► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

TACO Tuesday – #EffUMizzou

by Carolina Girl ( 201 Comments › )
Filed under Censorship, Democratic Party, Hipsters, History, Marxism, Progressives at November 17th, 2015 - 11:00 am

Angry taco

[I apologize in advance for the use of vulgar, but in this case necessary, language.]

So, the precious kumquats at Mizzou and other campuses are upset that terrorists attacking Paris have taken the “spotlight” off their hurt feelings and need for safe “spaces”. How dare the media turn away from the horror of a poop swastika and instead focus on the blood flowing on the streets of Paris. Someone has been mean to us! Don’t you care? And look at Amherst! Why, those poor little rich kids – why, they have to endure a football mascot dressed as an American Revolutionary War hero! WHY, oh Lord, WHY? Besides, all those people who were murdered in Paris were White! And as we all know, only #BlackLivesMatter.

So these irrelevant little douchebags, not satisfied with making themselves look petty and ridiculous, decided to go for all the gusto and created a NEW hashtag, lest we forget just who the real victims are here: #fuckparis. No, seriously, they actually are using that in their tweets. What’s worse is that when taken to task for this, they double down with the “white privilege” argument.

Oh shut the hell up.

I’m old enough to have watched the Civil Rights movement in the South up close and personal. I was fortunate enough to have a mother – a white, conservative REPUBLICAN woman from New England, who gathered us to listen to the “I Have a Dream” speech by Martin Luther King at the foot of the memorial to the President who kept the Union together, at a very high price, paid on both sides of the conflict. I learned that #BlackLivesMatter watching a nasty piece of work turn fire hoses and attack dogs on children and protesters. I don’t need you clowns to tell me how it was. When I walked to school, I didn’t understand why my friend went left and I went right at the intersection. I’ve seen the Gorgon of racism – REAL racism. And you want to tell ME that my “white privilege” doesn’t allow me to understand the significance of your hurt feelings and fear?

Oh shut the hell up.

Fear? Do you want to talk about FEAR? There was a time when Blacks were afraid to even register to vote, were afraid to congregate, were afraid to look at a white person for too long a period of time. Yes, it was ugly and from this ugliness a great man arose. Who took America by the hand, untied the blindfold and said “Do you see? This is still a part of your country. You’re good people. You can’t let this go on.” And he walked, and he defied unjust laws and got arrested. And he did so with dignity. And people from all over the country came to help. White people linked arms with Black people and said “we are with you.” And some of those White people died for it. And it culminated in one of the most moving speeches in history that told us, indeed #AllLivesMatter. I try to think how The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King would have reacted had the media stopped covering his march in Selma to put the spotlight on a tragedy such as Paris. He would not have stomped his feet and acted like a five-year-old denied a cookie. He would have found the nearest house of worship and offered prayers for the victims. If no church was available he would have done it where he stood. You snots took to Twitter and whined because someone turned off the cameras.

Oh shut the hell up.

The civil rights movement I remember had Dr. King, Ralph Abernathy, Cecil Williams, Thurgood Marshall – who eloquently stated the truth of the situation, at great peril to themselves. You have DeRay McKesson, a garden-variety attention whore, who stokes the flames of dissent and runs away to the next location. And frankly, the last hit by Snoop Dog was more articulate than anything this guy has to say.

And all of you combined don’t equal the courage of one Medgar Evers.

And I’m sure this will all be branded as racist, vile, and I’m Bull Connor in a skirt. Say what you want, I know the truth of how I feel and who I am. But frankly, your hashtag and behavior in light of the real deaths of real people in Paris, who were in their “safe spaces” asking nothing, harming no one, really, really, pissed me the hell off.

So I invented a hashtag of my own.

Modern Education Vid

by coldwarrior ( 85 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Open thread, Political Correctness, Progressives at November 11th, 2015 - 7:00 am

This is perfect:



Dr Carson Is Right

by coldwarrior ( 184 Comments › )
Filed under Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Open thread, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at September 23rd, 2015 - 7:23 am

Dr Carson’s recent comments on muslims are absolutely correct. I don’t think he went far enough but it is good to see a push-back happen against the anti-American left and muslims.  See, in my world, we treat muslims the same way Christians are treated in Saudi Arabia and the like.


The Empty Outrage About Ben Carson

His critics have religious tests of their own.

Fresh from the Kim Davis controversy, during which liberals took the position that traditional Christians should no longer hold the government office of marriage clerk, liberals are denouncing Ben Carson for “bigotry” against Muslims. They piously quote the Constitution’s line from Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Of course, Carson never denied that Muslim Americans are eligible to run for office. He simply said that he wouldn’t vote for one who supported Sharia law. America’s founding fathers would have agreed.

They didn’t confuse eligibility with fitness for office. They had no problem voting against atheists and other adherents to beliefs that they deemed dangerous. The Left is pushing an idea that the founders regarded as mindless and destructive, namely, that the people are somehow constitutionally obligated to treat the religious beliefs of all candidates as equally valid, that it is somehow “un-American” for a voter to prefer a Christian candidate to a non-Christian one.

According to the contemporary definition of bigotry, which forbids any criticism of religion unless it is Christian, most of the founders were bigots. They certainly didn’t view Christianity and Islam as philosophically equal. Thomas Jefferson, who had to deal with the Barbary pirates, famously purchased a Koran not out of respect for Islam but out of wariness of it. He saw the Koran as a manual for war and sought to understand the tactics and motivations of the enemy. It is absurd to think that the founding fathers would have thought it a good idea for a historically and culturally Christian country to entrust its most powerful office to a devotee of a book that authorizes jihad against Christianity.

Contrary to the media’s extreme construction of his view, Carson isn’t taking the sweeping position that anybody who happens to be born into Islam is intrinsically unfit for the presidency. By “Muslim,” he means an adherent to Islamic orthodoxy. “Now, if someone has a Muslim background and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then, of course, they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them,” he told Sean Hannity.

In other words, Carson could support a bad Muslim for the presidency but not a good one—a position that shocks liberals even as they take an identical one with respect to Christians. What is the purpose of all of their propaganda against Christianity in the public square if not to scrub it clean of good Christians, leaving only heretical nominal Christians to serve in government offices? Liberals constantly lecture Americans on the dangers of voting for “evangelical” Christians, orthodox Catholics, and other members of the dreaded “religious right.”

Somehow the religious right by the Left’s estimate doesn’t include Islam, even as its extremist eruptions make even the most tenacious sects of Christianity look tame by comparison. Liberals would sooner vote for the officers of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is a front group for Islamic terrorists, than Ben Carson, who has been declared by that sham PR outfit, with help from a deferential media, “unfit” for the presidency.

One wonders how long members of the chattering class, so outraged at Ben Carson for suggesting the undesirability of a Muslim presidency in America, would last under a Muslim president in the Middle East. If they turned up on a talk show in one of those countries and made equivalent remarks about the importance of a majority-Muslim population electing a Christian president, they would quickly find themselves in jail.

The more illiberal and non-Western a religion, the more liberals defend it. Browbeating Carson, they insist that the values of Islam are the values of America. Meanwhile, they define something as blameless as Christian opposition to gay marriage as “un-American,” to quote the actor Tom Hanks.


Please Read the Rest Here

Labour Goes Socialist

by coldwarrior ( 62 Comments › )
Filed under Elections, Open thread, Politics, Socialism, UK at September 14th, 2015 - 8:27 am

The Labour Party in England has decided to move very far left by electing the socialist Jeremy Corbyn to its top slot. Why on earth would they put this unelectable commie in the leadership role? The following is an interesting article on what happened.

Does anyone see a comparison to Bernie Sanders and the Democrats?

5 takeaways on the Labour voteBe careful what you wish for.

By Mary Ann Sieghart

9/12/15, 1:38 PM CET

Updated 9/14/15, 10:36 AM CET

Over the past year or so, British politics has detonated bombshell after bombshell, laying waste to pollsters and pundits alike. There was the Scottish National Party landslide north of the border, the extraordinary victory by the U.K. Independence Party at the European elections, and then, of course, the wholly unexpected Conservative overall majority at the general election.

But nothing, nothing compares with this.

Not even Jeremy Corbyn himself would have dreamed six months ago that he would be leader of the Labour Party. There’s almost always a far-left candidate in these races, who is resigned to limping in last. Not for more than 35 years has he sprinted in first. So what can we take away from this contest? What does it tell us about the state of British politics and the future of the Labour Party?

1. For a time it looked as if Britain were relatively immune to the political convulsions that have occurred in Continental Europe since the financial crisis. No new parties, such as Greece’s Syriza or Spain’s Podemos, emerged. Even UKIP was nowhere near as successful as the National Front in France. There was an anti-Establishment, insurgent mood, but nowhere beyond UKIP for it to go. Now, it has been channeled into one of the mainstream parties, with unforeseeable consequences.

2. The mainstream candidates in this race were not just uninspiring — though they were — but bad at mobilizing too. Admittedly Corbyn had the help of the big trade unions, but he was also savvier at harnessing the new enthusiasm he aroused. He was the only one of the four leadership candidates to embed on his website the link that allowed people to sign up for £3 as registered supporters of the party and vote. Simple, really, but a sign that the other three were as poor at the mechanics of politics as they were at the message.

The moderate mainstream had better watch out now. The Left has always been more adept at machine politics: packing committees and changing party rules to suit their ends. In the 1980s, they did it with candidate selection, to get more left-wing members into Parliament. They also introduced mandatory re-selection of sitting MPs, allowing them to be chucked out by their own activists between elections if they didn’t toe the line. There’s been chatter that this might be brought back. If it is, the Labour Party will no longer represent voters on the center-Left and will become unelectable for a generation – an outcome that will dismay MPs, but not the people who voted for Corbyn and prefer principle to power.

3. Unlike in 1980, when the equally left-wing Michael Foot became Labour leader through a vote of his MPs, Corbyn has been elected against the wishes of his parliamentary party. He has only about 15 whole-hearted supporters in Parliament, which means that more than 90 percent of his MPs oppose him. He needs to appoint a Shadow Cabinet of 26 MPs, and about 70 more shadow ministers. Where will he find them? What will they say when they are asked on TV whether they think he will make a good prime minister? And will the 200 or so MPs who oppose him feel obliged to obey the party whip when they are led by a man who has until now been the most disloyal MP on their benches? This is likely to become an unleadable party, led by an unelectable leader.

4. The party is committed to putting power in the hands of the many not the few, but it is now in danger of mistaking the ardor of a few for the enthusiasm of the many. Only 0.5 percent of the British electorate voted for Corbyn. Yes, those who were motivated to sign up for this election were energized by his message, but the vast majority of voters, who only think about politics once every five years, are way to the Right of him. Yet another poll came out this week showing that Labour lost the last election because people didn’t trust it to borrow and spend responsibly. You can multiply those doubts a thousandfold now. As a result, a gap has opened up in the center of British politics. Once it was filled by Tony Blair, then by the Liberal Democrats. Now it is the Conservatives’ for the asking. The Tories have already recognized this and are touting themselves as the party of the workers. Expect them to occupy this ground very happily — and to scoop up the millions of voters camped there.

5. When Ed Miliband introduced these rules for the leadership election, he had a vision of a new politics that engaged the disenchanted, led to a new era of political participation, enthused the young and brought idealism and passion back to Westminster. He has achieved all that and more — but to what end? In politics, as in many other walks of life, you have to be very careful what you wish for.