Higher Education in America: An Obot Snapshot

I’m reading the sophomoric tripe that leftists are shilling lately, and I can’t help but wonder if they have any self-awareness, any clue at all about how immature and intellectually-barren they sound.  Did you see the snort- and cringe-worthy Why Obama’s the bestest president of all bestest presidents EVAH column written by an Ed.D.?  In itself it’s a depressing commentary on the state of higher education in this country; it’s also a sad and terrifying look into the Koolaid-addled brain of a typical higher ed Obot.

Here goes my response to this intellectually-challenged, eternally-juvenile doctorate’s 12 reasons Obama is the biggest, bestest, most historicalist president in the history of history’s greatest, bestest presidents!:

1. He is for The People. Say what you will about Barack Obama, but unlike the many presidents who preceded him, he cares about what is best for the greater good. He truly does represent The People. His actions have always been motivated by a sincere desire to do what is best for the majority, even if it meant losing ground with the wealthy, influential or powerful minority.

It is intellectually, spiritually, economically, emotionally, and in every other way impossible to be both for the people and for The Greater Good.  The Greater Good always subverts the rights and liberty of the people; indeed, that’s the very premise by which it exists and by which it justifies perpetrating untold horrors on the people.  In every commie, totalitarian scheme throughout history a few million people have had to die . . . for The Greater Good.  And even so, The Greater Good is never met, these regimes always fail.

As to that last part, just look at the list of wealthy, influential, and powerful people, groups, companies, and unions exempted from the ObamaCareTax fiasco.  Rebuttal complete.

2.  He is for civil rights. He has consistently spoken on behalf of the disenfranchised, the underdog and the most controversial members of society -despite the fact that it was politically unpopular to do so at the time. His outspoken support of gay marriage is an excellent example. Gay marriage is, and has always been, a legal and civil rights issue -not a moral one as conservatives would have you believe. Obama’s open support of gay marriage speaks to his core values and his inherent belief that there truly should be justice for all.

Actually, the “underdogs” are the people most harmed by every single one of Obama’s domestic policies.  It’s not an accident that welfare, food stamp, disability, unemployment claims, and every other form of government handouts have exploded under Obama, and it’s no accident that unemployment among America’s minority population has risen to all-time highs.  It’s also no accident that the income gap between the rich and poor has risen exponentially under Obama‘s reign.

As to Obama’s “evolving” view on gay marriage, he’s not always been outspoken about it; indeed, he’s spent a lot of time supporting traditional marriage.  Obama’s idea of “justice for all” is distinctly racist, as evidenced by his DOJ‘s refusal to prosecute the New Black Panthers while going after states for requiring proof of citizenship to vote.

3. He is for one race -the human race. In just a few short years, Obama’s professional achievements and continued demonstration of equality and integrity have done wonders for race relations. America has never been more unified as a people than it has been under the direct leadership of Barack Obama. Finally, the racial lines that have divided blacks and whites for decades seem to be narrowing.

This one made me laugh out loud.  Literally.  There are, demonstrably, hundreds of examples of Obama throwing gasoline on increasingly tense race relations in this country, and it would take hours to find and link them all, so I’ll just include three instances of Obama inciting racial disharmony: “the police acted stupidly,” “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” and his campaign accusing Bill Clinton of being a “racist” (this latter set the tone for the media, Hollywood, and random leftists screeching “RAAAAACIST” any time anyone disagrees with Obama’s policies.).

4.  He is for a healthcare system that brings hope and healing to the hurting. Obama’s healthcare plan has allowed uninsured Americans to reap the benefits of a universal healthcare system. A suffering child should never be turned away because his or her mother doesn’t have health insurance. To deny medical assistance to people who desperately need it is barbaric. Obama’s health care plan has placed America among the world’s greatest superpowers who demonstrate care and compassion toward its constituents with healthcare that serves all.

No. He’s not. The ObamaCareTax catastrophe has nothing to do with hope or healing.  Or “the hurting.”  It has everything to do with amassing control and power in the executive branch.  It doesn’t “serve all” (and therefore is not “universal”), and it never will (be); it was never intended to do or be so. Indeed, according to the CBO, 30 million people will not have coverage after 0Care is fully implemented.  Yes, that’s roughly the same number of people that the law–billions of dollars ago–was supposed to help.

No “suffering child” was ever “turned away” under the “old” system; emergency rooms turning away a patient because of inability to pay is illegal and was well before the 0Care nightmare.

5. He is for the middle class. Here are just a few of the comments made by President Barack Obama in recent months: “Rebuilding our economy starts with strengthening the middle class. Extending tax breaks on 98 percent of families now would give hardworking Americans the security and confidence they need.” In July 2012, during a visit to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he said, “The vision of a strong middle class is what we’re fighting for. What we need is somebody who’s going to fight every single day to grow the middle class because that’s how our economy grows, from the middle out, from the bottom up, where everybody has got a shot. That’s how the economy grows.” Enough said.

Perhaps the most deluded point here (if not the most hilarious).  The middle class has been eroding for a couple or three decades in all fairness to Obama, but that’s been ratcheted up under his “rule”, with more and more people out of work, forced into part-time work (largely by 0Care but also by a stagnant economy that Obama’s done nothing substantive or meaningful to turn around), and heavily taxed in new and exciting areas (despite Obama’s pledge not to increase taxes on anyone making more than $250k per year).

6. He is for women’s rights. Obama’s very first executive action as President was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill specifically designed to annihilate wage discrimination barriers for women. He also fully funded the Violence Against Women Act, which addresses the criminality of sexual assault and domestic violence and provides women with the services needed to overcome such atrocities. President Obama nominated two women to the Supreme Court, including the first Latina justice in American history. Furthermore, Obama has taken exceptional measures to secure grant money for women business owners and get them a fair shake from the Small Business Association.

Another completely deluded argument . . . unless you believe that women are nothing more than reproductive and sexual vessels.  If that’s your argument, you win!  Obama does indeed stand for women having early and often abortions (as birth control, no less) and access to “free” birth control pills and “morning after” abortion drugs.  He’s also a big proponent of late term abortions and the denial of medical care to a baby who survives the “abortion” process.  So yeah, if infanticide is your thing, Obama’s your guy.

And if paying 13% less to women is your idea of gender equality . . . chalk up another win!

Oh, and woohoo! The Obama regime will hand out money to Julias who are dependent not on a man but on her Big Brother-, father-, or husband-government.  What a win for women!

7.  He is for doing away with pomp and circumstance. Let’s be real -Obama is one cool cat. As the 44th president of the United States, he has changed the face of the Oval Office forever. Many suggest Obama’s casual demeanor and informal interaction with the American people is inappropriate, and even downright offensive. Millions of people, however -me included -perceive his relaxed deportment, humorous candor and outright honesty as a breath of fresh air. In spite of the fact that he is a politician, and the president, there is something about him that makes him real and relatable. Even though he is the most powerful man in the world, he is, at heart, just a man. In almost four years under perhaps the most intense public scrutiny ever placed upon an American president, he has never lost sight of the fact that he bleeds red, just like everyone else.

Ignoring, as we really must, the “cool cat” weirdness here; how can anyone claim that Obama does away with “pomp and circumstance”?  When he and his wife (and dog) aren’t taking separate planes to the same destination (within hours of each other, no less) or hosting lavish parties on our dime, they are reveling in excesses that defy logic during this time when Americans are hurting economically.

I, for one, am not at all impressed with Obama’s fake accents and bizarre-sounding attempts to pretend he’s . . . whomever his current audience wants to meet (to be fair, I also hate this when Hillary Clinton does it.).

As to his “deportment,” he’s an absolute embarrassment.  I will say that his rare moments of candor (“you didn’t build that,” and “it’s good for everybody when you spread the wealth around“) are noteworthy, but absolutely not so because they make him more “relatable” (I can’t even begin to express my deep loathing for that “word”).

“Outright honesty”? Really? About what?  That we can keep our plan and our doctor?  That our health care costs will decrease by $2,500 per year?  That 0Care won’t add “one dime” to the deficit?  That 0Care wouldn’t cover elective abortions?  That the Benghazi attack that resulted in the rape and torture of an American ambassador and the deaths of three other Americans was due to a video?  That he doesn’t know anything about anything until he sees it on the news or reads about it in the paper?

8. He is for the environment. President Barack Obama has taken a forward thinking approach to creating a red, white, blue and green America. His policies and initiatives for a clean energy economy have had an incredible impact on the future of the nation. For instance, the U.S. reduced oil imports by more than 10 percent from 2010 – 2011. That’s more than 1 million barrels a day. The Administration continues to seek ways to reduce America’s dependence on oil, promote efficient energy and invest in clean energy practices. Read more about Obama’s environmental strategies here.

Obama could give a rat’s patootie about the environment (note above on his and Mooch taking separate planes within hours of one another); he cares about control.  He cares about bankrupting the coal industry and sending electricity and gas prices “skyrocketing.”  And he cares about this not because he believes in the AGW hoax but because he’s a Marxist ideologue who truly believes that America is evil, that it oppresses other countries just by being, and that we should spread our wealth around (not only in-country, but around the world).

As to the bizarre and erroneous claims that Obama has done anything at all to lessen our reliance on foreign oil . . . that has happened not because of his policies (which seek only to limit oil, coal, and natural gas production in America) but despite them.

9.  He is for veterans. Obama has consistently promoted the allocation of funds, increased benefits, job opportunities and extended resources for our nation’s veterans. Although Obama never served in the U.S. Armed Forces, he has always been a responsible and thoughtful commander-in-chief. Unlike his predecessor -G.W. Bush -he has always been conscious of the fact that troops serving in combat zones are sons, daughters, mothers and fathers. He has never lost sight of the commitment, dedication and sacrifice made by the brave men and women who volunteer for military service and he has been adamant about rewarding them accordingly.

Where to start on this one?  His treatment of the Fort Hood terror attack survivors?  His shutting down open-air war memorials out of spite? His first response to any government cuts is to target the military?  His requiring a Marine to violate regulations in order to hold an umbrella for Dictator Won?  His crotch-salute of the American flag?  His requiring that all military personnel be disarmed in his presence?  His repeated insistence that the United States military is “his” and that they “fights on [his] behalf“? His regime’s attacks on Christians and conservatives in the military?  His dismissal of hundreds of generals and other high-ranking military officers whom he deems too patriotic?

10.  He is for peace. Let us never forget that Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 -one of the greatest accomplishments any man or woman could hope to achieve in a lifetime. The award reads, “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” During his presidency, Obama successfully ended the war in Iraq and is close to finally putting an end to the conflict in Afghanistan and bring our troops home for good. Speaking of Afghanistan, remember public enemy number one, the King of Terror? It was under Obama’s order that Osama Bin Laden was annihilated and put out of the warmongering business for good.

Obama’s “for peace”? Really?  That must explain why he unilaterally and unConstitutionally took us to war in Libya and why he was chomping at the bit to march us off to war in Syria (on the side of al Qaeda, nonetheless!).  That would also explain his alienation of our allies and his rush to destroy our own nuclear arsenal as he encourages Iran to build one of their own and ignores Russia’s lack of stupidity in refusing to destroy their own nukes.

Yeah, a weakened America, a strengthened Iran, Russia, and China, and roiling unrest throughout the Middle East . . . a sure recipe for peace.

11.  He is for education. Obama has always been an advocate for education, making it a top priority during his administration. Believing education is what brings about the strength of a nation, Obama has set a goal for the U.S. to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. He has increased federal funding and doubled the amount of grant money allocated to students seeking a higher education to cover rising tuition costs. During his presidency, Obama also passed the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African-Americans and the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics to ensure equal education for people of color.

He’s “for education” if by that one means indoctrinating our nation’s youth in his cult of personality and refusing to allow the teaching of American history and civics, then sure, he’s all for educating America’s children in the finer points of anal and oral sexual intercourse, leftist protesting, and that Obama is an actual messiah.

As to the goal of producing the highest number of college graduates in the world, that’s going to be easy because colleges are giving out A’s like candy, being bullied and shamed into lowering standards, and basically making a college degree a joke (the author of this “12 reasons” article is a prime example of the type of student who would not have made it past the first semester of freshman year even three decades ago . . but now not only holds a doctorate in education but actually serves as chair of his department!).  This all breaks my heart because I believe in higher education, or at least in the long-lost theory of it.

12.  He is for entertaining the masses. If we have to listen to a president yakitty-yak about this or that for another four years, we might as well pick one with charisma and charm. If you can’t find anything else appealing about Obama, you can’t deny the fact that the guy is an amazing speaker with wit, fantastic comedic timing and an incredible intellect. In fact, I will go so far as to say that when the man does finally retire from politics, he has a rewarding and lucrative job as a stand up comic awaiting him if he so chooses. When’s the last time you heard a president joke about drinking beer, belt out Al Green with poise and precision at a moment’s notice and admit to watching the Kardashians?

Holy crap!  Can’t you just see this written out, painstakingly, in crayons?  We want a president who can “entertain the masses”?  Whose most promising post-presidential career is that of opening act for Carrot Top?  Really?

I have no words.

The Real Problem With Regressives: They Live In A Fantasy Future

The most marvelous Daniel Greenfield has written (yet another) stellar piece, The Destruction of Contradiction.  He writes (in part, but do read the rest):

People, countries and ideas are destroyed through their inability to resolve their contradictions. The left gained a foothold in America by exploiting the country’s contradiction between its insistence on moral superiority and the actual way that the sausage got made. The left did not resolve this contradiction, instead it pretended that it had transcended the contradiction because when it made the sausage and broke the omelets, it was doing it for the greater good.

Under the old system, human misery was caused by the pragmatic problems of reality. Under the new system, it was caused by the idealistic necessities of the greater good.

For example, before ObamaCare someone who couldn’t get health insurance was suffering for pragmatic reasons. With the advent of ObamaCare, someone losing their doctors and getting stuck with insurance they couldn’t afford was suffering for the idealism of the greater good.

The contradiction between the aspirations of the ideal and the brutal necessities of the real were not resolved. Instead the left made the suffering of individuals and groups irrelevant.

Read that last part again.  It’s key to understanding the seeming heartlessness we perceive in the regressive, statist, and collectivist (i.e. totalitarian) policies of the radical left where “motive” (i.e. intent) matters more than outcome, where the “ends justify the means.”  We see this clearly in decades of failed leftist policies purportedly designed to help the poor; despite hard evidence that poverty is increasing and the middle class shrinking, the left clings to the welfare state not because it works but because they think it should work.  When you ignore reality (in this case measurable poverty for real people) in favor of unrealistic idealistic dreams of outcomes, you end up with Detroit, not a shining city on a hill.

And leftists do this all the time, on every issue.  In their drive for equality, they ignore the fact that everyone is not the same and that “equality” doesn’t and shouldn’t mean “sameness.”  Instead of allowing for this in their blueprint for the perfection of the human race, they plow ahead, lowering the bar for all in every arena they touch, be that education, law enforcement, or the military.

For example, the purportedly “equality-based” push for women to hold combat positions in the United States military sounds great, right?  Women can do anything a man can do as well as any man can do it.  Except we can’t.  Likewise, men can’t do everything we can do as well as we can do it.  That’s the way it is, that’s reality.  Leftists have no time or patience for facts or reality; they think they can bend both to their will.  So instead of carving out roles in the military that foreground women’s abilities and strengths, that take advantage of our superiority in some areas (face it, women are damned good shots, make excellent pilots, are great at strategy, make great diplomats (as long as they aren’t pretending to be men when they do it), etc.), leftists instead insist on their faulty “equality means everyone is the same as” rubric.  As one female Marine and Iraq veteran notes, “the best woman is still no match for the best man” in combat situations.  That’s just fact.  Indeed, leftists have conceded this very point by lowering physical training standards for women.  That’s not okay, and it’s a clear and obvious threat to our national security, but that doesn’t matter to the radical left.  Only that distant (and impossible) future matters.

Everyone should be the “same,” they think, and if they aren’t, we’ll just change “sameness” . . . and, while we’re at it, we’ll also punish people who’ve been “privileged” (be this because they are born white and male–a shameful thing to regressives–or because they are young and/or healthy).  It’s madness.  They don’t want to redistribute only wealth; they want to redistribute race, heritage, heredity, genetics, values, and a host of other things they have no power or control over.  It doesn’t work, can’t work, but they plow “forward!” working on the principle that destruction and misery are just the temporary but necessary steps toward some sort of fantastical Utopia that they envision as some sort of heaven on earth with our government overlords acting as our beneficent and loving council of gods raining manna down on the unwashed masses from their Olympian perches.

Breaking eggs is just part of the process.  Yes, Obama and his hordes, including House and Senate Dems (and Republicans), knew that millions upon millions would lose not only their health insurance plans but also their doctors.  They knew that Sarah Palin was right about death panels.  They also knew that millions upon millions would lose their jobs or have their hours drastically reduced.  This is built into 0Care.  Logic dictates that you don’t screw up a health insurance system that covered 253.4 million people to accommodate 35-50 million (depending on the estimates) people.  Logic dictates that if you have a government panel meting out treatments, you have not only rationing of care but a handful of people in DC deciding who lives and who dies.  Logic dictates that when you reduce the work week from 40 to 30 hours and make it financially onerous for employers to comply with the 0Care mandates, millions upon millions of people will lose their jobs and/or their health insurance.  But we’re not talking about logic.  Or results, at least not immediate results.  We’re talking about that drive toward a perfected human race living in Utopian harmony in the new Garden of Eden.  And yeah, shrugs the regressive, radical leftist, a bunch of people will suffer, even die.  That can’t be helped because some distant, fantasy future is the end goal (and yes, they actually do believe it’s achievable, but they also know that the only people living the new American dream will be the tiny segment of the population who do not live in abject poverty.  They are okay with that.).

So back to Daniel’s point that the suffering of individuals and even large groups does not matter to the self-proclaimed most “compassionate” of all people.  You see this when they attack cancer victims for complaining about losing the health insurance they like, for losing the long-term doctors they trust.  You see this when they dismiss more than 5 million people losing their health insurance as a “small percentage” of the “market.”  We’re not a “market,” we’re actual people, and the inability to grasp that in the here and now is what really distinguishes regressives.  They aren’t interested in the here and now.  They are only interested in that magical future they march in blinkered lockstep toward.

This is why they are totally comfortable trampling the rights of individuals and groups in the present.  It’s all for “The Greater Good” and that distant future they envision.  So a few thousand or even hundred thousand cancer victims die today . . . well, they were really just a drain on society anyway, right?  They can’t contribute to the brave, new world.

Remember when the Occupiers were calling for the overthrow of the government, a return to “nature”?  And remember how they dismissed the fact that millions of people can’t (physically or mentally) live the lifestyle they want?  One interviewee (I think it was in a Breitbart piece, but extra points to anyone who can find it) actually evoked Darwin in stating, with a dismissive shrug, that though it’s “mean” to say, some people have to die to fulfill the leftist mission.  Incredible.  Or not really at all incredible when you understand that the radicals running America into the ground have no compassion for anyone living in the present, their entire purpose is focused on an unrealistic, unachievable future replete with rainbows, sunny skies, and Skittles-pooping unicorns.

Stand in their way and prepare to be trampled under a herd of cloven-hoofed unicorns and to have your trampling cheered by the “compassionate” left.

Terms I Put In Scare Quotes . . . And Why

When I was writing my dissertation, my dissertation chair complained (seemingly) endlessly about my use, misuse, and (too often, flagrant) abuse of scare quotes.  As it happens, she was right: dissertations are not really the place for the challenging of accepted ideas with such a simple device–actually, as it turned out, dissertations are not the place to challenge ideas accepted by leftist loons at all (but that’s another story for another day).  However, snapping on some scare quotes is fun for the snarky and, as far as I’m concerned, mandatory for tweeters (particularly snarky tweeters like me).  While I can’t seem to write complete blog posts at the moment (several half-started, half-hearted drafts languish in my Drafts folder), I am rather active on Twitter where expressions must be succinct (140 characters or less) and still make sense.

This is actually a wonderful exercise for me because I tend to be verbose to the point of rambling incoherence.  Okay, maybe not incoherent, but I can rock a simple stance into several pages with little effort.  Scare quotes are my saving grace on Twitter because I can say so much with only two additional characters: “”.  Hard not to love that . . . even as it makes me think of that Friends episode in which Joey tried so hard, and with hilarious results, to understand “sc-air” quotes (when you wave your fingers on both hands in the “quotation” gesture to undermine, question, or otherwise lampoon the word, term, or phrase being “sc-aired”).

“Gun control”–It’s never ever about controlling crime; it’s always about controlling people.  Leftists create gun-free zones and then are shocked (shocked, I say) that lunatics hell-bent on mass casualties “hit” these gun-free zones.  That makes sense how?

“Palestine”–D’oh.

“Marriage” (when used in conjunction with the word “gay”)–there is no such thing as “gay marriage.”  Marriage is what it is, and government plays exactly no role in its definition.  As long-time readers of this blog know, I was not always opposed to “gay marriage”; however, once it became clear that this was not about equality (civil rights–a term that never worked on me in this context) but about undermining religion, I realized just how wrong I was.

“Religion” (when used in conjunction with Islam)–Islam is not and never was “simply”  a religion (woot at the scare quotes).  It is, and always has been, a complete economic, political, religious, and socio-cultural dictate.  And it is, and always has been, a vehicle for barbarism, even evil.

“Compassionate Conservatism”–this one is SO annoying.  It means being a great big big-government leftist in faux-conservative clothing.  And yes, I do mean George W. Bush (his dad was, arguably, even worse because he was responsible for Agenda 21 in America).

“Progressive”–I always mean “regressive” because that’s what they are.  They anchor themselves in a destructive, regressive past that is fantastical (and/or evil: segregation, slavery, prohibition, eugenics, etc.).  For example, in the midst of the Great Depression, lunatic regressive FDR paid farmers NOT to farm.  People are starving, particularly in the South, and the government limits farmers’ crops or flat-out bars them from growing much-needed food.  This is not evil how?  FDR has earned his place among the worst presidents this country has ever had the misfortune of electing, and it’s no accident that the Constitution was amended (22nd Amendment) upon his death (he was barely cold in his grave before Americans ensured that two terms as president was quite enough).

“Conservative”–as expected, when I use scare quotes on this term, I mean establishment GOP (the big government “compassionate” conservatives–the “c” in “compassionate” more aptly stands for “communist”).  When I speak of Rubio, Christie, and/or Ben Carson, I use scare quotes.  These men are not conservatives.  Rubio is a corrupt little toad who used the state campaign credit card for his own personal use (yes, he repaid it, but not until he was caught . . . two years later), who claims that conservatives who oppose his amnesty idiocy are not “true conservatives,” and who refused to join the Senate TEA Party caucus (keeping in mind that he would have lost his race in FL if it weren’t for the TEA Party).  Christie, omg where do I even start?  He’s pro-Islamist (calls anyone who questions anything about Islamfascists “ignorant fools”), pro-big government “solutions,” and pro-Obama on far too many issues for my liking.  As for Carson, I love love loved him because of the prayer breakfast beat-down of 0, but he’s said that he thinks that the Second Amendment should only apply to people in rural areas.  Sorry, he’s lost the plot by too much for my comfort (or support).

“Feminist”–Okay, back to my dissertation director (she was a renowned “women’s and LGBT” scholar.  And, in case you were wondering, that’s worth exactly crap.).  She would get near-hysterical and down-right eye-bulgingly irate if I dared to mention anything that even remotely evoked what she sneeringly called “’80’s feminism.”  This was the so-called third wave of feminism, and as far as she was concerned was too pedestrian and intellectually barren for the would-be progressive academic she was intent in building (i.e. me).

I didn’t get it then.  But I do now.  “Feminism” had to change (to regress) to accommodate the new view that things like burqas and female genital mutilation (and honor killings, etc.) were actually–somehow–suddenly–okie dokey.  That being “tolerant” about these things was somehow more sophisticated, more intellectual.  You know, somehow.

I type that, and I see how insane it is, but these loons who still have the audacity to call themselves “feminists” (all the while actually hating women as women) actually defend such practices on the grounds of “tolerance.”  So feminists who once denounced female genital mutilation (as but one example) now look the other way when stats tell us it’s on the rise right here in America. A few of these faux feminists have even defended the practice.  All of this was anathema to me as an academic, a feminist, an American, and a woman.

So I’m bumbling along in my grad “training” to be a consummate Marxist; this just means that I wrote what was expected:  Marxist crap painted willy-nilly on every thought, word, and deed.  It was so easy, so mindless, that I didn’t even bother with it too much and would slap out a 25-page Marxist lunatic “analysis” in two hours . . . to rave reviews. (Yes, it was really that pathetic.).  It’s hard not to be good at manufacturing/ferreting out “inequality” in even the simplest prose; once you learn the basic premise, you see it everywhere . . . even though it exists exactly nowhere.   It’s like the hypochondriac who reads about the symptoms of a disease and immediately becomes convinced s/he has “it.”

“Mainstream”–let’s face it, “mainstream” actually means the 8-10% of Americans who are Obots (including, of course, the “mainstream” media).  What is actually mainstream is dismissed as “extremist” and lately as the behavior/thoughts of a “potential terrorist.”

“Racism”–One of the great travesties, I think, of leftism is the crazed notion that race is the root of any dissent.  This does nothing to advance debate and serves only, purposefully, to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with 0’s job-killing, middle-class-robbing tactics.

I used to feel insulted when some leftie accused me of racism for the simple act of verbalizing my dissent.   “You just hate him because he’s black,” was the accusation.  Um, well, I hated the same policies under Carter and some (NCLB) under Republican presidents.  Does this mean that I’m a sometimes racist? That I hate all white, Southern men?  It’s nuts; conservatives have nothing to prove here.  We’ve already lost the trenches; we’re evil, hate people, want them to die, blah, blah, blah.  If we don’t have “enough” black republicans, we’re racist.  If we have too many, we’re racist and only pandering.  The truth, of course, is harder for them to grasp.  Conservative values and principles actually empower people; less government intervention is GOOD for people of all races.

As I noted, I’ve actually felt guilty in the past for my views on 0’s destructive, disastrous policies.  He’s killing our economy, and he’s doing it on purpose.  This has zero to do with race and everything to do with policy (I hate what Reid and Pelosi are doing, too. Does that make me a hater of white men or women?  Of course not.).  But for scrambling, fearful leftists, it’s always–always–about race.  Even when it isn’t.  Even when the people don’t think about or care about race.

Fuzzy’s Faux News: ObamaCare Initiatives for the Federal Family

February 21, 2013

Right-wing extremists are in “I told you so” mode in the wake of President Obama’s “healthy housing initiative.”  They claim that they warned that anything related to one’s health would become the target of President Obama’s wonderful Affordable Healthcare Act (what they disparagingly term “ObamaCare,” but what we, in the subjective and wholly-responsible media, deem an edict from our god and reclaim as something wonderful and good).  And now these radical radicals on the radical right claim that the president, our lord and savior, has done exactly what they predicted in “over-stepping his authority” simply because His administration is working night and day to develop new regulations for every American’s home because of the clear and direct link between a citizen’s health and his or her home.  Clearly, these extremists are not only extremely extreme but also ungratefully lacking in grateful gratitude.  We’re shocked here at FFN, shocked, I say!

February 23, 2013

President Obama’s press conference was a delight!  I got to ask my White House-prepared, Valerie Jarrett-approved question. On TV!  Wow.  I’m still a bit giddy from the experience, but here’s what I was told to ask, er, what I asked:

“President Obama, Sir, Lord and Savior, Sir, it’s clear to everyone with a brain that your new healthy housing initiative is a popular and fiscal success.  What, Oh Glorious One, is next in terms of ensuring the full health and safety of the American people, your servants?”

After he deigned to look at the space just over my head and smile in my general direction, the great and glorious President Obama detailed his next health initiative.

The president noted that a six-year-old girl had written to him and told him that her favorite color is purple because it makes her happy.  This, he stated, gave him the idea that happy people are healthy people, so he’s getting the Department of Health and Human Services to begin a new “Paint the Planet Purple” initiative.  He modestly acknowledged that he means only the United States at this time, but that it didn’t start with a “P” and messed up his metaphor.  Some clown from Fox News shouted out that the president probably meant “alliteration,” but he was promptly shot by a passing drone for his unseemly insubordination and challenge to the boss of the United States.  “Such treason will always be dealt with swiftly,” intoned our Dearest of Dear Dearest Leader before he explained his Purple initiative.

Every citizen in the United States will be issued a purple uniform and is encouraged to paint their homes (exterior and interior), cars, out buildings, and any other structures on “their” land purple.  The encouragement consists of the notification to do as the president asks and the choice to not fulfill his fondest wish and be droned.  As always, the great and marvelous president honors free people and allows them to make their own decisions.  It’s humbling, really, to be in the presence of such benevolence.

All citizens will be required to wear their purple uniforms at any time that they are publicly visible.  “Publicly visible” means all the time, thankfully, because our Fantabulous Greatness has drones, cameras, and multiple other classified means of watching every American’s every move.  Isn’t that a comfort!  The Unicorn King has also promised that he will recraft not only the tired old American flag but his very own logo to reflect the new purple, the color of health and fitness.  He noted that his logo, being far superior to the dated American flag, will supplant it.  What a relief!  It’s so much simpler to have one national symbol, don’t you agree?

March 2, 2013

The president is so pleased with his healthy housing and purple initiatives that he called a press conference to announce the next initiative to ensure the health of every American.  President Obama, arriving in his purple ensemble with great fanfare, declared that from this day forward no American would ever again suffer from the myriad health complications associated with fat, sugar, and starch.  Citing a truly long list of health professionals who deem fat, sugar, and starch as the worst offenders in our diet, the things that create the most obesity, diabetes, lethargy, and doldrums, the President announced that all Americans would be receiving prepared meals from the government, that all grocery, convenience, and other stores that sold food stuffs would be abolished immediately.

Meal delivery is dependent on government funding, and as of now, the obstructionists in the Republican Party are refusing to go along with this life-saving plan.  They cite everything from their greedy capitalist belief in the free market (imagine being upset that thousands of factories, farms, stores, means of delivery, etc. would be eliminated!  Can’t they see the big picture? The Greater Good?  Of course not!) to that long-debunked myth about “freedom.”  Freedom?  Really?  Instead of our government working to ensure that we are all equal in every way, healthy beyond our own ability, and just plain happy?  They are truly the most extreme extremists. I’m sure that drones are circling them all as I type this.  If I’m right, then meals should be available to everyone in American within six months.  That, dear reader, is true government efficiency!

The Most High One also proclaimed that every woman would still have complete and total control of her body because abortions would be readily available to all, even if you’re not pregnant.  Or even a woman!  No discrimination in our Greatness’s government.  Americans will always have the choice when it comes to their bodies, assured the president.  As long as that doesn’t include the intake of any government-banned substances like sugar, fat, or starch.  And some other things that don’t even matter because who really wants to wear anything that isn’t a government-issued purple uniform of the people?

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.

Okay, I have to admit that I sort of forgot about this series.  Oops.  But I had been reviewing the Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives, and here’s where we’ve been:

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 5: Conservatives are fascists.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 4: Conservatives are anti-science neanderthals.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 3: Conservatives are anti-government war-mongers.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 2: Conservatives Hate the Poor.

And here’s where we’re going (exactly where you knew we were going):

Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.  No commas, probably should use hyphens, though, as that’s the breathless, said-as-one-word description of us that they have in their tiny little brains.  Wrapped up in this, of course, is the sense that we are drooling idiots who hate everyone who is unlike ourselves, toothless rednecks who shoot “others” on sight, a Bible-thumping God Squad intent on white supremacist isolationism.  And they believe it.  The “nuance” crowd, our supposed intellectual betters, have zero problem painting with broad brush every single conservative (though of course they are loathe to be so-stereotyped themselves).

I’ve thought about this post a lot, knowing it was coming, and have contemplated how I’ll approach it (a Fuzzy Rant seems so obviously in order, ya know?).  I settled on a focus on the mindset behind it rather than debunking (yet again) the idiocy of this belief.  After all, we know that we are not any of those things, with the possible exception of being Islamaphobic (that old “it’s not paranoia if ‘they’ really are out to get you” saw may be applicable here).  But it’s hardly going to be a complete post without at least mentioning the flaws on the face of that assumption, right?

Before I do that, though, I want to take a few moments (paragraphs) to examine leftist “thought.”

If your entire ideology is based on one tiny, ill-conceived, hastily-written (and later retracted) “manifesto,” it’s bound to be simple(-minded).  And if you have a wrong-headed belief that the way to transform something simple into something complex is to add more simple layers to it, then you just mire yourself in shallow thinking, tires spinning in tired mud.  Today’s leftists start with Marx, middle with Marx, and end with Marx.  Oh sure, they take their theoretical paintbrush and splash Marx paint around, but it’s always the same, simple(-minded) blather.

I used to feel so overwhelmed in graduate school, so inadequate, because my commie professors would keep insisting that [fill in the blank]ism was so “complex,” so mind-bogglingly brilliant . . .  and I just couldn’t see it.  I just sat there, nodding, thinking to myself that either they were complete morons . . . or I was.  As a graduate student, I naturally assumed the latter, and tried and tried to find something complex (or even interesting) in Showalter, Foucault,  Said, Derrida, Hegel . . . oh, the list goes on.  But it was all, all of it, at rock bottom, the same damn thing (even deconstruction, supposedly rendering a “text” “meaningless” only does so because the “meaning” is “indeterminate” or non-existent as constituting an all-out attack on . . . yep, [fill in the blank]ism. Besides, if there is no meaning, then we all need the government to step in and create it out of nothingness, right?  Uh huh.).

Being an English major at that (and this) time in our nation’s “intellectual” history was . . . shall we say, agony.  Literature wasn’t literature, every  novel, poem, play was not a novel, poem, or play; it was a “text” that had to be analyzed for oppression and for possible outlets for mass revolt sparked by one or more oppressed group.  This got tricky for the Marxists after a while, so after exhausting the dead-white-males-are-the-devil meme, they had to add to the canon works by Marxists that they claimed were “silenced” by dead, white male writers (who are, after all, the epitome of all that is wrong with the world and should therefore be . . . well, silenced.  But shhh, we don’t think too much about that).  That led to our reading, conveniently, assorted crap by radicals because they had a vagina or were black militants or . . . well, you get the picture.  We stopped reading literature and started reading political treatises disguised as literature.  All the better to dig out those “hidden” messages of oppression when we didn’t have to torture a “text” to locate them.

Every “ism” currently used to indoctrinate students is rooted in Marx (or in something he built on or that was built on his inchoate ramblings, so he becomes the secondary or tertiary conduit, but is still there, anchoring the whole mess or holding it down like some sort of ideological paper weight).  Every. Single. One.  Oh, sure, they add some layer to or under it, but it’s all the same thing: people belong to specialized “identity” groups (this is a fun spin on Marx’s focus on classes—the simple-minded just piled on layers of “oppressed” groups: women, blacks, Latinos/as, gays (then the entire spectrum of LGBT), even the planet), someone is exploiting someone else, and it’s all about money and power, and the only way to “reclaim” that money and/or power is to “revolt.”  The exploited class or gender or sexual orientation or [fill in the blank] is a victim of the exploiter (capitalist, white male, American, homophobes, whatever), and as such is “owed” recompense (or “social justice,” “economic justice,” blah-de-blah “justice”); if that recompense is not offered voluntarily (and of course it won’t be, or it wouldn’t be Marx), then it must be taken.  By any means necessary.  The ends always–always–justify the means.

RAAACIST? Misogynist? Homophobic? Really?!?

Racism, as we know, means hating someone or a group of someones because of their skin color or race.  It means thinking one’s own race superior to another, usually based on the belief that everyone else is inherently inferior because they do not share your same race.  It is narrow-minded, shallow, immoral, and basically evil.  Leftists have decided that conservatives are essentially “white males,” so any conservative, including non-white non-males, are automatically “racist.”  It’s really that simple.  They are really that simple(-minded).

Point out that TEA Party conservatives support minority, gay, and/or women candidates, and they simply declare that the minority, gay, or woman candidate is not “really” (or “authentically”) a minority, gay, or woman.  So, no, “racist” doesn’t mean what we think it means.  Not to leftists.  They can hate “niggers” all day long (and oh, yes, they all–white, black, whatever–use “the ‘N-word” with wild abandon), as long as they are conservative and therefore not authentically black.  They can publish rape fantasies about conservative women and gays, call us all sorts of horrible names, because we aren’t authentically women or gays.  To be “authentic” means to believe what they believe, to embrace victimhood and a sense of entitlement.  If you aren’t railing against every ism, outraged at every perceived slight or “coded” insult, and demanding government handouts, then you are simply not a “real” black person or a “real” woman or a “real” gay person, et al.

It’s so simple-minded, so naive, so childish, so truly wrong-headed that we’ve expended a lot of energy and time to point out leftist “hypocrisy.”  Don’t get me wrong, they are the worst sort of hypocrites, and we should absolutely call them out on it (ala Andrew Breitbart), but we need to do so in such a way that we address not only the hypocrisy but the fast and loose way they have with language and emotion.  Calling someone a racist is hurtful and damaging (well, okay, that particular card has been over-played to the point of invalidating it completely), but we may have to spend some time addressing what racism is and who is actually pushing policies that harm minorities (and gays and women) and who is pushing policies that help everyone.

Conservatives have lately been talking a lot about judging by the content of one’s character.  Leftists, on the other hand, are the ones who think that dark skin and/or a vagina are so debilitating that the government must step in to make up for them.  Darker skinned? Vaginally-afflicted?  Well, worry not, democrats have your impeded, hampered, inferior backs!  Woot!

Islamaphobic? Xenophobic? Seriously?

This one’s tougher in some ways, because I do think that I am indeed “Islamaphobic.” Something about the beheadings, the slaughter, the threats and intimidation, the homicide bombings, 9/11, the insistence that gays, women, and others that Islam considers to be subhuman should be killed in the name of Allah . . . well, go figure.  So yeah, I would have to hand this one to the leftists if it weren’t for the fact that they are also Islamaphobes, much more so and much less intelligently than we are (or than I am, can’t really call you an Islamaphobe, can I?).  They are so terrified of Islam that they seek to appease it; they ignore the treatment of women under Sharia (everything from the stonings, honor killings, sex slavery, lashings, to the second-class citizen status marked by the burkha), of gays (not allowed to live under Sharia. Period.), of all the “protected” classes they claim to defend.  They claim to abhor religious fundamentalism, but that only really means Christianity (and Judaism); they embrace Islamic fundamentalism, protect it almost jealously.

The Islamaphobia and xenophobia charges are usually rooted in their above-discussed skewed and narrow-minded view of the world (the little bit they occupy … in their heads) and is manifested in multiculturalism, the left’s latest failed great experiment.  I’ve written about this at some length before, so will keep it short here, but the gist is that if you want America to be a “melting pot” in which many cultures and races come together and meld or merge into one larger something better, then you are denying the people who choose to come here of their own free will the chance to keep the same thing from which they fled.  Go figure.  Wanting English spoken in America, wanting to protect American culture and traditions, wanting immigrants to assimilate . . . these are “xenophobic” responses of the idiot masses.  Does it matter that it’s the exact opposite of xenophobia, that welcoming foreigners into our midst, into our culture and society is the furthest thing from xenophobia?  Of course not. Not to leftists who actually insist that foreigners stick to their “own kind” and have their own separate (but “equal”) sub “communities” . . . and then have the gall to call us xenophobic.

But then, this is no real surprise, is it?  Leftists love their isolated and controllable “communities” of managed “identities” beholden only to them.  So much so that when there aren’t such “communities,” they’re happy to create them out of nothing and cause division along every line they draw be it race, sexual orientation, religion, culture, class, income level, or gender.

This is the epitome of racist homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists and is exactly who and what leftists are.  But then, we all know they are the masters of projection.  Anything they accuse conservatives of being, we can be confident that they are the embodiment of that thing.  On steroids.