Day: September 21, 2017

ACZ_EarthquakeCDMX20.JPG

Rich, poor band together …


On one of Mexico City’s trendiest streets, lined with art galleries, cafes and gourmet restaurants, taco vendor Luis Miguel Osorio and his wife and daughter worked rapidly Wednesday to serve food to the victims, volunteers and emergency workers crowded around a nearby apartment building that collapsed during Mexico’s deadliest earthquake in 32 years.

The site remained one of several crisis points around the capital as authorities and volunteers worked to locate the missing and rescue those still trapped beneath rubble a day after the temblor. Authorities have reported a death toll of 230 in central and southern Mexico, with the largest number of fatalities — 100 — in Mexico City.

Yet, in the space of 24 hours, a sense of terror shifted to a spirit of solidarity as friends, neighbors, relatives and often complete strangers came to one another’s aid, transcending Mexico’s usually rigid class divisions.

With many businesses closed, Osorio and his family, who have run a taco stand on Álvaro Óbregon street in the Roma neighborhood for 17 years, came out to support the rescue efforts with food, water and other supplies.

The Washington Post’s Joshua Partlow reports from Mexico City on the destruction left by the 7.1-magnitude earthquake and how residents of the capital city are racing to find survivors. (Joshua Partlow/The Washington Post)

“The whole city was affected, and we’re part of the city, so we’re here to help,” he said. “What else were we going to do?”

Tuesday’s 7.1-magnitude earthquake, with an epicenter southeast of Mexico City in Puebla state, occurred 32 years to the day after the country’s worst temblor, which killed thousands in 1985, and 12 days after an 8.1-magnitude quake that rattled the capital and killed 98 people in southern Mexico.

Just days ago, the well-heeled residents of Roma, located close to the city’s downtown, were depositing canned food, blankets and water at drop-off points for their compatriots affected by the earlier quake in some of Mexico’s poorest, most rural areas. Yet as Álvaro Obregón street filled with dust and debris, with one building toppled and many others damaged, these residents, too, became victims.

“It felt like the world was ending,” said Amanda Ramírez, 22, who lives close to a collapsed apartment building where at least 13 people were still trapped beneath rubble. Following emergency protocols, she abandoned her third-floor apartment when the quake hit, leaving behind everything except her keys, and descended a staircase that veered and contorted beneath her feet.

“There were moments as I went down the stairs in which I thought, ‘Will I make it out?’ ” she said.

Elsewhere in the neighborhood, windows were shattered and buildings rendered uninhabitable, forcing many to seek shelter elsewhere.

Ramírez, a pharmacist, was able to escape her building unscathed and returned only to pack an overnight bag before traveling to her mother’s house across the city. With scores of people still trapped and rescue operations underway in various parts of the capital, many others were not so lucky.

Rescue efforts have been led by joint teams of federal, state and local officials, along with the military. But ordinary citizens have also come forward to help, sometimes producing unlikely friendships.

University student Amelia Lara, 21, comes from Gustavo A. Madero, one of Mexico City’s poorest districts, yet on Wednesday she found herself bandaging the wounds of lawyers and workers from Mexico’s financial district as she volunteered to provide first aid.

“The conversations were interesting,” she said. “People were in shock, many were shaking and crying, so you just tried to take their minds off things, ask them about silly things.”

Mexico’s capital is one of the world’s largest cities and reflects the country’s huge gulf between rich and poor. While residents of Roma enjoy leafy green parks, European-style cafes and well-kept streets, many of the city’s less-fortunate citizens live in dusty slums on the edge of the metropolis, commuting to informal jobs in the wealthier neighborhoods.

As authorities barred many residents from returning to their homes because of structural damage, nearby Parque Mexico became a makeshift campsite where people grouped together, alert to the possibility of aftershocks that might cause further destruction. On Wednesday morning, the park was also a drop-off point for people wishing to donate blankets, water and other supplies.

The strong sense of solidarity in a city known for its obnoxious drivers and rough edges — not to mention its social snobbiness — reflects Mexicans’ typically resilient sense of humor.

“These kinds of events bring the best out of Mexicans,” said Álvaro Jiménez, a middle-aged engineer who was volunteering in the rescue efforts. “We can fight each other like dogs when things are going well, but when somebody needs help, we band together.”

With cruel irony, the city had undergone a drill to commemorate the capital’s far more destructive 1985 earthquake just hours before the latest disaster occurred. And by Wednesday afternoon, there were fears that another building, six stories high, could topple in the Roma neighborhood.

“It’s mysterious and it’s tragic,” Jiménez said. “But you can’t do anything to stop it. You just do everything you can to help the people affected.”



Source link

Time to End Birthright Citizenship


Donald Trump took a lot of heat when he announced his candidacy for President, stating that he would build a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville and make Mexico pay for it, all to keep Mexico’s “unwanted” and “undesirables” from flooding the United States. In August 2015, on the campaign trail, he shed light on a flawed interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that has caused much of the problem of illegal immigration.

That misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship. Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen. Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol, have your baby, and you not only have a U.S. citizen but what is called an “anchor baby” allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.

During the campaign, Trump correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration. He would end it, and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border. As the New York Post reported:

Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.


“They have to go,” Trump said. “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows… the baby’s here.”

Birthright citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide. Even our European brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it. As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on every person born on our nation’s soil. Having a child become a U.S. citizen is the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally. Such status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country’s security and freedoms. Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.

The costs of birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs of what is called “chain migration. Once of age, the baby born here can sponsor others. It has even given rise to what is called “birth tourism” where pregnant women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth here and have their child dubbed an American citizen by birth As Ian Tuttle writes in National Review:

Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid $35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States; other estimates skew as high as 60,000…


The cost of this is not negligible. Inflation-adjusted figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that a child born in 2013 would cost his parents $304,480 from birth to his eighteenth birthday. Given that illegal-alien households are normally low-income households (three out of five illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children live at or near the poverty line), one would expect that a significant portion of that cost will fall on the government…


There are long-term costs, too. U.S.-born children of illegal aliens can sponsor the immigration of family members once they come of age. At 18, an “anchor baby” can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own; at 21, he can sponsor parents and siblings…

Trump said he would end birthright citizenship and critics have said that the task, even if justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution. In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment — only correctly interpreting it — perhaps through clarifying legislation.

The Fourteenth Amendment, passed, on July 3, 1866, reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves, not illegal aliens. The 1857 Dred Scott decision held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in October, 2008, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, and therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens.

During debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criteria for citizenship. And if citizenship was determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the14th Amendment?        

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, who is regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself. A natural born citizen…”

Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through HR. 698 the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.

HR. 698 declared: “It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.” The bill undertook to clarify “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to the meaning originally intended by Congress in the14th Amendment.

The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake and given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational, and health care systems as well as through increased crime on our legal system, a very costly one.  

There may be hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more “originalist” bent. As noted, the misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation. We can correct it judicially or legislatively and we should. Donald Trump was right — becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.      

Donald Trump took a lot of heat when he announced his candidacy for President, stating that he would build a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville and make Mexico pay for it, all to keep Mexico’s “unwanted” and “undesirables” from flooding the United States. In August 2015, on the campaign trail, he shed light on a flawed interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that has caused much of the problem of illegal immigration.

That misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship. Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen. Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol, have your baby, and you not only have a U.S. citizen but what is called an “anchor baby” allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.

During the campaign, Trump correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration. He would end it, and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border. As the New York Post reported:

Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.


“They have to go,” Trump said. “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows… the baby’s here.”

Birthright citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide. Even our European brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it. As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on every person born on our nation’s soil. Having a child become a U.S. citizen is the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally. Such status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country’s security and freedoms. Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.

The costs of birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs of what is called “chain migration. Once of age, the baby born here can sponsor others. It has even given rise to what is called “birth tourism” where pregnant women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth here and have their child dubbed an American citizen by birth As Ian Tuttle writes in National Review:

Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid $35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States; other estimates skew as high as 60,000…


The cost of this is not negligible. Inflation-adjusted figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that a child born in 2013 would cost his parents $304,480 from birth to his eighteenth birthday. Given that illegal-alien households are normally low-income households (three out of five illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children live at or near the poverty line), one would expect that a significant portion of that cost will fall on the government…


There are long-term costs, too. U.S.-born children of illegal aliens can sponsor the immigration of family members once they come of age. At 18, an “anchor baby” can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own; at 21, he can sponsor parents and siblings…

Trump said he would end birthright citizenship and critics have said that the task, even if justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution. In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment — only correctly interpreting it — perhaps through clarifying legislation.

The Fourteenth Amendment, passed, on July 3, 1866, reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves, not illegal aliens. The 1857 Dred Scott decision held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in October, 2008, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, and therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens.

During debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criteria for citizenship. And if citizenship was determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the14th Amendment?        

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, who is regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself. A natural born citizen…”

Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through HR. 698 the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.

HR. 698 declared: “It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.” The bill undertook to clarify “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to the meaning originally intended by Congress in the14th Amendment.

The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake and given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational, and health care systems as well as through increased crime on our legal system, a very costly one.  

There may be hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more “originalist” bent. As noted, the misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation. We can correct it judicially or legislatively and we should. Donald Trump was right — becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.      



Source link

Leftist Global Warming Mythology


The left’s response to the natural disasters in Florida was to raise again the bogeyman of man-made global warming.  The left blames every natural disaster or significant change in weather on man-made global warming.  So if the weather is unseasonably hot, man-made global warming is the culprit, but if the weather is unseasonably cold, the man-made global warming is to blame as well.  The “science” of the left simply plugs in man-made global warming to every natural disaster or significant change in the weather.

This is anti-science in its purest form.  Totalitarianism – and the left is utterly totalitarian – always claims to base its actions upon “science.”  So the Nazis insisted and persuaded many scientists involved in genetics, psychology, biology, and so forth to agree with Nazi racial policies as “scientific,” and almost everything that happened was accounted for by the Nazis as part of racial “science.”  So the Soviets coerced all scientists to accept as an overarching “science” Marxism, and so geneticists and physicists were sent to the Gulag or worse if their scientific discoveries conflicted with Marxist “science.”

The settled “science,” which is to say anti-science, is screeched by the left despite the fact that more than 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from more than 100 nations signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which explicitly challenged politically correct science and warned against “irrational ideology” and “pseudoscientific arguments of false and nonrelevant data.”

Even more interesting is the Oregon Petition from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which explicitly stated that there was “no convincing scientific evidence” of global warming and noted that rising carbon dioxide is beneficial to plants and animals.  This petition has been signed by more than 30,000 scientists in America. 

The left assumes global warming when a truly scientific analysis of the data could mean a stable climate, a cooling climate (which is what the great scientist Sir Fred Hoyle believed was the case at the end of the last century), or global warming.  The left not only prostitutes science into insisting upon man-made global warming, but ignores any explanation for climate change, assuming that climate change is real, which conflicts with its politically correct theory of man-made global warming. 

So the left ignores dramatic changes in global climate about which we have abundant evidence, scientific and documentary, based upon people living in these periods.  During the Roman Warm Period, the climate was 2℃ to 6℃ hotter than it is today.  The Dark Age Cold Period saw a significantly cooler climate than today.  The Medieval Warming Period, which lasted centuries, saw the climate 3℃ warmer than it is today, and the Little Ice Age, which ended shortly before the American Civil War, saw temperatures 2℃ lower than today. 

None of these climatic changes in temperature can be explained by human activity, and all of them produced changes greater than what the Chicken Little leftists claim will produce the end of civilization.

The left also ignores explanations for any global warming that do not involve human activity.  Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research in Denmark, proposes a new theory for possible global warming and a new discipline, cosmoclimatology.  Svensmark shows how cosmic rays have affected the climate on Earth over thousands of years.  Perhaps even more persuasive, Svensmark notes that the climate changes of Mars track very closely the climate changes on Earth and that these changes fit closely into his theory that climate change is caused by cosmic rays and other forces of nature operating outside Earth.  This does not preclude global warming; rather, it finds that natural forces, cosmic forces, in this case, account for global warming and not human activity.

So why does the left love its silly theory of man-made global warming?  Why does the left violently resist scientific opinions to the contrary?  Because all the left really cares about is power, just like its close cousins, Marxism and Nazism.  Man-made global warming demands – or rather, the left demands on behalf of its pet theory – a concentration of power away from the people and to remote, insulated, arrogant political bosses. 

Whatever happens in any area of life produces the same shrill cry for statist power by the left, no matter what the problem may be or how badly the left’s “solution” to the problem may have failed in the past.  Power, power, power and power is all the left loves.

The left’s response to the natural disasters in Florida was to raise again the bogeyman of man-made global warming.  The left blames every natural disaster or significant change in weather on man-made global warming.  So if the weather is unseasonably hot, man-made global warming is the culprit, but if the weather is unseasonably cold, the man-made global warming is to blame as well.  The “science” of the left simply plugs in man-made global warming to every natural disaster or significant change in the weather.

This is anti-science in its purest form.  Totalitarianism – and the left is utterly totalitarian – always claims to base its actions upon “science.”  So the Nazis insisted and persuaded many scientists involved in genetics, psychology, biology, and so forth to agree with Nazi racial policies as “scientific,” and almost everything that happened was accounted for by the Nazis as part of racial “science.”  So the Soviets coerced all scientists to accept as an overarching “science” Marxism, and so geneticists and physicists were sent to the Gulag or worse if their scientific discoveries conflicted with Marxist “science.”

The settled “science,” which is to say anti-science, is screeched by the left despite the fact that more than 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from more than 100 nations signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which explicitly challenged politically correct science and warned against “irrational ideology” and “pseudoscientific arguments of false and nonrelevant data.”

Even more interesting is the Oregon Petition from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which explicitly stated that there was “no convincing scientific evidence” of global warming and noted that rising carbon dioxide is beneficial to plants and animals.  This petition has been signed by more than 30,000 scientists in America. 

The left assumes global warming when a truly scientific analysis of the data could mean a stable climate, a cooling climate (which is what the great scientist Sir Fred Hoyle believed was the case at the end of the last century), or global warming.  The left not only prostitutes science into insisting upon man-made global warming, but ignores any explanation for climate change, assuming that climate change is real, which conflicts with its politically correct theory of man-made global warming. 

So the left ignores dramatic changes in global climate about which we have abundant evidence, scientific and documentary, based upon people living in these periods.  During the Roman Warm Period, the climate was 2℃ to 6℃ hotter than it is today.  The Dark Age Cold Period saw a significantly cooler climate than today.  The Medieval Warming Period, which lasted centuries, saw the climate 3℃ warmer than it is today, and the Little Ice Age, which ended shortly before the American Civil War, saw temperatures 2℃ lower than today. 

None of these climatic changes in temperature can be explained by human activity, and all of them produced changes greater than what the Chicken Little leftists claim will produce the end of civilization.

The left also ignores explanations for any global warming that do not involve human activity.  Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research in Denmark, proposes a new theory for possible global warming and a new discipline, cosmoclimatology.  Svensmark shows how cosmic rays have affected the climate on Earth over thousands of years.  Perhaps even more persuasive, Svensmark notes that the climate changes of Mars track very closely the climate changes on Earth and that these changes fit closely into his theory that climate change is caused by cosmic rays and other forces of nature operating outside Earth.  This does not preclude global warming; rather, it finds that natural forces, cosmic forces, in this case, account for global warming and not human activity.

So why does the left love its silly theory of man-made global warming?  Why does the left violently resist scientific opinions to the contrary?  Because all the left really cares about is power, just like its close cousins, Marxism and Nazism.  Man-made global warming demands – or rather, the left demands on behalf of its pet theory – a concentration of power away from the people and to remote, insulated, arrogant political bosses. 

Whatever happens in any area of life produces the same shrill cry for statist power by the left, no matter what the problem may be or how badly the left’s “solution” to the problem may have failed in the past.  Power, power, power and power is all the left loves.



Source link

What Are Little Girls Now Being Made Of?


What are little boys made of?

What are little boys made of?

  Snips and snails

  And puppy-dogs’ tails

That’s what little boys are made of

 

What are little girls made of?

What are little girls made of?

  Sugar and spice

  And everything nice 

That’s what little girls are made of

“What Are Little Boys Made Of?” is a popular nursery rhyme dating from the early 19th century. And up until recently almost every child, boy and girl, learned and happily recited that nursery rhyme. Why did they happily recite that nursery rhyme? Because it was true. Yet now that nursery rhyme is seldom taught to or even heard by young children. And the reason for that is because it is no longer true. Through the unilateral efforts of radical feminists straining to be completely equal to men, American women have traded sugar and spice and everything nice for snips and snails and puppy-dog’s tails… that’s now what little girls are made of. Or what feminists want girls to be made of.

In 1989, the year before they published their book, The Day America Told the Truth, James Patterson and Peter Kim conducted a national survey of more than 2,000 Americans, each of whom was given over 1,800 questions to answer. It was conducted simultaneously all across America at locations where the privacy and anonymity of the respondents could be guaranteed. The results revealed a number of interesting things about America’s views on a variety of issues, but I will focus on just one which is revealing itself to be something much different in the 21st-century. 

During the early and mid-20th century it was a proven fact that women in America were morally superior to American men. Women were less likely to cheat on their spouses or lovers and less likely to steal from others, whether the thievery be of time or money or just one’s self-respect. Women were more likely to obey the laws of the land and show remorse if they broke them. Women were more likely to come to work on time, stay longer and be more productive than men. They were less likely to lie or cheat on their taxes. Women were more trustworthy with children than men and children were more likely to gravitate to a woman for guidance. Women were less likely to use drugs, drink alcohol, endanger their lover with sexually-transmitted diseases or squander their money. And finally, women were more likely than men to be religiously-minded and attend church on a regular basis. So yes, women, up until recently, were morally superior to men in America.

But before women start to toot their own horn about a superior characteristic that they have long since lost, let me explain the underlying cause that resulted in this once-held advantage. 

Women were not morally superior because of some conscious effort or desire to make them that way. It was not preplanned in the minds of men or women to single out the female and deem her to be of a higher moral fiber. And by no means did God call from heaven the idea that women should be morally superior to men. In actuality, God created man first and made him the head of the household, intending for him to be the stronger, more superior sex; and it is this origin of subordinance that unconsciously shapes her morally superiority

In the American culture, boys and girls born into the same family were treated entirely differently. The unintentional result was that the girl was raised to be morally superior to the boy. When we raised a girl, we taught her how to be polite, considerate unto others, and to be more seen than heard. We taught her how to dress modestly and appropriately, how to temper her voice and emotions when in public and in one-on-one communications. We taught the girls how to consider other people’s feelings, and how never to ridicule, make fun, or impugn others for their beliefs, understandings, or inadequacies. Even the smallest, seemingly most basic mundane things we taught them were also forms of moral superiority — when girls sat down they should always cross their legs and when they stood up they should always have good posture and be graceful when they walked. We taught girls how to cook, clean, and care for the young and the elderly much more so than we taught men. While not the case for all women of course, in general women were unintentionally taught moral superiority over men. 

Yet during the close of the 20th century, the mantle of moral superiority that women once held has all but slipped away. Those qualities mentioned above a large percentage of women do not now possess. And the reason for this is that women have traded their moral superiority for absolute equality with men. 

The radical leftist feminist movement and its abrasive, unrelenting, and divested methods has claimed to uplift women in their roles in society and make them equal with men, yet what radical feminism has actually done is completely remove the woman from her seat of Grace. Many women in America are no longer seen as the morally superior sex. They are seen, at their own insistence, as the worst of the male stereotype — cutthroat, abrasive, callous, cold, hardcore, and without remorse, as well as overly demanding, quick to deceive and manipulate, and willing to impugn any and every one that does not agree or go along with their feminist agenda. Even in the marketplace, the same type of attitude is now more prevalent among women. Desiring to get to the top as quickly as possible and to compete one-on-one with men, many women have pledged allegiance to stop at nothing in order to gain a seat of power and this so-called equality between the sexes. 

The insanity of all of this is that women, try as they might, are not men and never will be. And living in this great republic that is America in the 20th/21st century, they not only have absolute judicial and legislative equality, but thanks to their extreme social and political agendas, they actually have an advantage over men — the best of both the old and new worlds. They have the freedom to choose a hardline career or stay-at-home motherhood, to demand gentlemanly behavior or turn up their noses at it, to cry rape at the final moment after a night of debauchery, and on and on. And most of all, they have conditioned the once magnetic and compelling and thus uberattractive Marlboro man into the submissiveness they so despised in their own gender not so long ago.

Feminism has no place in America any longer. One only has to read the feminist recital of author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie from Nigeria to understand why.  In her book, Dear Ijeawele, Or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions, she describes how women in the Nigerian culture are blatantly discriminated against and subjugated.  Women are considered to be literally under the absolute control of first their fathers and then their husbands. So, the feminist movement there makes sense — they are trying to elevate themselves to the position of equality as human beings in a civilized society. American women already have this status and so their radical abhorrence of their own femininity only serves to prove an underlying sense of insecurity with their own identity and foster long-term discontent. 

And as if self-conversion was not enough for these women in America, now they have turned their perverted ideology towards the recruitment of precious little girls into their religious feminist cult.

What are little boys made of?

What are little boys made of?

  Snips and snails

  And puppy-dogs’ tails

That’s what little boys are made of

 

What are little girls made of?

What are little girls made of?

  Sugar and spice

  And everything nice 

That’s what little girls are made of

“What Are Little Boys Made Of?” is a popular nursery rhyme dating from the early 19th century. And up until recently almost every child, boy and girl, learned and happily recited that nursery rhyme. Why did they happily recite that nursery rhyme? Because it was true. Yet now that nursery rhyme is seldom taught to or even heard by young children. And the reason for that is because it is no longer true. Through the unilateral efforts of radical feminists straining to be completely equal to men, American women have traded sugar and spice and everything nice for snips and snails and puppy-dog’s tails… that’s now what little girls are made of. Or what feminists want girls to be made of.

In 1989, the year before they published their book, The Day America Told the Truth, James Patterson and Peter Kim conducted a national survey of more than 2,000 Americans, each of whom was given over 1,800 questions to answer. It was conducted simultaneously all across America at locations where the privacy and anonymity of the respondents could be guaranteed. The results revealed a number of interesting things about America’s views on a variety of issues, but I will focus on just one which is revealing itself to be something much different in the 21st-century. 

During the early and mid-20th century it was a proven fact that women in America were morally superior to American men. Women were less likely to cheat on their spouses or lovers and less likely to steal from others, whether the thievery be of time or money or just one’s self-respect. Women were more likely to obey the laws of the land and show remorse if they broke them. Women were more likely to come to work on time, stay longer and be more productive than men. They were less likely to lie or cheat on their taxes. Women were more trustworthy with children than men and children were more likely to gravitate to a woman for guidance. Women were less likely to use drugs, drink alcohol, endanger their lover with sexually-transmitted diseases or squander their money. And finally, women were more likely than men to be religiously-minded and attend church on a regular basis. So yes, women, up until recently, were morally superior to men in America.

But before women start to toot their own horn about a superior characteristic that they have long since lost, let me explain the underlying cause that resulted in this once-held advantage. 

Women were not morally superior because of some conscious effort or desire to make them that way. It was not preplanned in the minds of men or women to single out the female and deem her to be of a higher moral fiber. And by no means did God call from heaven the idea that women should be morally superior to men. In actuality, God created man first and made him the head of the household, intending for him to be the stronger, more superior sex; and it is this origin of subordinance that unconsciously shapes her morally superiority

In the American culture, boys and girls born into the same family were treated entirely differently. The unintentional result was that the girl was raised to be morally superior to the boy. When we raised a girl, we taught her how to be polite, considerate unto others, and to be more seen than heard. We taught her how to dress modestly and appropriately, how to temper her voice and emotions when in public and in one-on-one communications. We taught the girls how to consider other people’s feelings, and how never to ridicule, make fun, or impugn others for their beliefs, understandings, or inadequacies. Even the smallest, seemingly most basic mundane things we taught them were also forms of moral superiority — when girls sat down they should always cross their legs and when they stood up they should always have good posture and be graceful when they walked. We taught girls how to cook, clean, and care for the young and the elderly much more so than we taught men. While not the case for all women of course, in general women were unintentionally taught moral superiority over men. 

Yet during the close of the 20th century, the mantle of moral superiority that women once held has all but slipped away. Those qualities mentioned above a large percentage of women do not now possess. And the reason for this is that women have traded their moral superiority for absolute equality with men. 

The radical leftist feminist movement and its abrasive, unrelenting, and divested methods has claimed to uplift women in their roles in society and make them equal with men, yet what radical feminism has actually done is completely remove the woman from her seat of Grace. Many women in America are no longer seen as the morally superior sex. They are seen, at their own insistence, as the worst of the male stereotype — cutthroat, abrasive, callous, cold, hardcore, and without remorse, as well as overly demanding, quick to deceive and manipulate, and willing to impugn any and every one that does not agree or go along with their feminist agenda. Even in the marketplace, the same type of attitude is now more prevalent among women. Desiring to get to the top as quickly as possible and to compete one-on-one with men, many women have pledged allegiance to stop at nothing in order to gain a seat of power and this so-called equality between the sexes. 

The insanity of all of this is that women, try as they might, are not men and never will be. And living in this great republic that is America in the 20th/21st century, they not only have absolute judicial and legislative equality, but thanks to their extreme social and political agendas, they actually have an advantage over men — the best of both the old and new worlds. They have the freedom to choose a hardline career or stay-at-home motherhood, to demand gentlemanly behavior or turn up their noses at it, to cry rape at the final moment after a night of debauchery, and on and on. And most of all, they have conditioned the once magnetic and compelling and thus uberattractive Marlboro man into the submissiveness they so despised in their own gender not so long ago.

Feminism has no place in America any longer. One only has to read the feminist recital of author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie from Nigeria to understand why.  In her book, Dear Ijeawele, Or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions, she describes how women in the Nigerian culture are blatantly discriminated against and subjugated.  Women are considered to be literally under the absolute control of first their fathers and then their husbands. So, the feminist movement there makes sense — they are trying to elevate themselves to the position of equality as human beings in a civilized society. American women already have this status and so their radical abhorrence of their own femininity only serves to prove an underlying sense of insecurity with their own identity and foster long-term discontent. 

And as if self-conversion was not enough for these women in America, now they have turned their perverted ideology towards the recruitment of precious little girls into their religious feminist cult.



Source link

School Choice: Matt Damon Elevates Hypocrisy to an Art Form


Actor Matt Damon qualifies as the perfect hypocrite for his views on “school choice” for other parents who travel in different circles than celebrities.

The mega-star is now vilifying those nasty conservatives for offering parents a school choice — which (of course) is the very same thing Damon exercised on behalf of his own children. They attend private school — big surprise.

The absurdity of his personal life conflicting with his public stance is beautifully narrated by Damon in the new documentary perversely titled Backpack Full of Cash. Apparently, the desire of parents to seize the opportunity to fast-track their children out of failing schools has earned the disdain of the filmmakers as “harming our most vulnerable children.” Huh? I thought auditoriums filled with parents of color — who were literally praying to the lord above for their child’s name to be called in a lottery draw for a charter school — was rescuing the “most vulnerable children.” Meaning those children stuck in the most vulnerable zip codes. Damon lives in a different universe from these zip codes, having just purchased a $16.4 million penthouse in New York.

The actor has been asked the embarrassing question as to why he sends his own children to private school. His meandering answer was sadly lacking in logic: “I pay for a private education and I’m trying to get the one that most matches the public education that I had,” Damon offered. Does that mean public schools aren’t what they use to be? 

Damon trudges on, talking about the realities of life: “But that kind of progressive education no longer exists in the public system. It’s unfair.” Yes, Mr. Damon, life can be unfair — especially if you’re child confronts the reality of being enrolled in a school better known in the “hood” as a “drop-out factory.” 

Early reviews of the Damon-narrated film indicate the filmmakers have engaged in revisionist history by suggesting the abysmal state of many of our public schools can be laid at the door of “school choice,” pointing the finger at charter schools and voucher programs. This twisted logic may be the making of another possible bestseller: The Audacity of Stupidity.

Mr. Damon fails to delve into the crux of the problem contributing to the dispiriting academic decline of our schools for the last several decades: the teachers’ unions have taken the moral low road in allowing a child’s educational needs to take a back seat to the unrelenting goals of organized labor including: absurdly complicated employment protection guidelines; cushier pension payouts at earlier dates; and regulatory madness contributing to the destruction of the joy of teaching.

Ironically, the film focuses primarily on the School District of Philadelphia, where the taxpayers fail to receive much of a return on their dollar: $12,270.00 per child — many of whom are receiving an inferior education. “The problem isn’t that we need some market-based reform or answer,” says Rhonda Brownstein, of the Education Law Center in the film. “The problem is that we need to invest more in our public schools,” she adds.

Ms. Brownstein must know something the nation’s top education reformer doesn’t know. Michelle Rhee made the cover of Time magazine for her efforts to transform the nation’s lowest academic rated district while acting as Chancellor of Education in D.C. Where does one start in such a quagmire? 

Rhee got more than she bargained for while working many 14-hour days. She discovered incompetent and corrupt administrators who were costing the district literally hundreds of thousands in lawsuits, warehouses with unopened boxes teeming over with brand-new materials (while dedicated teachers were paying for supplies out of pocket); more than 1,000 grossly incompetent teachers at dozens of failing schools (she managed to dismiss more than 1,000 teachers); and an intractable union boss, Randi Weingarten, president of American Federation of Teachers (with whom she refused to meet in the same room after numerous fruitless encounters).

No wonder Time magazine featured Rhee on the cover with a broom in her hands — cleaning up a demoralized school district. The headline read: “How to Fix America’s Schools,” with an illuminating subhead: “Michelle Rhee is the head of Washington D.C. schools. Her battle against bad teachers has earned her admirers and enemies — and could transform public education.” There was hope in the air and fewer incompetents showing up for work in the nation’s capital.

Because this isn’t Hollywood, Ms. Rhee didn’t last long on the job — despite her outstanding performance in dramatically improving the academic level of students at some of the poorest performing schools. Ms. Rhee refused to stay on the job when the unions successfully removed public officials supporting her in her reform efforts, and replacing them with union-backed public politicians. 

Perhaps the unions inspired Rhee in her next professional effort — which garnered national support from many of the nation’s most accomplished philanthropists. She established a non-profit education reform movement with the fitting name, “StudentsFirst.” 

Mr. Damon should be taking copious notes from Ms. Rhee. He might learn that educators like Rhee work to ensure public schools exist to educate our nation’s children, and not to provide unions with runaway cushy perks including unreasonable job protection for grossly incompetent teachers. 

But, then again, Damon works in Hollywood, a place where celebrities adopt liberal scripts that never require fact-checking or being held up to the realities of the light of day. Sadly, Damon has now cast himself in the role of a useful idiot opposing the efforts of conservatives determined to offer children the very same thing Damon provides for his precious children: school choice.

Actor Matt Damon qualifies as the perfect hypocrite for his views on “school choice” for other parents who travel in different circles than celebrities.

The mega-star is now vilifying those nasty conservatives for offering parents a school choice — which (of course) is the very same thing Damon exercised on behalf of his own children. They attend private school — big surprise.

The absurdity of his personal life conflicting with his public stance is beautifully narrated by Damon in the new documentary perversely titled Backpack Full of Cash. Apparently, the desire of parents to seize the opportunity to fast-track their children out of failing schools has earned the disdain of the filmmakers as “harming our most vulnerable children.” Huh? I thought auditoriums filled with parents of color — who were literally praying to the lord above for their child’s name to be called in a lottery draw for a charter school — was rescuing the “most vulnerable children.” Meaning those children stuck in the most vulnerable zip codes. Damon lives in a different universe from these zip codes, having just purchased a $16.4 million penthouse in New York.

The actor has been asked the embarrassing question as to why he sends his own children to private school. His meandering answer was sadly lacking in logic: “I pay for a private education and I’m trying to get the one that most matches the public education that I had,” Damon offered. Does that mean public schools aren’t what they use to be? 

Damon trudges on, talking about the realities of life: “But that kind of progressive education no longer exists in the public system. It’s unfair.” Yes, Mr. Damon, life can be unfair — especially if you’re child confronts the reality of being enrolled in a school better known in the “hood” as a “drop-out factory.” 

Early reviews of the Damon-narrated film indicate the filmmakers have engaged in revisionist history by suggesting the abysmal state of many of our public schools can be laid at the door of “school choice,” pointing the finger at charter schools and voucher programs. This twisted logic may be the making of another possible bestseller: The Audacity of Stupidity.

Mr. Damon fails to delve into the crux of the problem contributing to the dispiriting academic decline of our schools for the last several decades: the teachers’ unions have taken the moral low road in allowing a child’s educational needs to take a back seat to the unrelenting goals of organized labor including: absurdly complicated employment protection guidelines; cushier pension payouts at earlier dates; and regulatory madness contributing to the destruction of the joy of teaching.

Ironically, the film focuses primarily on the School District of Philadelphia, where the taxpayers fail to receive much of a return on their dollar: $12,270.00 per child — many of whom are receiving an inferior education. “The problem isn’t that we need some market-based reform or answer,” says Rhonda Brownstein, of the Education Law Center in the film. “The problem is that we need to invest more in our public schools,” she adds.

Ms. Brownstein must know something the nation’s top education reformer doesn’t know. Michelle Rhee made the cover of Time magazine for her efforts to transform the nation’s lowest academic rated district while acting as Chancellor of Education in D.C. Where does one start in such a quagmire? 

Rhee got more than she bargained for while working many 14-hour days. She discovered incompetent and corrupt administrators who were costing the district literally hundreds of thousands in lawsuits, warehouses with unopened boxes teeming over with brand-new materials (while dedicated teachers were paying for supplies out of pocket); more than 1,000 grossly incompetent teachers at dozens of failing schools (she managed to dismiss more than 1,000 teachers); and an intractable union boss, Randi Weingarten, president of American Federation of Teachers (with whom she refused to meet in the same room after numerous fruitless encounters).

No wonder Time magazine featured Rhee on the cover with a broom in her hands — cleaning up a demoralized school district. The headline read: “How to Fix America’s Schools,” with an illuminating subhead: “Michelle Rhee is the head of Washington D.C. schools. Her battle against bad teachers has earned her admirers and enemies — and could transform public education.” There was hope in the air and fewer incompetents showing up for work in the nation’s capital.

Because this isn’t Hollywood, Ms. Rhee didn’t last long on the job — despite her outstanding performance in dramatically improving the academic level of students at some of the poorest performing schools. Ms. Rhee refused to stay on the job when the unions successfully removed public officials supporting her in her reform efforts, and replacing them with union-backed public politicians. 

Perhaps the unions inspired Rhee in her next professional effort — which garnered national support from many of the nation’s most accomplished philanthropists. She established a non-profit education reform movement with the fitting name, “StudentsFirst.” 

Mr. Damon should be taking copious notes from Ms. Rhee. He might learn that educators like Rhee work to ensure public schools exist to educate our nation’s children, and not to provide unions with runaway cushy perks including unreasonable job protection for grossly incompetent teachers. 

But, then again, Damon works in Hollywood, a place where celebrities adopt liberal scripts that never require fact-checking or being held up to the realities of the light of day. Sadly, Damon has now cast himself in the role of a useful idiot opposing the efforts of conservatives determined to offer children the very same thing Damon provides for his precious children: school choice.



Source link

Holes in Our Heads


We’ve all noticed that our leftist fellow-Americans have ceased to make sense. We’ve figured out that they’ve descended into redundant, irrational name-calling because they’ve lost the thread of their argument -– if there ever was one. But lately, due to several articles I’ve run across, I’m beginning to suspect that some actual, physical brain anomalies may be in play here. I’m not being sarcastic.

In a recent study done in Great Britain, using a half million participants, scientists discovered that people who suffer from depression show changes in the white matter of the brain – that part that is key to communication. Since depression has reached epidemic proportions, this seems important. A study done by the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance discovered that the hippocampi of the brains of depressive individuals appear to have shrunk. An article in Science Daily reported on a study of casual marijuana users that showed a noticeable difference in the shape, size, and density of the reward centers of the brain –- affecting motivation –- and of the amygdala -– the emotional center of the brain. In fact, a study done at the University of Michigan showed that experience, psychoactive drugs, sex hormones, and dietary factors affected the shape of the brain. Not the mind, the brain.

I could go on and on. Recent technology is allowing us to see the brains of living people, to watch them work, so we can now start to ask some very important questions.  The questions that come to my mind center around the leftist brain. It seems the more obvious it is that collectivist ideas are all vacant and useless –- whether we’re watching the Venezuelans forced to eat rabbits, looking at the abject failure of the War on Poverty and its dissolution of the nuclear family, or at the Muslim destruction of European culture -– the more adamant and angry socialists become. They seem utterly unable to walk away from demonstrably false concepts. Why is that?

We can show them the climate change data and the numerous times that data has been falsified, and what do we get? A stare as blank as a petit-mal seizure. We can whip out the statistics on the starvation factor in North Korea and the same thing happens –- no contact made. I’ve been amazed listening to the protestors in St. Louis. They appear to have no ability to question the presuppositions they had before the trial, nor do they have even a glimmer of the absurdity of their preference for justice-by-mob. Here are streets filled with black people demanding the right to lynch their fellow man, yet I see no flicker of irony on any of the faces.

The same was true of the protestors in Berkeley. No grasp at all of the silliness of demanding the right to express their ideas by denying another person’s right to express his.  No inkling of the contradictory nature of their stance -– i.e. that committing violence is free speech, but that free speech, when it is actually speech, is not. Not free, not allowed, not appreciated. These are supposedly intelligent, expensively educated people.

How can a normal brain function like that? How did we get to the point where people, instead of arguing logically against policies and positions, prefer to promote the assassination of a sitting president, burn American flags, or think that tearing down statues will somehow fix society? That’s not just a difference of opinion; it’s medical pathology.

There was a time when most of us saw mental disease as a disability of the mind, the immaterial self, but I’m beginning to believe that it may also be physical. Can one think untruth day after day, year after year and expect it to not affect one’s brain? We recognize that daily indulging in chocolate milkshakes will affect our waistlines; is it so far-fetched then to wonder what a constant intake of anger will do to the cerebral cortex? Will a steady diet of lies eat actual holes in the grey matter? Any attempt I make to converse with leftists always leaves me scratching my head –- the wiring just seems to be off.

Is it wise to assume that we can live in anger and bitterness for months and months and not have it twist our brain’s chemistry?  No affect to the delicate cell structures? Can we routinely ingest drugs –- prescribed or purchased on a street corner -– and expect the synapses to go off when they should? I mean, if I put water in the gas tank will the engine run?

And if we have actually changed our brains, can we change them back? Is the plasticity of the brain that flexible?

I think of the stanza from Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” –

“And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day,

Yet knowing how way leads on to way

I doubted if I should ever come back.”

Can we come back? Or have we “educated” the last two generations into serious, permanent, mental disabilities? Have people developed eating habits, pharmaceutical practices, thinking propensities, that have distorted their brains to point where they really can’t see the logic, can’t process any factual information that doesn’t already fit the rigid shape their brains are locked into?

I believe it is possible to reshape a crooked brain. I believe that’s what the Bible means when it says that those who believe are “new creatures in Christ.” It takes time for an abused brain to recover, time and a steady, hefty diet of biblical thinking, but I’m living proof it can happen and I’ve seen it happen to many, many others. But, I’ve also seen many who keep on keeping on with those things that are ruining whatever brains they have left.

You know those scenes in old movies where the heroine has thrown herself into a hysterical hissy-fit and a more level-headed character has to slap her across the face to bring her back to sanity? That’s a good metaphor for America today. Too many American brains have gotten warped, misshapen, and hysterical for the nation to function. I suspect that these Western wildfires, the two hurricanes, and whatever disasters happen next are Providence giving us a collective slap across our arrogant faces in hopes that we’ll snap out of it long enough to start rebuilding whatever remains of our national psyche, of the American soul. There is much work to do, much healing to happen, much prayer needed. God help us.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 

We’ve all noticed that our leftist fellow-Americans have ceased to make sense. We’ve figured out that they’ve descended into redundant, irrational name-calling because they’ve lost the thread of their argument -– if there ever was one. But lately, due to several articles I’ve run across, I’m beginning to suspect that some actual, physical brain anomalies may be in play here. I’m not being sarcastic.

In a recent study done in Great Britain, using a half million participants, scientists discovered that people who suffer from depression show changes in the white matter of the brain – that part that is key to communication. Since depression has reached epidemic proportions, this seems important. A study done by the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance discovered that the hippocampi of the brains of depressive individuals appear to have shrunk. An article in Science Daily reported on a study of casual marijuana users that showed a noticeable difference in the shape, size, and density of the reward centers of the brain –- affecting motivation –- and of the amygdala -– the emotional center of the brain. In fact, a study done at the University of Michigan showed that experience, psychoactive drugs, sex hormones, and dietary factors affected the shape of the brain. Not the mind, the brain.

I could go on and on. Recent technology is allowing us to see the brains of living people, to watch them work, so we can now start to ask some very important questions.  The questions that come to my mind center around the leftist brain. It seems the more obvious it is that collectivist ideas are all vacant and useless –- whether we’re watching the Venezuelans forced to eat rabbits, looking at the abject failure of the War on Poverty and its dissolution of the nuclear family, or at the Muslim destruction of European culture -– the more adamant and angry socialists become. They seem utterly unable to walk away from demonstrably false concepts. Why is that?

We can show them the climate change data and the numerous times that data has been falsified, and what do we get? A stare as blank as a petit-mal seizure. We can whip out the statistics on the starvation factor in North Korea and the same thing happens –- no contact made. I’ve been amazed listening to the protestors in St. Louis. They appear to have no ability to question the presuppositions they had before the trial, nor do they have even a glimmer of the absurdity of their preference for justice-by-mob. Here are streets filled with black people demanding the right to lynch their fellow man, yet I see no flicker of irony on any of the faces.

The same was true of the protestors in Berkeley. No grasp at all of the silliness of demanding the right to express their ideas by denying another person’s right to express his.  No inkling of the contradictory nature of their stance -– i.e. that committing violence is free speech, but that free speech, when it is actually speech, is not. Not free, not allowed, not appreciated. These are supposedly intelligent, expensively educated people.

How can a normal brain function like that? How did we get to the point where people, instead of arguing logically against policies and positions, prefer to promote the assassination of a sitting president, burn American flags, or think that tearing down statues will somehow fix society? That’s not just a difference of opinion; it’s medical pathology.

There was a time when most of us saw mental disease as a disability of the mind, the immaterial self, but I’m beginning to believe that it may also be physical. Can one think untruth day after day, year after year and expect it to not affect one’s brain? We recognize that daily indulging in chocolate milkshakes will affect our waistlines; is it so far-fetched then to wonder what a constant intake of anger will do to the cerebral cortex? Will a steady diet of lies eat actual holes in the grey matter? Any attempt I make to converse with leftists always leaves me scratching my head –- the wiring just seems to be off.

Is it wise to assume that we can live in anger and bitterness for months and months and not have it twist our brain’s chemistry?  No affect to the delicate cell structures? Can we routinely ingest drugs –- prescribed or purchased on a street corner -– and expect the synapses to go off when they should? I mean, if I put water in the gas tank will the engine run?

And if we have actually changed our brains, can we change them back? Is the plasticity of the brain that flexible?

I think of the stanza from Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” –

“And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day,

Yet knowing how way leads on to way

I doubted if I should ever come back.”

Can we come back? Or have we “educated” the last two generations into serious, permanent, mental disabilities? Have people developed eating habits, pharmaceutical practices, thinking propensities, that have distorted their brains to point where they really can’t see the logic, can’t process any factual information that doesn’t already fit the rigid shape their brains are locked into?

I believe it is possible to reshape a crooked brain. I believe that’s what the Bible means when it says that those who believe are “new creatures in Christ.” It takes time for an abused brain to recover, time and a steady, hefty diet of biblical thinking, but I’m living proof it can happen and I’ve seen it happen to many, many others. But, I’ve also seen many who keep on keeping on with those things that are ruining whatever brains they have left.

You know those scenes in old movies where the heroine has thrown herself into a hysterical hissy-fit and a more level-headed character has to slap her across the face to bring her back to sanity? That’s a good metaphor for America today. Too many American brains have gotten warped, misshapen, and hysterical for the nation to function. I suspect that these Western wildfires, the two hurricanes, and whatever disasters happen next are Providence giving us a collective slap across our arrogant faces in hopes that we’ll snap out of it long enough to start rebuilding whatever remains of our national psyche, of the American soul. There is much work to do, much healing to happen, much prayer needed. God help us.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 



Source link

Lois Lerner and Non-Conspiracy Conspiracy


The decision not to prosecute Lois Lerner is a miscarriage of justice. On top of Ms. Lerner’s actions against taxpayers — denying tax-exempt status to groups for political gain and failing to protect taxpayer information — the Department’s response blatantly ignores our most troubling finding: that Ms. Lerner intentionally misled federal investigators in a flagrant violation of the law. This is unacceptable and Ms. Lerner must be held accountable. Our democracy is injured when those who taxpayers entrust with great authority ignore the law to advance their own political agenda without repercussion.

Yet the DOJ letter, signed by a Stephen E. Boyd, claims that after having reviewed the matter, that “reopening the investigation would not be appropriate based on the available evidence,” specifically focusing on the lack of evidence of intent to discriminate.

First, let’s take a look at what the DOJ is basing its conclusion on. One might simply say it is policy — and that is not incorrect. This appears not to be a law-driven conclusion, but one resulting from the exercise of “prosecutorial discretion.” Yet let’s put that aside. The DOJ does point to a legal argument: that of intent.

But it is a very specific and indeed new-fangled intent that they imply. It is amusingly reminiscent of what was said in Hillary’s defense regarding her (intentional) failure to safeguard of the nation’s secrets.

To state the thinking behind the DOJ’s position: there is no evidence that Lerner and others in the IRS in their actions and communications with one another consciously, overtly and intentionally conspired to commit a crime; neither is there evidence they as individuals consciously and overtly set out to commit a crime.

It is true there are some crimes which require a high level of intent — but most require merely general intent, which can be inferred from the act itself. And intent can be proven also by acts committed after the crime itself, such as the destruction of email.

Yet what is important here is that Lois Lerner and doubtlessly so many others in the IRS thought that their discrimination against conservative groups was moral, was needful, was good, and was the opposite of an immoral and illegal act.

This kind of situation lends itself to what can be called a nonconspiratorial conspiracy. While strictly speaking, conspiracy is a specific intent crime, when a number of people believe some contemplated course of action is good, they do not necessarily have to communicate their intent to take that action. Thus, these offensive DOJ officials are coreligionists, not coconspirators; they do not have to conspire since they collectively have already taken their decision.

This may explain how, as a body, the IRS turned against certain American citizens in the IRS-Tea Party scandal. The blow to the Republic that the IRS delivered can partly be evaluated by remembering that one of the impeachment counts against Nixon was that he purportedly endeavored to use the IRS to discriminate against political groups. Even the seeking was thought to be a high crime and misdemeanor.

But what of the DOJ, especially since this is now Session’s DOJ? What is their motivation? Judge Anthony Napolitano posited that they are acting to protect people that had worked at the DOJ before so that they would in turn be protected. Further, even the DOJ in its letter implied that many of the people involved in the decision not to prosecute Lerner were the same ones who had declined to prosecute under Obama and Lynch.

With respect to Judge Napolitano, he is wrong in regard to the motivation of the DOJ officials. The DOJ officials of the Obama era are not in legal jeopardy. So what is afoot?

The present-day, Sessions-DOJ, officials and Lerner and the other culpable IRS officials are coreligionists. As French polymath Gustave Le Bon wrote over 100 years ago, certain ideas have “invaded the entire field of their understanding,” and their impulses “assume a peculiar form which I cannot better define than by giving it the name of a religious sentiment.” (Le Bon, The Crowd, 37)

(Yes, it is a religious sentiment at the base of it all. While we owe a debt to Patrick Buchanan for coining the term “cultural war,” [James Ciment, Social Issues in America, 173] a mere cultural difference neither explains the reason such a phenomenon exists, nor its vehemence.)

This sufficiently explains the DOJ’s action. After all, is it discrimination to discriminate against the deplorable? It seems not.

That would be bad enough. But the real problem is that these people are not only entrenched in “deep state” positions, but that they are not made to be subordinate to officials elected by those who hold views which are not in line with theirs.

This is possible, first of all, because of a vacuum. Despite the fact that in the United States the executive is unitary, a very aggressive left-wing dominated media would have it otherwise, and has been driving this part of its agenda forward for years. Hence the president and his cabinet are very hesitant to do that which they must constitutionally do: direct the activities of their underlings, especially in regard to policy decisions.

(Even the lamentable Comey admitted that the president has the power to direct investigations. Indeed, we have a unitary executive because unless the elected president is in control of unelected officials, then we can be assured those unelected officials will be in control of us and, indeed, completely beyond our control.)

But the second reason for the insubordination is the inner conviction of the subordinates that their policy views are not supposed to be subordinated to those of the elected president and his top lieutenants. This is both because those views are religious in nature and because it is certain these subordinates believe that indeed the executive must not be allowed to be unitary.

Of course, this will be demonstrated predominantly when the chief executive is of the opposing party. Otherwise, all is well. Meetings can take place on tarmacs, investigations will be called “matters,” classified and other government documents can be taken into personal possession, the names of persons swept up in surveillance can be unmasked and even leaked to the press, and the general refrain is “we will see no evil.”

What are we to do?

First, we must reject such risibly disingenuous assertions as contained in Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd’s letter, which fly in the face of all the obvious facts: to wit, that in relation to the Lerner case,

I assure you that the Department has carefully studied the law [!!!], given the evidence the utmost consideration, and thoroughly reviewed the prior investigation from an objective perspective.

Note that this is Boyd’s personal assertion. He now owns it. But let us not allow him and the rest of them to lull us into believing that they did indeed acted objectively — this is the department of the tarmac, let us remember.

Secondly, we must insist and demand, publicly, that the only elected official in the entire executive branch — the president — act to control his underlings. (Some have begun to do so.) When he does act to control them, we must support him — publicly — vigorously (and peacefully).

It is only in this manner that we will repair the damage done to our constitutional structure and to the idea of equality before the law.

We must never give in temptation: we must not give up our freedom so as to be taken care of by some banal inquisitor.

As for this unfortunate assistant attorney general and his like, where do they find these guys?

The author is a former law school dean and a former FBI agent, awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement (NIMA). He was also chief legal counsel to the president of the parliament of Lithuania.

On Friday, September 8, 2017 — just before the weekend — the DOJ announced that it would not prosecute Lois Lerner for her part in the IRS-Tea Party scandal.

Evidence of Lerner’s guilt is overwhelming. As Peter Roskam (R, Il), chairman of the House Tax policy subcommittee, stated in response to the DOJ’s declination,

The decision not to prosecute Lois Lerner is a miscarriage of justice. On top of Ms. Lerner’s actions against taxpayers — denying tax-exempt status to groups for political gain and failing to protect taxpayer information — the Department’s response blatantly ignores our most troubling finding: that Ms. Lerner intentionally misled federal investigators in a flagrant violation of the law. This is unacceptable and Ms. Lerner must be held accountable. Our democracy is injured when those who taxpayers entrust with great authority ignore the law to advance their own political agenda without repercussion.

Yet the DOJ letter, signed by a Stephen E. Boyd, claims that after having reviewed the matter, that “reopening the investigation would not be appropriate based on the available evidence,” specifically focusing on the lack of evidence of intent to discriminate.

First, let’s take a look at what the DOJ is basing its conclusion on. One might simply say it is policy — and that is not incorrect. This appears not to be a law-driven conclusion, but one resulting from the exercise of “prosecutorial discretion.” Yet let’s put that aside. The DOJ does point to a legal argument: that of intent.

But it is a very specific and indeed new-fangled intent that they imply. It is amusingly reminiscent of what was said in Hillary’s defense regarding her (intentional) failure to safeguard of the nation’s secrets.

To state the thinking behind the DOJ’s position: there is no evidence that Lerner and others in the IRS in their actions and communications with one another consciously, overtly and intentionally conspired to commit a crime; neither is there evidence they as individuals consciously and overtly set out to commit a crime.

It is true there are some crimes which require a high level of intent — but most require merely general intent, which can be inferred from the act itself. And intent can be proven also by acts committed after the crime itself, such as the destruction of email.

Yet what is important here is that Lois Lerner and doubtlessly so many others in the IRS thought that their discrimination against conservative groups was moral, was needful, was good, and was the opposite of an immoral and illegal act.

This kind of situation lends itself to what can be called a nonconspiratorial conspiracy. While strictly speaking, conspiracy is a specific intent crime, when a number of people believe some contemplated course of action is good, they do not necessarily have to communicate their intent to take that action. Thus, these offensive DOJ officials are coreligionists, not coconspirators; they do not have to conspire since they collectively have already taken their decision.

This may explain how, as a body, the IRS turned against certain American citizens in the IRS-Tea Party scandal. The blow to the Republic that the IRS delivered can partly be evaluated by remembering that one of the impeachment counts against Nixon was that he purportedly endeavored to use the IRS to discriminate against political groups. Even the seeking was thought to be a high crime and misdemeanor.

But what of the DOJ, especially since this is now Session’s DOJ? What is their motivation? Judge Anthony Napolitano posited that they are acting to protect people that had worked at the DOJ before so that they would in turn be protected. Further, even the DOJ in its letter implied that many of the people involved in the decision not to prosecute Lerner were the same ones who had declined to prosecute under Obama and Lynch.

With respect to Judge Napolitano, he is wrong in regard to the motivation of the DOJ officials. The DOJ officials of the Obama era are not in legal jeopardy. So what is afoot?

The present-day, Sessions-DOJ, officials and Lerner and the other culpable IRS officials are coreligionists. As French polymath Gustave Le Bon wrote over 100 years ago, certain ideas have “invaded the entire field of their understanding,” and their impulses “assume a peculiar form which I cannot better define than by giving it the name of a religious sentiment.” (Le Bon, The Crowd, 37)

(Yes, it is a religious sentiment at the base of it all. While we owe a debt to Patrick Buchanan for coining the term “cultural war,” [James Ciment, Social Issues in America, 173] a mere cultural difference neither explains the reason such a phenomenon exists, nor its vehemence.)

This sufficiently explains the DOJ’s action. After all, is it discrimination to discriminate against the deplorable? It seems not.

That would be bad enough. But the real problem is that these people are not only entrenched in “deep state” positions, but that they are not made to be subordinate to officials elected by those who hold views which are not in line with theirs.

This is possible, first of all, because of a vacuum. Despite the fact that in the United States the executive is unitary, a very aggressive left-wing dominated media would have it otherwise, and has been driving this part of its agenda forward for years. Hence the president and his cabinet are very hesitant to do that which they must constitutionally do: direct the activities of their underlings, especially in regard to policy decisions.

(Even the lamentable Comey admitted that the president has the power to direct investigations. Indeed, we have a unitary executive because unless the elected president is in control of unelected officials, then we can be assured those unelected officials will be in control of us and, indeed, completely beyond our control.)

But the second reason for the insubordination is the inner conviction of the subordinates that their policy views are not supposed to be subordinated to those of the elected president and his top lieutenants. This is both because those views are religious in nature and because it is certain these subordinates believe that indeed the executive must not be allowed to be unitary.

Of course, this will be demonstrated predominantly when the chief executive is of the opposing party. Otherwise, all is well. Meetings can take place on tarmacs, investigations will be called “matters,” classified and other government documents can be taken into personal possession, the names of persons swept up in surveillance can be unmasked and even leaked to the press, and the general refrain is “we will see no evil.”

What are we to do?

First, we must reject such risibly disingenuous assertions as contained in Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd’s letter, which fly in the face of all the obvious facts: to wit, that in relation to the Lerner case,

I assure you that the Department has carefully studied the law [!!!], given the evidence the utmost consideration, and thoroughly reviewed the prior investigation from an objective perspective.

Note that this is Boyd’s personal assertion. He now owns it. But let us not allow him and the rest of them to lull us into believing that they did indeed acted objectively — this is the department of the tarmac, let us remember.

Secondly, we must insist and demand, publicly, that the only elected official in the entire executive branch — the president — act to control his underlings. (Some have begun to do so.) When he does act to control them, we must support him — publicly — vigorously (and peacefully).

It is only in this manner that we will repair the damage done to our constitutional structure and to the idea of equality before the law.

We must never give in temptation: we must not give up our freedom so as to be taken care of by some banal inquisitor.

As for this unfortunate assistant attorney general and his like, where do they find these guys?

The author is a former law school dean and a former FBI agent, awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement (NIMA). He was also chief legal counsel to the president of the parliament of Lithuania.



Source link

Explaining the Narcissistic Rage of the Left


How to account for the scorched-earth hatred of Donald Trump? 

He inspires a darkly fanatical dislike, disapproval, and disgust in his most ardent detractors.  He is a distillation for millions of unhappy Americans of all things repugnant, repulsive, and wretched.  The fever pitch at which he has been mocked, ridiculed, condemned, and threatened is beyond anything anyone in living memory has been subject to – let alone a sitting American president.  From Colbert’s “holster” to Madonna’s fantasy of blowing up the White House to Kathy Griffin’s decapitation stunt, and De Niro’s thug life wish to “punch him in the face,” the gloves are most certainly off – if only to better grasp a bludgeon.  And that’s just the celebrities.  Even a state senator from Missouri hoped for Trump’s assassination on Facebook. 

Why such unabated arch-loathing?  One possibility is that Trump’s triumph dealt the progressive left a narcissistic injury from which they are still reeling.  Is there another explanation for why previously sober, thoughtful Americans have abandoned the rational in such numbers?

The elite see their virtue, rectitude, and moral superiority reflected back to them in the films, newspapers, advertisements, TV shows, and magazines they themselves create, and it is intoxicating – a gauzy reverie of self-ratifying congratulation.  Is it any wonder, after such unmitigated success, that the left is apoplectic about having its echo chamber shattered by a barbarian like Trump?

The belief system of the progressive left includes the shared understanding that leftists have been anointed to determine what is good and right in American life and what is not.  Their candidate was ordained to hold the highest office in the land as the inevitable consequence of this orthodoxy.  That belief system was shattered at 2:30 AM on November 3, 2016, when the Associated Press called the election for Trump.

Cue shock, horror, denial, and a rage that might be termed the VSO – the Veruca Salt Option.  Named after the spoiled rich girl in Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, whose nuclear tantrums at not getting what she wants result in her being literally relegated to the nut bin, the Veruca Salt Option is an apt descriptor for the infantilizing behaviors many on the left have engaged in following Trump’s unthinkable electoral college win. 

Exhibit A was the spectacle of a “women’s march,” featuring a sea of resisters in the bright pink, knit wool “vagina” hats of first-graders – a march that hypocritically and explicitly excluded pro-life women.  Further instances of acting out included Reza Azlan of CNN calling Trump a “piece of [s—],” Maxine Waters’s unhinged calls for impeachment mere months into the new administration, and Johnny Depp’s mumble-joke about assassinating the president.

The groupthink that the most qualified nominee in history was unbeatable begat a bubble that Trump popped like a schoolyard bully.  In the parlance of the day, this “triggered” leftists throughout the land into dyspeptic, unbecoming tirades that have made for some galling exposures of untethered ultra-bias in media and political personalities.  This is a familiar strategy for a wounded narcissist: blame others, rage, and attack.  But it’s disheartening to see it manifest so baldly.

The specter of Trump in all his gloaming menace, spouting his incendiary, charm-challenged rhetoric, only serves to further infuriate those already suffering great spasms of hate.  Taking exception to a man whose policies you find abhorrent is understandable, but when did the left – in the words of David Byrne – stop making sense? 

Trump is in favor of redefining marriage, has a ten-point plan for renewal of the inner city, employs more women than men as executives in his businesses, has been married to two immigrants, and has a Jewish daughter and three Jewish grandchildren.  These would seem to put the lie to claims Trump is racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ.  So why, given these many things on which his opponents might agree with the president, are they unmoved to acknowledge common ground?

Intellectual dishonesty is possible.  Sheer hatred is more likely.  Democratic representative Brad Sherman admitted that the animus against the president is so strong in the California legislature, for example, that he would be forced to oppose Mother’s Day if Trump supported it.  Trump’s win was not only a repudiation of globalism, elitism, and Obamism, but also a devastating rebuke to the core identity of the left.  The rage and denial are, in some ways, easy to understand.

In spite of or because of their outsized antipathy for Trump, this might have been an important moment for the Democratic left to undertake a clear-eyed accounting of why they lost an un-losable election.  Instead of honest forensics on their efforts, the left became a verb and began flame-throwing the administration early and often with an impressively hateful and single-minded campaign.  But a funny thing happened on the way to impeachment: Democrats stopped standing for anything at all, other than pitched loathing and hysteria. 

The Democrats of old, authors of the flawed but well intentioned Great Society programs and champions of working-class Americans, have self-abnegated in recent years to become ghosts of their own past.  Riven with identity politics, the progressive left is shot through with a central hypocrisy: that diversity is revered above all things – except for diversity of thought, which is reviled.  This core intolerance has resulted in an abasement of everything for which the left formerly stood.  

The real-time destruction of the left has been brought about by the wrecking ball that is Donald J. Trump.  He represents the razing of everything they stand for – for the impeccably curated façade of caring, competence, and open-mindedness the left has traded on for decades.  The tragedy of it is Greek in proportion.

The left, and the many “conscientious conservatives” who Venn-diagram them, have lost power, influence, and reason like gouts of blood from the infliction of this narcissistic wound.  With historically few seats held in Congress and at the state level; no cogent message beyond “Trump is a goat rodeo on fire”; and a series of perverse policy positions on immigration, the First Amendment, and school choice, the Democrats have now reached a watershed moment.  Do the progressive left and the elites who lead them acknowledge that political correctness, however worthy it might have been, has Frankensteined into a kind of creeping McCarthyism?  Do they unpack this slow-motion train wreck of a once consequential party to seek the truth of their own responsibility for its demise – or do they continue to resist?  (And by resist, I mean tantrum.)  

I’m rooting for them – every yin needs a yang.  But the odds on entitled brats evolving into mature adults who take responsibility for their actions aren’t great.  Why take a long, hard look in the mirror when you can smash that mirror instead – and unleash the Veruca within?

How to account for the scorched-earth hatred of Donald Trump? 

He inspires a darkly fanatical dislike, disapproval, and disgust in his most ardent detractors.  He is a distillation for millions of unhappy Americans of all things repugnant, repulsive, and wretched.  The fever pitch at which he has been mocked, ridiculed, condemned, and threatened is beyond anything anyone in living memory has been subject to – let alone a sitting American president.  From Colbert’s “holster” to Madonna’s fantasy of blowing up the White House to Kathy Griffin’s decapitation stunt, and De Niro’s thug life wish to “punch him in the face,” the gloves are most certainly off – if only to better grasp a bludgeon.  And that’s just the celebrities.  Even a state senator from Missouri hoped for Trump’s assassination on Facebook. 

Why such unabated arch-loathing?  One possibility is that Trump’s triumph dealt the progressive left a narcissistic injury from which they are still reeling.  Is there another explanation for why previously sober, thoughtful Americans have abandoned the rational in such numbers?

The elite see their virtue, rectitude, and moral superiority reflected back to them in the films, newspapers, advertisements, TV shows, and magazines they themselves create, and it is intoxicating – a gauzy reverie of self-ratifying congratulation.  Is it any wonder, after such unmitigated success, that the left is apoplectic about having its echo chamber shattered by a barbarian like Trump?

The belief system of the progressive left includes the shared understanding that leftists have been anointed to determine what is good and right in American life and what is not.  Their candidate was ordained to hold the highest office in the land as the inevitable consequence of this orthodoxy.  That belief system was shattered at 2:30 AM on November 3, 2016, when the Associated Press called the election for Trump.

Cue shock, horror, denial, and a rage that might be termed the VSO – the Veruca Salt Option.  Named after the spoiled rich girl in Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, whose nuclear tantrums at not getting what she wants result in her being literally relegated to the nut bin, the Veruca Salt Option is an apt descriptor for the infantilizing behaviors many on the left have engaged in following Trump’s unthinkable electoral college win. 

Exhibit A was the spectacle of a “women’s march,” featuring a sea of resisters in the bright pink, knit wool “vagina” hats of first-graders – a march that hypocritically and explicitly excluded pro-life women.  Further instances of acting out included Reza Azlan of CNN calling Trump a “piece of [s—],” Maxine Waters’s unhinged calls for impeachment mere months into the new administration, and Johnny Depp’s mumble-joke about assassinating the president.

The groupthink that the most qualified nominee in history was unbeatable begat a bubble that Trump popped like a schoolyard bully.  In the parlance of the day, this “triggered” leftists throughout the land into dyspeptic, unbecoming tirades that have made for some galling exposures of untethered ultra-bias in media and political personalities.  This is a familiar strategy for a wounded narcissist: blame others, rage, and attack.  But it’s disheartening to see it manifest so baldly.

The specter of Trump in all his gloaming menace, spouting his incendiary, charm-challenged rhetoric, only serves to further infuriate those already suffering great spasms of hate.  Taking exception to a man whose policies you find abhorrent is understandable, but when did the left – in the words of David Byrne – stop making sense? 

Trump is in favor of redefining marriage, has a ten-point plan for renewal of the inner city, employs more women than men as executives in his businesses, has been married to two immigrants, and has a Jewish daughter and three Jewish grandchildren.  These would seem to put the lie to claims Trump is racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ.  So why, given these many things on which his opponents might agree with the president, are they unmoved to acknowledge common ground?

Intellectual dishonesty is possible.  Sheer hatred is more likely.  Democratic representative Brad Sherman admitted that the animus against the president is so strong in the California legislature, for example, that he would be forced to oppose Mother’s Day if Trump supported it.  Trump’s win was not only a repudiation of globalism, elitism, and Obamism, but also a devastating rebuke to the core identity of the left.  The rage and denial are, in some ways, easy to understand.

In spite of or because of their outsized antipathy for Trump, this might have been an important moment for the Democratic left to undertake a clear-eyed accounting of why they lost an un-losable election.  Instead of honest forensics on their efforts, the left became a verb and began flame-throwing the administration early and often with an impressively hateful and single-minded campaign.  But a funny thing happened on the way to impeachment: Democrats stopped standing for anything at all, other than pitched loathing and hysteria. 

The Democrats of old, authors of the flawed but well intentioned Great Society programs and champions of working-class Americans, have self-abnegated in recent years to become ghosts of their own past.  Riven with identity politics, the progressive left is shot through with a central hypocrisy: that diversity is revered above all things – except for diversity of thought, which is reviled.  This core intolerance has resulted in an abasement of everything for which the left formerly stood.  

The real-time destruction of the left has been brought about by the wrecking ball that is Donald J. Trump.  He represents the razing of everything they stand for – for the impeccably curated façade of caring, competence, and open-mindedness the left has traded on for decades.  The tragedy of it is Greek in proportion.

The left, and the many “conscientious conservatives” who Venn-diagram them, have lost power, influence, and reason like gouts of blood from the infliction of this narcissistic wound.  With historically few seats held in Congress and at the state level; no cogent message beyond “Trump is a goat rodeo on fire”; and a series of perverse policy positions on immigration, the First Amendment, and school choice, the Democrats have now reached a watershed moment.  Do the progressive left and the elites who lead them acknowledge that political correctness, however worthy it might have been, has Frankensteined into a kind of creeping McCarthyism?  Do they unpack this slow-motion train wreck of a once consequential party to seek the truth of their own responsibility for its demise – or do they continue to resist?  (And by resist, I mean tantrum.)  

I’m rooting for them – every yin needs a yang.  But the odds on entitled brats evolving into mature adults who take responsibility for their actions aren’t great.  Why take a long, hard look in the mirror when you can smash that mirror instead – and unleash the Veruca within?



Source link