Asking a question of a supposed fellow conservative is, according to a legion of sycophantic supposed fellow conservatives (just read through my Twitter feed today), akin to “harassment.” To “attack.” To “slapping” someone who has suffered from battered wife syndrome.
And noting that asking a question doesn’t equate at all to any of those things means, according to supposed fellow cons, you hate women, have a micro-penis, are a “fucking faggot” and a “cunt.” Supposed fellow conservatives w/ substantial Twitter followings will chime in to tell you you are “cray cray,” that you are “hostile,” that you are a pathetic psycho in need of meds, that you are a stalker of someone who, before today, you’d never even heard of. You need a good raping. Or a you should kill yourself.
Then, after a spell, these same supposed cons will group together – in a touching bit of ostentatious soul searching — and bemoan conservative on conservative violence. “Hey, you hostile psycho fucking faggot cunt with the micro penis who is off his meds and who should kill himself, or at least be raped, for being so ‘cray cray’,” they’ll cry, “Can’t we all just get along?”
That’s the state of “our” side. They are big-time defenders of liberty, or rather they lay claim to being such, yet I am their enemy. As are the few people who came to my defense, presumably, several of whom were shouted down.
These would-be activists swarm like libs. They argue like libs. They distort, they move goal posts, they allow ego to keep them from educating themselves. When cornered, they move on to ad hom first, emotional appeals later. They trot out straw man arguments. They try to break your spirit by retweeting each others’ lame arguments as if to create the feeling of overwheming consensus. In short, they’re rather poor Alinskyites. And it is they we have to put our faith in. God help us.
So. To sum up, what I learned today is precisely this: there is very little intellectual honesty left in political discourse, certainly on the left, but from my experience today, from a large swath of those who have taken on the conservative label, likely because it makes them feel like the new counterculture. They have no respect for those who came before them, and no time for anyone who questions “one of ours.”
They are the very things they claim to decry. And it is evident to almost none of them, or none of the people who follow them. Which makes it almost tragic. They followed the wrong path — and refused to even consider arguments made by someone so odious as am I.
Just another anti-intellectual, bullying hive mind. Only one that carries an R after its name.
It saddens me. Because though I can’t be bullied — and found the whole experience less like a personal rebuke than like a sociology experiment that resolved certain questions in a way that one hoped at the outset it wouldn’t — it’s clear that I’m a dinosaur. And so is classical liberalism, at least the way I’ve promoted it for over a decade here or on radio, etc.
If you look around at your putative brothers and sisters in arms, and they are sniffing their own rifles with their fingers on the trigger, you know the army you’re in doesn’t really have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a difference when the worst of the fighting breaks out. We saw some of that last election cycle, when they turned on those the left demanded they turn on and convinced themselves it was they who were making their own decisions. Useful idiots.
That most of those people who came after me today had no idea how long I’ve been active in promoting the cause of liberty just speaks to how different the internet has become. How full of self-righteous and phony “pragmatists” pretending to have any kind of sustainable set of principles it is.
It may well be time for me to bow off the stage, remembered for being the women-hating cunt psycho faggot I am. The serial harasser. The destroyer of honor. The pseudo-intellectual who specializes in fighting people on my own side for no good reason. A terrible teammate, if you will.
Still, I encourage those of you still around to steal my stuff — most of it’s been archived — and pass it along. But put someone else’s name to it if you decide to do so. That way it doesn’t come pre-poisoned.
Piketty, for those you who don’t know, is leftist/socialist French economist who has put together a modern-day version of Marxist market principles, which of course are a critique of capitalism and the garden variety Fabian concern over “income inequality” — which rejects the whole “rising tide raises all boats” idea championed by such proto-TEA Party extremists as, eg., John F Kennedy.
And, according to an interview he gave recently, he’s had the ear of the White House, Mr Lew, and the Democrat Party for quite some time now. A socialist. Proposing socialist principles. Who rejects capitalism. And is evidently the economist with the most influence with Democrats.
Which means the way to respond to Mr Piketty’s alarmism is to ask him if the relative income inequality in, say, Cuba and North Korea and parts of Africa are making those countries Utopian paradises? And then bitch slap him and walk away.
Jim Pethokoukis, though, takes another, more urbane tack, one that grants Piketty more respect as an intellectual than I believe is deserved. Which I might not be saying were this the late 19th century, and we hadn’t yet witnessed the historical reality of anti-capitalist, anti-free market economic systems, and the inevitable totalitarianism and police state apparatuses that come along with them.
Not to mention the gulags, or gas chambers, or killing fields, or mass graves.
[...] Piketty [is a first-rate scholar whose magnum opus is well worth reading, whatever your ideological inclination. His thesis is straightforward. At its center are observations and forecasts about the return on capital, economic growth, and the relationship between the two. Some economists, such as Paul Krugman and Martin Wolf, think Piketty’s probably got the story right. Others, including AEI’s Kevin Hassett, Tyler Cowen, and Joshua Hendrickson, take the other side of the trade.
Yet even if Piketty is wrong, there is reason to believe technology and globalization might sharply increase immobility, as well as boost income and wealth inequality–and lead to long-term wage stagnation for the vast majority of workers. The good news here is that many of the most realistic responses — even Piketty thinks his own end-game policy agenda is utopian — are intrinsically good ones. Since slow economic growth worsens inequality, we should want to pursue policies that might boost birthrates (tax relief for parents) and innovation (remove regulatory barriers to entry).
Indeed, Piketty has said as much. If capital ownership is becoming too concentrated, then we should try to broaden it (universal savings accounts) and turn more workers into owners. Cowen highlights “deregulating urban development and loosening zoning laws, which would encourage more housing construction and make it easier and cheaper to live in cities such as San Francisco and, yes, Paris.” And, of course, both primary and secondary education need a strong dose of disruptive innovation to meet the changing needs of students and workers.
If policymakers start giving such ideas greater thought, then Piketty’s book, right or wrong, will have performed an immensely valuable service.
From where I sit, this is precise NOT how to respond, generally-speaking, to Piketty’s inequality alarmism, if only because we know that it isn’t “inequality” that drives leftist dogma, but rather a rejection of true diversity, economic liberty, individual autonomy, and a free market. They want concentrated power, an ability to control and manipulate the masses, and to essentially run the world as their own social Petri dish.
So rather than dignify Piketty’s boring retread of socialist economics, what we need do is simply point to the numerous examples of countries that have followed that lead — who have sought radical egalitarianism, which leads to equality of misery and is a necessary rejection of liberty, which by its very nature ensures certain inequalities of outcome (because it is the product of individual choice and individual industry, not to mention an entire matrix of additional personal decisions) — and not that they have either failed, are failing, or are becoming police states, with more and more centralized governmental power.
Like, for instance, our own country.
Now, I understand and agree with Jim’s more general point — that the questions Piketty raises allow for conservative and free-market answers to find voice in the conversation — but the truth is, that presumes that the left is interested in good faith economic arguments. It’s not. It’s interested in entrenched centralized power and control and promoting a permanent ruling class. It is liberal fascism’s end game, because in order to run paradise, some pigs are going to of necessity have to be more equal than others.
Concentration of capital, as Mark Levin pointed out last evening, is occurring, but more and more that concentration is taking place in the federal government. Taking money from the private sector and creating disincentives to move capital around. Obamacare is a further deterrent, because venturing out on one’s own to start a business could lead to a loss of health care, etc.
And it was intended to do so: socialist economic policy is not a legitimate engagement in intellectual debate; instead, it is an attempt to re-distribute wealth, gain enormous power of citizens turned subjects, and entrench the progressive trajectory that has so long been chipping away at our constitutional system and the protections of our natural rights t was devised to secure.
So, sure, if you want to join the debating society, by all means, expound upon the flaws in Piketty’s thinking. Me, I’d rather just tell him to go fix France first before worrying about us.
(h/t to geoff B, who brought Piketty’s influence to my attention weeks ago; I just never go around to writing about it)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan’s ban on using race as a factor in college admissions.
The justices said in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution in 2006 to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences, presumably because such a system could give rise to race-based resentment.
Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court’s prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.
“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Kennedy said.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically. “But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups,” said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
At 58 pages, Sotomayor’s dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.
Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case, presumably because she worked on it at an earlier stage while serving in the Justice Department.
In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race among many factors in college admissions in a case from Michigan.
Three years later, affirmative action opponents persuaded Michigan voters to change the state constitution to outlaw any consideration of race.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the issue was not affirmative action, but the way in which its opponents went about trying to bar it.
In its 8-7 decision, the appeals court said the provision ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment because it presents an extraordinary burden to affirmative action supporters who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign to repeal the constitutional provision.
Similar voter-approved initiatives banning affirmative action in education are in place in California and Washington state. A few other states have adopted laws or issued executive orders to bar race-conscious admissions policies.
Black and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the ban took effect. At California’s top public universities, African-Americans are a smaller share of incoming freshmen, while Latino enrollment is up slightly, but far below the state’s growth in the percentage of Latino high school graduates.
The case was the court’s second involving affirmative action in as many years. In June, the justices ordered lower courts to take another look at the University of Texas admissions plan in a ruling that could make it harder for public colleges to justify any use of race in admissions.
The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682.
What’s interesting here is not that SCOTUS came to the right decision (or that Breyer went along with the majority): that’s merely surprising. Instead, what may be important here is how this decision provides some indication as to how SCOTUS might rule on things like California’s proposition 8, once proponents of that democratically passed amendment to the state’s Constitution overcomes the hurdle of “standing” that SCOTUS used to dodge the issue in a 2013 ruling.
To listen to the majority — Kennedy notes that “nothing in the Constitution or the court’s prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results” in Michigan — is to listen to a Court that is clearly at an ideological crossroads, particular insofar as it in essence denied States like Arizona the rights to pass laws to combat illegal immigration under the pretense that the Executive has “discretion” on whether to follow such laws, just as they have discretion when it comes to enforcing already existing federal law like our current immigration statutes and DOMA.
The real takeaway here, though, comes from the dissent, written by Sotomayor, the Wise Latina, who complains that “without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups” — an argument evidently rejected in this case by the majority.
Which means that, though the leftists will try to fight Prop 8 and likeminded state constitutional amendments securing the traditional definition of marriage on equal protection grounds under the 14th Amendment (which had nothing whatever to do with marriage or homosexuals, and so has no jurisdiction over questions raised on their behalf, from an originalist perspective), the Court here has, at least in this case, rejected that argument: affirmative action is not, despite Sotomayor’s overheated rhetoric, a constitutionally protected “civil right,” and therefore voters of each state are allowed to make the determination as to whether or not they find what is in essence a long-enforced, activist-led social experiment enshrined in Bakke, an effective or even viable law.
If the decision on Proposition 8 comes down to the same question — is same sex marriage a “civil right,” or can states determine the meaning of marriage, based on long-standing traditional understandings of the legal arrangement and definition of the term? — we have seen in this particular instance the majority suggest that what is not a civil right, and same sex marriage is not, but is instead a semantic intrusion on a long-standing institution (a civil rights battle over same-sex civil unions may well go the other way, and arguably should), is, therefore, a matter of state jurisdiction.
Now, don’t get me wrong: I think the Court will be swayed by the faulty and dishonest “civil rights” argument, or at least pretend to be, and deny states (and by that, we are talking about the majority of we, the people) the right to make our own determinations. States that refuse to abide such a decision will then be held as civil rights violators by the Justice Department and will be subject to all sort of legal molestation.
But what will be evident, should all this come to pass, is that we are living not under a stable or even coherent rule of law, but rather one driven by political expediency, the whims of 9 philosopher kings and queens, and special interest groups.
Which is judicial oligarchy, nothing less — and as such, is an affront to a representative constitutional republic built specifically around federalism.
Of course, I’m no lawyer, so take this all with a grain of salt. Just one guy’s opinion. And it’s just one guy who doesn’t happen to do designer cupcakes. So there’s that.
Former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has been making the media rounds, discussing her departure from the network she called home for more than two decades. She appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources over the weekend and shed additional light on a developing culture inside CBS News that she said she could no longer abide. Attkisson cited the network’s “declining appetite” for original investigative reporting, prompting host Brian Stelter to note the irony that CBS News’ slogan is “original reporting.” But her concerns extended far beyond some producers’ and executives’ apparent disinterest in her brand of journalism. She said CBS’ internal editorial inertia resists stories that could reflect poorly on the Obama administration, or the federal government in general.
Wait, is Ms Attkisson really suggesting that a major, national mainstream media source is more interested than covering up for Obama and the federal leviathan he runs than it is in covering the federal government in a way that speaks truth to power? Well, then. Looks like we’ve unveiled another racist.
The Left’s objective with Attkisson — who has been one of the few mainstream reporters willing to wade into major Obama scandals — is to “controversialize” her work product in an effort to convince her fellow journalists to tune her out. Liberals ghettoize conservative outlets and Fox News as illegitimate, so Attkisson’s tenacious pursuit of the “wrong” stories prompted a furious marginalization campaign. Watching Attkisson coolly and professionally expose their machinations on CNN must have caused some heartburn at Media Matters headquarters — although they’ve got their hands full at the moment with an absolutely hilarious labor dispute with…the SEIU.
Somewhere, Oliver Willis is crying into a giant 8 layer cake with a side of ice cream flavored only “gallon.”
The other day on Twitter I suggested that the Koch Bros. REALLY get political active and fund a full-scale investigation into Harry Reid’s land deals. Reid is free to libel and lie while on the Senate floor, but once he has to defend himself outside the walls of power, he’s just another flesh and blood human, albeit one with the gaunt, haggard appearance of Walking Dead extra.
So let’s up the ante yet again and have the Koch Bros. — and the TEA Party — see what we can do about getting Media Matters declassified as a non-partisan outfit. Because everyone knows it’s a mere hit squad for the progressives, and any disinterested study would show that the risible veneer of non-partisan media criticism is a sham, and that Media Matters is therefore required to reorganize for tax purposes.
The country’s warring factions, the socialists masquerading as “progressives” and the constitutionalists constantly presented as “fringe” or Hobbity, etc., are nearing a point of a no-holds barred battle for the soul of the nation. Our advantage is, we understand just who and what they are; whereas they have always had to fool others into making us into things we are not.
That’s going to harder to do the more people are awakened. And it’s happening. I can feel it.
Check out these video clips of Attkisson making her case below:
Never before have I been so proud to be an alum. Just as a year or so ago I was never more proud to be a graduate student alum of Johns Hopkins, and, more recently, a former English, argument, and creative writing teacher at the University of Denver.
I did two summers at the School of Theory at Cornell, who I’m sure has made me equally as proud. But I just don’t feel like looking it up, because frankly, the whole thing is just too damned depressing to take.
Universities have become breeding grounds for enforced groupthink, politically correct bullying, and victim politics. They are, with few exceptions, hotbeds of leftwing propaganda, anti-semitism, and a decisive (and repugnant) anti-intellectualism.
I was fortunate enough to witness this first hand, which is one of the reasons I decided to opt out of a career in the academy. And why my wife and I are at odds over my declaration that I’d rather we just give each of our sons $100K to start their own lives than send them off to indoctrination camps.
When I left the English program at the University of Denver, or when I finished up the two tours at Cornell, I was convinced that the bulk of Humanities studies had been so thoroughly polluted with incoherence and identity politics that it would be a mistake to stay and have constant “debates” with the cookie-cutter postmodernists/poststructuralists/queer theorists/feminist theorists who were being routinely churned out by these grievance mills.
So instead, I started a blog.
The “Main Street” Republicans want to redefine conservatism as “center-rightism,” all while trying to paint actual constitutionalists as either secretly liberal (and they are, though only in the classical sense). This is what the big money establishment backers have come up with as a strategy to beat back uppity candidates they believe won’t play the game of pretending we have a two party system rather than what we actually have, a ruling elite the vies for control over an ever-growing federal government and is at its heart committed to cronyism and corporatism.
It’s one thing for moderate Republicans to attack conservatives as hypocrites or as purists who want to purge the party. It’s quite another for them to misquote conservatives on purpose to try to make them look like they’re really liberals.
The moderate Republican Defending Main Street SuperPAC is using footage from a recent AEI debate to imply that Club for Growth President Chris Chocola is a liberal who runs a left-wing group and loves Nancy Pelosi.
The footage appears in a new ad defending Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, against a Club for Growth-backed challenger, Bryan Smith of Idaho Falls. I was at the debate, which was moderated by the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney on Ash Wednesday at AEI. Chocola debated the Defending Main Street PAC’s boss, former Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio. Chocola said during the debate that he respected Nancy Pelosi because she had been willing to sacrifice her majority in Congress to advance her ideological goals.
His point was that he wished Republicans would be that dedicated to advancing conservative ideas. The Main Street ad takes the “respect for Pelosi” part of Chocola’s comments out of context to make it look like he’s simply praising Pelosi. The implication is that the Club for Growth is a liberal group backing Simpson’s challenger, Idaho Falls attorney Bryan Smith.
Main Street PAC today reported dropping $112,000 on this ad in Idaho’s Second Congressional District, according to FEC filings.
Taking quotes out of context, reconfiguring meaning — we expect this from the progressives, because the only way they can garner support for their agenda is to misrepresent its goals and policies.
And so really, we shouldn’t be surprised by “moderate” Republicans taking that same tack in their efforts to defeat constitutionalists. After all, they are themselves statists, and so they are more committed to damaging constitutionalists than they are progressive democrats.
Those types they can bargain with, you see. Whereas the troglodytes backed by “fringe” ultra-right wing free market fetishists? They’re just so damn unyielding, and as a result, they need to go. Like, yesterday.
Because this kind of thing isn’t American in any traditional meaning of that designation: “Calif. moves to ban judges affiliated with Boy Scouts”:
In a move with major legal implications, The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics has proposed to classify the Boy Scouts as practicing “invidious discrimination” against gays, which would end the group’s exemption to anti-discriminatory ethics rules and would prohibit judges from being affiliated with the group.
“The Committee’s invitation ignores the fact that the change also encompasses other youth organizations whose membership is limited on the basis of gender, e.g., the Girl Scouts, as well as the military, which continues to practice ‘discrimination’ on the basis of gender,” wrote Catherine Short, legal director of the pro-life group Life Legal Defense Foundation, in a letter to the Committee obtained by TheDC that predicts possible implications for pro-life judges in the future.
“This proposed amendment has as its overtly-stated purpose the branding of the BSA as an organization whose members must be assumed to be biased and thus unfit for the bench. The Committee states that ‘eliminating the exemption… would enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,’” Short said.
“On the contrary, by promoting a hierarchy of politically-favored ‘victim’ status through pointlessly impugning the integrity of members of a venerable American institution, the proposed Amendment will communicate to the public that judges are being told by the California Supreme Court what to think, whom they may associate with, and what are permissible opinions to hold, and that only those who toe the line will be allowed to sit on the bench. The public can hardly expect impartiality from the judiciary in such a climate of intolerance,” Short wrote.
Asks Weasel Zippers,
Will California be banning the following people for their connections to the Boy Scouts?
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) – youth member
Bill Clinton (Democratic President) – Cub Scout
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) – youth member
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D) – adult volunteer
VP Joe Biden – youth member and adult volunteer
Bill Gates – youth member
Michael Moore – Eagle Scout
Stephen Spielberg – Eagle Scout
Barack Obama was a Cub Scout…but in Jakarta. However, the President of the United States is considered the President of the Boy Scouts, and I don’t believe he has declined. So is Barack Obama allowed in California?
– Which is a silly question, really, because everyone knows that most of these people merely posture, and that when push comes to shove, they’ll always back the politically correct version of “equality” and “discrimination” that grievance groups upon whom they rely for their coalition voting bloc insist upon.
That we’ve now reached a point where an ethics committee is essentially telling judges that their rulings must only occur within the confines of predetermined outcomes — then reasoned back from there — we have surrendered the idea of equality before the law, and an impartial judiciary, all by creating a veneer of “fairness” that is a bastardizing of that term.
Because, you know: some pigs are more equal than others. So shut up, homophobic hater.
That’s right: those who created pro-2nd Amendment, pro-safe gun usage facebook pages for Everytown for Gun Safety — before billionaire nannystatist and petty liberty molester Michael Bloomberg, who launched a campaign of the same name which has nothing to do with gun safety and everything to do with trying to have a natural right heavily regulated or even rescinded, could create his own page for his own organization — were just asking for it, “stealing” what rightfully belongs to the asshole who didn’t have the foresight to secure the page name on facebook: he’s brilliant enough to run our lives, but his brilliance didn’t extend to making sure he had rights to the group name on facebook.
Which evidently didn’t sit well with Bloomberg, or with the facebook mafia (who, by the way, are helping fund some “conservative” comprehensive immigration reform groups); so the original creators of the page removed the accounts, feeling that a costly lawsuit would be the likely outcome.
It’s facebook’s business, so I guess they can do what they want with it; and there’s no doubt with whom they would side in this matter should the Bloomberg group go on the legal attack. But just because they own the business doesn’t mean we can’t point out their obvious political biases, their attempts to control speech and direct discourse, and their heavyhanded tactics in doing so — usually under the rubric of some nebulous “violation of community standards,” as reporter Todd Starnes of FOX found out when one of his posts, in support of rancher Cliven Bundy, was removed:
“Rancher Bundy should’ve told the feds that those were Mexican cows – who came across the border illegally to seek better grazing opportunities. It was an act of love.”
Any late-night comedian would have delivered this line and got lots of laughs. It satirized all the liberal clichés about immigration and liberal double standards.
Apparently it was too much for the folks at Facebook. Starnes was told, “We removed the post below because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards.” Of course, he was never told what “standard” he had violated. This is classic liberalism.
Starnes went on to write, identifying the real sin against Facebook: getting out the message to a broader audience.
“Thousands of you posted comments and many more shared that message. It’s now gone — blotted out by anonymous redactors.
“I reached out to Facebook to find out which part of the message violated their standards. Never heard back. I suspect I should’ve used the term ‘illegal alien cows.’”
The king can’t be reproached in any way.
None of this should surprise us since that the BLM/Bundy standoff, the government put up “Free Speech Zones.” These were the only places where the First Amendment applied.
[...]Liberals can’t stand contrary thought. They are all about it when they are not in control of the process and means of expression. They use the First Amendment as a wedge to get in the door, and then once in the building they close it to shut out all competitive speech. It’s a common tactic. [...]
Many colleges and universities have speech codes. Writing in Forbes, Greg Lukianoff, identifies the appalling course our nation’s schools have taken when it comes to free speech:
“We found that an appalling 62 percent of institutions surveyed maintain policies that restrict a substantial amount of speech protected under the First Amendment — what we call ‘red light’ speech codes. Such schools include Harvard, Columbia, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
“Speech codes come in many forms. The University of North Dakota bans student speech that ‘feels offensive’ or ‘demeaning.’ The University of Missouri at St. Louis boasts a policy restricting speech that will ‘discredit the student body.’ Texas’ Sam Houston State University broadly prohibits ‘abusive, indecent, profane or vulgar language.’”
So what has been a mainstay of liberal bullying on college campuses is now affecting major social media companies. Much of this has to do with the fact that there has been almost a god-like allegiance to Barack Obama. His candidacy was viewed as messianic. The liberal utopia was about to dawn, and they had found their leader.
As a result liberals have done everything to protect him and his policies, and free speech, logic, and facts be damned.
As I’ve been writing on this very thing for over a decade now — the deconstruction and re-imagining of traditional, liberty-minded values such as “tolerance” or “equality” into concepts that reflect the inverse of how such values were viewed by the Founders and Framers — I don’t have much more to add, save the gentle reminder that allowing the left control over meaning, by allowing the control over the process in which meaning is determined and legitimized, is a bad fucking idea. And pointing it out in great detail is neither “fundamentally unserious” as a matter of politics, or pseudo-intellectual as an epistemological endeavor.
Beyond that, I’ll just go to my reprise: This is the progressive left. It’s who they are. It’s what they do.
(h/t JohnInFirestone and geoff B)
So much for that whole lefty separation of Church and State canard I guess, huh?
The only thing missing was a condemnation of the Jews. But then, Sharpton has banked plenty of that, so we’ll just find it in the penumbras and emanations.
For my part, I’m just going to say Happy Easter to all my Christian friends and leave it at that. If any of them feel the need to add Obama to the holy trinity, that’s up to them. Make it a foursome. So they can golf more traditionally in Heaven.
“… but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”
h/t Bob Belvedere who wonders if this makes Scalia an #OUTLAW