A growing meme amongst the progressive crowd, and closely related to the Truther movement (Truthers being those who believe 911 was an inside job by the American government), is the audacious accusation that America brought 911 on itself. This Blame America First trope is the direct result of left-wing politics being force-fed to youngsters through America’s “educational” system.
A growing number of academic programs in the university system across this great country are thinly veiled ACORN-like recruiting centers for budding progressive, social-justice activists from a pool of blissfully ignorant, beer-guzzling, medical marijuana-smoking young whippersnappers.
These precocious youngsters are taught by seemingly scholarly academic types that America (sometimes spelled with a K, as in Amerika, or the KKK of Amerika) is an imperialist, racist nation bent on subjugating people of color the world over, and that anyone to the right of Michael Moore is a fascist. The mass media relentlessly reinforce this message with constant propaganda that Joseph Goebbels would be proud of (see also: Cameron, James. Avatar, et al).
Ironically, many progressives reared in such a system find themselves in common cause with global Jihad. Of course global Jihadists, if they reach their goal of a world caliphate, are likely to frown upon the myriad of causes most dear to progressives, such as a homosexual marriage free-for-all and abortion. By “frowning” I mean “putting the infidels to death by stoning.” Mark Steyn put it as only Mark Steyn can: “A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting ‘Hands off my bush!’”
So very true, yet progressives seek to undermine any attempt to squelch this particularly virulent strain of the peaceful religion, Islam. I suppose they’re too busy re-hashing America’s shoddy treatment of Native Americans and blacks (can we move on, please?) to realize that justifying Jihad – in effect, collaborating with Jihad – may very well lead to some dire circumstances.
Still, I’m struggling with this concept; that is, how America is ultimately to blame for 911. Usually, the response to the question of how America brought 911 on itself is, “America’s global policy.” Okay. What about America’s global policy?
What is it, exactly, about America’s policies in the past 100 years that ultimately led a bunch of Islamic fanatics to fly airplanes into buildings with hundreds of terrified passengers on board with them? And, regardless of America’s policies, this is justified? Put yourself in the airplane with Mohamed Atta, amigo, and then tell me if that deranged idiot was justified in his actions.
It’s easy to sit safely in Middletown, USA and pontificate in abstract about how Muslim countries have been subjugated by Europeans and Americans and quite another to come face to face with someone who’s preparing to put the infidel (you) to death. And I tell you what, if I had lost a loved one on 911 and some hipster dufus made a crack about blaming America for 911, there would be hell to pay.
But I digress, as usual… Typically, our progressive friend cannot answer the follow-up question. Sure, they may rattle on about the division of Muslim countries after both World Wars or America’s policy during the Iraq-Iran war, and so on and so forth. But there’s one particular piece of land that’s the sticking point here, and which has driven U.S. policy since 1948. That’s right. It’s all the Jews’ fault!
Why, ultimately, do the Islamic radicals hate us? Primarily, it’s our association with Israel. Secondarily, yet related, is the fact that most of us are infidels of one stripe or another. Progressives don’t care to delve very far into the actual messages coming out of the madrassas and media in Muslim countries.
Instead, parroting the popular progressive line about poverty, they simply close eyes and ears to the truth being shouted from the rooftops… er minarets. The message is not, “We’re desperately poor, so we’re going to strap explosives to ourselves and blow up amongst the infidels!” No, it’s: “We hate the Jews and the Christians! In fact, we hate the Buddhists, the Hindus, the atheists, the agnostics… Heck, anyone who’s not Muslim, especially those who ally themselves with the Jews!”
(I suppose the usual PC disclaimer should be inserted here. Yes, most Muslims are peace-loving, law-abiding folks, depending on the law to which they’re subject. Still, the volume of officially-sanctioned anti-Jewish, anti-infidel material coming out of Muslim countries with nary a peep in dissent is disconcerting, to say the least. Plus, if you’re not Muslim in a Muslim country you’re a second-class citizen. You can’t even own a Bible in most Muslim countries.)
This Jew-hating thing has been going on for a long time, at least since the Jews were identified as Jews. It’s the oldest trick in the book, and progressives buy it hook, line and sinker. My guess is that progressives, since they believe in the goodness and ultimate perfectibility of human beings, figure the Muslim world will come around once they recognize the esprit de corps they shared with Jihad. My other guess is that they will be sorely disappointed in the outcome.
There were a lot of people back in the 1930s who figured Hitler was someone they could deal with. The problem was they never bothered to read Mein Kampf, or if they did they skipped the parts about world domination and getting rid of the Jews.
So, while the Jihadists and Iran’s Ahmadinejad and his ilk lay out their plans plainly for all the world to see (destroy Israel, kill and subjugate the infidel), progressives rattle on meaninglessly about America’s complicity for global terrorism. Oh well, at least Howard Zinn would be proud that progressives reared in our university system will continue to mindlessly regurgitate his Marxist nonsense masquerading as scholarship.
Very true, because I oppose gay marriage. When I use the phrase “gay marriage” I mean the type sanctioned by the state. Maybe the state shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all, but that’s a different topic for a different time.
Fact is, homosexuals can get married. Just march yourself down to the local Unitarian, Episcopal or mainline Protestant church and do it. I don’t care. I’m certainly not in the minority here. Most people are like me; live and let live and don’t tell me about your sexual idiosyncrasies.
I’m neither scared of nor angry at homosexuals, so give me a break. I’m so freaking tolerant it’s ridiculous. But I am not tolerant of the state endorsing homosexual marriage as somehow equal to marriage between a man and a woman.
The foundational issue here is the family and what properly constitutes a functional family. The left would have us believe that any family arrangement is fine as long as everyone “loves” each other. Here again, the left takes us into the realm of unverifiable emotion devoid of facts or logic.
The fact is that children thrive in a household with a husband and wife. Single-parent homes are a statistical disaster, especially in homes where men are absent, yet the left is constantly cheerleading for this harmful construct. I don’t know what the results are of homosexual couples raising children, probably because it’s too early in the game and the data is spotty at best.
Still, society should encourage what is obviously and quantifiably the ideal, rather than constantly trying to destroy it. Some will argue that heterosexuals haven’t done much to strengthen the family, what with all the divorce and dysfunction manifest in the modern family. But this is the typical leftist “two wrongs make a right” argument. So if I understand this argument properly, we should make something bad worse. That’s a great idea! It’s so brilliant that the left has adopted this approach to the current administration’s spending spree. “The Bush administration started this by getting us so heavily into debt,” they say with a straight face. So, once again, let’s make it worse!
Anyway, I’m going off topic here and probably belabored the point, but it should be crystal clear that we need to shore up the family for a health society and a strong nation rather than look for ways to undermine it.
What you’ve just read was written by Club Soda, a semi-regular contributor to The Daily Plunge. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of its host, Henshaw.
Another way to put this would be that I hate women because I oppose abortion. Plain and simple, “feminism” has radically shifted from an equal rights movement to a special interest lobbying group for the abortion industry. It is especially galling that “feminist” groups like NOW and NARAL oppose any restrictions on abortion, including the horrific procedure known as partial-birth abortion.
In fact, our “above my pay grade” president opposed a law in Illinois that would have protected babies who survive a “botched abortion.” Nice. Do I oppose Obama’s position on abortion because he’s black? You be the judge.
This is less a religious issue than it is a simple human rights issue. Choice is actually something that happens before conception. I shouldn’t need to spell it out, but it should be rather obvious to any sentient being. But “choice” has been turned into a propagandistic euphemism for wholesale slaughter. Does that seem harsh? Sorry, but the “procedure” itself is harsh.
Most people – me included – prefer to close their eyes to what abortion really entails: the dismemberment and destruction of a human being. If you can’t handle seeing what an abortion looks like (go to YouTube and search for “silent scream” if you think you can), then you’re admitting how horrible it really is. I know I can’t watch it, and won’t, but that tells me everything I need to know about where to stand on this issue.
Even the most ardent pro-choicer would rarely refer to their unborn child as a “fetus” or a “clump of tissue”. No. They refer to it as their “baby”. But when it’s someone else’s child, particularly a poor minority woman’s child, it magically transforms itself into something less than human.
But this is no surprise really, since the pro-abortion movement is based in eugenics, which originally sought to sterilize the “unfit” and control the human population as if we were a bunch of rats. But that’s how many leftists see the human race, as a parasite or virus on the earth to be controlled (excepting them, of course). It doesn’t take much imagination to see where this leads if the people who control the government believe that some people are more worthy of life than others.
BTW… As mentioned in my previous post, I’m a Racist, the views above do not necessarily represent the views of its host since this was written by me, Club Soda. Next time, we’ll explore my homophobia.
This morning I was reading an article titled History according to Glenn Beck over on the Politico. Far be it from me to defend Glenn Beck, but it seems liberals do have a real problem with history.
The common narrative in History 101 is that the Soviets were on the left and the Nazis on the right. I’m not sure why exactly. The two ideologies shared a lot in common: genocide, nationalism, state control of corporations, and military imperialism. The two states also started World War II by invading Poland together. Glenn Beck is only pointing out these similarities. I guess he’s finally reading Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book Liberal Fascism.
The Politico article uses the basic progressive journalistic approach. Find some “professors” in the very liberal academic community and dismiss the argument as crazy. Remember, yesterday’s New Left terrorist is today’s respected English professor.
Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Life at Boston College, said that the film not only isn’t accurate, but that Beck “lives in a complete alternative universe.”
Nazi Germany was “not evil because of their economic program,” said Wolfe, which he noted included a few programs designed to promote public health.”It was evil,” he said, ” because it aimed at the extermination of European Jewry.”
There you have it. State control isn’t evil. It’s only when state control ends in genocide that we should be concerned. It’s too bad that state control and genocide go hand in hand. The human rights record for the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and every other socialist regime speaks for itself.
The tone of “change” is covered a lot different depending on who is winning. For example, when change came in 2008 it was greeted by the press with open arms and leg tingles. It was the Hallmark movie of the week. 2008′s version of change was labeled “hope.” 2009′s version of change is branded as “anger.”
This isn’t a new phenomenon. In 1994 the late no-so-great Peter Jennings summed up the Republican wins with this bias tirade:
“Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week….Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”
Are current voters angry? Yes, but they were angry in 2008 as well. Liberal journalists live in an isolation chamber. In the shallow way of thinking no one can logically vote against a liberal. Only something sinister can drive the voter away from socialism. Evidently anger is the least offensive sin. For the Keith Olbermann’s of the world voters are fueled by homophobia (whatever that is), sexism (except for Sarah Palin), and racism. It’s almost like some liberals are suffering from rightphobia.
Let’s make one thing very clear right away. What you’re about to read, if you haven’t given up already, is written by Club Soda, a semi-regular contributor to The Daily Plunge. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of its host, Henshaw. Though I’m not fond of disclaimers or prefaces like this, it’s a necessary evil since many regular readers have blamed Henshaw for some of Club Soda’s most outrageous posts.
But let’s get to the core issue here; that Club Soda is a racist, misogynist homophobe. Guilty on all counts, at least according to people like Keith Olbermann and similar ilk. But I’ll leave it to you, loyal Daily Plunge readers, to decide whether or not the accusations are true. I’ll start with my racism in this post and move on to my misogyny and homophobia in subsequent posts…
There are two primary reasons I’m racist: One is that I’m against affirmative action and the other is that I’m not an Obama supporter.
To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr., people should be judged based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. To single out specific minority groups for preferential treatment is inherently unfair to everyone. Plus, it dehumanizes those singled out. It says, in effect, you’re not smart or good enough to make it on your own merits or abilities because you have none. It creates a parent-child relationship between the state and certain classes of citizens, here based purely on external factors. If that’s not “racism straight up,” to quote the ever-tolerant Janeane Garofolo, I don’t know what is.
As mentioned in a Club Soda post last year, Star Parker, a black woman who herself was enslaved by the state in a cycle of welfare and abortion, calls it Uncle Sam’s Plantation. Parker is living proof of how the state has usurped the dignity of the individual just because that individual has dark skin. She is also living proof that the individual trumps the state in an America that lives up to its founding principles, not those espoused by America’s left.
I understand and sympathize with the argument that blacks were treated as second-class citizens and much worse for most of America’s history. However, Jim Crow is dead and buried along with the systemic racism it represented.
It’s long past time to move on, embrace a colorblind society and finally live out the truth that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Unfortunately, the Olbermanns, Maddows, Garofolos, Pelosis, Boxers, Sharptons, Jacksons and Rev. Wrights of the world would rather we didn’t, and continue to play racial politics in order to maintain their power and fill their coffers with the ill-gotten gain of continued racial division. If we weren’t divided by race these people wouldn’t have a job and they know it. In fact, we probably wouldn’t be divided by race if it wasn’t for this group of charlatans and others like them.
As for Mr. Obama, I disagree almost entirely with his ideology. It’s that simple. I don’t care if he’s black, white, orange or purple; his race has nothing to do with it. If race played a part in my logic, Thomas Sowell wouldn’t be my favorite economist and Clarence Thomas wouldn’t be my favorite Supreme Court justice. Oh, but I forgot! They’re Uncle Toms, according to the race-baiting left, so they don’t count! Let’s see, so I’m not supposed to take race into account when judging people and their ideas, just as long as they hold certain beliefs. Typical leftist paradox.
For the third year in a row I was in charge of my company’s video. It was a much larger product this year since I had to write, film, act, and edit the thing. I’m happy with the way it turned out.
Recent Comments