In The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, the White Witch put a spell over Narnia that made it always winter and never Christmas. Sound familiar?
Sometimes called the “War on Christmas,” the campaign to take the word “Christmas” out of the Christmas holiday is actually a battle in the larger War on Reality. The War on Reality includes battles in seemingly disparate areas of American life, such as what we choose to eat, drive, think and say.
The common thread between these battles, and thus their connection to each other in the larger War on Reality, is their totalitarian end. The Hipster Dufus ninny nanny busybodies who have somehow bullied the American people into adopting “Happy Holidays!” as the non-offensive greeting of the season – as opposed to the time-honored tradition of “Merry Christmas!” – are typically the same killjoys who want to monitor our fat intake, how much gas we guzzle, how much water we use and so on and so forth.
It’s the Utopian vision of the “Imagine” crowd… Imagine all the people, living like we want them to, not how they would actually prefer to live. What we actually end up with is a world of boring sameness where free thought is replaced by group think. Welcome to the collective!
Meanwhile, the battle for the word “Christmas” is practically over. I see countless examples of corporations, organizations and individuals who have simply given in. Christmas parties have turned into Holiday parties, Christmas trees into Holiday trees, Christmas gifts into Holiday gifts, and every conceivable tortured permutation of Holiday as a substitute for Christmas.
Can the word “Holiday” be far behind? After all, the word literally means “holy day,” an offensive religious reference. Five years from now we’ll all be saying something like, “Happy time off from work time! When are you going to decorate your time-off-from-work-time tree?” I can’t wait.
Radical groups know full well that unfettered democracy actually leads to the totalitarian Utopia they envision, where they're large, in charge and breathing down your neck, baby.
Every election cycle I receive the State Ballot Information Booklet and Recommendations on Retention of Judges from the State of Colorado, and every election cycle I wonder: Why am I voting on all this stuff? Isn’t this what my so-called representatives ought to be doing?
In years past, and I mean long past, the American system of government was closer to republicanism than democracy. In other words, citizens voted only for representatives. Those representatives then went to their respective state houses and amended their constitutions (or not) and passed laws.
They still pass laws these days, though you need to be a speed reader/brain surgeon/rocket scientist/slimy lawyer to have the slightest idea what the “laws” really mean. Then, citizens are presented with equally inexplicable initiatives, amendments and whatnot on their ballots. These are, of course, in addition to the Retention of Judges section.
Here in Colorado, we have nine amendments and 24 judges upon which to decide. So, I did as much research on each as humanly possible and made myself a cheat sheet. The judges are a lot more difficult because I don’t have time to peruse all of their decisions over the years.
This time I made the judge judgment as simple as possible: If they were appointed by a Democrat, thumbs down; by a Republican, thumbs up. In this case, only five judges are recommended for retention by Club Soda. Sure, it seems a rather shallow approach, but I figure a Democrat is much more likely to nominate someone who sees the Constitution, and any law or state constitution, more as a set of suggestions than actual law. Plus, they’re likely to treat people unequally under the law, as little regard as they may actually hold for it, based on whatever grievance group whoever appears before them may belong to or some extenuating circumstance that led to their incarceration (I was a fat kid, Your Honor).
If you don’t like my approach to the whole judge retention thing, you gotta admit that it’s probably better than the effort most people probably put into their voting responsibility, which brings me (finally) to my point…
I don’t like the Motor Voter law. I don’t think people should be encouraged to vote. Get-out-the-vote campaigns are pointless and injurious to the system. Basically, it should not be easy to vote. You should have to do a bit more than simply renew your license every five years or so, or fill out a form at a Paramore concert to be eligible to vote.
I’m not recommending a poll tax or that only property owners should vote, but you should at least show some interest in what’s going on around you and make an effort. By doing so you create more ownership in the system and eliminate those who, though they vote sporadically, vote because they’ve been told the candidate is cool. The extreme version of creating ownership is the aforementioned property ownership requirement. The reasoning being that property owners have a real stake in the outcome, whereas those who don’t are more likely to vote for the candidate who simply promises the proverbial chicken in every pot, or that the oceans will recede and the planet shall magically heal.
Again, I’m not advocating that extreme, but registering to vote should not be passive; it should be active. There’s a reason that radicals advocate for more “democracy” (Students for a Democratic Society, etc.); the more “democratic” the society, the more ignorant the electorate. Then, next thing you know you’re staring down a ballot with ten choices, but they all say Stalin.
Ronald Reagan famously said about progressives, a.k.a., liberals: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” The most infamous recent example of this willful ignorance is the Left’s reaction to Arizona’s immigration law.
Apparently, no one in the Obama administration has bothered to read Arizona’s law, but they are so heavily invested in their ideology that what they want to believe about the law makes it magically turn into what they believe it is: a racist, fascist excuse for Arizona’s Gestapo-like police to harass and detain anyone with dark skin or an accent.
I know exactly how William Shatner felt in the Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet". Does anyone else notice that the Obama administration is lying about Arizona's immigration law? Stewardess! There's a creature on the wing!
Every time I hear someone in the Obama administration denounce Arizona’s law – from Obama himself down to people whose job it is to actually know the law, like Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano – I feel like I’m living in an episode of the Twilight Zone. I’m almost as shocked and perplexed as William Shatner was when he saw a creature on the wing of the airplane he was flying on. Is this really happening and does anyone else notice it?
This is just the tip of the wing, however, as the belief in an alternative universe translates to every conceivable issue. Cyclical, historical climate change turns into Armageddon. Babies are no longer babies, but clumps of unorganized tissue that reveal themselves as babies only after they leave the womb. The only way to make airplanes safe from terrorists is not to look for terrorists. And so on and so forth.
My favorite is how progressives turn the First Amendment into something completely different than what it actually says. They believe it calls for the “separation of church and state,” though it says no such thing. It actually reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That’s funny, the words “separation,” “church,” or “state” refuse to appear in the First Amendment. Maybe they’re hiding elsewhere in the Constitution? Or maybe not.
Despite the conspicuous absence of these words from the Constitution, progressives are constantly shouting down any religious references in the public square based on the Constitution’s supposed prohibition of religious speech through the “separation” clause. No such clause exists and the Amendment clearly states that Congress “shall make no law,” which means, for any progressives reading this, that Congress “shall make no law.” Do I need to repeat the phrase again so it’s clear? Apparently I do, but even if I do repeat it, progressives will still read, “separation of church and state.” It’s exasperating to say the least.
In the same way, progressives read the First Amendment’s free speech clauses as applying only to individuals and the causes they believe in. In other words, if you’re an organization representing the interests of a group of people, you’re not entitled to the same speech rights as an individual. Moreover, if you’re a group progressives distrust and malign, say an evil corporation or a conservative non-profit, you have even fewer rights to free speech, if any.
Progressives fervently believe that the First Amendment applies only to individuals when it’s in their best interests to believe this (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), though the text itself says, rather clearly: “…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The key phrase here is “of the people”. Note that it does not read, “of the person,” nor does it say, “of the people we agree with who aren’t racist Nazi homophobes like we say they are because they don’t believe in the same foolish notions of creating an earthly Utopia like we do.”
San Antonio has declared war on fat, according to a recent article in the San Antonio Express-News. Aided by $15.6 million in federal stimulus dollars to combat obesity in this restaurant-heavy city that has also been tagged as one of the fattest cities in America, San Antonio is spending our tax dollars with wisdom.
Remember Doritos! Remember Dr. Pepper! Remember the Alamo!
First up is the elimination of sugary and fatty confections and beverages in the city’s 250 beverage vending machines and 75 snack dispensers. Instead, San Antonio residents will get to choose from a delicious smorgasbord of waters and diet drinks. Yummy! But that’s not all! Bags of chips will have to be less than 1.5 ounces.
Fortunately for city employees, the article notes, they won’t be banned from consuming fatty foods and drinks at work. But one wonders how far off that ban is, and when government will begin regulating a citizen’s intake of fatty foods and drinks. It’s a Utopian future of organic whole grain rice cakes harvested locally by illegal immigrants, washed down with government-approved water.
“I asked the staff to remove the high-calorie soda drinks from our vending machines,” [City Manager Sheryl] Sculley said. “I’m a fitness person, and I care about our employees, and I want them to be healthy. And I think this is a very small gesture.”
I have a small gesture in mind as well. It involves the strategic deployment of the middle digit of my hand in the general direction of City Manager Sheryl Sculley and the other nanny ninny busybodies who want to confiscate my sugar, fat and calories. You can have my Doritos and Dr. Pepper when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
There aren’t many places in the United States more liberal than San Francisco. The city by the bay’s mayor, Gavin Newsom, has reacted to the immigration law in Arizona like any illogical liberal would: by creating a moratorium on official travel to Arizona. What’s next? Fining citizens for traveling to Georgia? We all know traveling to Georgia is a racist act, if not just downright foolish. The San Francisco Chronicle has more:
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.
The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said. It’s unclear how many planned trips by city workers will be curtailed [emphasis added].
Before I delve into the ridiculousness of the moratorium I have to applaud The Chronicle for its horrendous journalism. Their summary of the law in Arizona is a complete distortion. The law in Arizona doesn’t direct local police to arrest those suspected of being illegal immigrants. What hope is there for liberals in San Francisco to understand anything if the newspapers can’t cover this issue correctly?
As far as the city of San Francisco is concerned it’s amazing to see a liberal city embrace totalitarianism. So heads up, San Francisco; that’s totalitarianism. I know, I know, it’s a dry totalitarianism, but it’s still totalitarianism.
The new immigration law in Arizona has been greeted with the typical uninformed outrage on the left. You know the drill. Supporters of the bill are racists, fascists, and backward isolationists. But have these emotional critics actually read the bill? Given the amount of uninformed rhetoric going around it seems as if the left has ignored the content of the bill. Byron York asks the same question in his op-ed.
The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person’s immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Basically all this law requires is an immigration background check if someone is pulled over. The shocking part is there had to be a law passed for this. The left might as well complain that the police check for outstanding warrents if you get pulled over for a missing tail light. If it happens to me I’m just out of luck. If we do it to an illegal immigrant it’s racism.
Meanwhile there’s reletive silence from the press about. the May “Che” Day protests coming up. The stance is clear on the left: anarchists and socialists are cool but don’t you dare advocate small government. The playbook is clear as well. If you disagree with the progressives on any issue you’re a radical racist who is in love with fascism. What ever happened to law enforcement?
In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Constitution was “merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation,” not, as Hamilton put it, “the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.”
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton was a smart guy, but he should have avoided Aaron Burr.
Contrast this philosophy, which guides the spirit of the American people’s compact with the federal government (the Constitution), with this gem from the good people at Smart Balance (they make some kind of delicious buttery spread): “Denmark is the first country to legally ban artificial trans fats. The Danish people seem to be doing just fine without it… Sounds like a pretty good law.”
You know what, Smart Balance people, whoever you are? You can have my trans fats when you pry them out of my cold, dead hands. Apparently, if the Smart Balance people had their way, the feds would be regulating how much fat, or what kind of fat, I decide to eat each day, a.k.a., regulating “every species of personal and private concerns.” Even Doctor McCoy is saying, “Good God, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a Constitutional lawyer!”
You don’t have to be a Constitutional lawyer to see plainly that the Smart Balance people (whoever they are) are perfectly fine with violating the rights of every American in order to benefit their business. The term “fascism” is typically associated with murdering tyrants, but in the early 1900s it simply described the state’s relationship to the individual. It did not have the connotation it does today until the very nature of the system made it easy for tyrants to be tyrants and start murdering their people en masse.
And, in such a system, the government has a very cozy relationship with corporations, favoring certain ones over others, as well as certain industries over others. So, at one time it was called “fascism”, but in today’s topsy-turvy, girls will be boys and boys will be girls, mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world they call it “progressive”.
Each year at this time I hope to be dazzled by the fast-moving action on the field and the non-stop hilarity and/or profundity of the commercials that play in between. And each year any hopes of a memorable Super Bowl Sunday are dashed to bits in a hail of chips, queso and New Belgium beer (this year’s choice was a dark one called 1554; therefore, my stupor was a particularly stupefying one).
By the end of each year’s Super Bowl I’m left counting the cost to my body, my soul and my mind, and the reckoning is horrible. This year was worse than most, thanks in large part to the unending litany of crappy commercials. The agencies that created the spots all seemed to be trying far too hard to amuse. By doing so, any attempt at humor is usually forced and unnatural. And so it was.
There was one commercial, however, that stood out. Not because it was particularly clever, but because it was prophetic. I’m writing of course about Audi’s Green Police ad. I won’t bore you with a description of it; watch it below and let me know in the Comments whether or not you agree with my assessment, which follows the ad…
Okay then. Here’s why this ad is so prophetic… At first, I thought it was a satirical political ad aimed at Cap and Trade and the Climate Change-ocrats who would have each individual subject to draconian environmental rules and taxes. Come to find out the ad was for what I guess is a “socially responsible” car company called Audi. All Audis will simply pass through the fascist roadblocks that are sure to be part of our Utopian future because they’re so “green”.
Though the ad is obviously meant to be amusing, as in, “Ha ha ha. Wouldn’t that be funny if you were ticketed for having Styrofoam on your person? Hilarious!” It’s so absurd, you see, that it’s funny. But something tells me that Audi and the agency that created the ad would love to see this really happen.
It’s humor with an edge of truth in it; the scenes of constant harassment from the authorities regarding your personal consumption would actually happen if the environmentalists and their lackeys in Congress had their way. Of course, all those who spearhead the environmental regulation of the individual will be exempt, but everyone else (that’s me and you, by the way) will be subject to the microscopic bureaucratic meddling portrayed in the ad. The Green Police are funny (I guess) in the abstract, but less so in reality, kind of like the Gestapo and the KGB. Hilarious on paper, but rather authoritarian in person.
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.
Evidently free speech is alive and well at York University in Toronto. The Canadians have had issues lately with liberal fascism. Mark Steyn is one example, and these on campus pro-abortion groups are another. Evidently they consider the Pro-life position as sexist in nature and that it shouldn’t be tolerated at all. They are trying to ban all groups on campus that have a pro-life position. That’s right, ban!
In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.
Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it “within a pro-choice realm,” and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.
“You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body,” Ms. Massa said. “We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they’re sexist in nature … The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do … Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women’s rights.”
How can this be a sexist issue when according to polls women are more pro-life than men? Are women being self sexist? I have never really understood the militant defense of the pro-abortion position. A majority of Americans agree that it’s a gruesome practice, especially partial birth abortion. Even many abortion supporters claim to be “pro-choice” not “pro-abortion.” That’s one of my favorite bumper stickers. I can understand a fairly ambivalent libertarian position on abortion rights, but the extreme defense on the Left is puzzling.
These women look super excited about infanticide.
The emotion of Pro-lifers is understandable considering they believe abortion is murder. Unfortunately, most of the time the debate is framed in such a way that being pro-life means debating someone who says “what about pregnancies from rape and incest.” Basically a gruesome hypothetical situation is the justification for 40 million people not having a chance to live. About 88% of abortions take place before the end of the first trimester. That means approximately 5 million have taken place in the second or third trimester. It’s difficult to believe that is a positive and acceptable development for society.
Recent Comments