Diversity? Not for White students apparently

Sometimes no added commentary is needed. Via Weasel Zippers

Via Fox News:

A Northwestern University student was rejected for a “diversity and inclusion post” in student government because he is a white, heterosexual male, resulting in a sharp rebuke from the university’s student newspaper.

Northwestern University’s Associated Student Government rejected the nomination of Stephen Piotrkowski for associate vice president of diversity and inclusion last week. The student-run committee “oversees diversity initiatives that stem from the undergraduate student body.”

Piotrkowski’s nomination sparked a heated discussion during an ASG meeting – described by a student reporter as “contentious.”

“This university is not ready, in any capacity, for a heterosexual white male to be in charge in any way of diversity and inclusion,” said Ian Coley, a member of the diversity committee. “I don’t know if any university is.”

ASG president Ani Ajith refused to answer questions about the matter. When asked by Fox News if he agreed with Coley’s remarks, Ajith hung up his phone.

“Piotrkowski was rejected on the basis that he is a white, heterosexual male,” the Daily Northwesterneditorial board charged in a staff editorial.

You know, if Liberals would stop trying to force their phony tolerance on everyone, and just live their lives they might figure out that America is a very tolerant place. But, the Left is intent on bringing us together by labeling us and dividing us. Why? Because their real aim is to change America into a Marxist State, and that requires dividing everyone.

Teaching your children to hate you, and America

Why is the Left winning? Because not only do winners write the history, but those who write the textbooks win too

Donald Douglas calls attention to an interesting argument by Bruce Thornton about the “trickle-down” of leftism in education:

We often focus on the ideological biases of the university, where the more lunatic examples of political correctness get the most attention. But in education as in economics, there is a trickle-down effect. The grandees at the elite universities train the PhD’s who go on to second and third tier institutions, where they in turn train the students who get high school and grade school teaching credentials. They also write most of the textbooks that end up in K-12 classrooms. Thus the progressive ideology metastasizes throughout the educational system, determining the curriculum, the textbooks, and the point of view of the teachers. At that level the ideas may be garbled, half-baked, incoherent, and a collection of clichés and slogans. But they are still toxic and effective at transmitting a world-view to impressionable minds.

Please go read the whole thing, because this is exactly right: When I graduated from a state university 30 years ago, the curriculum was not corrupted with “critical theory,” “post-modernism” and other such fashionable nonsense. Our professors were perhaps, on average, a bit more liberal than our parents, but none of our professors were ranting Marxists or other such fringe ideologues.

Go read it all, and pass it around. I have long since concluded that Liberals push for a “right to go to college” and now for universal preschool so that they might better indoctrinate our kids. They sooner they can get their propaganda into our kids minds, and the longer they can pump that propaganda into their minds, the more dominant Liberalism will become.

 

What Liberals would like to see in every state

A crazy story out of Joisey via The Blaze. I am sure this type of thing is something most Liberals would like to see all across our nation

“What they did was criminal at best,” Pantaleon said, describing how he frantically reached for a day planner containing his firearm when he heard strange noises at the entrance to his apartment.

“It wasn’t until I saw my landlord in the front of my apartment that I realized they were cops,” said Pantaleon. He then tossed the day planner back on his bed, came out of his bedroom and tried to close the door, when one of the officers pushed past him into the bedroom, picked up the day planner case and opened it. Upon seeing the gun, the police officer instructed the other deputy to “lock him the f*ck up,” Pantaleon claimed.

Police had been called to the apartment by a tenant concerned that the building was not properly heated. Officers demanded access to Pantaleon’s apartment because the boiler was located in it.

“The cop came out of the bedroom and started saying, ‘Oh, you brought a gun, if I only knew. … You are so lucky, they should be wiping your blood off the floor right now,’” Pantaleon said. “I was in shock, and the way these guys were behaving … I was in fear for my life.”

Police went on to thoroughly search his home.

“They had no warrant, they definitely didn’t have my consent, and none of the arresting officers Mirandized me. It wasn’t until I saw a detective from a major crimes unit that he Mirandized me, a little over 15 hours later,” said Pantaleon. “What good are my rights if I’m not allowed to exercise them?”

Absurdity on display.

 

When Leftists let the Truth Out

WE all know the left wants, badly, to disarm Americans, but getting them to admit that? Very tough, Liberals are skilled liars, they say all the right things to make us “feel better” and to gain our trust. Take the gun control debate currently being waged. How many Liberals have you heard say they want handguns banned? Few if any. Sometimes though, the Left allows their mask to slip. H/T Clash Daily

This is why our vigilance is required, the wolves are not going anywhere folks. the Left never “gave up” on gun bans, as some foolish Conservatives were saying a few years ago. The Left still hates your guns

Russell Simmons appoints himself spokesperson for every Black American

Ah ye, here we go again, another Liberal Kool Aid drinker who thinks all Black people must think alike! After reading what Simmons has to say ponder these questions. Why do Liberals hate diversity of thought? Why do they get so upset when a member of any minority group thinks for themselves?

Colion Noir, a young African American who is conservative and pro-gun, is the National Rifle Association’s newest spokesman, but apparently this has proven too much for rap and entertainment mogul Russell Simmons.

After seeing the NRA’s intro video of Noir’s upcoming NRA News show, Simmons took to Twitter to tell the gun group, “Dear @NRA, we don’t trust you. Sincerely, Black America.”

So Russell Simmons IS Black America now? He KNOWS what every Black person thinks and feels?

Simmons then wrote a longer attack at Globalgrind.com, saying that “black people ain’t got no time” for the NRA.

Music entrepreneur Simmons criticizes the NRA’s hiring of African American Noir and says it is “deeply troubling” that the NRA is encouraging the black community “to pick up guns again and start poppin’.”

Good Grief here he goes with the tired old Liberal lie that the NRA wants everybody armed and shooting each other. Why don’t you try listening Mr. Simmons, instead of prejudging the NRA?

Simmons went on to say, “With smokescreens and a barrage of bullets, the NRA is intentionally playing into the fears of a very few people. Very, very few.”

Simmons concludes his post saying,

Our community is not interested in a corporate sponsored gun group telling us what to do, when their real mission is to make more money for the corporations that line their dirty pockets with rolls of cash and silver bullets. We’re much smarter than that and certainly can see through their motives. Until they show a real interest in solving the violence problem in our community, they can keep their Yankee hat-wearing spokesman and their African-American “campaigns” for themselves. In the words of another internet star, “ain’t nobody got time for that.”

Ah yes, the new smear of the NRA is that they are not 4,5 million people, but a corporate tool. Here is an exit challenge for Simmons. If violence in “your ” community bothers you, why not ask why there is so much violence there? It certainly is not guns, everyone I knew growing up owned guns, most houses had several guns, yet there was no violent crime, and by no means was my “community” segregated. There were also no gangs, and no tolerance for law-breaking either. And again, that was in Black, and White homes Mr. Simmons. Odd, houses full of guns, and no crime. It is easy, and intellectually lazy to blame guns instead of actually tackling the REAL problem I guess, right Mr. Simmons? But, then again, intellectual laziness is something Liberals do really well. after all, Liberalism is, at its most basic, an ideology of convenience.

The 20 Most Annoying Liberals Of 2012 (John Hawkins)

The 20 Most Annoying Liberals Of 2012 – John Hawkins

Honorable Mentions: Bill Ayers, Bob Beckel, Joy Behar, Eric Boehlert, Margaret Cho, Candy Crowley, Code Pink, Lena Dunham, Dianne Feinstein, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Kathy Griffin, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, Ezra Klein, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Bill Press, Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, Jon Stewart, and Jeremiah Wright.

20) Chris Hayes: He’s a smarmy, politically correct beta male who would probably be irritating even if he wasn’t talking about politics. If you had to pick the MSNBC host most likely to hold Rachel Maddow’s purse while she shops, it would be Hayes.

Defining quote: “(It’s) very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words ‘heroes.’ I feel… uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.” – Chris Hayes

19) Mike Malloy: He’s one of the biggest liberal radio hosts, which is kind of like being one of the world’s fastest Sumo wrestlers. That begs the question: If Malloy says something insane and no one hears it, should we care?

Defining quote: “These teabag bastards, who by the way, I just wish they would all go away, or like in Passover, I just wish there was an angel of the Lord that would pass over, instead of killing the first born in all the households of Egypt, just wipe out all the teabaggers. Just, you know, the terrible swift sword, just (Malloy emulates sound of sword cutting repeatedly through the air) lop their heads off.” – Mike Malloy

18) Meghan McCain: The GOP and Meghan McCain have the same sort of great love we’ve seen between Chris Brown and Rihanna. Who’d have ever thought that the Republican Party’s pale imitation of Paris Hilton would still hate us after all this time besides – well, everybody?

Defining Quote: “…I’ve spent most of my adult life fighting for change from inside the Republican Party… If I don’t see some changes in the next four years, I’m going to consider registering as an Independent in 2016.” – Megan McCain

17) Joe Biden: Crazy Uncle Joe showed his nasty side this year in his weird, ugly debate performance against Paul Ryan. He also accused Republicans of wanting to bring back slavery, perhaps because, Joe being Joe, he doesn’t know that the GOP has always been against slavery while he’s a member of the party that went to war to keep it in place.

Defining quote: “They want to put y’all back in chains!” – Joe Biden

16) Melissa Harris-Perry: She’s a fine example of how far someone with no common sense, no appreciable talent and nothing of interest to say can rise on the Left as long as she’s willing to obsess over race. Thanks for making her famous enough to be on this list, MSNBC!

Defining Quote: “The land on which they [the Founders] formed this Union was stolen. The hands with which they built this nation were enslaved. The women who birthed the citizens of the nation are second class… This is the imperfect fabric of our nation, at times we’ve torn and stained it, and at other moments, we mend and repair it. But it’s ours, all of it. The imperialism, the genocide, the slavery, also the liberation and the hope and the deeply American belief that our best days still lie ahead of us.” – Melissa Harris-Perry

15) Piers Morgan: Yes, there’s nothing that Americans love more than snobby Brits coming over to our country to tell us Yanks how we’re not living up to the high standard of “Soccer Hooligan Land”. Maybe that’s part of the reason more than 102,000 Americans have signed a petition asking that Piers Morgan be deported (If only!).

Defining quote: “President Bush used to talk about the jobs Americans can’t do, why do we need to bring in some snooty foreigner with some annoying accent to just go on and tell Americans everything. Can’t Americans point out what’s wrong with their country on their own? Has it come to this – that we’ve got to import a special worker class to tell you Americans everything that sucks about America? That’s now a job for foreigners?” – Mark Steyn

14) Touré: You could replace Touré with a tape recorder that says “That’s racist” over and over and no one would notice the difference. If he was really as brilliant, sophisticated and nuanced as he obviously thinks he is, then his entire career probably wouldn’t be based on calling things “racist” on television.

Defining Quote: “That really bothered me. You notice (Romney) said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization.’” – Touré

Defining tweet

Touré
@Toure
@johnhawkinsrwn With friends like you Mitt Romney’s enemies can’t do him any more harm.

John Hawkins
@johnhawkinsrwn
@Toure I don’t know if anybody has ever said this to you before you race hustler, but if not let me be the first: You can kiss my white ass

13) Elizabeth Warren: The state of Massachusetts continued its great tradition of electing the most amoral radical left-wing hack it can find by choosing Elizabeth Warren, a woman who built her academic career around being a fake Indian. On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren is the first fake Indian ever elected to the Senate; so she deserves a little credit for that.

Defining Picture

………

12) Paul Krugman: At a time when there are Western European nations sliding into default and America is following in their footsteps, Krugman is the most prominent voice on the Left calling for a massive increase in spending. One day, when the country finally does go belly-up, Krugman will probably move to Belgium where he’ll declare that we went broke because our deficits weren’t big enough.

Defining quote: Paul Krugman: “If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive build-up to counter the space alien threat and inflation and budget deficits took a secondary place to that, this slump would be over in eighteen months. And then if we discovered, woops we made a mistake, there aren’t actually space aliens, we’d be a better…”

Kenneth Rogoff: “So, we need Orsen Wells is what you’re saying…”

Paul Krugman: “No, there was a Twilight Zone episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. This time we don’t need that we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.”

11) Harry Belafonte: Belafonte is a scary dude who’d probably be putting people in camps if he were actually in charge of anything. It’s bizarre because he used to be this guy who sang happy little pop songs and now he talks like an aspiring Pol Pot.

Defining quote #1: “(Obama needs to) Work like a 3rd world dictator & just put all these guys in jail.” – Harry Belafonte on Republicans

10) The Non-Fox Media: The Mainstream Media has always been liberal, but under Barack Obama we’ve reached the point where it’s hard to tell where media ends and the Democrat campaign machine begins. You could replace most reporters at papers like the Washington Post and New York Times with Obama staffers like Jim Messina and David Axelrod and the stories wouldn’t read any differently.

Defining Quote: “When you watch the President like that, I always feel he’s got so many pluses, doesn’t he? In a sense, he’s personable, he’s handsome, he can be funny. You know, abroad he has this great image for America. A lot of things are just perfect about Barack Obama.” – Piers Morgan, CNN

9) Andrew Sullivan: Sully has gone from a widely respected commentator to an increasingly hysterical and gross conspiracy theorist. On the other hand, since he’s planning to put his site behind a pay wall, a lot less readers will be reading gems like this next year…

Defining Quote: “Palin’s tweet made me come in my pants.” – Andrew Sullivan

8) Michael Moore: Moore is a smart, talented, eloquent guy who hates our country, hates our political system, hates people who disagree with him and hates the system that made him a success, but he’s never figured out that he’d be the first guy up against the wall if he got the revolution he wants – or maybe he has figured it out and he’s just playing to the Communist-wannabe crowd. Either way, it’s amusing to see a guy who has amassed a net worth of 50 million dollars making movies catering to the Occupy crowd and railing against capitalism.

Defining Quote: “I hate to say it, but killing is our way. We began America with genocide, then built it with slaves. The shootings will continue. It’s who we are.” – Michael Moore

7) Michael Bloomberg: Bloomberg seems to spend most of his time railing against the twin evils of guns and 32 oz. sodas. He’s living proof that C.S. Lewis was right when he said, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Defining quote: “Last week, Nanny Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, rivaled his own personal best for worst mayoral performance since that snowstorm a couple of years back. This is a man who spends his days micro-managing the amount of soda New Yorkers are allowed to have in their beverage containers rather than, say, the amount of ocean New Yorkers are allowed to have in their subway system – just as, in the previous crisis, the municipal titan who can regulate the salt out of your cheeseburger proved utterly incapable of regulating any salt onto Sixth Avenue. Imagine if this preening buffoon had expended as much executive energy on flood protection for the electrical grid and transit system as he does on approved quantities of carbonated beverages. But that’s leadership 21-century-style: When the going gets tough, the tough ban transfats.” – Mark Steyn

6) Jamie Foxx: While promoting his N-bomb-packed new movie Django, Jamie Foxx managed to offend Republicans, white people and Christians. Mel Gibson after a couple of bottles of wine ain’t got nothing on Jamie Foxx.

Defining quote #1: “First of all, give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama. Barack Obama.” – Jamie Foxx

Defining quote #2: “Every single thing in my life is built around race.” – Jamie Foxx

Defining quote #3: “I play a slave. How black is that? I have to wear chains. How whack is that? But don’t worry. I get free. I save my wife and I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?” – Jamie Foxx

5) Harry Reid: On the one hand, it’s great to see that the farmer from the American Gothic painting is doing so well. On the other hand, Reid still achieved a new low in American politics (which is saying something) when he, as the Senate Majority Leader, very publicly accused Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes for a decade based on what he claimed were anonymous sources.

Defining quote: “I am not basing (the claim Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes) on some figment of my imagination. I have had a number of people tell me that. I don’t think the burden should be on me. The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes.” – Harry Reid

4) Debbie Wasserman Schultz: She’s the Caps Lock key of American politics because she sounds like this all the time: “THE REPUBLICANS ARE HORRIBLE, NO GOOD, VERY BAD PEOPLE WHO WANT TO EAT YOUR BABY AFTER THEY FINISH THEIR WAR ON WOMEN AND THEY’RE LYING IF THEY DENY IT!” The fact that someone as utterly unappealing as Schultz is in every single way could not only be elected to Congress, but could be the Chair of the Democratic National Committee is probably a sign of the apocalypse.

Defining Quote: “If you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and – and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally – and very transparently – block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.” – Debbie Wasserman Schultz

3) Chris Matthews: He’s nasty to Republicans, a cringing dog when he’s dealing with powerful Democrats, habitually obnoxious – and his ratings are perpetually awful. At this point, the mystery isn’t so much, “How is he still on the air?” – it’s who in the world is watching the show?

Defining quote: “I am so proud of the country, to re-elect this President… A good day for America. I’m so glad we had that storm [Hurricane Sandy] last week, because I think the storm was one of those things – no, politically I should say, not in terms of hurting people – the storm brought in possibilities for good politics.” – Chris Matthews

2) Barack Obama: Sure, he’s dishonest, nasty, corrupt, lazy, hyper-partisan, arrogant and the most hopelessly unqualified and incompetent man ever to occupy the Oval Office – but you have to hand it to him, he’s really great at shifting the blame to other people. Michelle Obama could walk in on Bo buck naked with his secretary and within an hour, she’d be cursing George W. Bush for putting their marriage in jeopardy.

Defining Picture

………

1) Sandra Fluke: It takes a certain kind of perverse skill at being a victim to ask Congress to spend thousands of dollars subsidizing your birth control, pretend to be upset when people naturally make “She’s a slut” jokes afterwards and to parlay that into a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention. Of course, since Fluke doesn’t seem to have any other talent and even most liberals seem to secretly find her a little cringeworthy, being called a “slut” by Rush Limbaugh will probably turn out to be the high point of her entire life. That would to be an entirely fitting punishment for someone so perfectly obnoxious.

Defining quote: “A 30 year old ne’er do well who’s demanding that the government give her free stuff she should be paying for herself is an all too apt symbol of what Barack Obama has spent his last four years doing.” – John Hawkins

Defining Picture

………

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

The Left’s childish obsession with “fairness”

If you follow politics at all you have noticed, no doubt, that Liberals are fixated on fairness. They argue for higher tax rates on higher income Americans because that satisfies their definition of fairness. Their fixation on racial “diversity” is also partly based on that word fairness. Their opposition to many, or sometimes all facets of Capitalism is also based on fairness. Their fixation on giving government the power to create “equality” is also largely based on fairness. For a Liberal, the idea that some have more money, or better housing, or are more successful is unfair, and therefore the government should do its best to eliminate that unfairness.

As I have watched Liberalism, and its more depraved ideological cousin Leftism over the years, I have noted the immaturity of many who buy into the folly of those twisted ideologies. I have said before that Liberalism is an ideology for the childish, and Liberals fixation on fairness is a great example of the truth of my position. Sometimes if you look closely at a Liberal arguing for the rich to pay higher taxes, you can see a small child, their tear-stained face contorted, as the they yell “that is not fair”. 

The past week or so, watching Israel defend itself against the terrorist barbarians of Hamas, I have noticed that “fairness” seems to be at the center of Liberal anger at Israel for defending itself. The argument from many Liberals goes like this. Israel is much stronger than Hamas militarily. Their weapons, their training, the fighting skills are so much better than those that Hamas’s are, so this fight is unfair. I have heard different versions of this idiotic mantra and they all are based on emotion rather than reason. I would love to talk to one of these fools, just once and ask this question. Have you, Mr. or Ms. Liberal, ever thought that maybe Hamas should stop picking a fight with Israel? I can only imagine what their response would be. But I would love to watch them actually have to think about that for a few seconds before they retreated back to the walls of their Liberal fantasy world where fairness is ordained by the United Nations and enforced by rainbow-colored unicorns that make everyone get along by passing out cotton candy.

 

Yet another Liberal Malady diagnosed by your humble host

 

Those who follow this blog know that I have been diagnosing the maladies that haunt Liberals. Offendeditis, Selective Outrage Syndrome, Selective Sensitivity Syndrome, Truth Deficit Disorder, GODitis, Perpetual Bitternes Syndrome, and Bitter Face Disorder, are just a few I have discovered over the last 16 years (I first started diagnosing these when I wrote op-ed columns for several on-line publications). But just today, after reading that once more we have an “unexpected” rise in jobless numbers, it hit me. These poor Liberals are not just naive, nor are they just trying to prop up President Pathetic. No, they are afflicted with a new Liberal Malady, Unexpecteditis. This disorder causes the sufferer, usually a media employee, to delude themselves into not expecting Obama’s awful economics policies to cause greater and greater damage too job growth.

 

And your Race Pimp of the Day is………….

Who else would it be but MSNBs’s own Toure who is a snide, intellectually vacuous little man who has carved out a niche amongst the Liberal by whining and screaming RAAAAACISM every time a Republican speaks. As I have said before, Toure probably cannot order a cheeseburger without finding something racial about it. Here is a clip of Toure’s latest outbreak of Racial Obsession Syndrome. Watch and listen to Toure diving head first into a realm of stupidity that few have ever dared. Frankly this is so absurd I am not sure if I should get angry, Uh-Oh, I said angry, I must be a RAAAAACIST, or laugh at the asininity of Toure and the other two walking brain donors in the clip bending over backwards to defend Toure’s “racial code words” rhetoric.

I have often referred to Liberalism as an ideology of convenience, and this clip is a great illustration of that. Toure’s assertion is that Republicans are racist, and that all criticism of Obama is racist as well. When he cannot find anything that is actually racial that Romney says, he pulls out his little decoder ring, all Liberals have them. This magic ring allows Liberals to hear things that no one else, you know, like normal people, can hear. Especially racial code words, which, apparently now includes the word “angry”. Of course, only Liberals can hear these code words because, well, Liberals actually proving their charges of racism would be really tough, and they do not like to be inconvenienced. So, they just make up a new lie about Republican’s “long history” of racial code words to cover their initial lie that all opposition to Obama is racist! How convenient. How pathetic!

Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberalism

Via Instapundit comes this news. Another Liberal talking the talk, but sitting out the walk. Elizabeth Warren rails about the rich not being taxed enough, yet………..

No one takes that option, now, do they? But Warren — the Harvard lawprof who’s trying to wrest Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat out from under Scott Brown, a Republican — has been lambasting Brown for voting against the so-called millionaire’s tax. 

As Warren deftly — and professorily — put it: “I paid the taxes that I legally owed. I did not make a charitable contribution to the state.” Yeah, who expects anybody to make a charitable contribution to the state?

The state is all about compulsion. It’s a crisp, cold force that says you owe, and we will punish you if you don’t pay. So you do exactly that (if you’re reasonably competent and rational). There’s no warmth and love left over. If you’re feeling charitable, you go looking for something more specific upon which to lavish your love-in-the-form of money. In fact, it would be kind of screwy to love the government like that, to put your love-money into the general pot from which the state pays all its general expenses, even if you want the people of the state to put you in a position to cause the government to rack up even more expenses.

Brown’s campaign called Warren a hypocrite for not checking the optional higher tax rate on her personal income. “The problem with running a campaign based on self-righteousness and moral superiority is that you had better live up to the same standard you would impose on everyone else,” said the incumbent’s campaign manager, Jim Barnett, in a statement. The Brown team said Warren earned over $700,000 in 2011, adding, “This is the sort of hypocrisy and double-speak voters are sick and tired of hearing from politicians, especially those who can’t keep their hands out of others’ pocketbooks.”

Look, I have no issue with Warren not paying higher taxes. None at all. It is, after all HER money, but the hypocrisy is the important thing here. The Left screeches about the rich, paying their fair share, or about the rich not being taxed enough, yet, they never seem to stand up and take the very medicine they prescribe for “the rich”.

Now, we know what Warren, and other Democrats are doing. They are engaging in class politics, with their aim being to build up hatred towards the rich. This, they feel, is a path towards electoral victories in November. The fascinating thing here is that among those who suck this bilge up, there seems to be no awareness that these Liberal politicians are lying to them. The “99%” crowd is being led to hate a segment of the country simply because they are wealthy. They are buying into the Marxist blatherings of Liberals like Warren, while ignoring the actions of Warren and her ilk. 

This is yet another reason I have come to view the Left this way. The leaders, or maybe more to the point agitators, spew their lies, and engage in class or racial politics, knowing all along that they are lying. And then you have the fools, the useful idiots who buy into this garbage. Perhaps this group likes feeling like, or at least playing the victim. Maybe they are just so buried in the inherent pessimism of Liberalism that they cannot see through the lies their leaders preach to them. 

If these useful idiots had a grasp of history, they would realize that these lies, and false promises they are being told never come true. They might look at the 100,000,000 people who died last century because people bought into the lies of Marxism. But, they are too busy holding their hands out, expecting to mooch off the labors of others.

Liberals will see this and cheer, until………

I seldom, if ever post anything that warms the hearts of Liberals, but, this picture, of Stacy McCain, will make Liberals cheer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is, of course, until they remember that they do not believe in Hell, because by believing in Hell, they would also believe in God. This might offend an atheist, and Liberals NEVER wish to offend Atheists at all. Liberals LOVE Atheists, but hate Stacy McCain, and me, because Stacy, and I, and others like us deeply offend the Left on a daily basis. We offend them by telling the truth, which REALLY offends Liberals because the truth interferes with a Liberal’s feelings based, bumper sticker ideology of convenience. So, by posting this picture, I am really DEEPLY offending Liberals, which I am known to do quite often.

Wherever Stacy McCain is you can count on two things

RS McCain is at an “undisclosed location” and wearing a mask. Is he in hiding from aggrieved Liberals? Or perhaps from an irate Michele Bachmann. No one seems to know hos whereabouts but rest assured, a the headline suggests, there ARE two things you can count on. One, any number of Feminists will be offended, and second, just like me Stacy will still not be cool enough for BlogCon

*VIDEO* Mark Levin Discusses Free Speech, The American Flag, And The Leftist Assault On Our Public Schools

*VIDEO* Joe Pags On Barack Obama’s Latest Propaganda Campaign

Palinoia, The Destroyer – What’s Behind The Left’s Deranged Hatred

Palinoia, The Destroyer – Wall Street Journal

Why does their hatred of her burn so hot?

Ask them, and they’ll most likely tell you: Because she’s a moron. But that is obviously false. To be sure, her skills at extemporaneous speaking leave much to be desired. But that can be said of a good many politicians on both sides of the aisle, including George W. Bush, John Kerry and, yes, Barack Obama. And don’t get us started on the man who defeated her for the vice presidency.

Whether or not she is presidential timber–and we are inclined to think that she is not–there is no denying that she is a highly accomplished person. She is also a highly accomplished woman, what in an earlier age would have been called a feminist pioneer: the first female governor of the malest state in the country, the first woman on the presidential ticket of the party on the male side of the “gender gap.” Having left politics, whether temporarily or permanently, she has established herself as one of the most consequential voices in the political media.

They say she is uneducated. What they mean is that her education is not elite–not Harvard or Yale, or even Michigan or UCLA. They resent her because, in their view, she has risen above her station.

In this respect we identify fully with Palin, for we have been on the receiving end of similar disdain. Our education, like Sarah Palin’s, consisted of too many years at inferior state universities, although unlike her, we never even got around to graduating. The other day Paul Reidlinger took a shot at us for featuring one of his restaurant reviews under our “Wannabe Pundits” heading last month: “I was even denounced by noted high school graduate James Taranto.” (For the record, our high school diploma is a GED.)

“Denounced” is far too strong a word; “mocked” is more like it. Reidlinger writes for San Francisco Bay Guardian, whatever that is. He doesn’t say, but we surmise that he possesses advanced degrees from Stanford or the University of California, both very fine institutions. He observes that “it is a writer’s job to afflict the comfortable and complacent.” That would be an insufferably pretentious way to describe our job as a political columnist for an elite newspaper. What is a restaurant critic going to “afflict the comfortable” with? Food poisoning?

Professional jealousy and intellectual snobbery, however, only scratch the surface of the left’s bizarre attitude toward Palin. They explain the intensity of the disdain, but not the outright hatred–not why some people whose grasp of reality is sufficient to function in society made the insane inference that she was to blame for a madman’s attempt to murder Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

This unhinged hatred of Palin comes mostly from women. That is an awkward observation for us to offer, because a man risks sounding sexist or unchivalrous when he makes unflattering generalizations about women. Therefore, we are going to hide behind the skirts of our friend Jessica Faller, a New Yorker in her 30s of generally liberal politics. Over the weekend, she wrote us this analysis of Palin-hatred, which she has generously given us permission to quote:

I am starting out with a guess that this stems from her abrupt appearance on the national scene during the McCain-Obama race. She appeared out of nowhere and landed squarely in a position of extreme attention and media power. Her sex appeal might not have been as much of an issue had she been a known entity with a tremendous, watertight political résumé.

Even lacking that, her sex appeal might not have been such an issue if her demeanor on the campaign trail had been more, well, conservative. But here is this comely woman, in a curvy red suit, giving “shout-outs” during the debate with Joe Biden, giving controversial interviews without apology, basically driving in there, parking the car, and walking in like she owned the place.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. But she couldn’t have pulled it off if she were a gray mouse in a pantsuit, and because the devil in the red dress wasn’t orating like a professor, it roused an unquenchable forest fire of rage and loathing in the breasts of many women, perhaps of the toiling gray mouse variety, who projected onto her their own career resentments and personal frustrations.

I am amazed at how people still abhor her. I personally do not. I don’t feel she would be a good choice to run this country, but she does not deserve the horrific treatment she gets. I can tell you, being privy to the endless, incendiary rants this past week about her, coming from hordes of liberal women–age demo 25 to 45–they rip her to pieces, they blame her for everything, and the jealousy/resentment factor is so clear and primal. I’ve never seen anything like it.

We’d say this goes beyond mere jealousy. For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up with their politics in a way that it is not for any other group (possibly excepting gays, though that is unrelated to today’s topic).

An important strand of contemporary liberalism is feminism. As a label, “feminist” is passé; outside the academic fever swamps, you will find few women below Social Security age who embrace it.

That is because what used to be called feminism–the proposition that women deserve equality before the law and protection from discrimination–is almost universally accepted today. Politically speaking, a woman is the equal of a man. No woman in public life better symbolizes this than Sarah Palin–especially not Hillary Clinton, the left’s favorite icon. No one can deny Mrs. Clinton’s accomplishments, but neither can one escape crediting them in substantial part to her role as the wife of a powerful man.

But there is more to feminism than political and legal equality. Men and women are intrinsically unequal in ways that are ultimately beyond the power of government to remediate. That is because nature is unfair. Sexual reproduction is far more demanding, both physically and temporally, for women than for men. Men simply do not face the sort of children-or-career conundrums that vex women in an era of workplace equality.

Except for the small minority of women with no interest in having children, this is an inescapable problem, one that cannot be obviated by political means. Aspects of it can, however, be ameliorated by technology–most notably contraception, which at least gives women considerable control over the timing of reproduction.

As a political matter, contraception is essentially uncontroversial today, which is to say that any suggestion that adult women be legally prevented from using birth control is outside the realm of serious debate. The same cannot be said of abortion, and that is at the root of Palinoia.

To the extent that “feminism” remains controversial, it is because of the position it takes on abortion: not just that a woman should have the “right to choose,” but that this is a matter over which reasonable people cannot disagree–that to favor any limitations on the right to abortion, or even to acknowledge that abortion is morally problematic, is to deny the basic dignity of women.

To a woman who has internalized this point of view, Sarah Palin’s opposition to abortion rights is a personal affront, and a deep one. It doesn’t help that Palin lives by her beliefs. To the contrary, it intensifies the offense.

It used to be a trope for liberal interviewers to try to unmask hypocrisy by asking antiabortion politicians–male ones, of course–what they would do if their single teen daughters got pregnant. It’s a rude question, but Palin, whose 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy coincided with Mom’s introduction to the nation, answered it in real life.

Recently we were at a party where a woman in her 60s, a self-described feminist, called Palin a “moron” for having encouraged her daughter to carry her child to term and “to marry the sperm donor.” Even apart from the gross language, this was a completely irrational thing to say. First, that Palin’s values are different in no way reflects on her intelligence.

More important, why is Bristol Palin’s decision to carry her child to term any of this lady’s business? Those who claim to be champions of privacy and choice need to do some serious soul-searching if they have so much trouble tolerating the private choices of others.

What about male Palin-hatred? It seems to us that it is of decidedly secondary importance. Liberal men put down Palin as a cheap way to score points with the women in their lives, or they use her as an outlet for more-general misogynistic impulses that would otherwise be socially unacceptable to express.

Liberal women are the active, driving force behind hatred of Sarah Palin, while liberal men’s behavior is passive and manipulative. In this respect, feminism has succeeded in reversing the traditional sexual stereotypes. If this is the result, you have to wonder why anyone would have bothered.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Why The Left Lost It

Why The Left Lost It – Wall Street Journal

There has been a great effort this week to come to grips with the American left’s reaction to the Tucson shooting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times and its editorial page, George Packer of the New Yorker, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and others, in varying degrees, have linked the murders to the intensity of opposition to the policies and presidency of Barack Obama. As Mr. Krugman asked in his Monday commentary: “Were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?”

The “you” would be his audience, and the answer is yes, they thought that in these times “something like this” could happen in the United States. Other media commentators, without a microbe of conservatism in their bloodstreams, have rejected this suggestion.

So what was the point? Why attempt the gymnastic logic of asserting that the act of a deranged personality was linked to the tea parties and the American right? Two reasons: Political calculation and personal belief.

The calculation flows from the shock of the midterm elections of November 2010. That was no ordinary election. What voters did has the potential to change the content and direction of the U.S. political system, possibly for a generation.

Only 24 months after Barack Obama’s own historic election and a rising Democratic tide, the country flipped. Not just control of the U.S. House, but deep in the body politic. Republicans now control more state legislative seats than any time since 1928.

What elevated this transfer of power to historic status is that it came atop the birth of a genuine reform movement, the tea parties. Most of the time, election results are the product of complex and changeable sentiments or the candidates’ personalities. What both sides fear most is a genuine movement with focused goals.

The tea party itself got help from history—the arrival of a clarifying event, the sovereign debt crisis of 2010. Simultaneously in the capitals of Europe, California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and elsewhere it was revealed that fiscal commitments made across decades, often for liberally inspired social goals, had put all these states into a condition of effective bankruptcy.

This stark reality unnerved many Americans. The tea partiers’ fiscal concerns were real. Despite that, a progressive Democratic president and congressional leadership spent 2009 and 2010 passing the biggest economic entitlement since 1965 and driving U.S. spending to 25%, or $3.5 trillion, of the nation’s $14 trillion GDP. A public claim of that size hasn’t been seen since World War II.

They expected to take losses in November. What they got instead was Armageddon. Suddenly an authentic reform movement, linked to the Republican Party, whose goal simply is to stop the public spending curve, had come to life. This poses a mortal threat to the financial oxygen in the economic ecosystem that the public wing of the Democratic Party has inhabited all these years.

The stakes for the American left in 2012 couldn’t possibly be higher. If then, and again in 2014, progressives can’t pull toward their candidates some percentage of the independent voters who in November abandoned the Democratic Party, they could be looking in from the outside for as many years as some of them have left to write about politics. A wilderness is a terrible place to be.

Against that grim result, every sentence Messrs. Krugman, Packer, Alter, the Times and the rest have written about Tucson is logical and understandable. What happened in November has to be stopped, by whatever means become available. Available this week was a chance to make some independents wonder if the tea parties, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Jared Loughner are all part of the same dark force.

Who believes this? They do.

The divide between this strain of the American left and its conservative opponents is about more than politics and policy. It goes back a long way, it is deep, and it will never be bridged. It is cultural, and it explains more than anything the “intensity” that exists now between these two competing camps. (The independent laments: “Can’t we all just get along?” Answer: No.)

The Rosetta Stone that explains this tribal divide is Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter’s classic 1964 essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” Hofstadter’s piece for Harper’s may be unfamiliar to many now, but each writer at the opening of this column knows by rote what Hofstadter’s essay taught generations of young, left-wing intellectuals about conservatism and the right.

After Hofstadter, the American right wasn’t just wrong on policy. Its people were psychologically dangerous and undeserving of holding authority for any public purpose. By this mental geography, the John Birch Society and the tea party are cut from the same backwoods cloth.

“American politics has often been an arena for angry minds,” Hofstadter wrote. “In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority.”

Frank Rich, Oct 17: “Don’t expect the extremism and violence in our politics to subside magically after Election Day—no matter what the results. If Tea Party candidates triumph, they’ll be emboldened. If they lose, the anger and bitterness will grow.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tuesday in the Huffington Post: “Jack’s death forced a national bout of self-examination. In 1964, Americans repudiated the forces of right-wing hatred and violence with an historic landslide in the presidential election between LBJ and Goldwater. For a while, the advocates of right-wing extremism receded from the public forum. Now they have returned with a vengeance—to the broadcast media and to prominent positions in the political landscape.”

This isn’t just political calculation. It is foundational belief.

So, yes, Tucson has indeed been revealing. On to 2012.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story