We’re All Extremists Now

So this is making the conservative internet rounds:


h/t Todd Starnes, FOX News

Apparently, the Army is being trained to spot terrorists, especially those dastardly evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and anyone with a “Christian identity” (whatever that means).  Oh, and let’s not forget those people who worship in the church of “Islamophobia,” a well-known and oft-practiced religion.  (Good grief)

Troubling on many levels, of course, but my question is why is the Army being warned about ANY terror or extremist group operating in the U. S.?  The United States military should only be fighting on American soil in the event of an invasion by enemy forces, and they should only be doing so to fight the invading enemy, right?  Don’t we have law enforcement, the FBI, and a string of other domestic law enforcement agencies?  So why is the military being trained in this at all?  Or are we in the U.S. (count how many of those extremist groups are tagged “U. S.”) now under the “all enemies foreign and domestic” clause . . . because the Commander in Chief said so?

Perhaps it isn’t as sinister as tin-foil hat Fuzzy imagines, perhaps it’s “simply” that the military is “ready to purge Catholics and Evangelicals.”  Whatever it is, it’s not good for any American of any religion because apparently believing in any God, having any religion, is now enough to get you investigated for possible terror ties . . . not that anyone mentions investigation anymore.

Nothing quite so regressive as a “progressive,” right?  Religious persecution here we come!  Let’s just hope that burning at the stake or gas ovens aren’t on the tiny tyrant’s 21st-century list of genocidal techniques.

Freedom’s Not Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose

I awoke this morning with Janice Joplin’s rendition of Me and Bobby McGee stuck in my head.  I’m not sure why that song, exactly, was on my sleeping mind enough to last into my waking, but it may have something to do with my watching Braveheart last night for the millionth time.  The contrast between Joplin soulfully cranking out that desolate line “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose” and Mel Gibson’s William Wallace shouting a defiant “Freedom!” with his dying breath is so stark, so complete, that I haven’t been able to get it out of my head all morning.

There is something so impenetrably sad about thinking of freedom as “just another word for nothing left to lose.”  It evokes such a hopelessness, such a lostness, that it’s almost overpowering.  You had something (a house, maybe, as the lyrics suggest, a lover, a family, whatever), and then you lost it.  That thing you had–that house, lover, family, whatever–tied you down and kept you tethered to the world, to society.  It was the opposite of freedom.  You can only be free when you have absolutely nothing, nothing to lose, nothing that matters to you. Freedom becomes a burden with roots firmly planted in isolation and loneliness, and because it comes at such a high price–you lose everything, after all–it’s unwanted.  Freedom, when it’s just another word for nothing left to lose, means despair.

I cannot comprehend freedom in this way because it is so alien to me, so tragically wrong on so many levels.  Freedom, to me, is much more that thing that William Wallace fought and died for: he died a free man, never the subject of a tyrannical English monarch.  Freedom isn’t despair and hopelessness; it’s strength and hope.  Freedom is the rich soil in which a people blossom.  Being free doesn’t mean you have nothing left to lose; it means you have everything to fight for, to nurture, to cherish.

I think, though, that in many ways, the very idea of freedom is frightening to lefties.  Not just to the hippies of the ’60s but also to today’s new batch of freedom-haters.  The idea of being free and of the social and familial responsibility that comes with it is just too much for them; it’s so terrifying that they’d rather be beholden to a state that will take care of them from cradle to grave, that will tell them what to think, say, and do, and that will–they hope–ensure they never know the despair of having nothing left to lose. The Gimme! crowd needs the government to hand them their living, their food, their shelter, their education, their everything. They need it so much that they willingly trade their freedom for tyranny.

They equate freedom with loss, with loneliness, with despair, so they’re happy to trade it away.  This faulty equation is also why they whine so often that conservatives are “selfish” and too “individualistic.”  They are simply incapable of imagining–not in their wildest dreams–that freedom for us means selflessness and community.  Oh, and not those fake “communities” they slap a label on and forget until it’s time to vote or time to stir up some social tension on demand.  American freedom has always been the freak, but it’s also always been deeply rooted in family, faith, and community.  Without those things, it wouldn’t work, it couldn’t work.  And to their minds, they are simply saving America from a feeding frenzy in which everyone is out only for themselves, where freedom means get what you can, while you can, because, after all, you have nothing to lose.

Of course, freedom to us means something completely different than the sort of violent, free-for-all criminal state they envision.  I think their misconception is rooted largely in leftists’ unparalleled ability to project their own thoughts, fears, plans, actions onto others.  The left is essentially violent, they believe that laws should only be obeyed or applied as they see fit–ironically, enough, often as individuals, they are the ones who riot in the streets, break windows, poop on and turn over cop cars.  Of course they assume that everyone would act like them given enough of that scary scary freedom.

They cannot comprehend a good people, a decent people who will do the right thing (at least more often than not), who can and have functioned perfectly lawfully to build their neighborhoods and communities, and who can and have done so without mountains of laws and regulations.  Leftists’ profound fear of freedom is what motivates them to limit Second Amendment rights, to limit our free expression of religion, and to limit every modicum of freedom we still have.  Freedom to have guns?!  That can’t be!  Freedom of (not from) religion?!  The horror! That freedom can only mean those right wing nuts have nothing left to lose, after all, and they’ll go on some shooting spree or force the country into a Judeo-Christian theocracy.  You know, or something.

If the state can supplant God and guns, get those bitter clingers to cling to something else (i.e. the state), then they believe they will have their utopia where that scary, desolate, horrific freedom is kept in check.  This is why they are so confused when we don’t “vote for our best interests”–to them, everyone’s best interest is in ensuring that the state has total control over the people, that the state, like a comforting nanny, will keep the terrors of freedom under the bed and shine the dim bulb of tyranny into every corner to ensure that freedom isn’t spawning out of range of the omnipresent eye of the state.

Freedom for us means something much more profound.  Freedom isn’t the despair of or after losing everything, it is the loss of freedom that causes despair.  Freedom doesn’t mean there’s nothing left to lose, for without freedom, we have nothing.

Pre-SOTU Ponderings

Tonight the big 0 will be delivering yet another State of the Union address.  Sigh.  When at all possible, I avoid listening to this man.  He’s a despicable, horrible, tiny little person in whom I vest no admiration and for whom I have even less respect.  Despite this, I do have a morbid curiosity about what he’ll say this year.  This curiosity is rooted in the strange and troubling transformation he’s undergone since his reelection; the real him is becoming more and more clear to everyone but his most die-hard salivating Obots.  And it’s not pretty.

Besides, I’ve posted on each of his previous SOTU’s (he didn’t deliver one in ’09):

2010: POS BO’s SOTU: WTH?

2011: The SOTU In A Nutshell

2012: BO’s Subterfuge of the Union Address

What do I expect from tonight?  I’m not entirely sure because I’m not sure how much of his hand he’s confident enough to reveal, but based on his inauguration speech, I do expect it to be even more transparently leftist than any previous such speech.  And I expect it to be loaded with buzz words that are designed to unruffle the feathers of center-right Americans.

He loves to toss out things that sound like he “gets” America but that actually have nothing to do with true American sentiment or our foundational beliefs.  So he’ll talk about guns as if they are only for sport hunting or shooting skeet in mom jeans, saying things like hunting is an American tradition or some such nonsense.  And he’ll talk about rugged individualism . . . in the context of the “federal family” he seeks to impose (it’s very like Hilary’s “village,” by the way, as you’d expect from a collectivist loon).  He’ll talk about “who we are as a people,” and most of us won’t have any idea what he’s talking about because he not only has no idea who we, the people, are, but he doesn’t even understand that he doesn’t understand.

His speech will cover a laundry list of things that are anathema to the majority of American people:

Amnesty, gay marriage, forcing religious institutions and individuals to act against their conscience, global warming (or climate change, whatever the newest catch phrase is for this hoax), raising taxes, fair shares, infrastructure, teachers, guns, and our individual responsibility . . . to the government (i.e. 0 himself) and to a lesser degree to the collective.

Things he won’t mention:

His kill list, his drone attacks on American citizens, Benghazi and our raped and murdered ambassador, the fact that there has not been a federal budget during his entire presidency, the fact that war deaths have sharply increased under his “leadership,” the amassing of ammo by his administration, the numerous unConstitutional executive orders he’s signed and intends to sign, drone activity in the U. S., the fraud that it took to “win” the election, the fact that death panels are indeed a prominent feature of “cost-savings” in the 0CareTax, or the fact that Gitmo is still open and that he not only extended President Bush’s warrantless wiretaps but added to their scope and intrusiveness.

Things he may mention but shouldn’t:  his new healthy housing initiative whereby the federal government imposes requirements on homeowners to meet as yet unclear “healthy” standards (this is in compliance with, added to, and/or justified by the 0CareTax monstrosity), his nuclear disarmament plans (whereby the only country who currently has nukes and won’t in the near future is the United States; all other countries, of course, will keep theirs), the fiscal benefits of the 0CareTax (there are none, so far it’s a complete failure in every way–“not one dime” was a lie; “illegal immigrants won’t be covered” was a lie; “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it” was a lie; “abortion won’t be covered” was a lie; and on and on) except that it does seem it will fulfill its goal of shutting down private health insurers), and his “cyber-security” plans (i.e. a kill switch).

But who knows, maybe he’ll surprise us all and actually tell us the real state of the union:  we’re broke, divided, pissed off (on both sides of the aisle), and teetering on the brink of at least two (more) wars.  Three if you count the civil war he seems intent on creating.  Naw, he’s not got an honest bone in his body.  Add that to the fact that he’s a coward, and we can expect more happy BS that sounds right but isn’t.


Femisogynists Wage the Real War on Women

I was half-watching some installment of the Twilight saga the other night, and turned my full attention to the screen when gorgeous Edward sweetly proposes to stunningly beautiful Bella in an idyllic field.  (Yes, I’m a softie romantic underneath it all.)  So Bella responds to Edward’s proposal in the language of our times:  marriage is meaningless, “it’s just a piece of paper.”  Groan.  Edward says something to which Bella replies, “do you know the divorce rate?” and tosses out some percentage of failed marriages (maybe 1 in 3?). To which Edward should have replied, “well, gee, Bella, no wonder marriages fail if everyone believes as you do that marriage is just ‘a piece of paper’.”   He didn’t, he said something amusing about the vampire-human divorce rate being lower, but the fact remains: if you diminish what many see as a sacrament, what we as a culture once believed to be inviolate regardless of our religious leanings, then doesn’t it stand to reason that that “piece of paper” can be wadded up and tossed aside like so much . . . paper?

Such circular reasoning is typical of leftists when they are busily chipping away at our socio-cultural foundations in their relentless quest to debase and destroy all that is good and moral and just.  Marriage is “just a piece of paper,” but if you oppose the religious “marriage” of gays, you are full of hate.  Don’t bother pointing out that the left’s mission for decades has been the destruction of the American family, including but not limited to marriage.  Don’t bother pointing out that by their own devices marriage is now penalized in tax codes, including but not limited to proposed taxes by 0 (his $200k for individuals, $250k for married couples is a clear disincentive to marry).  Don’t bother pointing out that many of the very leftists who actively, vocally, shrilly support gay “marriage” have opted not to marry themselves (Susan Sarandon comes immediately to mind, but there are so many others).  And don’t bother pointing out that marriage before God is indeed a religious sacrament, that forcing churches to marry gay people is a direct violation of their religious liberty.  Or that marriages viewed by their participants as sacraments are the ones that tend to last, that tend not to end in divorce after three months (marriage for so many on the left–and yes, even among conservatives because it’s such a prevalent view in our society–is really just a ramped-up form of “going steady,” just like abortion-on-demand is a ramped-up form of birth control . . . morals be damned).  And don’t bother pointing out that civil unions are completely acceptable to many conservatives (myself included), as long as religion is kept out of it.  Equal rights for gay couples can be obtained without trampling on religious freedom, but that’s not what they really want.

The same can be said for their idea of “women’s rights” and “women’s health.”  Leftists repeatedly equate women with only and solely their sexual and reproductive organs.  It’s no wonder that the image of Code Pink dressed up as human-sized, walking labia has become the visual for “women’s rights” and “women’s health.”  Women’s rights and women’s health mean birth control.  And abortion on demand.  Period.  But it doesn’t stop there, these things are already legal, readily-available in our society.  Oh no, now they want everyone else to pay for their birth control, including their abortions-on-demand (which they see as birth control).  If you, as a taxpayer and/or as a Christian (now, but the mandate WILL be extended to Jews, to Muslims, to all religions who oppose abortion and birth control, make no mistake about that, if you), don’t think it’s your or your government’s responsibility to pay with your tax dollars for someone else’s choices, well!  You’re against women, heck, you’re engaged in a full-blown “war on women.”  That’s right, you may not oppose abortion, you may not oppose birth control, you may even use it yourself, but if you don’t demand that the taxpayer pay for everyone’s pills, condoms, and late-term abortions, you’re just a despicable hater who wants to drag “women’s rights” back to the stone ages.

Or something.

Marriage is just a piece of paper, babies are just clumps of cells.  Women’s rights are limited to taxpayer-funded birth control and abortions or to government dependency ala Julia.  Women aren’t smart enough or interested enough in anything but their vaginas or what they can get from a life of government dependency; women are not independent or capable, they are “not really concerned about what’s happened in the past four years.”  That from 0’s top spokesperson.


They say things like this, they believe, things like this.  Women don’t care that we are, for the first time ever, running an annual deficit of $1 trillion; that we haven’t had a budget in three years; that we are $16 trillion in debt (and counting); that unemployment numbers are beating those of the Great Depression; that the price of everything is skyrocketing while the dollar is continually devalued by the Fed; that the entire world has been made unstable and is on the brink of global, catastrophic war; that the government, actually the president, now has the unilateral power to kill American citizens; that there are more people collecting food stamps and welfare than at any time in our nation’s history; that 0 went to war in Libya without Congressional approval (Bush did not ever go to war without Congressional approval, of course, and this precedent will matter in future, something the left never seems to think about); that we have suffered two economic rating downgrades under 0, the only two in our nation’s history!; or that this president has repeatedly said and shown that he has little to no regard for this nation or her people.  But no, according to leftists, none of this matters one whit to women.  They truly see women as uninterested in anything that doesn’t directly relate to their sexual activities.  Funny how woman on the left don’t notice that, aren’t insulted and/or outraged by that.

But then, they are femisogynists who long ago gave up any pretense of caring about women as women.  We are now political pawns, useful idiot composite billboards for government dependency, walking hot pink labia who will reflexively vote (D) . . . just because.


Not Hypocrisy: Inequality is the Very Foundation of a Fundamentally-Transformed America

Joel Engel writing for Legal Insurrection has penned an interesting post about Obama’s apparent double-standard when it comes to freedom of speech. From his post “Barack Obama Cannot Be Serious“:

If Barack Obama consciously intended to demonstrate his contempt for this constitutional republic and its citizens—and who knows, maybe he does—he couldn’t do it any more dramatically than tomorrow night’s event.

Think about it.  Just a few days after trying to deprive a man no one had ever heard of from enjoying his free-speech rights because some foreigners claim they were offended, the President of the United States flies off to party with another man who’s earned a pasha’s fortune exercising his own free-speech rights with language that offends many more Americans than not.

Here’s my comment on that post:

Like all leftists, Obama thinks that there is “good” speech (i.e. approved) and “bad” speech (i.e. not approved). The list of things that fall under “bad” speech is far longer than that approved but can be surmised by this administration’s characterization of “terrorists” as Americans who hold conservative values. This was first detailed in the spring of ’09 with a DHS memo that was sent to the nation’s police departments. It has since been codified by other executive branch agencies, including but not limited to the FBI, ATF, and TSA.

There is nothing really contradictory here or hypocritical. This is how totalitarianism/tyranny/communism (pick your poison) works: there are literally two separate standards. One for the “friends” of the dictator, one for his “enemies.” We keep being outraged and whinging about apparent contradictions, but there simply are none. Remember when we dems were complaining about the deadlock in Congress, and we pointed out that it’s a feature not a flaw of the Constitution? [note: I fixed a typo. Obviously not “we dems”; while writing, I switched the order of the clauses and didn’t edit carefully enough]  Think of this sort of apparent contradiction as the same thing: it’s how their worldview is constructed. To them, it’s perfectly acceptable, indeed desirable, to claim to support free speech and religious freedom while actively working against it . . . for certain people (i.e. “enemies of the state”: Christians, Jews, conservatives, et al).

Every tyrant has his enemies, and those enemies are always treated to a separate “justice” than his friends. We need to understand this because it’s important. They aren’t thinking as Americans who are bound by and proud of a Constitution that establishes liberty and justice for all. They don’t believe in equal justice, and they don’t believe in individual liberty, so the moral relativism we often engage in (I do it, too) just doesn’t apply.

I wanted to expand on this because I do think it incredibly important, particularly in light of what is going on now in the Middle East.

Conservatives often and quite naturally (and accurately, for that matter) point to the flawed moral relativism of both leftists and Ron Paul libertarians when it comes to Islamofascists and terrorism.  Yet we often forget (again, I include myself here; much of this blog is dedicated to pointing out the “hypocrisies” of the 0 administration) that the 0 “Democrats” are not democrats at all, they are Marxists and as such reject not only our free market economy (well, it’s not now, I guess, but it’s what we want to restore) but also anything that resembles individual freedom, be that freedom of speech or freedom of religion.  Remember, there is no greater enemy of Marxism than God; God means freedom, a power higher than government, real hope, real strength in a people.  Marxism cannot work, of course, but it certainly can’t work on a free, hopeful people who depend on God and not government especially if they are free to express their divergent opinions (divergent opinions are labeled “sedition” and “treason.”).  Leftists revere Mao and Che, they denounce American values and our Constitution; they hate everything we love and love everything we recognize as evil.

While it’s important to point out the vast chasm between what they say and what they do, how they unfairly apply their “justice” and “values,” it’s even more important that we not imagine it will make any difference to them.  They intend, and are fully aware that they intend, to make inequality, censorship, tyranny the order of the day, of the world.  The people we need to show this to are those Americans who’ve not yet awakened, and we cannot show them the true horror of what leftists have in store for America if we merely point to apparent “hypocrisy.”  We must also point out that it’s not actually hypocrisy at all, that unequal justice and unequal application of laws and socio-cultural norms is a part of their plan.  Their entire agenda is build on what we think of as a double standard.  It doesn’t make sense to us because we believe in equal justice, in equal opportunity, in . . . well, equality.

They do not.

We kind of know this; we point it out often enough when we express our outrage at leftist attacks on conservative radio, on Fox News, on conservative bloggers.  We point it out when we express our shock when leftists attack black and female and Latino conservatives while purporting to support and defend women and minorities.  We point it out when leftists suggest censoring conservative speech and disallowing conservative businesses.  We point it out when the administration sends out the IRS or the NLRB or the FCC or the EPA to attack conservative businesses and business owners while ignoring similar or identical offenses from leftists.  We point it out when conservatives are singled-out for legal retribution while leftists committing the same crime are either ignored or heralded.  We point this out in the treatment of the TEA Party versus that of the Occudregs.

What we haven’t managed, yet, to do is to fully grasp that this is not hypocrisy, it’s not intellectually dishonest . . . it’s reflective of their worldview: a homogenous worldview in which everyone must comply with their agenda or be damned as the “enemy,” with the full power of the state brought to bear on them.  Remember, these are people who are proud to say they are “intolerant of intolerance” and that they “hate hate.”  It’s not the intolerance or the hate they dislike, they positively revel in and celebrate their own brand of intolerance and/or hate.

Their America is a place where there is an established, intended under-class, a set group of people who are singled out for attack, regulation, injustice, suppression, and oppression.  It’s a built-in, baked-in, part of the system they seek to establish.  In their vision for a fundamentally-transformed America, there are supposed to be oppressed, silenced people; there are supposed to be people who are beneath contempt and for whom special and separate laws must be made to ensure that oppression and silence; there are supposed to be people for whom established and future law simply does not apply.

Once we grasp that quite simple fact, we may be in a better position to combat leftism for what it is, for the evil it truly seeks to inflict on this nation and her people.