Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
The outrageous publicity stunt and promotional strategy perpetrated by the Westchester, NY,Journal News last week is still in the news. As everybody now knows, the newspaper's editorial board decided to use FOIA to publish the names and addresses of all legal gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties.
The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in
Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual
permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data
does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can
be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean
the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are
licensed to do so.
Worse than that, the newspaper provided an interactive map pinpointing the locations. This meant that not only are the addresses available but anybody online can easily use the map to take a look at the house in question.
In their misguided and mean-spirited rush to punish legal gun owners by treating them like registered sex offenders the people at the Journal News apparently failed to realize that many of these people have good reason to both own guns and maintain some privacy concerning their whereabouts. That would include members of law enforcement and judges as well as women and children who are hiding from violent ex-husbands or boyfriends who might want to track them down and hurt or even kill them.
I'd like to think that these people at the Journal News simply failed to realize the consequences of their rash act. However, the sad reality is that these fanatics view legal gun owners as the enemy and, therefore, are not deserving of consideration, even if it means exposing them to life-threatening situations.
The
American Left, which thoroughly dominates the mainstream media, no
longer believes, if it ever did, in the concept of reasonable and
respectable people disagreeing in good faith on core issues; it
increasingly demonstrates that it believes all opposition to its own
outlook and policies must never be tolerated, but only eradicated. Its
opposition is never to be engaged on the level of ideas, but only ridiculed and held up as evil. The Left has done nothing but demonize its opposition for years.
Here is a transcript of the conversation a concerned blogger had with somebody at the newspaper...
I just got off the phone with a guy who picked up the Breaking News
tip line at the Urinal News- er… Journal News. That number is
914.694.5077
Here are some notes from our conversation:
Big Fur Hat (BFH): Does the Journal News stand by their decision to publish the names and addresses of gun permit owners?
Journal News (JN): There’s been no change.
BFH: What was the motive of publishing this map?
JN: The motive was clearly stated at the time of publication
BFH: Can you spell it out for me what the motive was?
JN: It was spelled out when we published it.
BFH: I didn’t see that. I saw the map.
JN: If you haven’t seen it then why are you calling?
BFH: For your…
JN: What does it have to do with you if you haven’t seen it and you’re not affected by it?
BFH: No, no no, I haven’t seen what you say is the reason you
published the map. I’ve seen the map. I haven’t seen your stated reason.
I don’t know where to go to read that. Why can’t you just state the
reason now?
JN: One of the roles of journalists is to report publicly available
information on timely issues, even if it is unpopular. We knew providing
the information in the database in the context of our story would be
controversial, but we thought that sharing the information about gun
permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown
shooting.
BFH: What is the import of that?
JN: We felt that it was important for people to know about that.
BFH: Know about what?
...long hesitation...
JN: The information that was imparted.
BFH: Well, what are people supposed to do with that information?
JN: It’s up to them.
BFH: So you’re putting that information out there as a public service and you don’t care what people do with that information?
JN: I have no comment and I’m not going to let you bait me…
BFH: no no no… wait, one last thing. I’ve made some phone calls to
some of the people on the map, and 30% of the people were ex-detectives,
judges and attorneys. (Full disclosure – I called 3 people and one
was an ex-detective who was very upset. One other person I called did
his own research and uncovered several attorneys, judges and members of
law enforcement.) Do you care that you put this information out about people who spent a lifetime keeping certain information non-public?
JN: The information is legally available and public.
BFH: Ya, but what is legally available and what is right morally and
ethically are two different things. Do you have any opinion on that?
JN: My opinion is not an issue here.
BFH: Is the Journal news going to continue with this style sheet,
publishing FOIA information, are you going to put out anything other
than gun permits, perhaps people who are HIV positive? That would be a
“public service.”
JN: I have no idea..
BFH: Would that be a public service?
JN:... I wouldn’t reveal our plans to you even if I did know.
BFH: Would that serve the public?
...long hesitation...
JN: I have no comment.
BFH: What about people who are gay? Would that serve the public?
...long hesitation...
JN: You know the answer to that.
BFH: No I don’t. I’m asking you, the Journal News is educating me.
JN: I have no comment for you. If you have a (unintelligible) to answer I’d be happy to answer it, otherwise I will say goodbye to you and have a good day. (His voice sounded like he wanted me to die a thousand deaths.)
When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to
advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they’re doing so
for purely selfish reasons. It’s the human equivalent of a puppy dog’s face:
an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and
status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in
front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look
cooler, than saying something like, “please lower my taxes” — Greg Gutfeld
1) Most liberals are hateful people. Who are the most hateful people
you can think of off the top of your head? If you're not a liberal, the first people
that probably come to mind are the God hates f@gs lunatics from Fred Phelps'
Westboro Baptist Church. What type of human beings would do sick protests at
funerals? Well, liberals have their own version of this. Whenever a prominent
conservative gets sick or dies, there's an orgy of celebratory hatred on the Left.
It happened with Reagan, Breitbart and every other big name conservative in
between. Bill Maher, Barney Frank, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Amanda Marcotte,
Ed Schultz, Dan Savage, Ted Rall, Al Sharpton, etc., etc. are some of the most
hate-filled people you'll ever run into outside of a maximum security prison, but
liberals consider it to be okay because their hate is aimed at conservatives, who
are acceptable targets. This is why liberals felt perfectly comfortable attacking
Sarah Palin's children, harassing Michelle
Malkin's family until they had to move, and publicly posting the
addresses of ordinary citizens who opposed Prop 8. They're hate-filled people
who are constantly accusing EVERYONE ELSE of behaving the way they do on a
daily basis. So, if you want to find the most hate-filled people in America, look for
a liberal lecturing other people about how important it is not to hate people and
you're practically guaranteed to be looking at a hate-filled person. 2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred. It's amazing how much we still hear about Nazis and the KKK, even though
they're both marginalized, nearly powerless groups of misfits and losers. On the
other hand, how marginalized are the hatemongers on the Left? MEChA is allowed in public schools, Al Sharpton is on
TV every night, and Democratic congressmen are still willing to appear on stage
with Louis Farrakhan. But that's no surprise because promoting racial strife at every opportunity is
an actual Democratic campaign strategy. Almost the entire message of the
Democratic Party to large swathes of the electorate is, "Everybody who doesn't
look like you hates you except us." There are plenty of liberals who have jobs
almost solely because they're willing to incessantly shout "racism" to help the
Democratic Party. We even have groups of professional grievance mongers like
CAIR, La Raza, and the New Black Panther Party that work incessantly to stir up
race hatred because it's good for fund raising and gives them a reason to justify
their existence. If the Nazi Party or the KKK had tried to come up with a system
to keep people hating each other based on skin color, they couldn't have ever
created anything as effective as the one liberals have now implemented. 3) Most liberals are less moral than other people. You won't see liberals
being accused of being hypocritical if it turns out that they don't have "good
family values," commit adultery, or don't live up to their Christian beliefs because
they don't really buy into any of those things. Liberals incessantly attack the
church and they seldom talk about morals because if they have no morals, then
no one can ever accuse them of being hypocrites. This is also why liberals feel so
comfortable lying about conservatives. The standard with liberal blogs, papers,
and cable news outlets isn't accuracy; it is doing damage to conservatives. It's
considered perfectly acceptable amongst liberals to lie about conservatives,
Christians, and anybody else who gets in the way of liberalism. The problem
for liberals is that you can't smear and mock people for believing in morals,
traditions, and family values while simultaneously credibly claiming to have them
yourself. 4) Most liberals don't care if the policies they advocate work or not. This
may seem like an alien concept to a lot of people, but liberals don't push policies
based on whether they improve people's lives or not. To the contrary, liberals
support policies that make them feel good about themselves or alternately, help
cement liberals in power. This is why liberals don't care whether tax revenues go
up after a tax cut, whether high taxes on the rich kill jobs, or how high your gas
prices go because they don't want to drill. To liberals, a policy that kills millions
but makes them feel good about themselves is a win, not a loss. See the Left's cut-
off of military aid to South Vietnam for one example of that and their opposition
to the use of DDT, which is needlessly killing 1.5
million people a year in Africa. Conservatives would be happy to reverse
that ban, but it makes liberals falsely feel like they're good environmentalists
to keep it in place; so all those poor people in Africa have to die for no reason
other than to prop up the fragile self esteem of pampered left-wingers here in the
United States. 5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant. Liberals talk incessantly about
tolerance and yet they lash out whenever anyone dares to present a view that
doesn't toe the liberal line. Conservative college speakers usually need extra
security because budding liberal fascists often try to shout them down or assault them. Liberals desperately try to
censor talk radio, which they don't even listen to, because they can't stand the
idea that someone else is allowed to have a contrary opinion. Why do you think
liberals get so upset about a conservative-leaning news station like Fox News,
when ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN all lean to the left? It's because liberals
don't think people should be allowed to have an opinion that differs from their
own. Amazingly, if you listen to liberals, you'll find that they don't even understand
what tolerance is in the first place. Actual tolerance means that you realize
people have different practices and views and even if you don't agree, you
understand that they should have the ability to live as they choose, just as you
should have the leeway to live as you choose. On the other hand, liberals have
a fascistic view of tolerance, which really isn't surprising since liberalism and fascism are merely different branches
of the same tree. To liberals, tolerance is, by definition, whatever their
opinion happens to be. So, to be tolerant, you have to agree with them. People
who don't even know what tolerance is shouldn't be lecturing everyone else on
the subject.
I strongly encourage all Conservatives to set aside an hour and watch this video. If you watch it once, I guarantee you'll watch it several times because Whittle really does a wonderful job conveying the message and explaining what it all means. He also lays out some blueprints for what we have to do next to start turning things around. He asks the toughest questions and provides answers and attitude that will stay with you. Please watch it in its entirety. I promise you it will be time well spent AND IT WILL MOTIVATE YOU!
The statement is every bit as on-point and relevant today as it was in 1960. The Cold War reference to "international Communism" was aimed at the Soviet Union. Obviously, thanks to the leadership of Republicans, most notably President Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union went down to defeat. For this reason, "international Communism" is not quite the monolithic threat that it once was.
And yet we still have Russians supporting rogue states such as Iran and Syria. We still have China, part Communist, part Capitalist but 100% totalitarian, supporting the rogue Communist nation of North Korea. Moreover, we are still dealing with the poisonous fruit of approximately 70 years of Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist machinations around the world, including the cultural Marxism and Left-wing anti-Americanism that is so prevalent right here in the United States. The ideology is still threatening our way of life and our liberties.But I digress...
IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths WE, as young conservatives believe:
THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the
individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to
be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
THAT the purpose of government is to protect those
freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of
national defense, and the administration of justice;
THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
THAT the Constitution of the United States is the
best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its
proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of
power;
THAT the genius of the Constitution - the division
of powers - is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the
several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically
delegated to the Federal government;
THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the
free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system
compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional
government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier
of human needs;
THAT when government interferes with the work of the
market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of
the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it
diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and
the moral autonomy of both;
THAT we will be free only so long as the national
sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods
of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly
defend their rights against all enemies…
THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and
THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?"
Jesus has come — our Emmanuel! In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirin’ius was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, “Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!” When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” And they went with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it they made known the saying which had been told them concerning this child; and all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.
Allahpundit and I are on the same wavelength here as to why the Left can't be trusted when it comes to doing something about guns. It's difficult to get the anti-gun fanatics to face the facts about guns and mass shootingshonestly. It's especially difficult to take them seriously when loudmouths on their side are making death threats.Remember when the Left whined about the lack of civility in our political discourse these days following the Tuscon shooting? As we've now witnessed countless times since then, their idea of "civility" is for those who have opinions with which they disagreeto sit down and shut up.
The key passage in Allahpundit's article is this:
But look. With this issue even more so than with other issues, a huge
part of the stubbornness and vitriol comes from cultural divisions and
suspicions about the other side’s motives, not from policy
disagreements. I understand the left’s point about high-capacity
magazines; banning them might very well drop the death toll at some of
these horrors. It’s not crazy to think so. The best counterargument is
the slippery-slope argument and I’ve never thought much of
slippery-slope arguments outside the free-speech context.
The truth,
though, is that I don’t trust them and find the media groupthink on this
subject endlessly irritating. It takes a lot to get a New Yorker to
stick up for rural America, but their disdain for “gun culture” is often
transparently a function of their disdain for rural culture. The One’s
condescending bitter-clinger remarks were a classic expression of it.
Much of the mindless “gun control” table-pounding without specifics
feels like an ostentatious way for the table-pounder to simply show how
much he/she cares, especially vis-a-vis the heartless conservative. And
the flailing panicky vacuousness of the Do Something!!!! response, however
understandable in the aftermath of Sandy Hook shellshock, grates
especially coming from the self-styled "Party of Science."
As Tim Carney
noted earlier, some of Our Moral Superiors who are pounding the table
for “gun control” can’t even tell you what a semiautomatic or an
“assault rifle” is. They’ve shown no compunction about demagoging other
mass shootings for their political ends,
no matter how thin the evidence was to support their conclusions. We
were presented on Friday with a very unusual, very specific fact pattern
from a mass killing committed by someone with a very unusual, very
specific set of mental problems, and yet the big “scientific”
recommendation tonight on MSNBC was to keep an eye on your kid in case
he’s shooting too many aliens on the Xbox.
The ghoulish Left-wing tactic of screeching about banning guns - even within minutes of the breaking news - is a way to put those who disagree with that idea on the defensive and equate a defense of the Second Amendment with a lack of grief for the victims. The point of it is to make it seem as though all defenders of the Second Amendment, all those who own guns legally, are in effect guilty of the crimes committed by Adam Lanza. Which means that our horror and sorrow is illegitimate in the eyes of self-aggrandizing foreigners such as Piers Morgan.
Calling for a gun ban represents no sacrifice for people like him so it's an easy call to make, with the added bonus of providing some scant evidence that they actually give a damn about society in general. Guns are viewed as a "right-wing" phenomenon and so going after the guns is essentially an assault on the "right-wing" itself. It's not about curbing gun deaths or mass shootings because they know that criminals and madmen will not observe any laws prohibiting gun ownership. It's about scoring points against the political enemy, pure and simple, with no cost to their side.
The only real result of a gun ban would be to leave law-abiding citizens unprotected in their homes. That works just fine for limousine liberals and clueless celebrities who rely on handlers to do their thinking for them and armed bodyguards to protect them. The rest of us are on our own.
It's also whyvery few on the Left are motivated to talk about the problem of mental health in this country. Guns don't make people become murderers. Criminality does that. And so does mental illness, which is something that a significant number ofmass murderers have in common. But there is no political capital to be gained in pushing that agenda. Much more satisfying for the Left to go after the guns and in doing so weaken that pesky Constitution that so often obstructs the path to the kind of totalitarianism they crave.
On the subject of our national mental health crisis, here's an article by Mona Charen that she wrote back in July after the shootings in Aurora, Colorado:
For years, mental-health authorities assured us that the mentally ill
were no more dangerous than the average person. That’s true of most, but
not all. As Dr. E. Fuller Torrey documents in his essential book, The Insanity Offense,
rates of violence among the untreated mentally ill are significantly
higher than among the general population and also much higher than among
those receiving medication. Between 5 and 10 percent of the untreated
seriously mentally ill will commit violent crimes in any given year,
accounting for at least 5 percent of homicides in the United States (a
huge number in a nation of more than 300 million). For rampage crimes
such as the Aurora attack, the percentage of mentally ill perpetrators
is much greater, as high as 50 percent.
Since the 1960s, when deinstitutionalization became intellectually
fashionable and fiscally alluring to states looking to save money, the
mentally ill have been dumped onto the streets. Today, 95 percent of the
inpatient beds that were available for psychiatric patients in 1955 are
gone. The Treatment Advocacy Center explains that “the consequences of
the severe shortage of public psychiatric beds include increased
homelessness; the incarceration of mentally ill individuals in jails and
prisons; emergency rooms being overrun with patients waiting for a
psychiatric bed; and an increase in violent behavior, including
homicides, in communities across the nation.” Imagine if we treated the
mentally retarded this way.
In many cases of mental illness, a belief that one is not in need of
treatment is part of the sickness. Yet most studies show that the
majority of those who are medicated against their wishes retroactively
approve and believe it should be done again if necessary. In New York,
62 percent reported that being ordered by a court into treatment was a
good thing for them.
And a failure in dealing effectively with mental illness is only part of a larger issue: the moral decay of society:
It should come as no surprise that the rate of mass shootings at schools and in other public places is increasing.
The surge has nothing to do with guns, which have been widely available
in the U.S. for years. Gun control laws have been increasing. Instead,
there is a direct correlation between the increase in violence and the
gradual degradation of morals, ethics and parenting. We are cultivating
mental illness in our society. Parents are allowing television and video games to increasingly babysit their children, even though both have become full of gratuitous violence. A New York Times study of rampage killers found that six of them were into violent video games. Research shows that violent video games and television desensitize people and promote aggressive behavior, despite claims to the contrary. A research scientist at the University of Michigan found
that television was responsible for 10% of youth violence. Parents
today are neglecting their children, and when things don't go well,
rushing to get divorced instead of trying to work things out first.
Children suffer emotionally when their parents fight or split up.
Parents are ignoring their children so much they don't even see the
warning signs that something might be wrong. The New York Times study found that 63 of 100 rampage killers had made threats of violence before the event.
Parents are no longer taking their children to church, where they would learn stability and morals. Fewer than 20% of Americans now regularly attend church. Every year there are 3000 fewer
churches across the U.S, even though the population is growing. God and
morality have been taken out of the public schools and replaced with
political correctness and non-judgmentalism. “Public virtues” are no
longer taught in today's schools. People who do not attend church are more likely
than churchgoers to have stress and to be less optimistic about the
future. When parents split up and there is no father to take the
children regularly to church, the children are much less likely to become regular churchgoers than if their mother regularly takes them.
The New York Times study found that at least half the killers
in 100 rampage attacks showed signs of serious mental health problems.
48 killers were formally diagnosed with mental illness, often
schizophrenia. The mentally ill used to be kept in hospitals, where they
were not a danger to others. Beginning in the 1950s in California, the
ACLU successfully filed lawsuits to take the mentally ill out of
hospitals, known as “deinstitutionalization.” By the 1980s, most
state-run mental health hospitals had closed.
Now, most of the mentally ill are out on the streets or in prison. The laws have been changed to state
that the mentally ill cannot be hospitalized until they've already
attacked someone. As a result, more mentally ill people are incarcerated
than in hospitals, with the seriously mentally ill three times more
likely to end up behind bars than hospitalized. More than half of all
people in prison report that they have mental health problems, and more
than 40 percent of the seriously mentally ill have been in jail or
prison. A study at the University of South Florida found that the
highest users of criminal justice and mental health services were 97
people who had been arrested 2,200 times. It is ludicrous that those 97
people are not contained for their safety and others in mental health
hospitals.
The 22-year old Oregon shopping mall gunman who killed two people
earlier this week is sadly typical of the rampage murderers the decay of
society has spawned. He had this
written on his Facebook page, "I'm the conductor of my choo choo train.
I may be young but I have lived one crazy life so far." One of his
friends said he raised himself; his mother died at childbirth, he never
met his father, and he left his aunt's home at age 14.
The left will use the high level of emotion stirred up by this past
week's two rampage killings to push through new gun control laws.
Liberal New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called
upon President Obama to enact tougher gun control laws immediately
after Friday's mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut. Yet
demanding more gun control laws will not solve anything. Gun control
advocates have already increased the number of laws around the country
requiring background checks, waiting periods for purchases, and tracking
of firearms. Many of the rampage killers obtained guns illegally. If
they can't obtain guns, deranged individuals will find other ways to
commit mass murders – by setting fires, making bombs or running people
over with vehicles. One day after the shootings in Connecticut, a man in
Beijing stabbed 22 primary school students with a knife.
The left should not be allowed to dominate the dialogue after these
tragic events with a red herring argument for gun control, in order to
sneakily distract Americans from blaming them for what they have
wrought. Americans who believe in traditional values must speak up and
denounce the degradation of society's morals as the root of the problem
behind these rampages, or the tragedies will continue to escalate.
The Lord bless you and keep you; The Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; The Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace. Out of the depths
have I cried unto Thee, O Lord: Lord hear my voice. Let Thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication.
Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. Amen
For over a generation, shocking cases of censorship at America's
colleges and universities have taught students the wrong lessons about
living in a free society. This video explains how higher education fails
to teach its students to become critical thinkers by supercharging
ideological divisions, promoting groupthink, and encouraging an
unscholarly certainty about complex issues.
The video is drawn (no pun intended) fromUnlearning Liberty, a book by Greg Lukianoff of FIRE.In it,Lukianoff walks readers through the life of a modern-day college
student, from orientation to the end of freshman year. Through this
lens, he describes startling violations of free speech rights:
a student
in Indiana punished for publicly reading a book
a student in Georgia
expelled for a pro-environment collage he posted on Facebook
students
at Yale banned from putting an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote on a t-shirt
students across the country banished to tiny “free speech zones.”
But Lukianoff goes further, demonstrating how this culture of censorship
is bleeding into the larger society. As he explores public
controversies involving Juan Williams, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher,
Richard Dawkins, and Larry Summers, along with campus uproars in which
Dave Barry and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show played a role, Lukianoff paints a stark picture of our ability as a nation to rationally discuss important issues. Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate
reveals how the intolerance for dissent and debate on today’s campus
threatens the freedom of every citizen—and makes us all just a little
bit dumber.
In 2005, when Democrats were the minority party in the Senate, Senator
Reid said breaking the rules to change the rules of the Senate was
"un-American" and a "partisan political grab." Today, now that Democrats
are in the majority, Senator Reid is singing a different tune.
And for good measure, here are Reid's Senate cronies, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, in 2005 whining about a strategy that they themselves are now clamoring for. The hypocrisy of these people is almost beyond belief. Almost...
On this day, 71 years ago, the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, was devastated in an unprovoked sneak attack by 353 Japanese fighters, bombers and torpedo planes in two waves, launched from six aircraft carriers. All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged, with four being sunk. Of these eight damaged, two were raised, and with four repaired, six battleships returned to service later in the war. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship, and one minelayer.
In addition, 188 U.S. aircraft were destroyed; 2,402 Americans were killed and 1,282 wounded. Important base installations such as the power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section) were not attacked. Japanese losses were light: 29 aircraft and five midget submarines lost, and 65 servicemen killed or wounded. One Japanese sailor was captured.
The next day, President Roosevelt addressed a joint-session of Congress, asking for a declaration of war:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December seventh, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
MSNBC's president, Phil Griffin, recently made this claim: "This channel has never been the voice of Obama. Ever," he told Huffington Post. "People want to talk about Fox. Fox is the voice of the Republican Party."
And yet on Tuesday, four of MSNBC’s prime time TV hosts were spotted entering the West Wing of the White House for a special meeting with the
president. These hosts included, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton
and Lawrence O’Donnell. Interestingly, Chris Matthews, a notoriously tingly Obama supporter, was not included on the guest list.
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest released the following statement on the meeting:
"This afternoon at the White House, the President met with influential
progressives to talk about the importance of preventing a tax increase
on middle class families, strengthening our economy and adopting a
balanced approach to deficit reduction."
As Mediaite reported, MSNBC wasn't the only Left-wing outfit to get a special invitation to meet with the President:
A source familiar with the meeting tells Mediaite that MSNBC
personalities were only the most recognizable among the attendees, but
there were many other “progressive media” members in attendance,
including from the Washington Post, Daily Kos, and the Huffington Post.
So if Phil Griffin is serious about promoting his network as anything other than the propaganda arm of the Obama administration, he's off to a very poor start.
MSNBC President Phil Griffin labels his network's sensibility as
progressive, but the cable news channel could also be described these
days as simply pro-Obama.
In the final week of the 2012 election, MSNBC ran no negative stories
about President Barack Obama and no positive stories about Republican
nominee Mitt Romney, according to a study released Monday by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.
MSNBC's afternoon and primetime hosts kept their sights on Romney and the Republicans during the election cycle, while spending considerably less time holding Obama accountable on issues like civilian casualties from drone strikes, use of executive power and the Afghanistan conflict,
the nation's longest-ever war, which escalated under the current White
House. Instead, the network's top partisan hosts –- with the exception
of former Republican Rep. Joe Scarborough –- seemed to circle the wagons
around the Democratic president during his reelection bid.
Former President Bill Clinton remarked earlier
this year that MSNBC "really has become our version of Fox," the
conservative cable network owned by Rupert Murdoch and run by veteran
Republican operative Roger Ailes.
While such comparisons invite charges of creating a false equivalency
between the two networks, it's generally accepted in political circles
that MSNBC hosts are likely to favor Democrats as Fox News hosts pull
for Republicans.
I don't agree with the assertion that MSNBC and FNC are simply two sides of the same coin. The fact of the matter is that Fox News was created in 1996 to serve the needs of a majority of Americans who were already painfully aware of just how biased the so-called "mainstream" media had become. More specifically, Fox News was intended to be a more right-leaning network in opposition to the left-leaning CNN. It didn't take long for the astuteness of providing an alternative to "liberal" programming to become evident. Fox News has been dominating it's rivals for well over a decade. The reason is simple: Fox News is more in tune with the center-right sensibilities of the average American than its counterparts in the Obama Media Group. It's simply good business to provide a more fair and balanced look at current events than what is offered at MSNBC. The reality is that Fox is much more mainstream than anything found among the "mainstream" media outlets.
MSNBC does for the left all the things they claim Fox News does for the
right. Except in MSNBC's case, it’s actually true. And now they've given
up even pretending not to be Obama's lapdogs. I just hope they keep in
mind what Obama does to dogs…
