Rabid Partisan Idiots, Left and Right, Made Easy

Politically correct = reality challenged

Unless one has been brought up in a political vacuum it is hard to avoid spending at least part of your lifetime enmeshed in the folds of one partisan group or another. Many people are so over exposed to a polarized viewpoint that they jump to the other party in a fashion that is often as polarized as their parents’ if not more so. The majority of both these parentaly wound-up rebels and those who retain their parents polarization tend to mellow with time; the non-rebels more likely than not to find peace with the angers of partisan zeal at an earlier age. Then there are those who never really feel passionate about either “choice” of viewpoints, the black or the white. These folks usually blend in with the soft and fuzzy “middle” end of the party’s spectrum from rabidity through hardliners and moderates and are little more to the various political leaders than empty votes to be herded with nightmares and platitudes into one camp or the other during the end game of the election. That is the reality of those who control our society.

What of ideology you say? What of the Left and the Right? What of them comes the answer from the voice of present-day politics. Partisanship has always played a part in human politics. I could go on for pages on the roots and changes, the evolutions, and revolutions in political thought but it all can be summed up very simply; partisan = tribal. Any division of “us” and “them” that is not agreed to by all parties involved is tribalism whether you call it that or nepotism or Left-wing or Right-wing. In other words, even if it makes you feel like someone broke your dolly to hear it, partisan politics is always wrong when applied to a constitutional republic such as the U.S. or to Western democracy in general.

Now let us be clear on this definition. If something is Bad(tm), it means that anyone who insists on doing it, well they are part of the problem instead of part of any defense against or solving of; deal with it.

What good does that do us, the moderate majority asks, much more than you are doing now, says the voice of the Ghost of Reality That Can Be.

The first step is to recognize a partisan when you see them. Next you must apply their own misconceptions against them, making them out to non-partisan eyes as the fools and or tools that they are. Then you must offer a viewpoint that ignores completely the rhetoric and rancor of either side while laying out a ‘triage’ of the particular subject being misused by the partisan for their own benefit. Only then can common-sense and compassion, love and reason all co-exist within one, commonly held “platform”. The chaos of partisan push-and-pull laws and regulations will dwindle over the years and decades to a Constitutionally sound minimum of ‘solutions’ to commonly recognized needs, problems and aspirations.

 

Dumbest (uncorrected) Choices in American History: Shortlist

100_0172a

My list of REALLY STUPID CHOICES made in American history; just a short-list I am afraid:

Diet Food” that is more chemicals than food

Having the Soviet Union an “ally” in WWII – better to have let them go it alone; email for full argument

The Electoral College in the Age of Communication; direct election of all offices should be the norm; Political Parties are OBSOLETE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Public Sector Unions

Adding “under God” to the Pledge making it a point of division instead of unity

Lotus and Apple’s Patent-the-Universe Syndrome making the courts accept patents on things never meant for patent

Failing to live up to Dr. King’s vision and refusing to stop being prejudiced regarding race

Private campaign donations of any kind other than labor

Campaign donations by businesses

Supreme Court deciding that money= a right to a louder voice for YOUR ‘free speech

Dropping the no-partisanship requirements for radio talk-shows and ‘interview’ programs

Letting Lawyers advertise

Supreme Court declaring that nothing of value is earned by the recipient of a military award or decoration

Women’s, Chicano, Black “Studies” propping up people selected, distorted and lionized with blatant prejudice; taking away self-respect while pretending to help by ‘giving the poor things a hand’, and White Studies designed to rip on Western Culture for the same purpose – removing its self-respect – it seems non-whites are too dumb or clueless to run their own lives or stand up to whites and that whites are just intrinsically demonic – welcome to the enlightened world of PC education

Failing to settle on the point in a pregnancy where a woman’s choice is MADE and she must be held responsible for an infant rather than a piece of owned tissue. (6 month preemies regularly survive today and the Radical Right’s agenda on abortion would make women all but chattel)

Worrying more about which consenting adults, what age, color or how many may legally get ‘married’; ignoring the concept of duty, honor and responsibility anyone brings to their marriages

Bilingual Education as a policy

Helmets, knee and elbow-pads for tricycle riders

Peer promotion in school

Affirmative Action after 1990 – where was the transition to color-blind government?

Worrying more about what actual people have DONE with their guns than trying to get law-abiding folk to not have any at all

Electing Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter, George W., and Obama

Forgetting that ALL countries do best with immigrants if they pick from the TOP of the pile instead of the bottom

Paying a private group to print/coin money like a product to be bought forgetting that money has no ‘intrinsic’ value’; dollars are just counters for the economic game; increasing or decreasing the supply by fiat to ACCURATELY reflect the production/wealth of a nation is the ONLY reason when deciding when or if to print more money, or let the cash pool contract

Deciding that political consensus and no working model or scientific theory that has been tested is sufficient when making decisions in haste that could wreck the world’s entire economy/infrastructure; in the 70’s it was the next Ice Age that was imminent… no models then either

Making an “eco-friendly” light-bulb containing hazardous amounts of mercury

Adults stealing Halloween from the children and making it another grown-ups party holiday

The Writer’s Strike

ANY serious university or college that “emphasized” sports to make money and enabled ‘tails’ that can wag Great Danes with ease

Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person

PartyPlayFairDemo

Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.

And…

Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

Why Does MY Party Need Ethics Laws? WE Are The GOOD GUYS!

26812208v2_225x225_Front

Partisans suck on both sides!

Anyone who thinks their party is somehow less corrupt in its own way than the “opposition” deserves whatever idiots they elect!
Classic Liberals hold up as an ideal the underdog successfully gaming a corrupt system; the Conservatively oriented uphold the concept of WORKING the, not perfect but necessary, system for success.

But, the Leftist believes that “The System”, or “The Man” is ALWAYS inimical; while a Liberal understands that this is something to be guarded against while not an inherent facet of all “authority.”

The Right-winger holds the belief that those within the system are somehow protected from being abusive, and corrupt within the rules…
Obviously these are both utter fallacies!

Leftists seek to game the system; to use self-righteousness as a champion of “the downtrodden and powerless” as an excuse to do things that would make their blood boil if attempted by “the other side”!

Liberal thought respects the gaming of the system by truly oppressed folk, while also respecting the honesty and integrity of those in the majority who play by the rules of the healthy systems to prosper.

But the “leadership” of “Left” and “right” promote the idea that THEIR fantasy is the ONLY valid attitude, and the only one that DECENT people would follow.

I have TWO things to say to both mentalities; the 2nd thing I want to say to them is…”and the horse you rode in on”!

http://hereticscrusade.com

Who is Guy DeWhitney? What is The Heretics Crusade?

It has been just over a year since I started this blog.  Despite numerous distractions and diversion it has been a good year for the blog, if not for our sadly Post-Enlightenment PC culture.  I take this opportunity to repost an updated version of my second post explaining why I had begun a project like Heretics Crusade.

cRUSADE

Why start this blog now? Aren’t there enough "they’re out to get us" blogs? Yes, there are too many RADICAL blogs on the Left AND Right. It is time to let the Moderate Majority have their say.

Despite what it might look like in these times, the focus of this blog is NOT Muslims. It is  focused on exposing and answering ALL serious efforts at instilling totalitarian controls onto free Western society.

In school Thomas Jefferson was my greatest American Hero. My opinion has not changed on that in over 30 years.  Beginning with the Phoenicians, then three waves of Greeks, The Etruscans, the Romans, the Celts, The Gauls, etc., etc., etc., migration after migration of peoples left the Far East.

They Left behind a land where the Whole is more important than the parts, to found nations where the individual and his or her contribution to society would matter. Greece, Rome, England, America a great rolling progression of Enlightenment values growing and evolving toward a bright future where every is able to have peace and safety and above all, a voice.

I sit here writing in Southern California, at the peak of the Western Wave. I feel the momentum and legacy of the millions behind me who sweated and bled and died to put me here. It is my responsibility to do all I can to see that their legacy does not fail. That the barbarians never again "sack Rome" allowing the advent of another dark age.

For long in the 80’s I found myself concerned with keeping an eye on, and talking about, radical Christian efforts in this country to edge our culture into a theocracy. While this movement seems to have peaked a year or so before the end of the reign of Bush II there are still folks dedicated to putting God in the classroom, creationism in our books and demonizing gays and abortion.

Currently the project near and dear to their hearts that concerns me the most is efforts by conservative Christian organizations to co opt the Air Force as a proselytizing force. Needless to say I do not view this objective lightly.

I also watched with some worry activities by the Soviet Union and China. Then, the Soviets collapsed, and it seemed that the only thing to seriously worry about besides our few fanatics was the possibility of China becoming aggressively expansionist (not a likely event).

Sept 11th 2001 changed that. Like just about everyone else I was somewhat aware that the "Muslim World" was something less than civilized to my jaded California standards but figured that as long as they didn’t poop in my backyard I had no reason to spy into theirs. Then the thousand Great Dane sized load of FU landed in New York, D.C. and Penn.  and I thought that maybe it was time to look into this Islam thing.

In exploring the information available it took a long time to vet the sources before I could trust them. A large obstacle to this was that fact that, like Soviet Communism, the people who first saw things as they were came from the far right of the political spectrum. Just as McCarthy was totally wrong in how he dealt with things, he was totally right about the extent of Soviet infiltration in the government, and Hollywood. We find today a number of unsavory voices shouting to the rooftops a message the basics of which everyone should hear does more to make people constructively deaf than convert them to reality. People look at who is talking, and ask why they should listen to such voices on THIS subject.

For the record, the pillars of civilization that I regard as inviolable are: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal treatment before the law of everyone; men and women, regardless of race, creed or sexuality. I support the right to bear arms, and have served with pride in the armed forces of my nation but, I oppose the very concept of a "draft". I feel that any nation that cannot fight it’s battles with a volunteer army has no right to fight them. And this includes wars of defense.

I support the right to abortion but, cannot support late term abortion in any but blatantly cut and dired cases, which I have yet to EVER hear of.

In general I regard myself as a leftish moderate who is not afraid of guns. Anyone who tries to peg me into a political category from one or two opinions is almost certain to be wrong. In fact I refuse to identify with any party since a party is nothing more than a slate of opinions pre-packaged to avoid a voter’s having to take on that horrible job: thought.

In the course of this blog I will be posting articles and videos of all sorts that highlight both the fight of totalitarians to blind and enslave us, as well as the efforts of those who will not be bound or controlled to keep the West free in mind and soul.

And yes Virginia, I EXPECT to get attacked from the partisans on BOTH sides.  All I have to say is; AVANT Crusader, AVANT!

A View From The Ivory Tower

sillyspeakers

Well, today has been a VERY interesting day, from nonsensical pronouncements on “Palestine” to curiously timed assaults on my “rudeness” by a very rude professor, it has been a learning experience to say the least.

Today, at Scripps College in lovely and beloved Claremont, Ca I attended a panel (not what you could call a discussion, more a multi-lecture) on , well, I will let the Scripps Website tell it:

“Scripps College will host a panel discussion on Friday, February 12, 2010 from 12:00-2:00 p.m. with four distinguished experts on United States foreign policy in the Middle East. The event, “Report Card: Evaluating the Obama Administration’s First Year of Middle East Policy,” will take place in the Hampton Room, Malott Commons, on the Scripps College campus and is free and open to the public.

This distinguished Middle East panel — including the Editor and Editorial Committee members of the prominent journal Middle East Report — will explore diverse Middle East issues, including the War in Iraq, the closing of Guantanamo, the challenges of life in Palestine, and piracy on the Red Sea.

Speakers include:

  • Lisa Hajjar, Professor of Law and Society, UC Santa Barbara and author of Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza
  • Julie Peteet, Chair and Professor of Anthropology, University of Louisville and author of Gender in Crisis: Women and the Palestinian Resistance Movement and Landscape of Hope and Despair: Palestinian Refugee Camps”

Two others had been scheduled to speak but were snowed in on the East Coast (You know, Global Warming).

Fair and balanced was probably not the best way to describe Ms. Peteet’s presentation.  To be polite, she seemed to me to display all the classic symptoms of a strong case of WhatInconvenientFacts Syndrome.

From an inability to see Israeli concerns about security as anything but “rhetoric” to expressing amazement at Israeli soldiers getting into ambulances to confirm that the occupants are really injured (Hamas has been filmed during the latest Israeli response using ambulances donated by charities as personnel carriers for armed men) Ms. Peteet sees the world the way Ms. Peteet wants to see it.

I asked her during the Q&A why everything she spoke of put all responsibility on Israel to have open borders with a “state”, actually I believe I said “people”, that has openly and consistently for years declared it’s intent to see Israel no more – especially when Israel is hardly the only country bordering either Gaza or the West Bank.

Rather than actually answer this question, Ms. Peteet actually declared that in the 60’s the Arabs were not responsible when ISRAEL redrew the map.  Then, she went on to say that it is “international law” that the “host” state’s ( i.e. the state the “refugees” originated in) responsibility to handle said refugees.

Are you following her logic Virginia?  Half the Arab world’s armies were on the march toward Israel’s borders,  and Egypt had already closed the straits of Tiran to Israel ( already a casus belli) then expelled the UN Peacekeeper force at the border, but it is ISRAEL’s fault for being the first to fire a shot.

It should also be noted I had asked about borders and trade, not about resettlement of refugees!

As a follow-up I asked if it was the case that host countries were responsible for their own refugees would she agree that the Arab states were responsible for giving a right of return to all expelled Jews from 1948 and their descendants.

This champion of the downtrodden coldly informed me that no Jews had been expelled from anywhere in 1947 or 48, period. So, I asked if that meant that the Arabs who left Israel without force were also “not refugees”. Her answer was less than detailed;  “This conversation is OVER.”

I asked the above questions at the very end of the event after it had started to break up. I had not been called on after my first question despite little competition from the audience.

Once I had asked that first question a professor hopped up from his seat, (no, he was NOT one of the actual event organizers) and intimidated my assistant out of her seat to plop down next to me and (while the lectures were still going on and making it impossible for ME to hear what was being said) berate me for being so rude as to not have gone up, in the one minute after I arrived before the event started, introduce myself AND IDENTIFY WHO I WROTE FOR and THEN ask for permission to record.

Now I had been recording voice openly  and my asst. was shooting photos. She even accidently let loose one flash shot! So I am sure that the entire panel and the moderator were aware of what I was doing, yet had said and done nothing about it!

This professor had taken it upon himself to harass me ONLY after I had asked a question that showed me to be less than a member of the choir on the Israel question.

Just like a redneck telling the city black that the “Standards of the Community” required certain extra-legal rules to be followed this defender of academic freedom expected me to conform to unstated, biased and unenforced rules lest I be declared “terribly rude and even “disruptive.”

I replied that his harassing me and not letting the speaker be heard was far ruder.  Then he began to berate me for the tiny sound my blackberry keys made as I took notes.  This sound would have been totally inaudible to him if he had not displaced my assistant from her seat to lean into me and lecture in my ear.

He then glanced at my notes, didn’t like what he saw and declared it also against “Common courtesy” to text message during the event.  I informed him in a less than patient tone that if he had bothered to READ the top of the page he would have noticed that it said Word to Go – Untitled.doc in larger print than the notes that had offended him.

All in all it was an adventure exploring the limits of human silliness in defense of the indefensible.

Oh, I should add that in two hours of talk about “Palestine”, and Israel, and the terrible plight of “Palestinians”, and how they were being used and controlled to their detriment, two words were NEVER MENTIONED BY ANYONE, but me, in my first question.

What were the words that these eminent scholars felt had NOTHING to do with the problems of “Palestine and “Palestinians”?

Fatah and Hamas, of course.

Oh, again, the ONLY thing in the whole event that was about Obama at all was a tiny bit at the end, dissing him for keeping only a few of his campaign promises and otherwise following in George Bush’s footsteps.  There was FAR more talk about the “sins of Bush and Cheney” than about anything Obama had done, good or bad.

A good time was had by all…at least once Ms. Peteet got away from my uncomfortable questions.

What IS Your Problem Anyway?

idylls king 0013
I had a wonderful, fantastic vision while sitting on the (polite euphemism for toilet applicable to all  individual readers’ culture and tastes)  today.  What would our world look like a few years after a particular, completely unlikely, event. Namely the election in one year of NEW Senators, Representatives, Governors, and state legislatures never before involved in politics.
 
Just picture it, a government that is comprised of real, articulate, skilled or professional folks. People who have done things.  Imagine a further impossibility; NONE OF THEM ARE LAWYERS!
 
The quivers surely run down my leg thinking of THAT event Virginia.
 
What would happen if the Constitution and common sense ran the government?  Could it possibly be worse than the things the Left and Right have brought us with their endless political games that rape the future of We the People on the altar of their ambitions?
Will the paid-off-pundits of the Right who pretend to be Conservative please explain to me why they approve of the Supreme Court decision to equate dollars in marketplace with individual free speech as protected in the Constitution?
 
Just what is the justification for this equality of “voice” that allows a corporation to drown out the voice of real citizens who have no deep pocket masters?
 
We may never be able to rid ourselves of the “machine” that exists to promote the power grabbing of the Leftist and Right-Wingers, but we can surely starve it for funding and force it to listen to real people for a change!
 
And can the hypocrites on the Left who pretend to be Liberal tell me why they condone non-Liberal interference with the PROFESSION of education?
 
In the halcyon days of the political machine in America the murdering thugs who ran places like Kansas City and Chicago and New York had few morals, but they did have some unbreakable rules, one of which was keep your hands off the roads and the schools.  As long as these rules were kept to the population had little to complain of and the machine flourished. 
 
Some kind of perverse evolution has occurred over time.  As the governments in America became less and less overtly corrupt, and certainly less violent about it, they also threw the rules away.
Why are the schools across America constantly chasing “Liberal” ideals and consistently failing to improve?  Why are the roads in New Orleans the worst in my experience for a metropolitan area despite the huge income given the size of the city coupled with a, supposedly “Liberal” government?
 
Both Left and Right have felt no compunctions about interfering in every aspect of our lives motivated less by sense, than some immediate political consideration devoid of human values but rife with moralistic rationalizations.
 
But, most of all, I demand that the Left and the Right explain to me WHY partisanship is a good thing.  Just what is healthy about viewing the political opposition in a two party system as something to be ELIMINATED from the political process?
 
Is this not one definition of fascism, no matter the other politics of the proponent? Tell me Mr. Obama, and explain to me Mr. Limbaugh, why you feel a two party system would be healthier as a one party system.

Partisan, Partisan Fly Away Home…

Today we find an article by a rabid partisan pretending to be a conservative:
Mike Adams published this piece on townhall.com.

Well, that left a bad taste in my mouth. If Mr. Adams wants to call Leftist and Progressive attitudes Liberal then someone shuold point out that this would leave us with NO term for classical Lberal thought at all.

I am sure this would please Mr. Adams, but I think the rest of us might want to live in a world a little more compassionate than 1638 Massachutsetts!

Let us look at this list of propogandistic canards and take a peek through partisan colored glasses at the world as he sees it.

“…Abortion: Liberals support abortion not because they anticipate needing an abortion in the wake of an incident of rape or incest. They overwhelmingly want to escape the natural consequences (pregnancy) of a freely chosen decision to engage in sex outside of marriage.”

According to the information in MY world most contraception is used BY married people. Is Mr. Adams claiming that anyone who is not a devout Catholic or some such engaging in sex outside of “marriage”? Probably not, instead he is simply lying about the actual usage in order to support his dubvious attack on the very term “Liberal”. A term that, in its classic meaning, is embraced by many who read, write and edit this site.

This argument is nonsensical in other ways… Does Mr. Adams wear clothes? Does he cook his food? If so, he is clearly guilty of attempting to avoid the natural consequances of exposing himself to a non-tropical climate and to the trials of chewing and digesting natural foods. Not to mention killing off the natural bugs that he is trying to avoid in his zeal to eat things like pork and such.

The bottom line seems to be that Mr. Adams feels that anyone who does not embrace his STRICT Judeo-Christian worldview is “attempting to avoid the consequences” of the “natural order”. As an argument against abortion this falls far short of being persuasive to those who are not already in Mr. Adams’s choir.

“Social Security: Saving money is difficult and it requires a lot of patience and a general willingness to delay gratification. Social security is nice for those who never get around to investing and saving money on their own. When the government does it for you, it insulates you, in part, from the consequences of your bad financial decisions.”

Again with the shoving Puritan ethics down the throat of every man, woman and child in sight! Imagine the “compasion” of a mind that views every mom and pop in America as being responsble for learning, understanding and having the time and skill to apply sophisticated savings and investing strategies.

Mr. Adams may argue that forcing HIM to participate is wrong, but here he seems to feel that to even WANT this saftynet available is somehow a crime.

We are only two points into his worldview but let us add it up:

A working class family, with no doubt 3 to 9 kids, must find the time for, and have the education to pursue, a consistant long term savings scheme and not fall afoul of random economic downturns or bank failures, or their old age is of no concern to Mr. Adams. Am I missing something Virginia, or is Santa wearing a suit made of Bod Cratchet’s skin?

“Separation of Church and State: Our Founders thought it would be a bad idea to have a national religion.”

This is a MILD undertatement to say the least, It was the Puritan theocratic tendencies of Mr. Adams’s heros that provoked the majority of colonies to vote Aye on that amendment!

“But since the Warren Court era political liberals have been using this notion of a “wall of separation” to exclude from the public square all kinds of constitutionally protected religious speech.”

Such as? The main result to me has been to require that any voice/access given to one religion must be given to all, or none may have it.

It means that religious instruction is not allowed to be endorsed in anyway by the government.

It means that no citizen must face a judge or teacher or cop feeling excluded by that official’s blatant application of their tribal rites to the excercise of their duties to the public.

“In reality, liberals don’t want a “wall” they want a partition – something they can take down and put back up in order to attack religion while banning close scrutiny of their ideas.”

No, the Partisans want that. ALL Partisans of any political stripe want; “freedom for me but not for thee” in order to apply, without friction, their “perfect plan” for society. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama, and de Sade all shared the same mindset. They simply used different excuses for their evils.

“..One of the professors on my campus teaches that Paul was … Ultimately, these folks hope that they can convert people away from antiquated religions like Judaism and Christianity and towards newer, hipper religions like multi-culturalism and diversity. “

Oh my, Virginia I am sorry about that. It is not pleasent to snort milk through your nose from a sudden laugh.

Mr. Adams, PAUL was the FOUNDER of a “hipper”, “Multi-cultural and diversity” oriented heretical offshoot of the original Christianity. Peter and James themselves were in no way happy with the man’s theological opinions on most things; they merely gave in when his numbers outstripped theirs and his church became the default “Christianity”. And now the Conservative of the conservative defend him as the bastion of the faith. The more things change, the more they stay the same Virginia!

“…No college professor (of religion, no less) would say “I don’t know whether there is a God and, by the way, I am blissful about my ignorance.”

Wow, all I can say is Mr. Adams needs to look up the difference between know and believe. I know that if I drop a rock on my foot it will hurt. There is NO way, to date to KNOW that God exists; this is in the realm of faith. By the same token it is not possible to KNOW that God does NOT exist.

Thus, both the adamant Theist (Mr. Adams) and the adamant atheist are “believers” not “knowers”. This is simply the way the universe works; to NOT be able to be “blissful” about it is the delusional path, as far as I can see.

“…What kind of education are we providing when professors are teaching courses aimed at indoctrination into atheism?”

About as good an education as you get NOW at schools run by people on the THEISTIC side like PAt RObertson. A biased education full of holes and illogic and hatred.

Mr. Adams, the nasty tactics of the LEFTISTS donot excuse the nasty tactics of the far RIGHT any more than YOUR hero’s excesses excuse the ecesses of the LEFT.

“And what are we to do about it?”

Hopefully grow up, and accept that without CLASSIC Liberal thought NO society can be anything but harsh and nasty. Hopefully start adressing the proper segments of society and not demonize the “opposition” simply because they do not think like you do.

The line between Jonestown and Jesus Camp is hardly worth mentioning to those who seek solutions, instead of domination.

“The real problem is that many of these atheists have made a free choice to attack traditional Christian beliefs and simultaneously wish to erect a “partition of separation” to keep Christians from defending themselves.”

And the actions of Leftist atheists gives you reason to attack the concept of “Liberal”? I fail to follow your “logic”, Mr. Adams.

How about a course in the effects of theistic and non-theistic tribalism on a society when carried out by self-serving, heartless individuals bent on suppressing ALL dissent in the name of “harmony”?

I LIKE this guy, I don’t even have to add the bit about how it applies to the Right too!


Hate Mail of the Day: Understanding the Crypto-Religious Mentality of the Left
Posted by David Swindle on Oct 1st, 2009

It’s been a long time since I’ve gotten hate mail. And, oh, how I’ve missed it.

Five years ago when I was a leftist op/ed columnist for my college paper the hate mail would come in regularly as I delivered a new radical assault against the Iraq War, the Bush administration, and the Conservative Movement each week.

This one did not come as the result of a piece I’d written but as something I’d done. After weeks of putting up with “Pbrauer,” one of NewsReal’s leftist trolls, I finally decided to ban him. The previous day I’d given him a warning and he’d decided to ignore it. …
He sent me an angry email in response to his banishment. It was every bit as ad hominem as his comments:

David,

Your response was not at all unexpected, frankly I am surprised that I lasted this long at David Horowitz’ blog. He wouldn’t know the truth if it was staring him in the face. Or maybe he would, but would not admit because it didn’t fit his agenda.

You as young man at the tender age of 25, idolize this creep? He is on the fringe, you are on the fringe, of reality that is. Horowitz was once on the radical left, now he is on the radical right. The term “Koolaid Drinking” comes from the fact that the followers of Jim Jones drank Koolaid laced with cyanide. While I wouldn’t equate Horowitz exactly with Jim Jones, I would say your dedication to a man so distructive is not far off.

When I said you had an unfortunate surname, I meant no harm. Most normal people would have responded with “Yeah, Tell me about it.” But you chose demonize me and tell me I am horrible human being , that told me more about you and your radical agenda than you know.

Please tell Tim and Alissa Birkel, that it my plan to email Rachel Maddow to call them out and publicly invite them on the show. I will provide links to their posts critical to her. Maybe she will and maybe she won’t. I think it’s worth a try.

Rachel Maddow and Media Matters are targets because they are so effective in getting out the truth.

Pete S,


What struck me most about Pete AKA Pbrauer’s hate mail was what I’ve emphasized above. Look at the way he uses the term “the truth.” In his opening paragraph he notes that Horowitz cannot see “the truth.” He concludes by noting that Media Matters and Rachel Maddow are great at getting out “the truth.”

This is the way religious fundamentalists talk. (And note I’m not referring here to the many friendly Christians who comment at NewsReal.) Without even realizing it, Pbrauer affirmed the validity of the central thesis of my favorite Horowitz text, The Politics of Bad Faith. (He’s not the first leftist I’ve encountered who has done this.) For much of the Left they do not have political ideas or opinions. They have political Truth. The Left is a political religion.

And leftists’ behavior reflects that. There is a connection between Pbrauer’s political religion and the behavior he exhibited at NewsReal that caused him to be banned. He never really engaged us in dialogue. His objective was always to sabotage with ad hominem attacks. And the reason is simple: why be in dialogue with someone when they’re pushing a lie? With Pbrauer — and others like him — it is NEVER an exchange of ideas. That’s not what interests them. They have all the correct ideas — The Truth — and we’re just the unsaved heathens who need to hear the leftist gospel.

(HH here: this rings so true when you look at my most recent post! Dana Cloud showed every symptom of religious fanaticism.)

Now there are certainly conservatives that talk and think this way too. I cringe every time I get an email in which a conservative supporter emails me talking about their political opinions as though they were “the Truth.” And I wince when conservatives refuse to consider ideas from the Left or even to have leftist friends. Adopting such an approach perverts conservatism into a Political Faith instead of a coherent, intellectual approach.

Read it all

David come home!!


(HH here: I was over at Frontpage Mag and read a neat piece about the Left by David Horowitz. Sad to say though he only got half the story, blaming the Left for Partisanship but not the Right. Shame on him!! Just kidding. By and large I admire his writings, I just wish he would finish his swing from far Left to far Right and settle in the sensible Middle. We need men of his brains and eloquence to defend against the “infected”.

Here follows my analysis and rewrite of his piece to make it more balanced:)

“This led Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs and former chief of Israel’s Defense Forces to describe the left as a “virus.” Actually as Aaron Shuster pointed out in an email, which I am about to cite, one could also say the left is in the grips of a virus — a virus that attacks its brain cells and makes it incapable of ingesting real world facts and consequently of arriving at reasonable judgments.”

(HH: Now, now David, let us not be incomplete. This virus attacks the Rightist in equal numbers. The name if the virus is not Leftism, it is Partisanship! OTherwise your diagnosis fits to a tee. on BOTH sides of the aisle.)

“Radical feminism is one form of the virus. It is an ideology grown out of Marxism whose enemy is the freedom of the individual from collective control, and the freedom of society from the totalitarian state. That is why radical feminists are incapable of seeing the anti-feminist monster in Islam: because Islam is now the center of the revolt against the feminists’ real enemy, which is us.”

(HH: Radical Christians attempting stealth takeovers of loval govs and schools also see the secular world as a demon to be overthrown “by any means”.)

“The progressive virus is a religious virus. Political radicalism is an expression of the inability of human beings to live without meaning; it is the replacement of the hope for a divine redemption in a redemption by political activists, which inevitably leads to a totalitarian state.”

(HH: Anyone who cannot see the hypocritcal face of radical Christianity also in this descrpition is probably a member of an antievolution church and infected themselves.)

“The consequences of infection by the virus are described in my email from Shuster:
“The virus totally blocks the person from the ability to access, let alone comprehend, any facts and evidence that contradict his or her beliefs. Mountains of data have zero effect on already established views, simply because the person flatly rejects considering reading anything that would go against their ‘truth’. The person is terrified to look beyond his established viewpoint. They behave like the Church at the times of Galileo. They refuse to look through the telescope. For instance, during the past eight years, on numerous occasions, I have recommended to my left-wing friends several books on Islam by Ibn Warraq, Ibn Ishaq, Robert Spencer and others. Many borrowed the books, but they were never read. The power of the virus was stronger. The results of my eight-year effort were meager. Two people have read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.””

(HH: Wow very true! And all the people I tried to get to read sensible books explaining evolution or astrophysics or how homosexuality is strongly based in genes also were unable to assimilate any info that contradicted their worldview. Partisanship my dear Sir, Nor Leftist but ANY real polarization is a bad thing.)

“”The strength of the virus derives from the meaning it supplies to meaningless lives, and the consequent good feelings — intoxicated feelings of virtue and self-righteousness — experienced by the devoted. Here Shuster quotes Melanie Phillips:
“A vital part of leftist thinking is the assumption that to be on the left is the only sensible/decent/principled position to hold and therefore cannot ever be wrong; and that is because to differ from the left is to be of ‘the right’, and the right is irredeemably evil. (The idea that to be opposed to the left is not necessarily to be on ‘the right’ or indeed to take any position other than to oppose their ideology and its brutal effects, is something that the left simply cannot get its head around). And so the true nightmare is that if ‘the right’ turns out to be actually right on anything and the left to be wrong, by accepting this fact the left-winger will by his own definition turn into an evil right-winger. His entire moral and political identity will crumble and he will grow horns and a tail. So to prevent any possibility of this catastrophe occurring, the opponent has to be eliminated.””

(HH:Again, the only thing wrong with the above statement is that the author is blind to his own place in the above group. but on the right instead of the left. The statement SHOULD read thus:)

“A vital part of partisan thinking is the assumption that to be on the side of the partisan whether Communist or Fundamentalist Christian, is the only sensible/decent/principled position to hold and therefore cannot ever be wrong; and that is because to differ from the partisan is to be of ‘the evil ones’, and all ideas of the opposition are irredeemably evil. (The idea that to be opposed to the partisan is not necessarily to be on ‘the other side’ or indeed to take any position other than to oppose their ideology and its brutal effects, is something that the partisan simply cannot get its head around). And so the true nightmare is that if ‘the other’ turns out to be actually right on anything and the partisan to be wrong, by accepting this fact the partisan will by his own definition turn into an evil ‘other’. His entire moral and political identity will crumble and he will grow horns and a tail. So to prevent any possibility of this catastrophe occurring, the opponent has to be eliminated.”

(HH: See how neatly it explains BOTH side’s radicals? Let us continue “finishing” the piece properly:)

This why the only argument that [partisans] have in their public encounters with others is not an argument at all but an indictment: racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, [Pagan, Homosexual, Socialist, black, white, foreigner etc]…. In the religion of [Partisanism]… in the fevered universe of the virus — the world is an endless plain of battle in which forces of Good ([them]) are ranged against the forces of Evil (the rest of us). At stake is the redemption of the world — or as the environmental totalitarians like to put it, the survival of the planet. No wonder they are deaf to any fact or argument that would bring them back to earth.

The only way to defeat the [partisan] is to turn the table around and attack their moral self-image. [Partisans] are in fact the enemies and oppressors of women, children, gays, minorities and the poor, and moderates should never confront them without reminding them of this fact. If Naomi Wolf, [Noam Chomsky, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and their] radical friends had their way, America would be disarmed and radical Islam would be triumphant [or we would be living in a Christian taliban culture and either way] women, [children and gays] would be back in the Middle Ages, and the rest of us along with them.

(HH: Now THAT tells the whole story!!!!!)