One of the unsettled issues from the Bush years is the seething hatred on the left. Attacks on Bush went unanswered for nine long years without defense. There’s nothing wrong with debate. There was a long list of things I wasn’t happy with during the Bush administration, but the bile that came from the left is largely forgotten in the attempt to label anyone who disagrees with Obama as either racist, misogynist, homophobe, fascist, or some combination of them all.
After Bush the left has had two long years beating up on Sarah Palin. I’m exhausted from the hate-mongering. Now the left has turned its eyes toward Michele Bachmann. Just do a quick Twitter search for “Bachmann + bitch” to get an idea of how deranged people are about her.
The internet is a great tool for information, but it’s also a source for misinformation. Let’s face it, if your sole source for news is MSNBC, Slate, The Nation and Twitter hate feeds there’s a good chance you’re terribly misinformed. Heck, even ABC News is feeding the frenzy. Now what I’m about to say isn’t politically correct. Christians view homosexuality as a sin. It’s Biblical, it’s clear, and it’s not debatable. However, there’s a whole list of things that are sins that aren’t illegal in the United States. You can fornicate to your heart’s content and there’s not a law against it; however, it is a sin.
Does that mean that anyone who confesses to be a Christian (one that believes the Bible is the Word of God) is unfit for public office? Well, according to many on the left the answer is yes. All these liberals who are up in arms about religious organizations who can be linked (the influence of the association is of no consequence) to Bachmann didn’t bat an eye about Obama’s ties to the New Left and radical pastors. I can guarantee if people on the right talked about the President the way these leftists are talking about Bachmann it would be on page 1 of the New York Times.
What it all boils right down to is Christianity. Many of the left absolutely have no tolerance for evangelical Christians. The seething hate is undeniable. Christians are portrayed as brain-dead morons in all facets of American culture. Christians spend more time and money on charity than any class of people in the United States. In the year 2011 the individual is free to do, think, say, or act any way they want. Christians tolerate the practice. What more do liberals want?
It’s not too surprising that a writer from The Nation would think that everything is okay with Medicare. The socialist magazine is a shining example of how liberals think (or don’t think). John Nichols believes everything is fine with Medicare. The real threat… is Paul Ryan:
Medicare can be reformed the right way. It is not broken. And it is not broke.
The only serious threat to Medicare’s future is Paul Ryan. If the House Budget Committee gets his way, the federal government will rob the elderly in order to pay off Ryan’s campaign contributors. Medicare has a great history. And if Ryan’s plan is rejected, it will have a great future.
Medicare isn’t broke? Paul Ryan is the problem? It’s difficult to see how progress can be made reforming these entitlements when the left’s position is so far from reality. Navigating legislation through Congress is already a difficult progress. If the opposition believes nothing is wrong I don’t see how the problem can be solved unless the GOP has a super majority. Even that might not solve the problem since I don’t trust the Republicans to do the right thing.
This week’s Saturday Night Live Weekend Update segment briefly discussed Arizona’s new immigration law. The law has been declared “divisive” by the left because it actually enforces the law. Here is Seth Myers take on the law:
Seth Meyers: This week, Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration law in the country which will allow police to demand identification papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.
I know there’s some people in Arizona worried that Obama is acting like Hitler, but could we all agree that there’s nothing more Nazi than saying “Show me your papers”? There’s never been a World War II movie that didn’t include the line “show me your papers”. It’s their catchphrase. Every time someone says “show me your papers”, Hitler’s family gets a residual check.
So heads up, Arizona; that’s fascism. I know, I know, it’s a dry fascism, but it’s still fascism.
Obviously this is satire, but comparing this law to fascism isn’t funny or even logical. Requiring every driver in the United States to carry papers (a.k.a., a Driver’s License) must be a dry fascism. Requiring every worker to have a Social Security number must also fascist. Every time Club Soda is stopped for speeding, the local Gestapo asks for his “papers”. Every time I get a new job the Gestapo asks for my “papers”. This whole time, apparently, I’ve been living in a police state!
The left’s indifference to illegal immigration continues to puzzle me. Or maybe not. The Democrats seem most excited by the prospect that these illegals will become a voting bloc.
There will also be political repercussions. While Republicans may pick up a few more percent of the angry white vote in November 2010, they can kiss the Hispanic vote goodbye — and not just in Arizona. That may not have meant much in 1935, but in the years to come, it could seal the Republicans’ fate as a minority party. That’s at least one price they’ll pay for being mean and crazy.
According to John B. Judis, enforcing the law is crazy and mean. Forcing healthy citizens to get health insurance against their will, however, is perfectly fine. This is how the illogical progressive thinks. Judis would rather give illegal immigrants amnesty and free health care so they vote for Democrats forever. The law wouldn’t even be necessary if Democrats would get off this amnesty train and commit to common-sense reform. There’s nothing remotely fascist about enforcing immigration laws.
It’s odd that Saturday Night Live would highlight this piece of news and ignore what happened on South Park this week. Comedy Central’s capitulation to death threats from Islamic fundamentalists was easily the most disgusting development this week. When it comes to satire everything is fair game except Mohammad.
I’ll start by saying that I love Wikipedia. It’s a great resource for general information. For the most part it is objective, but there are definitely some biased articles. President Obama’s page glosses over his mentor Jeremiah Wright and doesn’t even mention William Ayers, despite the fact they were both newsworthy events during the last campaign. Contrast that to President Bush’s National Guard Service coverage on his Wikipedia page. These are nit-picking examples to be sure, but I’ve been monitoring I.F. Stone’s page since it was confirmed he was a traitorous spy for comparison.
It’s been funny watching the leftists defend this scumbag. The defense for years from the left has been he wasn’t a communist. The new defense is that he was trying to defeat the fascist Nazis. Common sense and logic would ask how an American journalist writing for the New York Post would help the Soviets fight the Nazis, but I digress. Another defense can be witnessed on Wikipedia. The editors simply dismiss this whole thing as “alleged espionage” because the source is a “conservative magazine.” I guess an acceptable source would be The Nation? It’s humorous that the Wikipedia article never says that The Nation is a liberal publication. In fact, The Nation is basically a communist publication. How many “alleged traitors” have worked for Commentary Magazine?
Mark Hemingway wrote an article last week about the left’s inability to deal with the revelations that their hero was a traitor.
Profs. Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes — scholars who’ve previously done extensive work on Soviet espionage — examine the Stone case in their new book, Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America. The book is also co-authored with Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB agent turned journalist. Vassilev is in possession of detailed records from now-closed Soviet archives that convincingly demonstrate that from 1936 to 1939 Stone was on the Soviet payroll. (The relevant excerpt from the book has been published by Commentary.) Stone was a spy, case closed.
Except it’s not. Rather than deal with the facts at hand, the American Left once again appears to be stricken with willful blindness. The fact that a beloved godfather of the left-wing press was in reality a traitor, in league with an enemy that represented an existential threat to America, simply does not jibe with the purported purity of the Left’s political motives. Therefore, Stone must not have been a traitor.
Hemingway goes on to talk about The Nation’s Eric Alterman and his problem with the definition of the word “spy.” The left loves to revel in the history of the civil rights movement and the “southern strategy.” These historical moments mean that they are intellectually and morally superior. It’s for this reason the left is unable to deal with the extremism of the New Left and the ties to the evils of communism.
The Left can’t claim to uphold the values of I. F. Stone as they envision him — a crusading defender-of-democracy — without reckoning with the Communist spy he was in reality. Political sympathies shouldn’t prevent anyone from seeing the truth about a man even 20 years after his death and 70 years after his misdeeds. If you can’t admit the truth when it’s inconsequential, it hardly seems surprising you would justify doing something terrible when it serves your interests.
Recent Comments