I mean, of course, the name for feline that starts with a “P” But what would you expect from someone who writes for Think Progress? Via EBL
Kristof, who pretends to be smart, recently wrote that Republicans have no health care plan to replace ObamaCare. This is a common thing for the left to say, even though it is not true. The really humiliating thing for Kristof is this. His own paper has written numerous times about several GOP plans. Mary Katherine Ham explains
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof did some cute work covering the Affordable Care Act this week, leaving a blank space in his column after the opening paragraph: “This week, President-elect Donald Trump and congressional Republicans began to dismantle Obamacare, and here are the details of their replacement plan.”
It wasn’t a production error, but it was a fact-checking error that Kristof could have corrected by simply reading the newspaper that employs him. Here are four times The New York Times reported on the GOP health-care alternatives Kristof thinks doesn’t exist.
This will not deter Kristof of course. He is of the Left, and the truth is meaningless to the Left. They lie, about everything, and never have as second thought about doing it. And, perhaps the most offensive thing about fools like Kristof is that they are so deluded that they never consider why they must lie to further their agenda. If Liberal ideas worked, their would be no need to lie would there? And, if the Left gave the first damn about honesty………………
Oh John F(ool) Kerry. He is a national disgrace on an epic level. His speech, hopefully his last as Secretary of State, was nothing more than a slap in the face to Israel, and all freedom loving people across the globe. He turned a blind eye to the evil acts of Hamas, of course, and shows his unwillingness to place the blame for the Palestinian/Israeli divide where it belongs, on the Palestinians. The fact is this. If it were up to Israel, there would be peace. The Palestinians could have their own state. And Israel would be their best friend. But, that is a fantasy. The Palestinians largely do not want peace, Hamas does not want peace. They want Israel wiped out. That belief is even laid out in Hamas’ charter. The reality is this, every time Israel has made concessions, including removing settlements from Gaza, they have been repaid by rocket attacks and terror attacks. But, Kerry the fool ignored all of that and blamed Israel and offered up a statement so demeaning as to earn Kerry a special place in Stupidville
Kerry did not mention that Jordan was never subjected to international pressure to grant the Palestinians their own state during the 19 years that Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem; nor did he acknowledge that the Palestinians would long ago have had their own state if they had recognized Israel’s right to exist and abandoned jihadist terror. Leaving all that aside, Kerry accused the Israeli government of undermining any hope of a two-state solution. In this context of claiming that Israeli policy was “leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” Kerry admonished: “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.”
What? Is Kerry saying that being Jewish is somehow incompatible with democracy? No, not really As Andrew McCarthy notes very well, Kerry is showing his true feelings
Implicitly, of course, if Kerry is saying that a country with a Muslim minority cannot maintain its Jewish character and still abide by democratic principles, then neither can the United States maintain its Judeo-Christian character and still abide by democratic principles — notwithstanding that our Judeo-Christian character is the basis for our belief in the equal dignity of all men and women, a foundational democratic principle. It is a principle one does not find in classical Islam, the law of which explicitly elevates Muslims over non-Muslims and men over women.
As McCarthy points out the constitutions of Iraq, and Afghanistan, which the United States had a significant hand in drafting both name those nations as Islamic, and protect religious minorities. Can a Jewish state not accomplish the same thing? That is what Kerry is saying. As McCarthy notes, religious minorities, including Muslim minorities, are not granted those rights in practice in Islamic democracies. He also points out that where we DO see such tolerance and protection of religious freedom is in the nation of Israel. But, facts, apparently are inconvenient things for both President Obama, and his right-hand buffoon, John Kerry. This is the alternate reality of the Left, the
United Useless Nations, and Team Obama. So why is Obama, and the Left so insistent that Israel, the nation that truly desires peace and practices tolerance and freedom must change to appease those that do not? Ben Shapiro explains
Obama’s animus for the state of Israel stretches beyond the typical internationalist leftist view of Israel as a colonialist outpost, a cancer growing in the heart of the Muslim Middle East. Most internationalist leftists think that Israel is the cause of Muslim ire, that if Israel were to disappear, suddenly the Muslim lands surrounding it would view the rest of the world with fresh, dewy eyes. This is the same general philosophy that blames the West for the problem of Islamic violence, that suggests that income maldistribution breeds discontent that in turn breeds terrorism
So, why does Obama despise Israel, he is a Leftist, every major influence in Obama’s life has been a Leftist. And, Shapiro believes that Obama, like other Leftists simply has no use for “others”
Obama despises Israel because at root, Obama despises the traditional Judeo-Christian underpinning of Western civilization. He breaks down Bible believers into two categories: fools and liars. The fools are the “bitter clingers,” the idiot masses who fall into racism and xenophobia and Bible jabber because they’re poor and stupid. The liars are the self-interested characters who want to do what they want to do while citing the Bible for their support.
That is highly plausible no doubt. I would argue that the main issue with Obama and Israel boils down to pretty much the same thing every disagreement that Leftists have with those that support traditional Western values boils down to, Collectivism vs Individualism.
The West values individual liberties to varying degrees. Israel, like America honors a commitment to allowing gender equality and religious freedom. Such commitments align with the ideology of Individualism. The ideal that certain rights are inherent to people and that such rights are given by a Creator, or at the very least are simply part of every human. Such an ideology limits government, and that is simply intolerable to the Left, which is Collectivist.
To the Left, rights are to be defined, and controlled by the State. And Islamic governments, abiding by Sharia Law, is, like Communist governments in that individual liberties are non-existent. Even nations that commit atrocities, or that persecute its own people are therefore given a pass by many on the left. Any fault with such governments are ignored by the Left because Collectivism, that is the controlling of rights by the State, must never be challenged or questioned. Sadly, because of their ideology of Collectivism the Left views nations, like Israel, and the United States as bigger obstacles to a better world than they do radical Islam.
Another day, another super “tolerant” Leftist. This time it is George Ciccariello-Maher, an associate professor of politics and global studies at Drexel University in Philadelphia. He thinks dead White people would be swell, and yes, he means it. Consider he later tweeted this gem “To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed,” he said Sunday afternoon. The link does not work (his tweets are protected) but here is a screengrab
It should be noted that several thousand White children were among those killed. Ciccariello considers that a “good thing”
Look, Ciccariello is not unique. He is an overly emotional, hateful little man, as most leftists are who is completely cool with killing people who he deems unfit. He lives and teaches in a free nation while extolling the virtues of Marxism, which makes him a hypocrite, again, most leftists are hypocrites. Ciccariello also does not value human life, or liberty if he deems such things as inconvenient to the State and its goals. That is an evil ideal, yes evil, and Ciccariello revels in that moral depravity. Drexel should fire him, and no other school should ever hire him. Good riddance to bad rubbish
Apparently more and more students are majoring in Gimme Gimme Gimme!
Students at the University of Maryland have released a list of 64 demands in their effort make the campus more amenable to “marginalized student populations.”
The project, known as ProtectUMD, is a collaborative effort between 25 student organizations at the University of Maryland, including Students for Justice in Palestine, Bisexuals at Maryland, and the Black Student Union.
You know what would really make the campus more amenable? If these groups of needy whiners who are obsessed with their “identity” would stop telling every student they are victims, and oppressed. I imagine their irritating attitudes and tactics do more to make fellow students feel uncomfortable than the imagined “oppression” they are whining about.
There are 64 demands across 8 subsets of students—Marginalized, American Indian, Black, Latinx, LGBTQIA+, Muslim, Pro-Palestine, and Undocumented—including scholarships for “students of marginalized communities,” a ban on Columbus Day, beginning every on-campus event with an acknowledgement that “this is Indigenous Land,” that African American professors get tenure, that preferred pronouns are included on rosters, and that “queer diversity training” is required.
Oh good grief, shut up and start studying. You might just learn something. In fact, these tools should really study actual oppression rather than pretending they are victims of oppression.
Students at the University of Pennsylvania have removed a portrait of Shakespeare from its Fisher-Bennett Hall and have replaced it with a picture of a black lesbian poet Audre Lorde in the name of “diversity.”
The most obvious question is this. Why not add the portrait of Lorde, rather than replacing Shakespeare? I mean Shakespeare is one of the most important literary figures in history after all. The answer, of course, is that this is not about diversity at all. It is about payback for all those “oppressed” students who are bitter, angry, and bigoted. It is also about racism. Shakespeare was White, so he is bad. Really these students are no different than any other bunch of racist buffoons are they? They are ignorant, hateful, and wish to force their views on others.
Perhaps more upsetting is the reaction of fellow students at UPenn and an English professor, who were all thrilled at this act of “inclusion”
Penn English professor and Department Chair Jed Esty was surprised to find a large portrait of William Shakespeare waiting in his office.
Now imagine, imagine an English professor reacting with apparent glee that Shakespeare is outta there!
“Students removed the Shakespeare portrait and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department,” Esty wrote in the email. He added that the image of Lorde will remain until the department reaches a decision about what to do with the space.
Good Grief! There is nothing “inclusive” about their action. Adding a portrait, picture, whatever of Lorde and keeping the Shakespeare portrait would be inclusive. Now, consider what some students said
College sophomore and English major Katherine Kvellestad commended the students’ action. She said the choice of replacing the original portrait with one of Audre Lorde sends a positive message.
“You don’t necessarily need to have a portrait of Shakespeare up,” Kvellestad said. “He’s pretty iconic.”
Well, thanks for those deep thoughts Katherine. I wonder if she ever considers if simply removing Shakespeare might not be the last step. Perhaps his writing ought to be removed too? After all, diversity!
College junior Mike Benz, also an English major, agreed. He said that he thought the students’ action was bold and admirable, adding that the students acted in a positive way by taking matters into their own hands.
“It is a cool example of culture jamming,” Benz said.
Bold? Admirable? What planet is this buffoon residing on? What is bold about removing a literary legend? But, Shakespeare was like Western dudes, and all European, so, he has to go because CULTURE JAMMING! And, yes, by the way culture jamming is, of course, more of the social justice warrior garbage
Yes, that is so much more important than educating English majors. What is next? Perhaps those majoring in music should stop studying Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and other composers? After all, those were a bunch of White Europeans right? Certainly they should be excluded too!