Tuesday, April 22, 2014

This is the Latest Dirty Liberal Plan to Go Around the Constitution, National Popular Vote Compact’ To eliminate electoral college

In 2000, George W. Bush won the election to the office of the presidency fair and square and completely in-line with the Constitution. Although he lost the popular vote by 0.5%, he won the electoral college votes by a margin of 271 to 266. Contrary to what many people believe, the election of the president and vice-president are both determined by votes from the electoral college. Still sulking from that loss, and perhaps looking for a back-up plan to their voter fraud methods, progressive left Democrats are ramping up their efforts to implement a new plan. They want to circumvent the Constitution by ditching the electoral college. Their movement is called theNational Popular Vote.

The attempt to ditch the Constitution, for what essentially amounts to mob rule, began long before the 2000 election. In 2006, Phyllis Schlafly wrote an article for the Eagle Forum on The Subversive Plan to Ditch the Constitution.
A plot is afoot to change our constitutional form of government by ditching the Electoral College. John Anderson, Birch Bayh and John Buchanan, three losers who were defeated in the 1980 Reagan landslide, are scheming to change our Constitution without complying with the amendment process.
Our Constitution requires that a president be elected by a majority of votes in the Electoral College, with each state’s vote weighted based on its population. But some who took an oath to defend our Constitution are plotting to undermine its essential structure by a compact among as few as eleven of the most populous states.
She continued by explaining the negative impact such a change would have on the vote of every day Americans.
The elimination of the Electoral College would overnight make irrelevant the votes of Americans in about 25 states because candidates would zero in on piling up votes in large-population states. Big-city machines would take over, and candidates from California or New York would enjoy a built-in advantage.
The Electoral College provides an essential safeguard against the democratic factionalism decried by James Madison in Federalist 10. The Electoral College ensures that no single faction or issue can elect a president because he must win many diverse states to be elected.
The NPV slogan “Every Vote Equal” is stunningly dishonest because the NPV proposal is based on legalizing vote-stealing and on changing the rules of presidential elections by a compact of as few as eleven states instead of the 38 states needed to amend the Constitution. NPV should be repudiated before it goes any further.
Not surprisingly, the states that have quietly worked to implement a plan to eliminate electoral college votes are all blue states.
The latest to join in on this ‘National Popular Vote compact’  is New York. According to silive.com, the Empire State is joining with California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in an agreement to award their electoral votes based upon the winner of the national popular vote. With New York’s votes in the mix, the far-left progressive plan to go around the Constitution has 165 of the 270 votes needed to pull off such a devious scheme. The ramifications for such a change are huge.
According to FOX News digital politics editor Chris Stirewalt this plan is one that will impact rural America and ‘subvert the will of the Constitution and the founders.” 
“This is disempowering to rural America and empowering to urban America,” he said, explaining that it amounts to a “hack” of the Constitution by people who don’t believe in the Electoral College.
Since there is not enough support in Congress to change the Constitution and officially end the Electoral College, this plan would allow popular vote advocates to work around it.
Stirewalt pointed out that this plan is part of a larger trend on the part of “frustrated” liberals who haven’t been able to bring about the changes they want.
“They are simply taking them. They are simply doing it and if people dissent and if people complain and if the stodgy, old Constitution gets in the way, if the fussy old Whigs in the Electoral College complain about it, too bad. Because they’re gonna hack the code and they’re gonna find a way to get what they want,” he said.
Remember the doozy of a lie that Obama told last week when he claimed ‘the Constitution is still intact.’ With Barack Obama as president and the left so power hungry that they will demonize every day Americans and subvert the system of government set up by our Founders, the Constitution is not intact; it is under attack. The left has long worked pervert the history of America to make people believe that the United States was set up as a democracy. It was not. As Stirewalt said, “the United States is not a democracy. This is a republic.” 

There is a difference.

The High Cost of Liberalism

Trying to live in the kind of world that liberals envision has costs that will not go away just because these costs are often ignored by liberals.
One of those costs appeared in an announcement of a house for sale in Palo Alto, the community adjacent to Stanford University, an institution that is as politically correct as they come.
The house is for sale at $1,498,000. It is a 1,010 square foot bungalow with two bedrooms, one bath and a garage. Although the announcement does not mention it, this bungalow is located near a commuter railroad line, with trains passing regularly throughout the day.
Lest you think this house must be some kind of designer's dream, loaded with high-tech stuff, it was built in 1942 and, even if it was larger, no one would mistake it for the Taj Mahal or San Simeon.
This house is not an aberration, and its price is not out of line with other housing prices in Palo Alto. One couple who had lived in their 1,200 square foot home in Palo Alto for 20 years decided to sell it, and posted an asking price just under $1.3 million.
Competition for that house forced the selling price up to $1.7 million.
Another Palo Alto house, this one with 1,292 square feet of space, is on the market for $2,285,000. It was built in 1895.
Even a vacant lot in Palo Alto costs more than a spacious middle-class home costs in most of the rest of the country.
How does this tie in with liberalism?
In this part of California, liberalism reigns supreme and "open space" is virtually a religion. What that lovely phrase means is that there are vast amounts of empty land where the law forbids anybody from building anything.
Anyone who has taken Economics 1 knows that preventing the supply from rising to meet the demand means that prices are going to rise. Housing is no exception.
Yet when my wife wrote in a local Palo Alto newspaper, many years ago, that preventing the building of housing would cause existing housing to become far too expensive for most people to afford it, she was deluged with more outraged letters than I get from readers of a nationally syndicated column.
What she said was treated as blasphemy against the religion of "open space" -- and open space is just one of the wonderful things about the world envisioned by liberals that is ruinously expensive in the mundane world where the rest of us live.
Much as many liberals like to put guilt trips on other people, they seldom seek out, much less acknowledge and take responsibility for, the bad consequences of their own actions.
There are people who claim that astronomical housing prices in places like Palo Alto and San Francisco are due to a scarcity of land. But there is enough vacant land ("open space") on the other side of the 280 Freeway that goes past Palo Alto to build another Palo Alto or two -- except for laws and policies that make that impossible.
As in San Francisco and other parts of the country where housing prices skyrocketed after building homes was prohibited or severely restricted, this began in Palo Alto in the 1970s.
Housing prices in Palo Alto nearly quadrupled during that decade. This was not due to expensive new houses being built, because not a single new house was built in Palo Alto in the 1970s. The same old houses simply shot up in price.
It was very much the same story in San Francisco, which was a bastion of liberalism then as now. There too, incredibly high prices are charged for small houses, often jammed close together. A local newspaper described a graduate student looking for a place to rent who was "visiting one exorbitantly priced hovel after another."
That is part of the unacknowledged cost of "open space," and just part of the high cost of liberalism.

MSNBC Melissa Harris-Perry "You Can't Keep Your Crappy Plan! Just Deal With That!

MSNBC host and renowned deep thinker Melissa Harris-Perry has a solution to Democrats' Obamacare woes. Why are the law's supporters constantly walk on eggshells, she wonders, when they can simply assert their "swagger" by angrily berating victims of President Obama's lie of the year? Brilliant stuff. I hope Democrats are taking notes (via MKH):

Virtuosic messaging. Own the lie, while reminding betrayed consumers that their canceled plans were "crappy" anyway. People who liked their existing (and oftenless expensive) plans that covered their medications and preferred doctors are a bunch of rubes. MHP -- a great fan of the ultimate "junk coverage," by the way -- is here to set 'em straight. Alas, it seems that many Democrats are foolishly rejecting her sound advice. The New York Times reports:

 President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, the $1.4 trillion effort to extend health insurance to all Americans, is challenging the traditional calculus about government benefits and political impact. Even as Mr. Obama announced that eight million Americans had enrolled in the program and urged Democrats to embrace the law, those in his party are running from it rather than on it, while Republicans are prospering by demanding its repeal.

Maybe they're running because they know that pro-Obamacare "swagger" is a big political loser. The president says the debate is over, casting opponents of the law as heartless, spiteful know-nothings. Fresh polling once again confirms that thismay not be the wisest approach:

Clearly unpersuaded by the president, one Massachusetts Democrat isn't sugarcoating the predicament in which his party finds itself. Kudos to Mediaite'sNoah Rothman for flagging this:

 Speaking to Boston Herald Radio last week, the only member of Massachusetts’ all-Democrat congressional delegation to vote against the 2010 health care reform law, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), warned that the Obamacare — well, you know — is about to “hit the fan.” ... “There are parts of Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, that were postponed because they are unpalatable,” Lynch observed. “As these provisions come into effect, the administration thus far is saying, ‘Gee, we really can’t handle this right now so we’re going to delay it.’” ... “We will lose seats in the House,” the Bay State congressman confessed when pressed on the likely political impact of the ACA. “I am fairly certain of that based on the poll numbers that are coming out from the more experienced pollsters down there. And I think we may lose the Senate.” Lynch did not mince words when he said that the Democrats’ dire political straits are “primarily because of health care.”

In short, some of the worst is yet to come -- and we're going to pay a price. But remember, the debate is over because Obamacare is on a "winning streak."

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Understanding the Threat of Progressivism's Equality

The core of progressivism is radical egalitarianism, a utopian, immature, idealistic, and impractical version of equality popularized today as "fairness." It is the Liberal/Progressive's most highly regarded ideal above all others. Quite possibly, among many of this group, it is their only ideal and it is often pursued with a religious-like zeal.

It's the product of a primitive part of the human psyche -- the collectivist way in which groups organized themselves when humans existed primarily in small bands or tribes. Psychology studies have documented the immature sense of equality or fairness that is operational in 4 year olds, where rewards of treats are given for completing certain tasks. When subjects were given the authority to change the amounts of the rewards obtained, the preschoolers invariably redistributed them in equal amounts regardless of the number of tasks completed by the individual subjects who earned the rewards.
This immature sense of equality or fairness also has a visceral appeal to many adults as well, especially those dictated primarily by emotion and "feelings" rather than by reason. For example, we've all seen interviews with ultraliberal celebrities who emphatically say in justification of their radical egalitarian opinions; "All people are created equal! It says so in our Declaration of Independence!" (Which they disingenuously quote only when convenient for their point of view.) However, people are obviously not equal. If they bothered to carefully read our founding documents and the writings of the men who created them, people are created equal in one respect only -- they are endowed equally with inalienable rights and must be treated equally under the rule of law in the protection of these rights.

Our founders were learned men who understood that as societies grew and evolved, humans found that a collectivist, egalitarian organization wasn't a feasible way to sustain larger, diverse populations. Because people are different in almost every way, those of differing talents, intellect, physical strength, desires, levels of motivation, and biology (male/female,) gravitated to certain tasks. The division of labor, a critical evolutionary leap forward, spontaneously developed, enabling larger, more complex, and more efficient and prosperous societies to develop.

Furthermore, differences in remuneration in these advanced orders of civilization will be as infinitely variable as the differences in people and the tasks that they perform. Some will be more capable or better suited to do certain things than others. Some will be more industrious than others. Some will be more successful than others. As a result, some will have "more" than others. Some will even have quite a bit more than others. This is neither good nor bad. This is truly the "fairest" distribution method possible in large, complex, specialized societies. Society, or the collective, or more specifically the "market," decides which tasks are highly valued or in greater demand and rewards them commensurately. What could be more democratic than that in serving the best interest of society? People who perform these high-value tasks with the greatest level of proficiency will be rewarded the most of all. This "system" encourages people to do their best. To aspire to greater levels of achievement because they are incentivized to do so by the "collective," or the society, which progresses because of it.
Contrary to contemporary popular belief, only when some person, or group, or government intercedes and arbitrarily decides distribution levels disconnected from value and demand does it become unfair. More importantly, it is counterproductive, since doing so undermines the necessary incentives that allowed societies to evolve the complexity required to sustain their vast populations. Similarly, the notion that a predetermined distribution, or quota, of particular subgroups within the population should be represented in particular jobs or fields of endeavor, regardless of the individual's suitability, capability, intellect, physical strength, etc., is detrimental to the intricately efficient division of labor and is equally counterproductive for societal maintenance and progress.
In addition, a culture also developed with customs, traditions, principles, and taboos to bolster and to codify this organization and the civil society that arose around it. Through fits and starts and trial and error, over the centuries, a "best practices", if you will, began evolving for societal organization.
Then along came the radical egalitarians. Theoreticians and scholars as early as Plato postulated alternative organizations for society that had a visceral appeal because they indulged a primitive part of the human psyche -- the desire for a utopia, a heaven on earth, a return to the Garden of Eden. This new society was to be administered by the best and brightest "philosopher kings" and based on the utopian, idealist, primitive version of equality and collectivism that once implemented would free mankind from the "struggle to survive." Once freed from this burden, men would be able to concentrate on "higher pursuits of civilization" in hope of perfecting human nature... or so they theorized. From Plato to Rousseau to Marx, these grand notions have captivated intellectuals and pseudointellectuals ever since. They are the dominant notions in academia to this day. These notions are also satisfying to the immature sense of "fairness" and primitive sense of equality and are appealing to the most zealous do-gooders, as well as to the least industrious members of society.
The first such attempt at transforming a society along these lines was the French Revolution. "Liberty, equality, and fraternity" was its motto. A "reign of terror" resulted where thousands were guillotined and their property confiscated and redistributed by "the people." The guillotines were then used against those who led the revolution, as the new democracy deteriorated into mob rule, the fate of all pure democracies previously attempted in the ancient Grecian city-states and subsequently abandoned. Later, Marx's utopian theories of "scientific socialism" gave rise to revolutionary applied socialism, or Communism, that was forced on societies throughout the 20th century. The record of impoverishment, human misery, tyranny, and death associated with these societal transformations is well documented.
Marxian scientific socialism also influenced Western European intellectuals who advocated the Fabian model of non-militant socialist transformation. The late 19th century American intellectuals who received advanced degrees in these European academies were exposed to this brand of socialism. They returned to staff institutions of higher learning in the United States where the first generation of American "Progressives" like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey and others, encountered the ideas of collectivism and egalitarianism.
The Progressives began their "long march through the institutions" in America with this ideology as their foundation. Their attempts at helping society "progress" under an administrative state guided by experts (like Plato's philosopher kings -- or President Obama's "czars" today) were initially thwarted by obstacles such as America's reverence for the Constitution, the success of free-market capitalism in raising the standard of living, and the strong ethic of American individualism. The Progressives soon realized that in order to be successful, their authoritarian, redistributive agenda needed to be disguised in the nonthreatening terminology of "fairness," "democracy," and "social justice."
Stealthy transformation also required that American culture, which codified and supported the principles of self-determination, self-reliance, individual freedom, belief in god, etc. had to be undermined through criticism and ridicule. The Constitution had to be marginalized. Capitalism had to be demonized and blamed. Victims needed to be identified, and crusades undertaken against their oppressors, which often could not be identified directly but conveniently blamed on generic greed or discrimination that had to be stamped out. The rule of law had to be bent in favor of identified victims groups to level the playing fields and make amends. All of these objectives are mission critical in the implementation of a collectivist ethic ("you didn't build that") and egalitarian redistribution.
It's taken nearly a century, but through gradual infiltration of the educational system and the media, they have been successful in controlling public opinion by instilling a liberal/progressive groupthink protected by political correctness that has enabled them to undermine our culture as well as our economic and political systems through the electoral process. They are now firmly in control of our corrupted government.
There is only one type of equality that is compatible with freedom, and that is the equality of treatment of all individuals by their fellow members of society. Each equally endowed as part of their humanity to enjoy the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which includes the right to property and their right to protect their lives and property among others.) Radical egalitarian redistribution requires unequal treatment by force and a subordination of the rights of some to the dictates of the collective. Mob rule. Arbitrary application of laws. Imposed servitude.
Liberal /Progressives value their utopian, immature, and demonstrably impractical version of equality more than they value freedom. They advocate that it's acceptable to give up a little liberty for "the good of society", for fairness, and for security. A compliant population is gradually conditioned as their loss of liberty occurs in increments. Modern Progressivism is, in fact, Regressivism. Through the pursuit of radical egalitarian equality they are undermining the centuries of true progress of western civilization and threaten its very existence.
Like it or not, we're all being taken along on this ride. The question is: What are we prepared to do about it?

Atheists Are Irrational: Atheists Are Proved Irrational With This One Simentence The left wants to rip God from the Sky, but they demonstrate their weakness when they attempt to rationalize the creator away.

Friday, April 18, 2014

15 Examples Of "Liberal Privilege", Since liberals can't find enough real examples of racism to whine over, they've taken drastic steps to invent imaginary bigotry

es of racism to whine over, they've taken drastic steps to invent imaginary bigotry. One of the ways they've done this, especially on college campuses, is by embracing the concept of "privilege."
The general idea is that as a straight, white heterosexual male, you have all sorts of special "privileges" you should feel guilty about because of your "dominant" position in society. Buzzfeedeven put together a special quiz on the subject called, "How Privileged Are You?" Some of the indications of "privilege" on the quiz include:
* I have never been told I “sound white.”
* My parents are heterosexual.
* I am a man.
* I have never felt unsafe because of my gender.
* I have never been homeless.
To take this sort of hyper-sensitivity seriously requires a mind-boggling lack of self-awareness because EVERYBODY has some kind of "privilege" that could benefit him in some way, shape or form that others don't have.
I've worked at jobs where the managers have said they couldn't fire a black employee who deserved it solely because they needed more of a paper trail to fire a non-white employee. There are illegal aliens getting in-state tuition when Americans from other states can't. There are transexuals who can use whatever bathroom they want based on how they "feel" about their gender that day. It's much more acceptable for a woman to stay home and take care of her kids while her partner supports her than it is for a man. If you're gay, you're much more likely to be taken seriously if you claim that you're the victim of a hate crime than someone who's straight.
Oh, but those don't count...why not?
Because if you apply the same rules of "privilege" to everyone, it becomes obvious that whole concept is stupid?
Well, the rest of us already know that, but in order to help liberals catch up, here are 15 examples of "liberal privilege."
1) You can commit a crime and your local newspaper usually won't mention what party you're in if you're a Democrat.
2) You can be a white liberal who viciously mocks black men like Clarence Thomas, Allen West, and Ben Carson without being called a racist.
3) You can be a Communist or a radical Islamist, you can hate America or even engage in acts of terrorism and still get a job as a college professor. In fact, it probably makes it more likely you'll be hired.
4) You can live in a mansion, fly around in private jets and consume more energy than a small town and still be taken seriously when you say we need to cut back on our lifestyles to fight global warming.
5) You can hold a conference like Netroots Nation that's as white as any Tea Party without having people suggest that your event is somehow "racist" for not having more minorities present.
6) You can hold protests without paying for permits, illegally sleep in the park for weeks, and crap in the street and the police turn a blind eye to what you're doing.
7) You can make Ebenezer Scrooge look like Mother Teresa and you'll still be told you're "compassionate" for supporting liberal policies that ruin the lives of poor Americans.
8) You have the option of sending your kids to a liberal school, watching liberal news, and then enjoying liberal TV shows so that your insular liberal world never has to be shaken by actual conservatives explaining their ideas.
9) If you work for a newspaper, a college, or in Hollywood, you can freely spout your political beliefs at every opportunity without fear of facing any retaliation for your beliefs. As an added bonus, you can then tell everyone how "brave" you are for taking the same positions all of your friends and colleagues hold.
10) If you're a liberal minority politician, you can be crooked, ignore your constituents, and do nothing of consequence to make their lives better while you get elected over and over again.
11) You can be taken seriously as some kind of girl power, women's rights icon even though your entire career is built on being married to a serial adulterer who became President.
12) You can have millions of dollars in the bank and not be laughed at when you complain about all those awful rich people ruining the country.
13) Newspapers will ignore scandals that would be front page news FOR MONTHS if a Republican were involved because a liberal is behind them.
14) You can wear mom jeans, throw like a girl, and look like a dork on a bike and Hollywood will tell everyone you're cool if you're a liberal President.
15) You can cheer for women who abort their female babies right before you accuse OTHER PEOPLE of waging a "war" on women.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Ultimate arbiter of every facet of our existence Liberals and Progressives, Telling Other People How to Live Their Lives

Liberals and progressives (LPs) like to control and micromanage other people’s lives. They consider themselves the ultimate arbiter of every facet of our existence. You could say they are the proverbial busy-bodies

You can ignore the busy-body down the block. But, if you ignore liberals and progressives who have the power of the HOA, of violent protests, of boycotts, of the law, of the purse, and of the police behind them, you do so at your own peril.
  • LPs may be a minority of the population but they have their tentacles deeply embedded into the majority and into our national psyche, driving the message and the conversation and squashing dissent with labels of bigotry, racism, xenophobia, and islamophobia.

    Americans are trained to comply peacefully, follow and respect law and order, no matter how badly conceived a law may be. After all, 435 chosen ones have voted and decided and 316 million subjects must obey.
  • The LP unholy alliance takes over our children at an early age in pre-school, telling them how to think, what to think, what to believe in, whom to recognize as ultimate authority, feeding them a manufactured history that would shame them into hating who they are instead of being proud of their heritage.

  • The LP alliance teaches our children intolerance of divergent opinions, racism, inappropriate sexuality, worship of primitive cultures, and staunch divisiveness in the stated propagandizing pursuit of equality, social justice, and fundamental transformation into an environmental utopia ruled by Mother Earth.

  • The LPs manipulate the mainstream media and force upon the majority the perverted messages from the drug culture of Hollywood, the narcissistic lot who think of themselves as heroes and instant experts because they can act on stage or memorize lines on celluloid. 

  • The LPs dilute our Christian faith, the importance of family, tamper with our definition of marriage, and are responsible for the death of millions of innocent unborn children who want to live but are slaughtered through legal abortion.

  • The LPs control our medical care, our doctors, our hospitals, whether we are treated or not.  If we are good little Americans, pliant to their wishes, and cough up as much of our wealth as possible, they may let us be.

  • The LPs tell us what size houses we can build, where we can build them, how many stories tall they must be, and how densely populated the area.

  • LPs dictate what cars we can drive, how fast we can drive, and what kind of fuel we can use. LPs have already made plans to replace as many drivers with riders on light rail and on buses, preferably walkers and bikers. Corridors are being built and allotted to bus use only. Connecticut is a case in point.

  • LPs control what lands we can own, which ones we must give up to the federal government for re-wilding, where we can go camping, fishing, boating, and for recreation. There are specific areas for such activities, with very strict rules and regulations.

  • LPs instruct us where we can farm, what to farm, what we can feed our cattle, where we can graze our cattle, and how we can mitigate the impact the cow flatulence has on the levels of methane gas in the atmosphere.

  • The LPs know better what kind of energy we should use, no matter what the cost to us, which land must be used for solar power generation and wind power generation, no matter how many bird species are fried or killed, or no matter how many cattle ranchers or humans are displaced and hurt in the process.

  • LPs calculate how much water farmers are allowed to get from aquifers, rivers, and lakes. Wildlife always has priority over human life. A delta smelt, a desert tortoise, or a snowy owl have preference over the lives of millions of humans.

  • LPs decide through taxation how much money we should keep from accumulated wealth or earned income. It is unfair to the unsuccessful and the welfare-minded to have less money and wealth than the hard-working and the successful do. Social justice must prevent that from ever happening. Why should a doctor make more money than a grocery store clerk? Could it be that doctors study for 12 years to train in their profession?

  • LPs like to tell us what to eat, how much to eat, how much sugar, salt, and protein from meat. After all, a meat diet is bad for our health and cow flatulence contributes to global warming. Vegans live better and healthier lives, we are told by various “studies.” We are also informed that we grow more than enough vegetables on this planet to feed 7 billion humans. Do we?

  • LP billionaires now control the education of our children through Common Core, a bewildering way of thinking that will turn us back a few decades until the rest of the third world can catch up with us and we become good little equal global citizens, living in equal dumbed-down miserable existence.

  • LPs control politics, politicians, judges, the Supremes, and everyone else in between who like to have a life-long cushy job with no accountability to those little information voters who elected them time and time again.
Pretty drama queens from unknown districts relish in abusive power to make disastrous policies for 316 million Americans. Minions pay homage to the beauty that got them through school and through an election to such a powerful position in the world. They can’t help but wonder - how stupid are these people who put me here? Could they not see right through my ignorant background? Did they not know that I was a C and D student and have not learned much in school? But I’m on top of the world now and I can do whatever I want, nobody can stop me because I am an unstoppable politician for life.
The LPs arbitrate our water supply, pick our energy policy, control our food prices, make decisions about our roads, and select our agricultural production through subsidies. They are the feudal lords who told their subjects they could not hunt the animals in the forest because they belonged to the lord of the manor.

The LPs control our immigration policy, who comes into our country illegally, how many benefits they get immediately upon setting foot on American soil, free medical care, free college tuition, and other rewards not available to American citizens.

LPs determine amnesty and the ultimate fate, survival or demise, of our culture. They will be responsible for our country’s morphing into a regional fiefdom of the global elites.


The slow death of free speech How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate — from Islam and Israel to global warming and gay marriage

These days, pretty much every story is really the same story:
  • In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of ‘Fucking Zionist, fucking pricks… Get the fuck off our campus.’
  • In California, Mozilla’s chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
  • At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek ‘special clearance’ before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.
  • In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
  • In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.
  • And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C — whoa, don’t worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it’s down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Agedescribed as the ongoing debate about ‘where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society’.
I heard a lot of that kind of talk during my battles with the Canadian ‘human rights’ commissions a few years ago: of course, we all believe in free speech, but it’s a question of how you ‘strike the balance’, where you ‘draw the line’… which all sounds terribly reasonable and Canadian, and apparently Australian, too. But in reality the point of free speech is for the stuff that’s over the line, and strikingly unbalanced. If free speech is only for polite persons of mild temperament within government-policed parameters, it isn’t free at all. So screw that.
But I don’t really think that many people these days are genuinely interested in ‘striking the balance’; they’ve drawn the line and they’re increasingly unashamed about which side of it they stand. What all the above stories have in common, whether nominally about Israel, gay marriage, climate change, Islam, or even freedom of the press, is that one side has cheerfully swapped that apocryphal Voltaire quote about disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it for the pithier Ring Lardner line: ‘“Shut up,” he explained.’
A generation ago, progressive opinion at least felt obliged to pay lip service to the Voltaire shtick. These days, nobody’s asking you to defend yourself to the death: a mildly supportive retweet would do. But even that’s further than most of those in the academy, the arts, the media are prepared to go. As Erin Ching, a student at 60-grand-a-year Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, put it in her college newspaper the other day: ‘What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.’ Yeah, who needs that? There speaks the voice of a generation: celebrate diversity by enforcing conformity.
The examples above are ever-shrinking Dantean circles of Tolerance: At Galway, the dissenting opinion was silenced by grunting thugs screaming four-letter words. At Mozilla, the chairwoman is far more housetrained: she issued a nice press release all about (per Miss Alcorn) striking a balance between freedom of speech and ‘equality’, and how the best way to ‘support’ a ‘culture’ of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusiveness’ is by firing anyone who dissents from the mandatory groupthink. At the House of Commons they’re moving to the next stage: in an ‘inclusive culture’ ever more comfortable with narrower bounds of public discourse, it seems entirely natural that the next step should be for dissenting voices to require state permission to speak.
At Brandeis University, we are learning the hierarchy of the new multiculti caste system. In theory, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is everything the identity-group fetishists dig: female, atheist, black, immigrant. If conservative white males were to silence a secular women’s rights campaigner from Somalia, it would be proof of the Republican party’s ‘war on women’, or the encroaching Christian fundamentalist theocracy, or just plain old Andrew Boltian racism breaking free of its redoubt at the Herald Sun to rampage as far as the eye can see. But when the snivelling white male who purports to be president of Brandeis (one Frederick Lawrence) does it out of deference to Islam, Miss Hirsi Ali’s blackness washes off her like a bad dye job on a telly news anchor. White feminist Germaine Greer can speak at Brandeis because, in one of the more whimsical ideological evolutions even by dear old Germaine’s standards, Ms Greer feels that clitoridectomies add to the rich tapestry of ‘cultural identity’: ‘One man’s beautification is another man’s mutilation,’ as she puts it. But black feminist Hirsi Ali, who was on the receiving end of ‘one man’s mutilation’ and lives under death threats because she was boorish enough to complain about it, is too ‘hateful’ to be permitted to speak. In the internal contradictions of multiculturalism, Islam trumps all: race, gender, secularism, everything. So, in the interests of multiculti sensitivity, pampered upper-middle-class trusty-fundy children of entitlement are pronouncing a Somali refugee beyond the pale and signing up to Islamic strictures on the role of women.
That’s another reason why Gay Alcorn’s fretting over ‘striking the balance’ is so irrelevant. No matter where you strike it, the last unread nonagenarian white supremacist Xeroxing flyers in a shack off the Tanami Track will be way over the line, while, say, Sheikh Sharif Hussein’s lively sermon to an enthusiastic crowd at the Islamic Da’wah Centre of South Australia, calling on Allah to kill every last Buddhist and Hindu, will be safely inside it. One man’s decapitation is another man’s cultural validation, as Germaine would say.
Ms Greer has reached that Circle of Tolerance wherein the turkeys line up to volunteer for an early Eid. The Leveson Inquiry declaration of support signed by all those London luvvies like Emma Thompson, Tom Stoppard, Maggie Smith, Bob Geldof and Ian McKellen is the stage that comes after that House of Commons Science and Technology Committee — when the most creative spirits in our society all suddenly say: ‘Ooh, yes, please, state regulation, bring it on!’ Many of the eminent thespians who signed this letter started their careers in an era when every play performed in the West End had to be approved by the Queen’s Lord Chamberlain. Presented with a script that contained three ‘fucks’ and an explicit reference to anal sex, he’d inform the producer that he would be permitted two ‘crikeys’ and a hint of heavy petting. In 1968, he lost his censorship powers, and the previously banned Hair, of all anodyne trifles, could finally be seen on the London stage: this is the dawning of the age of Aquarius. Only four and a half decades after the censor’s departure, British liberals are panting for the reimposition of censorship under a new ‘Royal Charter’.
This is the aging of the dawn of Aquarius: new blasphemy laws for progressive pieties. In the New Statesman, Sarah Ditum seemed befuddled that the ‘No Platform’ movement — a vigorous effort to deny public platforms to the British National party and the English Defence League — has mysteriously advanced from silencing ‘violent fascists’ to silencing all kinds of other people, like aGuardian feminist who ventured some insufficiently affirming observations about trans-women and is now unfit for polite society. But, once you get a taste for shutting people up, it’s hard to stop. Why bother winning the debate when it’s easier to close it down?
Nick Lowles defined the ‘No Platform’ philosophy as ‘the position where we refuse to allow fascists an opportunity to act like normal political parties’. But free speech is essential to a free society because, when you deny people ‘an opportunity to act like normal political parties’, there’s nothing left for them to do but punch your lights out. Free speech, wrote the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson last week, ‘buttresses the political system’s legitimacy. It helps losers, in the struggle for public opinion and electoral success, to accept their fates. It helps keep them loyal to the system, even though it has disappointed them. They will accept the outcomes, because they believe they’ve had a fair opportunity to express and advance their views. There’s always the next election. Free speech underpins our larger concept of freedom.’
Just so. A fortnight ago I was in Quebec for a provincial election in which the ruling separatist party went down to its worst defeat in almost half a century. This was a democratic contest fought between parties that don’t even agree on what country they’re in. In Ottawa for most of the 1990s the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition was a chap who barely acknowledged either the head of state or the state she’s head of. Which is as it should be. Because, if a Quebec separatist or an Australian republican can’t challenge the constitutional order through public advocacy, the only alternative is to put on a black ski-mask and skulk around after dark blowing stuff up.
I’m opposed to the notion of official ideology — not just fascism, Communism and Baathism, but the fluffier ones, too, like ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘climate change’ and ‘marriage equality’. Because the more topics you rule out of discussion — immigration, Islam, ‘gender fluidity’ — the more you delegitimise the political system. As your cynical political consultant sees it, a commitment to abolish Section 18C is more trouble than it’s worth: you’ll just spends weeks getting damned as cobwebbed racists seeking to impose a bigots’ charter when you could be moving the meter with swing voters by announcing a federal programmne of transgendered bathroom construction. But, beyond the shrunken horizons of spinmeisters, the inability to roll back something like 18C says something profound about where we’re headed: a world where real, primal, universal rights — like freedom of expression — come a distant second to the new tribalism of identity-group rights.
Oh, don’t worry. There’ll still be plenty of ‘offending, insulting or humiliating’ in such a world, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Mozilla CEO and Zionists and climate deniers and feminist ‘cis-women’ not quite au courant with transphobia can all tell you. And then comes the final, eerie silence. Young Erin Ching at Swarthmore College has grasped the essential idea: it is not merely that, as the Big Climate enforcers say, ‘the science is settled’, but so is everything else, from abortion to gay marriage. So what’s to talk about? Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation, ‘gender fluidity’ and everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.
As it happens, the biggest ‘safe space’ on the planet is the Muslim world. For a millennium, Islamic scholars have insisted, as firmly as a climate scientist or an American sophomore, that there’s nothing to debate. And what happened? As the United Nations Human Development Programme’s famous 2002 report blandly noted, more books are translated in Spain in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years. Free speech and a dynamic, innovative society are intimately connected: a culture that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very fast.
As American universities, British playwrights and Australian judges once understood, the ‘safe space’ is where cultures go to die.


n a 2006 interviewSupreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said the Constitution is “basically about” one word — “democracy” — that appears in neither that document nor the Declaration of Independence. Democracy is America’s way of allocating political power. The Constitution, however, was adopted to confine that power in order to “secure the blessings of” that which simultaneously justifies and limits democratic government — natural liberty.
The fundamental division in U.S. politics is between those who take their bearings from the individual’s right to a capacious, indeed indefinite, realm of freedom, and those whose fundamental value is the right of the majority to have its way in making rules about which specified liberties shall be respected.

Now the nation no longer lacks what it has long needed, a slender book that lucidly explains the intensity of conservatism’s disagreements with progressivism. For the many Americans who are puzzled and dismayed by the heatedness of political argument today, the message of Timothy Sandefur’s “The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty” is this: The temperature of today’s politics is commensurate to the stakes of today’s argument.
The argument is between conservatives who say U.S. politics is basically about a condition, liberty, and progressives who say it is about a process, democracy. Progressives, who consider democracy thesource of liberty, reverse the Founders’ premise, which was: Liberty preexists governments, which, the Declaration says, are legitimate when “instituted” to “secure” natural rights.
Progressives consider, for example, the rights to property and free speech as, in Sandefur’s formulation, “spaces of privacy” that government chooses “to carve out and protect” to the extent that these rights serve democracy. Conservatives believe that liberty, understood as a general absence of interference, and individual rights, which cannot be exhaustively listed, are natural and that governmental restrictions on them must be as few as possible and rigorously justified. Merely invoking the right of a majority to have its way is an insufficient justification.
With the Declaration, Americans ceased claiming the rights of aggrieved Englishmen and began asserting rights that are universal because they are natural, meaning necessary for the flourishing of human nature. “In Europe,” wrote James Madison, “charters of liberty have been granted by power,” but America has “charters of power granted by liberty.”
Sandefur, principal attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, notes that since the 1864 admission of Nevada to statehood, every state’s admission has been conditioned on adoption of a constitution consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration . The Constitution is the nation’s fundamental law but is not the first law. The Declaration is, appearing on Page 1 of Volume 1 of the U.S. Statutes at Large, and the Congress has placed it at the head of the United States Code, under the caption, “The Organic Laws of the United States of America.” Hence the Declaration “sets the framework” for reading the Constitution not as “basically about” democratic government — majorities — granting rights but about natural rights defining the limits of even democratic government.
The perennial conflict in American politics, Sandefur says, concerns “which takes precedence: the individual’s right to freedom, or the power of the majority to govern.” The purpose of the post-Civil War’s 14th Amendment protection of Americans’ “privileges or immunities” — protections vitiated by an absurdly narrow Supreme Court reading of that clause in 1873 — was to assert, on behalf of emancipated blacks, national rights of citizens. National citizenship grounded on natural rights would thwart Southern states then asserting their power to acknowledge only such rights as they chose to dispense.
Government, the framers said, is instituted to improve upon the state of nature, in which the individual is at the mercy of the strong. But when democracy, meaning the process of majority rule, is the supreme value — when it is elevated to the status of what the Constitution is “basically about” — the individual is again at the mercy of the strong, the strength of mere numbers.
Sandefur says progressivism “inverts America’s constitutional foundations” by holding that the Constitution is “about” democracy, which rejects the framers’ premise that majority rule is legitimate “only within the boundaries” of the individual’s natural rights. These include — indeed, are mostly — unenumerated rights whose existence and importance are affirmed by the Ninth Amendment.
Many conservatives should be discomfited by Sandefur’s analysis, which entails this conclusion: Their indiscriminate denunciations of “judicial activism” inadvertently serve progressivism. The protection of rights, those constitutionally enumerated and others, requires a judiciary actively engaged in enforcing what the Constitution is “basically about,” which is making majority power respect individuals’ rights.


Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Today’s liberal elites are the new virulent racists

E.W. Jackson is the former Republican Nominee for Lt. Governor of Virginia. He is a Marine Corps Veteran, graduate of Harvard Law School, President of STAND, Bishop of The Called Church and Senior Fellow of the Family Research Council.

Last week we witnessed repeated efforts by Democrats to polarize the country along racial lines. Eric Holder, speaking at Al Sharpton's conference, implied that he and the President are being treated harshly because they are black. Then Nancy Pelosi claimed that Republicans are refusing to support an immigration bill because they don't like Hispanics. She actually said, "I've heard them [Republicans] say to the Irish, if this were just you, it would be easy." The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair, Rep. Steve Israel, was asked on CNN whether his Republican colleagues are racist. He answered, "Not all of them, no…But to a significant extent the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism, and that's unfortunate."
This is more than election year politics. It is worse than a crass attempt to manipulate black voters with fear of Republicans. It is the insidious new racism of liberal elites who masquerade as champions of racial justice. The old racism is obvious and unacceptable. However, the new liberal racism is camouflaged as a cure when it is in fact a far more deadly strain of the disease. It is time to expose and denounce it.
The Republican base that Steve Israel says is animated by racism, nominated me -- an American of African descent and a great grandson of slaves -- for Lt. Governor of Virginia. They embraced me warmly, treated me respectfully and supported me enthusiastically. The liberal media on the other hand set out to destroy me. My white Democrat opponent was even caught on camera refusing to shake my hand. The new racism is very different in style from the old, but the same in substance. The old racists liked blacks who knew their place and stayed in it. The new racists behave exactly the same, but define our “place” as the Democrat liberal camp.

When I won the Republican nomination for Lt. Governor of Virginia, the Washington Post and the Richmond Times Dispatch dedicated themselves to discrediting me. As a child, I lived in a foster home which had no indoor bathroom. Liberal reporters said that since they could not prove there was no indoor bathroom, I must have lied. I served as a Chaplain for the Boston Red Sox, but they said I must have made up that story because nearly twenty-five years later the Red Sox had no record of it. The press was not interested in Benghazi or the IRS scandal, but they combed through the minutiae of my life looking for something to diminish my achievements.
Today’s liberal elites are the new virulent racists. When you agree with them, they honor you as an African-American. When you contradict their orthodoxy, they abuse you like a dog. Even liberal Juan Williams felt their wrath when he went off message.

Yet, neither Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, nor the liberal elites who prop them up represent the true values of the black community. Most black folks oppose abortion, support traditional marriage and favor school choice. Black leaders ignore these facts and dance to the tune of their liberal benefactors. My convictions come from my proud black father who took me out of foster care, raised me as a single Dad and never took a dime of government assistance.  They come from my church upbringing which taught me to trust God, not government. Black conservatives want to break the cycle of poverty in the black community, not use it to perpetuate the grievance industry. Who are the real sell-outs? Who are the real racists?"
After seventy percent of black voters supported California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, they were called homophobes, bigots and ingrates. The black community’s support of Proposition 8 was characterized as a “betrayal” of those who claimed a right to their loyalty -- the liberal establishment.
One hundred and fifty years after slavery, a new generation now claims ownership of the thoughts and behavior of Americans of African descent. These ersatz masters believe they deserve absolute fealty. Slave owners usually think themselves beneficent, but those who thirst for freedom have a different perspective.
We have largely rid ourselves of the old racism. It is time to rid ourselves of the new form. The burden is on the liberal elites in the Democrat Party and the media to end the paternalism and condescension with which they treat the black community, and renounce the hateful attempts to destroy black conservatives. They need to stop pointing the finger of racism at others and take a hard look at themselves. They are not the racial conscience of the country, but the cause of racial regression.
I have been calling for unity across racial and cultural lines for decades, reminding audiences of the last line of our Pledge of Allegiance - "one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all." It is time for Democrat elites to stop dividing us and start bringing us together in fulfillment of that pledge.