Archive for category History
Book worm as Right Wing News has an interesting article about why his liberal friends denounce him as a Fascist:
Given that the Tea Party is about lessening, rather than increasing, government’s power over its citizens, calling me a fascist or a Nazi seems like a misnomer of almost heroic prop0rtions. Yet my liberal friend is well-educated, as are most of the other so-called liberals tossing those insults around with such abandon. Read the rest of this entry »
Kathleen McKinley at Right Wing News reminds us of something that the Left wants us to forget: that Planned Parenthood, the brainchild of racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, had its origins in a project intended to abort minority babies and reduce minority populations.
What is The Negro Project? It was a project created by Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger in the 1940s. She wanted to build birth control clinics in black neighborhoods. Abortion was still considered the horror that it is. It wasn’t considered then. Her goal was to control the “breeding” of blacks. Read the rest of this entry »
Obama believes that the state is the originator of all “rights.” He believes that it’s perfectly valid for him to get together with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and declare that free health care is a “right.” But rights don’t work that way. The danger of this statist view is that, what the state giveth, it can taketh away. A state that can create “rights” out of thin air can erase them just as easily. Think you have a right to self defense? Not if Obama and the gun haters get their way. Think you have a right to your property? Not when the redistributionists decide that it’s unfair for you to have more while others have less. This is why Obama refuses to acknowledge the origins of our rights, and why his deliberate ignorance is so dangerous. Read the rest of this entry »
Outdoing himself yet again, Zombie has this excellent article comparing the underlying philosophy of the Tea Party to that of the early Hippie Movement, before it was co-opted by communists and other collectivists:
If you, as a hippie, think the thesis of this essay couldn’t possibly be true, you’ve been paying too much attention to the mainstream media. The Tea Party has been intentionally misrepresented, villainized and smeared by the powers-that-be. But this too is a feature that the Tea Party shares with hippies — the hippie movement was itself misrepresented and smeared by a different mainstream media over 40 years ago.
This essay will elucidate in a fresh way how Tea Partiers are the true heirs to the hippie ethos. When you’ve finished reading, you’ll see the Tea Party in a new light and (hopefully) understand that you may have been on the wrong side of the fence until now.
In short, the Tea Party and the hippie movement share four fundamental core values:
• A craving for independence;
• a celebration of individualism;
• joy in the freedom offered by self-sufficiency;
• and an acceptance of the natural order of things.
And excellent article, including an elaboration on political theory that introduces an axis of constructed versus innate human nature to the political spectrum:
The horizontal axis measures “government control,” ranging from a desire for less governmental power at one end of the scale, over to a desire for more governmental control at the other end of the scale. Most of you will understand this axis intuitively. But the vertical axis is a little more subtle, but also more eye-opening: it delineates people’s beliefs about human nature. At one end is the assumption that human nature is innate — that our personalities and other essential human attributes are built-in, unchangeable, and naturally occurring. At the other end is the belief that everything about humans is “constructed” — that we only are the way we are because of the particular cultural environment surrounding us, and that as a result people can be changed, through indoctrination, education, and/or alteration of the culture itself.
A great addition to the political spectrum, and I’d love to see it added as a third axis to the grid system that the Libertarians use with personal liberty on one axis and economic liberty on another.
In my hometown, every year on Columbus Day communist propagandists activists from Haskell University have an anti-Christopher Columbus parade down the main drag. In the latest efforts by the Left to smear American history, Columbus has been depicted as an evil, greedy, despicable man who is personally responsible for genocide on a massive scale. Since America wouldn’t exists without the explorations of this man, he is reviled by the left as it desperately tries to portray him as the embodiment of evil.
Now, Columbus wasn’t a perfect man. He apparently had a history of drinking and gambling. Yes, he was a bit of an imperialist, but who wasn’t in 1492? But he was nowhere near as horrible as the Left portrays him. (Note the author of this piece — it should come as no surprise that Columbus is portrayed as a Nazi, and that the allusions and most of the history presented here are nonsense.)
Anthony Hager at American Thinker takes the time to dismiss another fantasy of the Left’s view of Columbus: the idea that the America were a romantic, peaceful paradise before the evil Europeans came along: Read the rest of this entry »
Jonolan at Reflection from a Murky Pond presents an interesting question regarding the trend of leftist totalitarianism. Is our future one imagined by Orwell’s 1984, in which a brutal, repressive government relied upon fear and force to control its population? Or are we headed down the road of Huxley’s Brave New World, toward a future where social engineer has produced a population so narcissistic and dependent upon the government for its pleasures that it eagerly submits?
Orwell depicted a future society where books were banned and where the State would deprive us of information. Huxley posited a future society where would be no reason to ban a book, because there would be no one who would want to read one, but where so much data would be provided that we would be sunk into egoistic pacifism. Read the rest of this entry »
Brendan Goldman at American Thinker describes the inclusion of blatant anti-Semitism at a conference held by Columbia University, apparently defended as a legitimate academic perspective:
The population of Jews in the US is three percent … but [their 'genius'] leads to their controlling so much power that even presidents are scared [of them]. Whether [President Barack] Obama will be able to escape the notion that three percent of the country is so powerful that the top gentile in the land cannot criticize Israel is not clear.
The above statement was made not by a Hamas or KKK leader, but by Ali al-Amin Mazrui, director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies at SUNY Binghamton. He was addressing the Ifriqiyya Colloquium Conference, held on the top floor of Columbia University’s International Affairs Building, on Thursday, May 6. Mazrui is a darling of the far left, appearing prominently in venues such as Democracy Now, as well as at Islamist forums like the Muslim Public Affairs Council.Columbia Professor Mahmood Mamdani and Barnard College Professor Nadia Abu El-Haj also sat on the panel, the former serving as moderator. Mamdani introduced the speaker, telling the audience that the Ifriqiyya Colloquium was about “gain[ing] some depth to the study of Africa.” It may require a Ph.D. to appreciate how Mazrui’s anti-Semitic diatribe relates to that mission statement.