left still hates -- people who are doing well for themselves materially. Modern day Leftists understand and excuse Stalin and his supporters because Stalin's hates are their hates.
"Those who see hate everywhere think they're looking thru a window when actually they're looking at a mirror"
Hatred has long been a central pillar of leftist ideologies, premised as they are on trampling individual rights for the sake of a collectivist plan. Karl Marx boasted that he was "the greatest hater of the so-called positive." In 1923, V.I. Lenin chillingly declared to the Soviet Commissars of Education, "We must teach our children to hate. Hatred is the basis of communism." In his tract "Left-Wing Communism," Lenin went so far as to assert that hatred was "the basis of every socialist and Communist movement."
If you understand that Leftism is hate, everything falls into place.
The strongest way of influencing people is to convince them that you will do them some good. Leftists and con-men misuse that
Leftists believe only what they want to believe. So presenting evidence contradicting their beliefs simply enrages them. They do not learn from it
Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves.
Leftists who think that they can conjure up paradise out of their own limited brains are simply fools -- arrogant and dangerous fools. They essentially know nothing. Conservatives learn from the thousands of years of human brains that have preceded us -- including the Bible, the ancient Greeks and much else. The death of Socrates is, for instance, an amazing prefiguration of the intolerant 21st century. Ask any conservative stranded in academe about his freedom of speech
Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only trade-offs." Leftists don't understand that -- which is a major factor behind their simplistic thinking. They just never see the trade-offs. But implementing any Leftist idea will hit us all with the trade-offs
Chesteron's fence -- good conservative thinking
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley"[go oft astray] is a well known line from a famous poem by the great Scottish poet, Robert Burns. But the next line is even wiser: "And leave us nought but grief and pain for promised joy". Burns was a Leftist of sorts so he knew how often their theories fail badly.
Mostly, luck happens when opportunity meets preparation.
Most Leftist claims are simply propaganda. Those who utter such claims must know that they are not telling the whole story. Hitler described his Marxist adversaries as "lying with a virtuosity that would bend iron beams". At the risk of ad hominem shrieks, I think that image is too good to remain disused.
Given their dislike of the world they live in, it would be a surprise if Leftists were patriotic and loved their own people. Prominent English Leftist politician Jack Straw probably said it best: "The English as a race are not worth saving"
In his 1888 book, The Anti-Christ Friedrich Nietzsche argues that we should treat the common man well and kindly because he is the backdrop against which the exceptional man can be seen. So Nietzsche deplores those who agitate the common man: "Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala [outcast] apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of "equal" rights"
Why do conservatives respect tradition and rely on the past in many ways? Because they want to know what works and the past is the chief source of evidence on that. Leftists are more faith-based. They cling to their theories (e.g. global warming) with religious fervour, even though theories are often wrong
Thinking that you "know best" is an intrinsically precarious and foolish stance -- because nobody does. Reality is so complex and unpredictable that it can rarely be predicted far ahead. Conservatives can see that and that is why conservatives always want change to be done gradually, in a step by step way. So the Leftist often finds the things he "knows" to be out of step with reality, which challenges him and his ego. Sadly, rather than abandoning the things he "knows", he usually resorts to psychological defence mechanisms such as denial and projection. He is largely impervious to argument because he has to be. He can't afford to let reality in.
A prize example of the Leftist tendency to projection (seeing your own faults in others) is the absurd Robert "Bob" Altemeyer, an acclaimed psychologist and father of a Canadian Leftist politician. Altemeyer claims that there is no such thing as Leftist authoritarianism and that it is conservatives who are "Enemies of Freedom". That Leftists (e.g. Mrs Obama) are such enemies of freedom that they even want to dictate what people eat has apparently passed Altemeyer by. Even Stalin did not go that far. And there is the little fact that all the great authoritarian regimes of the 20th century (Stalin, Hitler and Mao) were socialist. Freud saw reliance on defence mechanisms such as projection as being maladjusted. It is difficult to dispute that. Altemeyer is too illiterate to realize it but he is actually a good Hegelian. Hegel thought that "true" freedom was marching in step with a Left-led herd.
What libertarian said this? "The bureaucracy is a parasite on the body of society, a parasite which 'chokes' all its vital pores…The state is a parasitic organism". It was VI Lenin, in August 1917, before he set up his own vastly bureaucratic state. He could see the problem but had no clue about how to solve it.
It was Democrat John F Kennedy who cut taxes and declared that "a rising tide lifts all boats"
Leftist stupidity is a special class of stupidity. The people concerned are mostly not stupid in general but they have a character defect (mostly arrogance) that makes them impatient with complexity and unwilling to study it. So in their policies they repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot; They fail to attain their objectives. The world IS complex so a simplistic approach to it CANNOT work.
Seminal Leftist philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel said something that certainly applies to his fellow Leftists: "We learn from history that we do not learn from history". And he captured the Left in this saying too: "Evil resides in the very gaze which perceives Evil all around itself".
"A man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart; A man who is still a socialist at age 30 has no head". Who said that? Most people attribute it to Winston but as far as I can tell it was first said by Georges Clemenceau, French Premier in WWI -- whose own career approximated the transition concerned. And he in turn was probably updating an earlier saying about monarchy versus Republicanism by Guizot. Other attributions here. There is in fact a normal drift from Left to Right as people get older. Both Reagan and Churchill started out as liberals
Funny how to the Leftist intelligentsia poor blacks are 'oppressed' and poor whites are 'trash'. Racism, anyone?
A Conservative manifesto from England -- The inimitable Jacob Rees-Mogg
Hatred as a motivating force for political strategy leads to misguided decisions. "Hatred is blind," as Alexandre Dumas warned, "rage carries you away; and he who pours out vengeance runs the risk of tasting a bitter draught."
Three examples of Leftist racism below (much more here and here):
Jesse Owens, the African-American hero of the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, said "Hitler didn't snub me – it was our president who snubbed me. The president didn't even send me a telegram." Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt never even invited the quadruple gold medal-winner to the White House
High Level of Welfare Use by Legal and Illegal Immigrants in the USA. Low skill immigrants receive 4 to 5 dollars of benefits for every dollar in taxes paid
People who mention differences in black vs. white IQ are these days almost universally howled down and subjected to the most extreme abuse. I am a psychometrician, however, so I feel obliged to defend the scientific truth of the matter: The average African adult has about the same IQ as an average white 11-year-old and African Americans (who are partly white in ancestry) average out at a mental age of 14. The American Psychological Association is generally Left-leaning but it is the world's most prestigious body of academic psychologists. And even they (under the chairmanship of Ulric Neisser) have had to concede that sort of gap (one SD) in black vs. white average IQ. 11-year olds can do a lot of things but they also have their limits and there are times when such limits need to be allowed for.
The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood
The association between high IQ and long life is overwhelmingly genetic: "In the combined sample the genetic contribution to the covariance was 95%"
The Dark Ages were not dark
Judged by his deeds, Abraham Lincoln was one of the bloodiest villains ever to walk the Earth. See here. And: America's uncivil war was caused by trade protectionism. The slavery issue was just camouflage, as Abraham Lincoln himself admitted. See also here
At the beginning of the North/South War, Confederate general Robert E. Lee did not own any slaves. Union General Ulysses L. Grant did.
Was slavery already washed up by the tides of history before Lincoln took it on? Eric Williams in his book "Capitalism and Slavery" tells us: "The commercial capitalism of the eighteenth century developed the wealth of Europe by means of slavery and monopoly. But in so doing it helped to create the industrial capitalism of the nineteenth century, which turned round and destroyed the power of commercial capitalism, slavery, and all its works. Without a grasp of these economic changes the history of the period is meaningless."
Revolutionary terrorists in Russia killed Tsar Alexander II in 1881 (after three prior assassination attempts). Alexander II was a great reformer who abolished serfdom one year before the US abolished slavery. If his democratic and economic reforms had continued, Russia may have been much less radical politically a couple of decades later, when Nicholas II was overthrown.
Conrad Black on the Declaration of Independence
Some rare Leftist realism: "God forbid if the rich leave" NY Governor Cuomo February 04, 2019
Some people are born bad -- confirmed by genetics research
The dark side of American exceptionalism: America could well be seen as the land of folly. It fought two unnecessary civil wars, would have done well to keep out of two world wars, endured the extraordinary folly of Prohibition and twice elected a traitor President -- Barack Obama. That America remains a good place to be is a tribute to the energy and hard work of individual Americans.
"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time." ― Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution Of Liberty
Some wisdom from the past: "The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." —George Washington, 1783
Leftist hatred of Christianity goes back as far as the massacre of the Carmelite nuns during the French revolution. Yancey has written a whole book tabulating modern Leftist hatred of Christians. It is a rival religion to Leftism.
"Foreign aid is the process by which money is taken from poor people in rich countries and given to rich people in poor countries." -- Peter Bauer
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." -- Arthur Schopenhauer
There is a view on both Left and Right that Jews are "too" influential. And it is true that they are more influential than their numbers would indicate. But they are exactly as influential as their IQs would indicate
It's a strange paradox when anti-Zionists argue that Jews should suffer and wander without a homeland while urging that Palestinians ought to have security and territory.
Is the Israel Defence Force the most effective military force per capita since Genghis Khan? They probably are but they are also the most ethically advanced military force that the world has ever seen
Leftists are usually just anxious little people trying to pretend that they are significant. No doubt there are some Leftists who are genuinely concerned about inequities in our society but their arrogance lies in thinking that they understand it without close enquiry
The Australian flag with the Union Jack quartered in it
Some personal background
In my teenage years, however, I was fortunate to be immersed (literally) in a very fundamentalist Christian religion. And the heavy Bible study I did at that time left me with lessons for life that have stood me in good stead ever since
A small personal note: I have always been very self-confident. I inherited it from my mother, along with my skeptical nature. So I don't need to feed my self-esteem by claiming that I am wiser than others -- which is what Leftists do.
As with conservatives generally, it bothers me not a bit to admit to large gaps in my knowledge and understanding. For instance, I don't know if the slight global warming of the 20th century will resume in the 21st, though I suspect not. And I don't know what a "healthy" diet is, if there is one. Constantly-changing official advice on the matter suggests that nobody knows
It's amusing that my army service gives me honour among conservatives but contempt from Leftists. I don't weep at all about the latter. I am still in touch with some of the fine people I served with over 50 years ago. The army is like that
This is just a bit of romanticism but I do have permanently located by the head of my bed a genuine century-old British army cavalry sword. It is still a real weapon. I was not in the cavalry but I see that sword as a symbol of many things. I want it to be beside my bed when I die
And something that was perceptive comes from the same chapter. Hitler said that the doctrines of the interwar Social Democrats (mainstream leftists) of Vienna were "comprised of egotism and hate". Not much has changed
You can email me here (Hotmail address). In emailing me, you can address me as "John", "Jon", "Dr. Ray" or "JR" and that will be fine -- but my preference is for "JR" -- and that preference has NOTHING to do with an American soap opera that featured a character who was referred to in that way
"Dissecting Leftism"
Some more useful links
Alt archives for "Dissecting Leftism" here or here
A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF NAZISM
Bullied and Badgered, Pressured and Purged
Find the best gun
NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here
Senate panel suspends a rule to OK Trump Cabinet p...
Message to the Trump-haters by Paul Genova I'm n...
Psychopathy and IQ Leftists such as the Clintons ...
Some comments about the Left from a Christian psyc...
Politician does what he says he was going to do. W...
Left wing hate groups on the rise I have been say...


Katharina Sieg studied illustration at the Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften in Hamburg. She enjoys working with different techiniques ranging from watercolours and coloured pencils to transparent paper collages realised on a light table. She presently lives and works in Hamburg, where she realises detailed visual realities while working at her drawing table.


It's my 100th post! And it's going to piss people off. But this is my blog, my forum to say whatever I want, to pass judgment on whatever I wish. *bangs gavel* Court is in session, motherf-ers.
When I joined Facebook in 2008, I was hopeful. Maybe I can finally be friends with all those people I failed to connect with in high school, I thought, and we'll realize that the early nineties was just a bad dream for all of us, filled with drug rugs and flannel and culminating in the death of Kurt Cobain.
I've discovered a few like-minded former classmates through social media, so my optimism wasn't totally misguided. But for the most part, trying to reinvent high school through Facebook has been just like actual high school—a cycle of frustration, anger, and depression. By early 2010 I'd experienced the First Great Facebook Purge, where I unfriended everyone who proved themselves to be mired in small-mindedness. Even people I'd still kept in touch with over the years, and even some family members.
I cried that day, out of sheer frustration. My husband still calls it "Bloody Sunday." There was a violence about it, a finality: I tried, but I'm done now. I'll never try again.
I made my profile unsearchable. Occasionally, though, someone from high school will see that I've commented on another friend's post and send me a friend request. I almost always oblige, but sometimes I have to unfriend the person later. Recently, I friended someone and then immediately unfriended her, within minutes of seeing her profile.
What is so objectionable, you're asking, that you can't even be friends with someone you disagree with on a social media site? Doesn't that make you small-minded?
Exhibit A: A friend request came from a former classmate whom I remember as adorable and sweet. On her timeline she posted a meme that reads something like this: "There is a lie in society today. The lie is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate that person." This little gem came from Rick Warren, by the way. I hate to be judgmental, but if you're posting Rick Warren memes, and they DON'T have anything to do with prostitutes or getting rich by hoodwinking the American public, then we're probably not going to be friends.
The gist of Warren's quote, in context, was that all Christians should act compassionately. But with her status "I'm tired of being called a hater," it took on a different feel. Why don't we just call this meme what it is? I DON'T LIKE GAY PEOPLE, AND I WANT TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT. There you go. I'll grant you this—maybe you don't have hate in your heart. You always seemed nice, and you have three adorable kids, and I'm sure you love them and are living your life being as kind to others as you can be.
You're not hateful. What you are is ignorant. I know this because you used the word "lifestyle," which shows me that you think being gay is a choice. It shows me that you do not actually know a gay person. And I'm not talking about your hairstylist or the theater kid from high school. You don't actually know a gay person—have talked to him or her, listened to his or her struggles, know his or her stories of falling in love. Because if you had, you would know that you can "disagree" with someone's sexual orientation about as much as you can "disagree" with someone's race. You're "disagreeing" with how someone was born.
Hmm. That would mean that "gay" is the way God "makes" people, and since that can't be right, I'm just going to sit here and quote Rick Warren and perpetuate the ignorance I was raised in by spreading it to my children.
I'm not a hater, she would argue; I have moral convictions that I refuse to compromise. What convictions, exactly? The conviction that it's your duty to control how two consenting adults choose to live? As long as you're talking about our culture's lies, Rick Warren, let's talk about the biggest one: the conflation of faith and morality. I don't have to believe in a myth-based view of the world to be a good person. In fact, I'd argue the opposite: while I wouldn't describe "faith" itself as "immoral," I'd certainly use that word to describe the blind adherence to doctrine that can arise from faith. If that adherence causes you to inflict mental anguish on someone else—a gay youth, for example—it's immoral, plain and simple.
Rick Warren—along with many people from my high school—reeks of ignorance. And they're not only satisfied with their ignorance; they're proud of it.
Evangelism and anti-intellectualism have always existed as twin traditions in this country, and they're both still very much alive. Tangled up like two poisonous serpents and on display at your local Wal-Mart, where the Duck Dynasty patriarch's face looks out from a spiral notebook bearing the quote, "We don't need a world full of straight-A students. I'm an ole C average man myself." Faith, family, ducks, ignorance, and mediocrity. Yep. Sounds like America.
These are the implications of the Duck Dynasty motto: To be moral, one must have faith. Intellectual curiosity is undesirable and a threat to the stability of faith and family. These biases are so deeply ingrained that most Americans don't question them. These are the biases that lead people to say I shouldn't be a teacher because I'm an atheist, or that the secular nature of public education is to blame for incidences of violence.
Sure, I could be Facebook friends with the former classmates who think this way. But why? What do they offer me? I'd be frustrated by their ignorance on a daily basis, and I'm not going to change their minds. I'm not denying their right to express their opinions, to worship as they please, or to teach their kids what they wish. But my husband's right—I do look down on them. I think we have to stop accepting ignorance as an excuse. We live in a world saturated with information. If people remain ignorant, it's because they're choosing to.
That, friends, is a choice. That is a lifestyle.
And why can't I be honest? I'm better than that. It's like I vividly remember writing in my journal one day senior year, when I realized I actually liked myself: I'm done with wishing I was different. I wish they were different.