Greatest Hits: The Utility of Free Speech

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

The Utility of Free Speech:  While the left only allows speech that completely agrees with their own opinions, actual free speech has great value…

As we all know, freedom of speech is under attack.  Mark Lloyd proposes to replace privately owned media with a government approved and moderated PBS.  Cass Sustein and Henry Waxman have both floated the idea of regulating Internet content.  Speech codes on campus restrict the free flows of ideas on college campuses.  The ACLU threatens to sue kids that pray at graduation ceremonies.  People are threatened if they pray in public.  Conversely, the left is able to engage in whatever outrageous activity they choose, and even do what they accuse the right of doing.  The double standard is sometimes astounding.

Following Marxist concepts like “tolerant repression,” the left seeks to limit or eliminate dissent. We understand that this is part of their effort to obtain power by silencing all opposition, or making said opposition ineffective, and unable to reach the people.  Their allies in the media do not cover stories critical of the left, or distorts them into a one sided attack on the opposition.  The government ignores mass protests and accuses the protesters of “racism, terrorism,” and being paid by special interests.  What they cannot ban, or cover up, they will discredit.  They attempt to cloud genuine dissent with hate, all in order to attack the messenger, and to ignore the message.

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, this is certain.  And we know that in a Constitutional Republic, free speech is vital for debate and the free flow of ideas.  Without free speech, the Republic that so many bled and died for would take a short trip into tyranny. All these are true, but I would submit that there is an additional benefit for freedom of speech.

Every nation has fringe groups; racists, religious extremists of every type, anarchists, communist revolutionaries, national socialists, and probably a huge number of others.  It is tempting to deny these people a public forum, as they are repugnant to most all Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. But there are benefits to allowing them speak and function in the open:

  1. If they are public, we know who they are.  Putting a face to the hate allows us to confront it.
  2. If they speak openly, we can know what they believe, and what they want.  Knowing this allows us all to confront them.
  3. If they operate openly, we know what they are doing.  We can keep track of them, and monitor their activities.

If we ban free speech, even the speech that we find disgusting, we lose some things:

  1. We will have no idea who the extremists are, as they won’t go away, they’ll go underground.
  2. We will have no idea what they believe or plan to do.
  3. By banning their speech, the government will prove most of their beliefs about their ideas being a threat to power.
  4. Being banned makes them more attractive to “recruits.” They will have the “truth those in power don’t want you to know.”
  5. They become dangerous and more likely to take violent action.

Freedom of speech means that you might be offended by something that is said or written.  We have to take hate for what it is, and confront it, or just let if fail under the weight of it’s own stupidity.  We have to allow all of it, or face tyranny.  No party or group should have the ability to eliminate freedom of speech, or our Republic is doomed.

Share

Dinner With Obama

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Almost Done

“If the government ever publishes a book to show bureaucrats how to serve the public, it will be a cookbook.” — Gary North

__________

“I smelled something cooking and I looked to see; That’s when I found out they was-a cooking me!” — The Cadets (Stranded In The Jungle, 1956)

***

When you’re in the stew pot and they’re adding the salt, it’s a little late to realize why it’s never wise to accept a dinner invitation from cannibals:

[…] like so much about the age of Obama, Republicans mistake leftist ideology for incompetence …  You can’t understand why President Obama’s policies and his nominations are so radical. It doesn’t make sense, you think, for him to pick extremist nominees who would have radical skeletons that would have disqualified them in any other administration. You also can’t understand why he continues to lurch left on almost every foreign and domestic issue. Get over it.  It isn’t 1990 anymore, and leftist radicalism is a prerequisite for jobs in this administration, not a disqualifier. Leftist radicalism is the administration’s reason for existence … The Obama administration isn’t afraid of your shock and strongly worded letters. The administration is instead marching forward into a bold future without you. When they march right over you, they assume you will complain. What the Obamites are really afraid of, and haven’t seen from most in the Republican Party, are effective counter-attacks to their radicalism. They are afraid of the most radical policy units inside their government being defunded by the House. They are afraid of the impeachment of lower-level federal officials who abuse power, such as IRS or DOJ employees, by the House. They are afraid of rough power being met with rough power.
***

Bedtime stories for Bolsheviks.  They could append any one of Obama’s speeches and nobody would know the difference:

Cop-Killer, Communist, Terrorist Pen Nightmarish Blueprint for ‘Socialist USA’(CNS)

The new book, “Imagine Living in a Socialist USA,” was edited by Frances Goldin who praises “life-enhancing socialism” in the preface. The 281 page manifesto showcases 31 utopian essays written by dangerous criminals, prominent liberals, and self-described communists – all for just $10.11

The new book is stocked with pieces featuring Bill Ayers, Michael Moore and even Mumia Abu Jamal. It’s a perfect fit for Karl Marx’s library and brought together calls for establishment of grade and competition-free schools and the greatest hits of terrible Occupy Wall Street demands into a strident call for “the Third American Revolution.”

Bon Appetit!

Related articles

PTG

Original Post: Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead

Share

Common Core: Right Wing Groups to be Described as ‘Fascist’

Share

school_crossing_sign

I haven’t covered it as much as I should, but Common Core is the latest indoctrination program for use in the public schools.  And, since it’s a leftist creation, it’s full of lies, indoctrination, and blind obedience.  And, since the socialist state can tolerate no dissent, all opposition has to be smeared and discredited.   In that vein, it appears that Common Core dictates that all “right wing group” be portrayed as fascists, even though fascism and Conservatism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.  The Federalist Papers has more…

Via The Daily Caller:

Hillsdale professor Terrence Moore, author of  “Story Killers: A Common Sense Case Against Common Core,”  exposed some of the more distressing aspects of the controversial Common Core education standards program, saying that all teachers must tell young students that all right-wing groups are fascist.

Moore highlights how it is not just the reading lists and course materials — which have already attracted a large amount of criticism — that need to be examined by parents. It’s also the teaching notes and standard curriculum; the notes and standards come as part of a comprehensive package. Moore noted through his research that a distinctly political slant is introduced, one which dictates not only what children are taught, but also how they should be taught.

Next thing you know, they’ll be encouraging kids to turn their parents in for being “fascists.”    In the end, it is clear that Common Core is far more like fascism than any freedom loving American.

Share

Classic Conservative Hideout: This is the Tolerance of the Left: Intimidation, Harassment, and Threats (Brett Kimberlin and #FreeKate Edition)

Share

I republish this post, with some edits, every year.  I think it’s wise to review leftist tactics, as well as honor those that have endured much in the cause of human freedom.  There are people our own country that put their safety and livelihoods on the line to promote the teachings of Jesus Christ, as well as the concepts of freedom laid out by our own Founding Fathers. Given that people are placed in physical and legal jeopardy by convicted bombers, or by those that want to legalize sex between adults and minors, it’s wise to expose and discuss the tactics of the left-Matt 

This is a story that I’ve known about for some time now.  It is the story of Ruth Malhotra.  As a student at Georgia Tech, she endured verbal abuse from professors, death threats, threats to be raped, and an otherwise sickening pattern of harassment from the university administration and “community.”  The following is from a Front Page article, by Peter Collier.

A committed Christian, she was personally conservative but not particularly political when she arrived at Tech in 2002. But in the perfervid post 9/11 atmosphere on campus, she found herself gradually pulled into the orbit of the College Republicans and soon galvanized not only by questions of war and peace but also by issues such as race preferences and abortion. And on all of these issues, she found, conservative students faced a tilted playing field. She recalls: “The more I got involved, the more I saw the obstacles conservative students face in expressing themselves. The administration put so many more challenges in our way. We didn’t have the same resources and opportunities that leftist students had. I expected an open forum for ideas, but the administration was clearly biased.”

So were some of her teachers. Malhotra’s first open conflict with the Tech administration came in the spring of 2004, when she enrolled in a course called Foundations of Public Policy. The first day class she told the professor, a woman named Georgia Persons, that she would have to miss one class session because of a conference she was attending in Washington. Persons asked who was holding the conference. When Malhotra told her it was the Conservative Political Action Committee, the teacher warned her that she would fail the course. Malhotra thought this might be more of the in-class hyperbole she’d heard from other liberal professors. But she did indeed fail the first test. Otherwise a 4.0 student, she complained about the grade to the Dean’s Office, also claiming that the professor had made snide remarks in class about Christians and conservatives that were obviously directed at her. After filing a grievance, Malhotra brokered a deal in which she was allowed to withdraw from the class without penalty and the professor would not be allowed to teach it again.

So, the professor attempted to punish a Conservative student?  This has happened many times before, but for Ms. Malhotra, it was only the beginning.

It was about this time that she was called into by a dean who told her that the College Republicans were a “joke” and should cease their activities. Pointing out that her group was merely expressing its opinions the way that the preponderant leftwing groups did, Malhotra was then sent to Tech’s Vice President, who passed her on to President Wayne Clough, who made it clear to her that he found her actions distasteful and not in accord with the “atmosphere of civility” he sought for the campus. When Malhotra pointed out that this atmosphere included—indeed, was defined by—leftist groups violently and often obscenely condemning the President and the war in Iraq, and, for that matter, attacking the faith of conservative Christians like herself—she received a brush off.

This is very typical.  The left accuses others of doing what they do.  They then use power in an attempt to silence any dissent.

Already a controversial figure on campus, Malhotra, now chief plaintiff in the suit filed with fellow student leader Orit Sklar, became Public Enemy number one for the Georgia Tech left. An ad hoc group called CLAM (Conservatives and Liberals Against Malhotra) formed on campus with the sole raison d’etre of harassing her. An anti Malhotra website appeared calling her “christo-fascist” and showing an unflattering shot of her face stippled with digitized swastikas.

Again, this is standard operating procedure for the left.  Demonize the person, so the message will be ignored.

Malhotra was accepted by Tech for graduate school in the fall of 2006. A few months earlier, a judge had heard the first point of French’s four point suit—the one regarding the speech code—and ordered mediation between the parties. The university agreed to change the policy, but almost immediately reneged on its promise. In August, a few weeks before classes began, the judge heard arguments on the speech code and then struck it down.

Never acknowledging the constitutional reason for the court decision, Tech reacted by appropriating $100,000 to bring in speakers (among them, Maya Angelou at a fee of $22,500) and hold “meaningful discussions” as part of a campus-wide initiative called “Common Ground” meant to reaffirm the commitment to “civility” (which the court hearing had shown was nothing more than officially sanctioned politically correct speech) in spite of the legal setback it had suffered.

So, their speech code was struck down, and they acted as if it hadn’t happened.

It was during this kuybaya moment that threats against Malhotra reached a crescendo. “So your not dead yet Ruth Malhotra,” one of them began with uncertain grammar but unmistakable enmity. “But you will be soon.” Another one warned, “Don’t even try to protest National Coming Out Day. If you do, you will regret it, and don’t say you were not warned. You are hated on this campus and you should fear for your life.” Yet another said, “For every time a student is called Nigger on campus—you will receive a bullet to the head.”

The campus police defined the threats as “terroristic.” But although some of the letters were brazenly signed by persons on and off campus, no arrests have been made. And the administration itself, ignoring the opportunity to strike a blow in behalf of the civility it claims to prize, has remained mute about the invisible outrage taking place on its campus. (A public information officer replies to questions about the case by reading a statement which says that Georgia Tech cannot comment because of its commitment to protecting its students’ privacy; when it is pointed out to him that the only student with a privacy issue in this case, Malhotra herself, is willing to waive this privilege, he says that he will consult the school’s legal counsel and is never heard from again.)

When they couldn’t silence her by threatening her with failing grades, they harassed and insulted her.  When the campus denies her free speech, and they lose the lawsuit, they continue as if nothing happened.  When she would not submit to the left, they went where the left always goes-to threats of violence.  Then, when these threats are reported, they are ignored.  From top to bottom, the leftists at Georgia Tech decided to persecute this woman.

In the end,  the left is totally entrenched at the universities.  Given their tactics, they seem intent on staying on the indoctrination reservation.

I think Ms. Malhotra’s lawyer summed it up best.

David French, her lawyer in this case and a longtime litigator in matters of free speech and student rights, is also stunned by what has happened to Malhotra: “I’ve never seen anything quite like this. The tolerant left at Georgia Tech seems to have decided that Ruth must be destroyed to protect `tolerance.’ The administration sees one of its own threatened by death and rape and they just sit there. I’ve seen conservative students suffer a lot of abuse for their beliefs. But I’ve never seen abuse cross over into threats. And I’ve never seen an administration sit on its hands while one of its students is threatened by death and rape. It makes you wonder: have we gone past simple intimidation to death threats now? Is this sort of thing going to become a standard part of left’s playbook in intimidating conservative students? How far will they go?”

I think we’ve all seem where it’s gone in the three years since this article was written.  Just ask Kenneth Gladney, and the 14-year-old kid that the SEIU intimidated.  Also, please remember the people that were harassed and lost their livelihoods for contributing to support Prop 8 in California.  For that matter, think of how the Democrats & MSM has treated the Tea Parties since they decided to stop ignoring them.  They have consistently used the most demeaning of terms and accusations to describe patriots, yet ignores real violence and terror used by the left.

The only thing that stops bullying is a large number of people standing up to it.  Leftist tactics work well against individuals, or small groups.  But what if thousands, or even millions stood up and said, “NO MORE!”  That, my friends, is when the bullies stop cold.  They don’t know how to handle resistance on that level.  Remember that bullies are, at their core, cowards that desperately try to control situations with force, threats, and dirty tactics.  Cause the tactics to not work, and all you are left with is a coward.  -Matt

Share

Christians Need Not Apply: Military Ramps up Persecution Against Christians

Share

In this age of increased persecution against Christians, think it should come as no surprise that more and more cases of people being fired or punished for their beliefs should come to light.  Earlier this year, it became “illegal” for  Christian to share one’s faith in the military.  Now, it seems that even being a Christian is a crime.  Take a look at the following below.  

Technical Sgt. Layne Wilson, a 27 year veteran of the Utah Air National Guard, was reprimanded for his opposition to a homosexual wedding in the West Point chapel. In fact, he was told to retire because his personal views were incompatible with military policy. How have things changed since Mr. Obama became commander in chief? Simple–liberals have become more intolerant than ever. If you disagree with the aberrant behavior displayed by a White House-preferred small group, you can kiss your military career goodbye. Commanding officers will be more than glad to obey their ring-tapping superiors by enforcing the mandatory acceptance of perversions. TSgt Wilson’s crime? Being Christian.

Master Sgt. Nathan Sommers, a 25-year Army veteran, received an article 15 reprimand for his political and religious beliefs. He was being prosecuted by an openly gay officer. His crime: being Christian. According to the latest report, MSG Sommers is planning to file a discrimination lawsuit.

John Wells, the attorney representing TSgt Wilson, told Fox News: “The military is trying to make examples of people who have religious beliefs that homosexual conduct in the military is wrong.” “The end game is to force conservative Christians out of the military.”

Of course, we’ve read the Book, and know that this kid of thing is coming.  But, there seems to be a concerted effort to rid the military services of long standing leaders, and especially Christians.  I know the left has never trusted the military.  The military always votes to the right, which is why the Democrats always try to find ways to throw out their votes.   In a time of trouble, the left has never thought that the men and women in uniform would act against the public.  My many conversations with former military personnel show me this.  However, what if the Obama Administration were to remake the military into something more to his idealogical liking?  What if he could re-mold the military into something that would do his bidding, and would hate Christians, Jews, and anyone who believed in the Constitution?  What if he created a military that was trained that belief in the Constitution made for “dangerous radicals,” or that belief in the Bible made one an “extremist?”

Perhaps he wants a military capable of doing this…

Makes one think, doesn’t it?

And, just as a reminder…

18 “If the world hates you, just remember that it has hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, then the world would love you as its own. But I chose you from this world, and you do not belong to it; that is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: “Slaves are not greater than their master.’ If people persecuted me, they will persecute you too; if they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours too. 21 But they will do all this to you because you are mine; for they do not know the one who sent me.

John 15

Share

Tamerlan Tsarnaev- 9/11 Denier, Against War on Terror, Ignorant- Product of the Intellectual Left?

Share

From the Detroit News article For Boston bombing suspects, question may be who led whom:

…(Alyssa Kilzer) said the mother (of the terrorists) also expressed some rather strident views about the U.S. government. “(When my mother went to their house to get a facial treatment) (the mother of the terrorists) started quoting a conspiracy theory, telling me that she thought 9-11 was purposefully created by the American government to make America hate Muslims. ‘It’s real,’ (the mother of the terrorists) said, ‘My son knows all about it. You can read on the internet.'”…

…Tsarni (who is the uncle) told The Associated Press from his home in Maryland that a deep rift opened between him and his sister-in-law, but that he tried to maintain a relationship with the boys. However, that effort began to fall apart several years ago, he said, when Tamerlan “started carrying all this nonsense associated with religion, with Islamic religion.”

Tamerlan would throw out foreign words like “jihad” and “Inshallah” — Arabic for “God willing” — without really understanding their meaning, he said…

…One of the brothers’ neighbors, Albrecht Ammon, said he had a bizarre encounter with Tamerlan in a pizza shop about three months ago. The older brother argued with him about U.S. foreign policy, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and religion. He said Tamerlan referred to the Bible as a “cheap copy” of the Quran, and that many of this country’s wars “are based upon the Bible — how it’s an excuse to invade other countries.”

“He had nothing against the American people,” Ammon said. “He had something against the American government.”…

There are those who are going to try to spin some sort of alternative narrative about these terrorists- that they were just an innocent family that didn’t integrate to American culture because American culture is wrong or something, that these people were poor and desperate and so we need to increase welfare programs, that this event has nothing at all to do with Muslim or the Muslim religion, that this is a conspiracy theory involving the FBI, that somehow these terrorists were lone-wolves whose actions say nothing further about society or the environment that they’ve lived in, or that somehow it was Bush’s fault.

But the above quotes paint a different picture. We can see here two young individuals who accepted left-wing indoctrination regarding two major events that took place over the last several years- 9/11 and the War on Terror. The left- liberals, communists, progressives, socialists, fascists- have been for years attempting to spin conspiracy theories about 9/11 that put the blame for these events on America. And these groups have also for years been agitating against the War on Terror- in fact these groups united behind the Democrats and Barack Obama and helped to elect them on the argument that the War on Terror was wrong and just an excuse to invade other countries. And the older brother was ignorant- using language and words for which he didn’t really understand and which really didn’t even apply- the sort of misuse and abuse of language that is more characteristic of the left than it is with the right.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are not to blame for these events- the actions of evil people are- but the political environment, rhetoric, intellectual thought, and systems of support that the left has been at work building contributed to and aided these evil people in their efforts.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his brother were not students of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers, they did not quote John Locke and talk about a new American Revolution, they were not supportive of our efforts overseas to degrade terror networks and remove regimes from power who supported and cheered on the 9/11 attacks, they did not curse the terrorists who committed 9/11, they were not supportive of the free market, they were not raised believing in human freedom and personal liberty and the responsibilities and consequences of their actions for the larger society, they were not interested in business and producing goods and services, they didn’t discuss any Ron Paul conspiracy theories about the gold standard or the government taken over by communists, they did not love human life, they did not believe in the protection of private property, and they did not believe that wordsmithing and image and fancy rhetoric are just crap. They are not associated in their actions, thoughts, beliefs, or values with the ‘right’- conservatives, tea partiers, libertarians, constitutionalists, republicans, Republicans, independents, etc.

It is to the left of the political spectrum that we must look to see who intellectually gave these terrorists purpose and direction to commit their evil acts. This might not be the politically correct thing to say- but let it be said here regardless.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Boston Marathon Bombing Update: At Least Three Dead, Over 100 Wounded, Leftist Media Blames Right

Share

Here are better videos of the Boston Marathon bombing itself…

Fox has additional coverage…

The deadly bombing at the Boston Marathon that killed at least three and injured more than 130 is believed to be an act of terrorism, senior White House officials told Fox News.

Two explosions tore through the finish line of the world-famous race just before 3 p.m., going off simultaneously as throngs of onlookers watched runners complete the 26.2-mile trek. The timing of the blasts immediately sparked suspicions of a deliberate act.

“When multiple devices go off, that’s an act of terrorism,” a senior administration official told Fox News, just moments after President Obama delivered a statement to the nation and did not use the word “terror.”

The official stressed that it was unclear whether a foreign entity like Al Qaeda was behind it or whether it was home-grown terrorism, prompting  the president’s caution in characterizing the bombing. The Wall Street Journal reported that five undetonated explosive devices were found in the Boston area, and authorities were guarding a person of interest at a local hospital, according to a New York Post report confirmed by Fox News. The person, who sources said was 20 years old, had severe burns, but authorities had not determined whether the person was a victim or a perpetrator.

“There is no suspect,” said Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis. “There are people we’re talking to.”

At current, we have little information as to who is being talked to.

So, while the authorities search for evidence, the hospitals treat the wounded, and the family members mourn the dead or worry about the injured, some people are already using the tragedy to score political points…

In a despicable fashion reminiscent of previous tragedies, some on the left have jumped to the conclusion that the bombings may be the work of the right.

Esquire’s Charles Pierce reminded people to not rush to the conclusion that this was an act of foreign terrorism, but to consider that this was the work of conservatives:

“Obviously, nobody knows anything yet, but I would caution folks jumping to conclusions about foreign terrorism to remember that this is the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord, and that the actual date (April 19) was of some significance to, among other people, Tim McVeigh, because he fancied himself a waterer of the tree of liberty and the like.”

Sure, why speculate that the terrorist group that has been continually calling for violence on American soil is behind this when you can throw baseless accusations at your political enemies?

And, Michael Moore Jabba the Lib is dropping hints as well. 

Its a shame when there is a Boston Marathon bombing that we have to discuss the media bias instead of the people that suffered.

Share

Margaret Thatcher, The Iron Lady, Dead at Age 87

Share

Margaret Thatcher, the so called “Iron Lady,” had passed away at age 87.  The UK’s first female prime minister, she was in power at a pivotal time in the UK’s history, restoring the economy and international prestige of her nation.  She was seen as a partner with Ronald Reagan in confronting Soviet Communism, winning her the title, “Iron Lady,” from the Soviet Press.  The Daley Gator has more…

Margaret Thatcher Dies After Stroke – Sky News

Britain’s first and only female prime minister Baroness Thatcher has died at the age of 87 after suffering a stroke.

Lady Thatcher’s children Mark and Carol said their mother, who suffered bouts of ill health in recent years, died peacefully on Monday morning.

Downing Street, which joined Buckingham Palace in flying its flags at half mast, said the politician would be given a full ceremonial funeral with honours at St Paul’s Cathedral.

Sky sources understand she died at the Ritz in central London where she had been staying since January following a minor operation.

It is believed her Belgravia home was not properly equipped for her recovery and she was invited to stay at the hotel by its owners, David and Frederick Barclay.

.

Prime Minister David Cameron led tributes from around the world, calling the former Tory leader “a great prime minister, a great leader, a great Briton”.

He said: “As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds, and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country, and I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.

“Her legacy will be the fact she served her country so well, she saved our country and that she showed immense courage in doing so and people will be learning about what she did and her achievements in decades, probably centuries to come.”

Mr Cameron was in Spain at the start of a European tour to push for a more flexible EU when the news broke but immediately cut short his trip.

.

It is understood that Lady Thatcher was consulted about details of the funeral arrangements and made clear that she did not want to lie in state.

The streets between Westminster and St Paul’s will be cleared for the procession, the date of which is yet to be decided. The route will be lined with members of Armed Forces.

US President Barack Obama said that America would “never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan” and that she had “with moral conviction” helped to shape history.

He said: “With the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, the world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend.

“As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered. As prime minister, she helped restore the confidence and pride that has always been the hallmark of Britain at its best.”

As a pivotal figure in British history, we will miss Baroness Thatcher, but her legacy lives in in the UK that she had restored and strengthened.

Stacey McCain has a post as well, as does Bob Belvedere.

Sarah Palin [tip of the fedora to Daria DiGiovanni]:

Today we say goodbye to a towering figure of the 20th century. With the passing of Margaret Thatcher, we’ve sadly lost the last living member of that great triumvirate that included Ronald Reagan and John Paul II — those giants who defeated the evil empire of Soviet Communism and allowed the liberation of its captive nations. We’ve also lost one of the great champions of economic freedom and democratic ideals.

Many will focus on the fact that Margaret Thatcher’s career was a collection of “firsts” for women — she was the first and youngest female Conservative-party member to stand for election, the first woman to hold the title Leader of the Opposition, and the first woman prime minister of the United Kingdom.

But Thatcher not only broke a glass ceiling; she broke a class ceiling. She was a grocer’s daughter from the back of beyond who advanced to the height of power in a class-conscious society. Like her friend Ronald Reagan, she was an underestimated underdog and political outsider. Simon Jenkins, the former editor of the Evening Standard, once said, “There was no Thatcher group within the Tory Party. . . . She was utterly and completely on her own. She simply was an outsider in every way.”

She was at heart a populist taking on the Conservative party’s old guard, who disdainfully referred to her as “That Woman.” The disdain was mutual. She referred to them as “the not so grand grandees.” As Thatcher later said, “It didn’t matter what they called me as long as I got the job done. I mean, to me they were ‘Those Grandees.’ They just don’t know what life is like. They haven’t been through it. And eventually if they didn’t help our cause, they had to go. But it didn’t bother me too much that they were patronizing like that. Frankly, the people, who are the true gentlemen, deal with others for what they are, not who their father was. Let’s face it: Maybe it took ‘That Woman’ to get things done, and the real reason why they said it was because they knew they just hadn’t got it within them to see things through.”

It seems that not everyone enjoyed peace and prosperity.  And, just as the American left has a tendency to celebrate death, the Brit left has the routine down pat.  Here is a video from the Daily Mail…


As usual, leftists show class and dignity are NOT part of the Alinsky handbook. But, I guess it can be expected, after all, Thatcher did stand against communism.

But, I don’t want to end this post on the terms of the leftists.  Instead, let’s look at some highlights from Thatcher’s career…

This is one of the best “take downs” of socialists that I recall ever seeing.  It is a fitting tribute, and as fine a political legacy as I can identify.  She clearly showed the difference between freedom and slavery-and like Reagan, the left hates her, even in death.

Then again, to be hated by communists, even in death must have meant that she did much in the cause of freedom.   For that, we thank her, and she will be missed.


You can support the CH 2.0 with your Amazon Purchases, at no expense to your self!

Share

Great Moments in Civil Discourse Retroactive: Liberals Cheered When Ronald Reagan was Shot

Share

It’s been a while since we’ve done a Great Moments in Civil Discourse post, and this one is vintage.  It seems that 32 years ago, when Ronald Reagan was nearly killed by an assassin’s bullet, liberals burst into cheers. Tom Blumer at Newsbusters has more…

Two years ago today, I chronicled wire service reports which appeared shortly after John Hinckley’s unsuccessful attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981 reporting that schoolchildren in many parts of the country cheered when they heard that he had been shot.

At the time, I suggested that school teachers and administrators who were appalled at the reactions might have been protesting a bit too much. Today, I located a 2004 item at National Review by Stanley Kurtz about another group which was happy to hear about the assassination attempt. The left’s hypocrisy about “civility” — and for that matter, basic human decency — clearly goes way, way back:

… just around the time Ronald Reagan took office, I moved to Berkeley, where I began to question the direction of contemporary liberalism. I remember the fabulous daily scene on campus, with rock bands blasting, students feasting on fare from an incredible variety of restaurants, and Marxists leafleting on the plaza. Having just encountered a living socialist state with a shamefully poor food supply (in a previous visit to the Soviet Union — Ed.), and having seen the dangers individual Russians courted in their attempts to get hold of forbidden rock music, I wondered if these Berkeley radicals understood the implications of the ideas they were playing with.

When Reagan was shot, I remember being on campus and hearing people cheer. That disturbed me deeply.

… I’ve already written about the famous fracas over the visit of Reagan’s U.N. ambassador, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, to the Berkeley campus. It wasn’t surprising that radicals tried to shout her down. What shocked was that even faculty members started arguing that “oppressors” have no free-speech rights (this, in the birthplace of the free-speech movement). That was the beginning of campus “political correctness,” before the phenomenon even had a name. Obviously, some terrible deformation had developed within liberalism — a rejection, in the name of freedom, of the very principles of liberty, along with a mental migration from America itself. Meanwhile, the real victims of oppression, the brave dissidents within the Soviet Union, saw Reagan and Kirkpatrick as heroes.

Shumer’s article has even more, but I want to focus in on how leftists “work.”  In the excerpt you see some familiar themes.

1.  Shouting down people with differing opinions.

2.  Expression of the idea that people with differing opinions have no right to express, or even have those opinions.

3.The irony that the home of “free speech” are filled with the people that deny that right to anyone but themselves.

4.  The additional irony that the leftists at Berkely were claiming freedom while pining for the most oppressive form of government in the history of man.

These folks are much like every every petulant adolescent that you’ve ever met.  They are self absorbed.  Yes, they speak of justice, fairness, and equality, but they reserve it only for themselves, and deny it to others.  They are hypocrites, preaching understanding while dealing in hate.  They talk about responsibility, yet they blame others for all of their own failings.  It’s like the teen that decries bullying, but mistreats the people that he does not like.  It’s as if to say that “only my ideas and my feelings matter.”  And so it is-others are denied the right to speak.  And, if this particular brand of petulant soul gains power, others lose their other freedoms as well, up to and including the freedom to be at all.  Just ask all of the others that were killed by communist regimes in the 20th century.

Yes, this is the liberal version of Civil Discourse  It’s only uncivil when someone else does it.

Help support the CH 2.0 with your Amazon purchases!

Share

Reflections on the Violence of the Left

Share

We’ve been saying for years that the left is all about violence.  From violent Communist revolutions, and their genocidal aftermath, to the Nazis, to the Weather Underground, to  Occupy Wall Street, leftists have paved a path of blood to their desired power.  And, when they do achieve power, there is even more blood letting to keep it.  For a more recent example, take a look at this, from Glenn Beck, via New Zeal…

All I can say is expect more. Then again, it is predicted.

Share

Liberal Hypocrisy Alert: MIchael Moore’s Body Guard Arrested on Gun Violation

Share

hypocrite

Imagine that you are the rotund and overwhelmingly self important leftist, like Michael Moore Jabba the Lib.  Naturally, you are going to be against the Second Amendment, because no one should be able to use guns to protect themselves against the state, or criminals, or even union goons (or do I repeat myself?).  They should die for the narrative, like good little drones, and forget about all the statistics and examples of how guns reduce crime and save lives.

But, there is a separate set of rules for self important liberals.  You see, those blabbering masses of flesh that would have you defenceless and perhaps dead are well protected…by the very guns that they would deny you.  And, in Michael Moore’s Jabba the Libs case, the ones that carry the guns that protect them don’t even have to follow the law! Nice Deb has more…

Oh my – the schadenfreude is just too delicious, here:

Filmmaker Michael Moore’s  bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York’s JFK airport Wednesday night.

Police took Patrick Burke, who says Moore employs him, into custody after he declared he was carrying a firearm at a ticket counter. Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York.

See, Moore believes in 2nd Amendment rights for his well-heeled self, but in typical totalitarian-embracing left-wing fashion, he just doesn’t believe in 2nd Amendment rights for the less well off or less politically connected.

So, once again.  Al Gore can have ginormous houses with the carbon footprint of Godzilla, but you can live in a thatch hut without electricity in order to save the world.  And, Michael Moore can tell you to face the armed home invader with a sharpened stick, but his body guards are not only armed, but don’t have to listen to gun laws!

Share

Great Moments in Civil Discourse: Liberals call for Ann Romney’s Death

Share

Just imagine if Conservatives all over Twitter called for Michelle Obama’s death.  Might that cause a bit of an uproar, or even some coverage by the MSM?  I think we all know that such an event would be cause for the MSM to revisit the Republcan “hate” and racism memes.  However, it doesn’t even seem to be of note when liberals call of the death of Ann Romeny.  The Examiner has more…

On Wednesday, liberals on Twitter called for the death of Ann Romney, the wife of GOP nominee Mitt Romney, Twitchy reported. As of this writing, the so-called “mainstream media” has refused to report on the hatefulthreats issued on the social media site.

“I want to murder Ann Romney right now,”tweeted “Gregory Martinez.”

Some called for Mrs. Romney to commit suicide.

“Why does Ann Romney act like an average mom? B***h kill yourself, you had maids taken care of your f*****g kids,” another person said.

“Ann Romney Need To Kill Her Husband Then Kill Herself (sic),” said another.

“Ann Romney needs to die,” tweeted Quinn McGregor.

Go to the original post for more.

So, we once again see the double standard at work; the left get’s a pass on all sorts of nasty behavior, and if Conservatives do not do it, it will be invented-all to skew public opinion.

 

Share

In Search of Messages The Left Might Understand

Share

As I make my daily rounds of the internet, reading news stories but mostly conservative and libertarian blogs, I try to keep an eye out for conservative messages that might have a chance of registering with those of the leftest mind-set. It’s not easy to get through to a leftest. When confronted with facts and information that is contrary to their view of the world, they automatically tune you out and begin thinking of nasty slurs they can through at you. There are rare exceptions when a leftest coverts to conservatism on their own. This usually happens when they begin comparing their leftist views with the real world. We know this is what happened to Andrew Breitbart, for example. And, you may not know that Thomas Sowell was a Marxist while studying for his PhD under Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago. But, the vast majority of leftist totally ignore the real world and live in their own cocoons of progressive thought. It occurred to me that what we conservatives need is a message that the leftest won’t recognize as a conservative message until it¡s too late. Until the message has registered. Yesterday I believe I came across two such messages.

The first is one of those well done animated features on You- Tube that explains the European crisis and in fact explains the situation here in the US, as well. I snagged this from Bob at the Gonna’ Say It blog who in turn snagged it from  Dr. Sanity .

My second find is a take off on the Dr. Seuss children’s story, Green Eggs and Ham. [ Interesting Side Note: After writing The Cat in the Hat in 1955 using only 223 words, Dr. Seuss bet his publisherthat he could write a book using only 50 words. Seuss collected on the wager in 1960 with the publication of Green Eggs and Ham.] I borrowed this gem from Grant Davies of the What We Think and Why blog. This little diddy actually originated with Dan Mitchell at  International Liberty .

I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam.

.
I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books.

.
I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals.

.
I do not like ex-speaker Nan, I do not like this ‘YES, WE CAN!’

.
I do not like this spending spree — Even a fool knows that nothing’s free.

.
I do not like the smug replies, when we complain about their lies.

.
I do not like this kind of hope. I do not like it, I’m not a dope!

So, there you have it, my friends. Two simple messages you can copy and send to your lefist friends and neighbors or give them to your children to take to school for show and tell. There is probably no more than a one in a thousand chance theat the messages will penetrate the leftist mind; but hey, it’s a start.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post: Conservatives on Fire

Share

Does the US Hold the Largest Oil Reserves on the Planet?

Share

Quite possibly, if we listen to the following official from the GAO…

So then, if we are floating on oil, and the only barrier to this windfall is government, who is the problem? I think we all know the answer to that.

John Hinderaker, from Powerline, adds some more…

…Green River Formation alone–it is located at the intersection of the states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and mostly underlies federal lands–contains as much oil as the entire proven reserves of the rest of the world combined. America is uniquely blessed in its energy resources. Two questions remain: 1) will Obama finally abandon his moronic two percent claim, and 2) will Obama, in a possible second term, block the development of the resources that can assure America’s economic supremacy for generations?

Once again, I think we know the answer to those questions as well.

For those that might be new to this, it has long been our contention that the political left thinks that it is unfair the the US has such a powerful economy.  They also see this as a “zero sum game,” meaning that there is a finite amount of wealth out there, and we have so much because we have somehow stolen it from others.   There is new wealth created every time a product or service of value is invented and offered for sale, but they deny that fact.   They fail to recognize that wealth is expanded, created, and distributed by the market far more efficiently in a capitalist system.  So, in a misguided sense of “fairness,” our leftist friends try to “cut us down to size,” by limiting our ability to develop new energy, create new factories, and the new technology that goes in them.  By limiting the amount of energy sources available to us, they put the brakes on growth, and the creation of wealth.  By doing this, they stifle job creation, as well as revenue to local, state, and federal coffers.    But, in their minds, this is the right thing to do.  Not only is it the wrong thing to do, it is done for all the wrong reasons as well.

Some will discuss the environment, but then again, the environment is the cover that is used to justify the attempt to wreck the engine of the economy.  I would bet a year’s income that if an unlimited and completely clean source of power were created tomorrow, the environmentalists will be rending their garments in grief, as their best chance to kill capitalism just went down the tubes.

Share

Facts About Communism Some Teachers Ignore: Stalin Murdered 40 Million and Mao Murdered 80 Million

Share

Still in Lansing working on education issues this week, and I found myself getting into it with several other teachers on May Day (May 1) over the issue of ‘how bad was communism really’. In education, there are a lot of facets to this discussion, as many teachers believe that workers are supreme, that everybody should be unionized, that the workers should control the government, that there never were any communists in America, that businesses are wrong, that capitalism has failed, and that communist nations like China are the wave of the future. In reply, I point out that communist Stalin likely murdered 20 to 40 million people in the Soviet Union and that Mao likely murdered 40-80 million individuals. They shrug these facts off like they don’t matter- but they really do.

Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy wrote a post several years ago that I think is important to consider whenever anyone discusses communism. It is called Why the Neglect of Communist Crimes Matters. Here are some of the most important parts:

….In my last post, I discussed the neglect of communist atrocities. Although communist governments murdered and repressed even more people than the Nazis, their crimes have gotten only a tiny fraction of the public awareness and recognition extend to the latter. But does that neglect matter? After all, the major communist regimes have either collapsed (the USSR and its Eastern European satellites) or evolved into much less oppressive forms (China and Vietnam). But there are several reasons why increasing recognition of communist crimes should be an important priority: providing justice for victims and perpetrators; alleviating the oppression of the unreformed communist governments that still exist today; and ensuring that comparable atrocities are never repeated….

I. Justice for Victims and Perpetrators.
…Millions of victims of communism are still alive today. They include former Gulag inmates, forced laborers, dissidents subjected to political repression, ethnic minorities such as the Crimean Tatars who were forcibly deported, and many others. With a few exceptions (principally in Eastern Europe), little has been done to recognize the suffering of these victims or to compensate them for the wrongs they suffered….

II. Focusing Attention on Oppression in the Remaining Unreformed Communist Governments
…However, at least two unreformed communist governments still remain: Cuba and North Korea. North Korea, in particular, is probably the world’s most oppressive regime, having starved to death at least 1 million of its own people as recently as the 1990s. It also maintains a system of Gulags and secret police that is, if anything, even more draconian than that of the USSR under Stalin. Despite the good press it enjoys among some Western leftists, Castro’s Cuba is only modestly better. Since coming to power in 1959, Castro’s government has executed some 1.5% of Cuba’s population for “political” dissent, while incarcerating another 5.6% in concentration camps. These figures would be even higher if not for the proximity of the United States, which enabled a large part of Cuba’s population to flee. Nonlethal political repression in Cuba is less severe than in North Korea, but still worse than in all but a tiny handful of other governments.

Despite these atrocities, Cuba and North Korea receive only a tiny fraction of the attention that human rights groups and the international community pay to much lesser offenses committed by democratic governments or non-leftist dictatorships….

III. Never Again.
…The extensive attention paid to the Nazi crimes has helped sensitize people to the dangers of racism, anti-Semitism, and extreme nationalism. These evils have not disappeared. But at least the need to oppose them is widely accepted throughout the democratic world. A similar focus on communist crimes might increase recognition of the dangers created by ideologies based on class warfare and socialism (by which I mean full-blown state domination of the economy, not merely government regulation of private industry or a welfare state)….

In classrooms around the nation, we teach our children that fascism is evil (although we never really explain what fascism is so that doesn’t help the kids too much from fighting against it in the future). But we don’t teach the same thing about communism- in fact, many teachers serve as apologists for communism and point to its good qualities while ignoring the horrors it inflicted on generations of people. This is wrong, and no one should ever ignore or shrug off these facts when discussing communism, its beliefs, its agenda, or its results.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Muslim Brotherhood Taking Over Egypt? Who Might Have Thought of That?

Share

Remember the Arab Spring, or as I like to call it, The Tyrant Exchange Program?  I seem to recall quite a few guys on our side trying to tell the world that extremists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, would take over Egypt.  I also seem to recall saying that the leftist end of the Arab Spring were only useful idiots for the radicals, and that said radicals would eat the lefties for lunch and take over.  My sense was, and still is that while leftists can be violent, radical Islamists are far more barbaric.   The lefties were fighting for their feel good ideas that fails in application-the radicals were fighting for a blood thirsty God that orders them to take over.  Who did you think was going to win?  In the end, the advantage would logically go to the Radical Islamists.

For those predictions, we were lectured by our so called “betters,” both on the RINO, and the left.  We were told of how historic it was, and how the defeat of tyrants like Mubarek would usher in a new age of freedom and Democracy in the Middle East.

And how is that idea working out for them?  Glenn Beck nailed it back then, and he’s still at it…

No matter what you think about Beck, he was right on this one. It wasn’t hard to predict. Community organizing and Cloward-Piven can disrupt and bring a system to crisis. However, it takes something more brutal to “normalize” a situation. We’ve seen it in history-idealists almost always fade in a sea of violence and death. It happened in the USSR, in Red China, Nazi Germany…you name it. When idealists and brute force clash, brute force always wins. Even when the idealists are violent and nasty, the power hungry and brutal always comes out on top.

And sadly, it always get’s worse from there.

(One of the few places that the idealists won was her in the United States, where actual individual freedom was gained. And sadly, the current s0-called-idealists are attacking this freedom as slavery, and wish to impose slavery, and call it freedom. How ironic. But, that is a post for another time)

Share