David Boze - God Made a Democrat

David Boze is the local voice on Seattle’s Rush Limbaugh Station, 770 KTTH. He began his radio career with the nationally known Peter Weissbach as Weissbach’s sidekick “The Grasshopper.” Since then, he’s produced and substituted for numerous hosts, was the co-anchor of mornings on KTTH, and has guest hosted/co-hosted for national hosts including Michael Medved and Michael Savage.

David was born and raised in the Pacific Northwest and is an avid outdoorsmen. He is a former researcher for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a non-profit, public policy think tank in Olympia. While at EFF, David was a columnist for The Olympian, and has written columns for the Seattle Times, Tacoma News Tribune, and numerous other newspapers across the state.

He is a proud graduate of Hillsdale College. David is married and lives in Tacoma, Wash., with his wife, Peggy, whose service in the State Department included planning and executing Rush Limbaugh’s visit to Afghanistan.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Daniel Greenfield - Violence On Their Behalf

Originally Published on the Sultan Knish blog

---

Somewhere toward the end of "A Few Good Men" comes the only scene from the movie that anyone actually remembers. It's the one where Jack Nicholson in a uniform begins chewing the scenery and turns a dreary Aaron Sorkin adaptation of an Aaron Sorkin play into a memorable movie while inflicting Sorkin on the entertainment industry for the next two decades.

The familiar thesis of Nicholson's Colonel Jessup is that he does what needs to be done and what no one wants to talk about needing to be done. His existence may be "grotesque and incomprehensible to you", but he does the ugly things that make it possible for everyone to go about their day.

The speech is an extended wordy distillation of a familiar quote that was variously attributed to Churchill or Orwell. "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

In the urban battlefield of Philly, one of those rough men doing violence on behalf of liberal ideas was a Thomas Jefferson University grad by the name of Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell was one of those unsung heroes doing the dirty work that allowed the activists putting on another round of the Vagina Monologues sleep safely in their beds at night.

Most supporters of military intervention don't like looking at photos of dead children after a bombing raid. They will contend that they are a fact, but not the point. Gosnell's butcher shop is similarly a fact, rather than the point. Pro-choice activists will argue that it is not representative of abortion clinics. And it isn't.

It is representative of what abortion looks like once you cut through the upper layer of the medical services provided to Sarah Lawrence grads and down to the street level of the lower strata that don't visit abortion clinics to assert their reproductive empowerment, but because the family unit is broken and they are trying to escape the same cycle of broken families that they can never leave behind.

Kermit Gosnell wasn't running an Aaron Sorkin abortion clinic. He was running a Colonel Jessup abortion clinic.

Margaret Sanger got her start setting up shop in Jewish and Italian neighborhoods because those were the two groups that the upper strata of the day thought were having too many children. Back then it was supposed to be about wives overburdened with too many children. Now it's about families that never existed where the abortions don't happen at the clinic, those are just the final expressions of a larger societal abortion that took place when the family died.

Abortion is the final act of the death of the family. It pretends to solve the problem that arises from the absence of the family. The first abortion kills marriage. The last abortion kills the child that might have come from a marriage that never existed.

The family isn't dead everywhere. It's more likely to be dead in the places that men like Gosnell do business than the places where the policymakers and the non-profits who dress up destruction as empowerment do business.

Most arsonists don't set their own houses on fire. Most liberal policies don't affect liberals. And that's true in the family sphere where the liberals in the top 1 percent are more likely to have a stable marriage than the bottom 1 percent bleeding in Gosnell's house of reproductive freedom because their dead baby does not have and will not have a father.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was doing the dirty work of the liberal state by cleaning up some of the mess. It was bloody and murderous work, but it was made necessary by the sort of people who talk about reproductive freedom while little realizing how little freedom the women who bled, and sometimes died, in Gosnell's offices really had.

The issue isn't as simple as Pro-Choice. Abortion is just the conclusion of the sordid package of social liberalism. The package begins with sex ed, complete with the obligatory LGBT mentions, runs through national STD infestations, hookup culture, single parenthood and packs of young men and women recreating the mistakes of the parents they never had and then flushing those mistakes down the toilet before settling down with three kids, by different fathers who are never around, and a package of subsidies from the welfare state administered by social workers who have seen it all.

It's not the story for everyone, but for many of the women who found and find their way to places like Gosnell's butcher shop, that is their story. It's not a story about abortion. It's a story about what happens when you replace the family with free love that turns out to be neither free nor love. Like teaching first graders sex ed or handing out condoms on the street, abortion is one of the ways that the liberal state tries to limit the fallout from its destruction of the family.

The fallout is ugly and bloody. You can see it in the packs of angry teenage flash mobs smashing through stores. You can see it in the food stamp cards that mothers tote like coupons, the teen domestic abuse hotline posters hanging around neighborhoods "If he respects you, he won't beat you" and the other posters of frightened pregnant teenagers holding their stomachs and whispering, "I don't want to lose my dream."

The end of that long brutal journey through black eyes, plans for a GED and medical tests at the clinic is one of Dr. Gosnell's slabs. The men and women who made Kermit Gosnell's business boom don't want to look at him. Why would they? How many people wanted to look at William Calley? They are satisfied knowing that somewhere rough men in latex gloves are doing violence of the world they made. The world they unmade.

They are beginning to claim Gosnell's story already and remake it into another drama about the lack of access. More money must be given to Planned Parenthood so that no Dr. Gosnell's happen again. Reform and accountability are key. More money must go to groups that promote the lifestyles that lead to abortion and then dispense abortions so that the whole cycle can continue to expand. The babies have to be destroyed to save the next generation of babies from being punished with babies.

But the Gosnells aren't going anywhere. They are everywhere. Sometimes they're Middle Eastern. Other times they're Chinese or Pakistani. Their medical skills are poor, but it's not because they're stupid, it's because they don't care. They set up shop in poor neighborhoods. The philosophy is fast food. In and out. Maximize patients. Maximize cash. The treatment is sloppy but so are the patients and no one cares because there is a separate waiting room for the white patients.

Often they work the Medicaid/Medicare angle where they defraud the government, ordering endless tests from clinics they have relationships with while offering the lowest standard of care possible. And some cash in on the abortion business. Patients aren't people to them. They're wallets or insurance cards with eyes, teeth, bones, genitalia, muscles and any other parts that they can bill for.

It's easy to take a whack at them, but vultures only gather where there is carrion. The Gosnells are vultures. They will eat what they can, gorge themselves on bloody meat and then waddle in the sun. But they didn't make this world where family is becoming an alien concept and a child is an alien fetal parasite. They are just cashing in on it.

Kermit Gosnell is the future. And the future in places like this is ugly and grim. It's broken families living on social welfare creating more broken families. It's dead children whose murder churches and synagogues are forced to pay for. It's living children who grow up hoping to be able to kill. It's feral packs of lost boys who will never be men and the girls who suddenly become women reading an ad and taking a bus down to 3801 Lancaster Avenue because they're lonely and afraid and they're afraid of losing their dreams, even if they don't know what they are anymore.

This is the world that liberalism made. It is small, mean and ugly. Call it Sex Positive Education or Reproductive Freedom or any other euphemism and out of sight of the specialized study sessions at overpriced colleges, it still ends with mothers towing screaming children down the street, going to church on Sundays even though they don't believe and there are hardly any younger men there and others mothers becoming girls again at Dr. Gosnell's hands.

Kermit Gosnell will be locked up. There will be a brief spurt of inspections. And then things will go on as before and the empowerment educators who wear "I Had an Abortion" t-shirts while they drive to the soccer games of their children in some placid suburb will sleep well at night knowing that somewhere in Philly, NYC and LA there are rough men doing violence to the wombs of desperate women and the lives of their unborn children on behalf of their ideologies and policies. Rough men in dark places doing he inevitable dirty work in the world they made.

Daniel Greenfield

Visit Daniel's Blog Sultan Knish by clicking HERE

Daniel Greenfield is a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City. Daniel is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at Family Security Matters.

Daniel's original biweekly column appears at Front Page Magazine and his blog articles regularly appear at Family Security Matters, the Jewish Press, Times of Israel, Act for America and Right Side News, as well as daily at the Canada Free Press and a number of other outlets. Daniel has a column titled Western Front at Israel National News and his op eds have also appeared in the New York Sun, the Jewish Press and at FOX Nation.

Daniel was named one of the Jewish Press' Most Worthwhile Blogs from 2006-2011 and his writing has been cited by Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Philips, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Judith Klinghoffer, John Podhoretz, Jeff Jacoby and Michelle Malkin, among others.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Bill Whittle - Evan Sayet - The Kindergarden of Eden

Author Evan Sayet sits with Bill Whittle to discuss his book The Kindergarden of Eden. Sayet thinks that most liberals are neither stupid nor evil. So why do liberal policies so often produce stupid, if not evil results? Is it because liberalism promotes evil over the good? Find out on this interview with the very funny and insightful Evan Sayet.

Why the Modern Liberal's thinking leads him to side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Further extrapolating on the ideas in his wildly popular viral youtube talk to the Heritage Foundation, that has received over 600k hits, Evan Sayet uses his signature wit in this new book to ask thought- provoking questions during these turbulent economic and social times. And he provides the reader with some surprising answers.

Andrew Breitbart said that Evan Sayet's Heritage Foundation Speech was 'one of the five most important conservative speeches ever given.' That speech was the foundation for this book. How did the song "Imagine" by John Lennon become the perfect symbol of liberal thinking? Why does Bruce Springsteen dub "pain" as the wages of toil and hard work?

What’s the Democrats’ beef with God? What do they have against the Jews of Israel? Why do they want abortion to be commonplace and frequent? Why does the Modern Liberal –the dominant force in today’s Democratic Party and in so much of today’s popular culture – seem to always side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success? Evan Sayet answers those questions and a lot more.

Evan Sayet: Understanding How Modern Liberals Think

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - Pretend-gun Fingers and Plop-Tarts

Originally posted at American Thinker

---

Republican state Senator J. B. Jennings of Maryland is proposing a bill to protect Pop-Tart gun-makers and students who emulate President Obama, a man notorious for flashing around his pretend-gun finger, from being suspended from school. The goal of the bill is to keep children in class who are caught on school grounds aiming, chomping or sketching anything that even remotely resembles a gun.

Jennings feels that if a student points in a style that resembles the shape of a gun, or quite by accident bites a bologna sandwich in a way that causes the lunch lady to panic in fear for her life, before administering the harsh sentence of suspension the situation should be evaluated as to whether the sandwich-eating was done in a manner that suggests "intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm."

In the state of Maryland, second-grader Joshua Welch and 6-year-old Rodney Lynch were both reprimanded for gun facsimile-related misconduct. Joshua was ousted after he haphazardly gnawed his Pop-Tart into a shape that his teacher felt resembled a gun, and first-time offender Rodney Lynch, who lost his head and positioned his thumb and index finger into the shape of an 'L,' got snagged too, which resulted in a two-day suspension for both of the pint-sized miscreants.

Senator Jennings says that it is not his intent for his bill to become "part of the growing gun debate in Maryland," but hopes it will bring some "commonsense discipline to state schools." Wait! Jennings wants to introduce common sense to politically-correct public school educators? Is that even possible?

As Senator J.B. points out, "These kids are 6 or 7-years-old. They don't understand what they're doing." The larger question here, Mr. Senator, is this: Did Joshua and Rodney's accusers know what they were doing when they all but ran screaming from the building over a half-eaten Pop-Tart and two fingers positioned at a 90-degree angle?

Nonetheless, the bill the Maryland senator is proposing aims to halt the preposterous practice of hyper-vigilant school administrators suspending first- and second-graders willy-nilly for making anything out of anything that even remotely resembles a handgun.

According to the senator, "If it's done in a violent manner, then yes, we can take it to the next level. We can look at suspension." Just out of curiosity, what would be considered violent Pop-Tart eating? Telling the kids on the schoolyard that you slurped the strawberry filling out from the center, like Hannibal Lecter telling Clarice Starling that he ate the liver of a census taker with some fava beans and "a nice Chianti?"

Moreover, maybe no one noticed this, but just the name "Pop-Tart" makes one think of the violence-inducing cereal that shall remain nameless that encourages violent behavior in the style of 'snap' your neck, 'crack' a few kneecaps, and 'pop' you in the lip.Not to mention that favorite of comic strip character Calvin and Hobbes -- "chocolate frosted sugar bombs."

Maybe Jennings could up the ante by including an addendum to the bill that, henceforth and in perpetuity, at least in the state of Maryland, "Pop-Tarts" must be referred in kinder, gentler terms as "Plop-Tarts."

Either way, the senator said he was inspired to propose the bill after receiving calls from anxious parents fearing that suspension from elementary school has the potential to blemish a child's academic future. For most Americans, unlike Barack Obama, school transcripts are part of the public record.

Therefore, children who have no plans to run for president could be thwarted from moving ahead in life for doing things like: playing cops-and-robbers with a banana, pointing a recorder at another student in an intimidating way, or indiscriminately screaming 'bombs away' when playing kickball. Currently, those types of behaviors are closely monitored to ensure that school officials can recognize and impede a potential Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or Jared Loughner.

If the senator's bill does pass and a deaf preschooler is hauled off for sharing his name in sign language during class or an aspiring cartographer traces the shape of Florida on the cover of a notebook, the first response would not be suspension, but a stop at a counselor's office. If, while being psychologically evaluated, the child is deemed a menace to both school and society for strange finger movements or artistic expression that depicts evil intent, a decision will be made as to how to deal with the dangerous delinquent.

In the meantime, J.B. Jennings says the Senate bill 1058 is heading to the Education Committee, where educators who suspend small children for things like overdoing it with the red finger paint during art class will vote on the merits of the bill. If the educational community passes "The Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013," which some have coined "Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act," it will go from committee to the Senate for a vote.

Until then, for parents with children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder whose fingers show signs of having impulse control problems, do yourself a favor and duct-tape their little thumbs to their forefingers and pack anything for breakfast except a "Plop-Tart."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/pretendgun_fingers_and_ploptarts.html#ixzz2NK8atCaN
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Andrew Klavan - Liberalism Exposed: Beyond the Elitist, Preening America-Hating Stereotypes

Have you ever wondered how liberals think? PJTV's Andrew Klavan takes you inside the mind of a liberal ... and it ain't brain surgery.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wild Bill for America - Deadly Liberals

Who does the Secret Service need to watch closest? The answer may surprise you!

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wild Bill for America - The Green Panther Pervert Jihad Party

Perhaps it is time us to start a new liberal party to split the Democrat vote and help get conservatives elected.

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Doug Giles - Christian Parents Should Have Their Kids Play with Toy Guns

According to CBS, St. Louis, Pastor Rodney Francis, of the Washington Tabernacle Baptist Church, wants to keep kiddos away from guns, so this summer his church is planning a “toy gun buy back” program. How quaint. I kid you not: A. Toy. Gun. Buy. Back. Sounds like he’s setting up the next generation to be victimized slaves to bad people and policies.

Yep, Reverend Rodney “feels” he needs to do “everything (he) can to not allow our kids to get exposed to (guns) too early.” Aww ... ain’t that sweet? Hey, maybe he could also hand out during that event some “kick me in the butt” signs for everyone’s back.

As a Christian I have a real problem with Pastor Francis vilifying the very tool that helped cudgel off tyrannical oppressors and afforded him the highly prized (and perishable) religious liberty he now enjoys on American soil.

That’s right, Rodney. Our founders, many of them serious Christian men, many of them ministers, took up muskets and turned the despotic Red Coats’ coats a deeper shade of crimson simply because of their life strangling religious oppression and ridiculous taxations.

All of this “anti-gun” bullcrap coming from deluded Christians sounds dreamy and all but it isn’t rooted in reality or the scripture.

Sure, we’re not to shoot someone who de-friends us on Facebook because we like Toby Mac, or makes fun of our bad comb over, or who hammers us with a nasty tweet because of our fish stickered Twitter wallpaper. Indeed, the majority of altercations we Christians go through for our faith we should simply let slide and pray for those who use and abuse us.

However, when an individual or group physically attacks me, my family, my friends or my nation for no other reason than they are no good, greedy, lazy, envious and jacked-up evil tools that hate God and Country, then it behooves me, my brethren, by all that is holy, just and good, to protect my person and the innocent around me. Call me crazy, but I believe that’s what shepherds are supposed to do: i.e. protect sheep.

Check this out naysayers: In Luke 22:36-38 Christ told His disciples that they, in light of His departure, should get a deadly weapon — namely a sword.

Yep, sweet Jesus told them — didn’t ask or mildly suggest — but commanded His buddies to sell their coat and buy a sword. Thus saith the Lord: Make a sacrifice to obtain lethal protection.

The sword that Christ told His compadres to purchase was not a QVC decorative Claymore to hang on their walls to commemorate the good times they had when Yeshua was around. The original word used for sword in this text was a large knife used for killing animals and cutting flesh. It was particularly fashioned for short, deadly thrusts in hand-to-hand combat.

Jesus didn’t tell them to carry a whistle, a shofar horn, or a bag of sand to blow in bad guys’ eyes, but a dagger-like sword — a vicious, nasty and deadly weapon not used for cutting vegetables, spreading butter or splitting a bagel, but for violently tapping a lung or heart in case of an attack.

Now, in a 21st century WWJD context, what do you think He thinks about His followers defending themselves with deadly force, huh, Mr. Francis?

Look, our first parents, Adam and Eve, sucked and caused this sinful mess we’re fielding because they didn’t proactively deal with evil (the serpent). If we take our cue from Christ in raising our kids, then our children will grow up to be slayers of serpents. They will not be a pacifist in the face of evil. They will not roll over and wet themselves when they’re confronted by evil. They will not play the wimp when faced with difficult situations.

I know it’s hard for some of us to square Christ with confronting evil – given all the androgynous, soft- focused paintings of Jesus that we’ve had jammed into our psyches for the last few centuries. However, if, if, we take the scripture straight, the man of peace is painted as an eschatological warrior who has great joy in giving the devil hell.

No matter how hard the softies try to make Christ out to be the benign, bearded lady raconteur, the exegetical fact remains: if you take the holy text in its entirety, He does not fit into the Left’s effete mold of holy tofu for horrible tools.


Therefore, mom and dad, I say, in contrast to Rev. Rodney, to have your kid get use to confronting nonsense – first and foremost in themselves. Gear them up to be a fighter and defender of that which is good. Let them play with toy weapons (if you can find any). They’re not going to turn into a terrorist. It’s not going to warp their wheel. Your kid has to learn that they are growing up in difficult times that demand that they be able to deal with “snakes.” Yes, your kid needs to learn not only to be nice, but also to be strong, sacrificial and courageous.

Finally, and humbly of course, I think if Pastor Francis truly wants to make a difference in our SNAFU’ed society he should forego the toy gun buy back and instead host a “Crappy Parent Buy Back” initiative because therein lies the real conundrum.

Doug Giles

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michelle Fields - Chicago Public Schools - Sex Education in Kindergarten

Chicago Public Schools is considering a new sex education program that would discuss sexual orientation and gender identity for the first time, chief health officer Stephanie Whyte said.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Daniel Greenfield - The Land of the Free or the Home of the Slave?

Originally Published on the Sultan Knish blog

---

Any code of laws that has been set down in the past in order to guide the future organization of a nation is vulnerable to being rewritten by the dominant political or cultural forces of a later period. These forces will inevitably attempt to rewrite that document to give themselves absolute and unlimited power to rule as they see fit, while also providing themselves with immunity from any of its laws.

The United States Constitution was assembled with complete awareness of this reality of human affairs, and so it was designed to limit to the power of government, more than to empower it. But enough pressure against any object, physical or legal, will in time cause it to buckle. Water against a dam will find an opening in it. So too with the United States Constitution. It is startling to consider what an upheaval in the rights of individuals and states was snuck in through the Commerce clause. This was one of the weak points in the Constitution that was bored at and expanded into a hole through which the governing of the nation as a whole was transformed, and the dominant political and cultural movement, liberalism, accrued to itself unlimited power.

Not that there was anything the Framers could have done about it. Given time even the most perfect of documents can be perverted, set aside and turned into the instrument of tyrants and monsters. And they could not have hoped to better the Almighty, whose own document had been perverted in the hands of evil men. All they could hope to do was pass down a legacy of intention that would ward freedom for a time, and then hope that it would serve to keep the flame of freedom burning through the generations. That men would remember the sort of government that had been intended for them to have, the gift set aside for them, even when it was no longer present.

This history is of course a matter of some debate. Those who would alter the future, begin with the present begin with the past, and then the future. Revisionist history is required by every ideology that wishes to radically change the world. The revisionist history of liberalism in particularly is quite revealing when it comes to exposing its own motives and agendas.

Those whose revisionist history recasts the past of their own people as a long series of cruel and oppressive acts, expose themselves as revolutionaries who seek to recast their own history as evil, all the better to rule over the future in the name of justice and mercy. This is altogether true of liberal revisionist history, which recreates America as a shameless tyranny ruled over by greed and lies. A typical and influential example of the genre, is A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, in which the gullible college student learns that all of American history is a sham by the wealthy to control commerce and territory. This naturally prepares him to accept liberalism's mandate for destroying America in order to turn it into a land of liberty, equality and justice.

For the left, the United States Constitution has always been a dangerous document, because it limits the power of government. Their power. And for all that the left inveighs against power and authority, it only does so because its leaders are driven to be the ones in power and wielding that envied authority. The left's model is not democracy, but aristocracy. The aristocracy of the revolutionary faithful. Back to the days of the French Revolution, the radicalism of the left sought to replace inherited aristocracy with ideological aristocracy. Instead of an elite that ruled over the masses because their descended from nobility, they wanted an elite that ruled over the masses because it had the passionate idealism to fight for social justice.

The Constitution is dangerous to them because it limits government power. Its Framers viewed government power as inherently dangerous. This is not a view shared by the left which only sees government power as dangerous-- when it's in the wrong hands. The wrong hands being the hands of the reactionary authorities or that of their political rivals who lack the same ideological commitment that they do. Rather the left believes in the transformative effects of government power to remake a society so that it can reach a perfect state of liberty, fraternity and equality. And this they do not believe can be achieved by limiting government power, but by wielding it in the name of the cause.

Representative democracy is another thing the left has never liked very much. Because its compass turns toward the false south of ideology, not the true north of the will of the people. The left will always choose ideology over the popular will, because their morality is political. The idea that a bad popular decision is better than a good imposed decision is one that is foreign to them. Representative democracy is threatening to them because majority rule is populist without being revolutionary. And what they desire is revolutionary populism employed in the service of their political ends.

The left's determination of who is allowed to participate in elections and other forms of decision making is ideological citizenship, not national citizenship. Only those who believe exactly as they do are allowed to participate in the process. Only those who share their goals and beliefs have a valid vote. As the revolution gets underway, a winnowing process occurs that purges any who do not share their exact beliefs to create a narrower and narrower standard through which no one but those in perfect agreement with their views are allowed to pass. Even when those views change. Especially when those views change.

Without any limitation on government power and with no popular representation, what you have is tyranny. The left does not see it that way, because they are incapable of defining their own actions as tyrannical. This block prevented them from condemning Stalin, even when he was carrying on spectacular acts of mass murder, and killing their own comrades and friends. This block still prevents even most liberals from equating Communism and Nazism. Because to them morality itself is political. A murder or a tyrant are never objective variables, but subjective ones defined by the moral equivalency of their ideological alliances. A Castro or a Saddam to them, will never be as awful as a Pinochet or a Franco, not based on their deeds, but on their ideological allegiances.

To the left all things are political. And if a thing is not political, they cannot be bothered to care about it. And the foundation of their morality is rooted in the ability to elevate oppressed groups out of their oppression. If the left cannot reduce an issue to an oppressed-oppressor formula, then the entire situation has no meaning to them. That is why unlike the right, the left does not care a great deal about what goes on in the bedroom, aside from areas such as rape or gay rights, which they can nudge into their oppressed-oppressor class formula. That is not to suggest that their ability to expand their political morality everywhere can or should be underestimated. The left has managed to treat everything from breakfast cereals to SUV's to brand labels as counters in their political morality. And there is no telling where, if anywhere, it will actually end.

As the dominant cultural and political movement, the left has fought a long war to transform America along the guidelines of its own political morality, exploiting social and economic fault lines, harnessing culture and organizing sections of the public to carry on its war for it. The ends however have never been what they appeared to be. While individually the left appeared to be fighting against injustice or for higher standards, from a bird's eye view it was pursuing a long range struggle whose goal was to consolidate power and remove all obstacles to the free exercise of that power.

Because the United States was a representative democracy with strong limitations on government power, the left's task was two-fold. In a dictatorship, the left could have simply attacked the power structure itself. However in the United States, power rested with the American people. They were the ruling class. Which is why they had to be co-opted, replaced or destroyed. In a dictatorship, the left could have also simply taken power and exercised it. Because of Constitutional limitations, the left has instead had to undermine those limitations by pretending to embrace them, and then get the public used to expanding them in the name of preserving their freedoms. Judicial advocacy allowed the left to imitate Lenin's "Two Steps Backward, One Step Forward", expanding Constitutional intent to seemingly provide more freedoms, in order to ultimately destroy it and any protection against government authority it offered with it. This two-fold approach allowed the left to play civil libertarians, as they always have, even as their ultimate goal remained what it has always been, absolute power.

They are now closer to harnessing that power than ever before. Their plan is proceeding on schedule. The fall of free enterprise. The transformation of religion into social justice. The unworkability of government. All of it is leading down one road. Their road.

The left is the product of absolute arrogance that has directed all its aims toward achieving absolute power. For all its progressive posturing, it is run by egotists who believe that if they were in charge, things would finally be set to right. Their ideas are medieval. Their tactics are utterly amoral. They have no boundaries, because they like to think that their enemies have none. And we are their enemies.

The American Experiment was built to elevate a people and their laws above being tools of their government. This noble achievement succeeded. That is why so many who believe that laws exist to enable a government to use its people as mere tools, have been so determined to destroy it. To the left there are no individuals and no people, only classes. Only groups crying out to be equitably redistributed in the name of creating a perfect order. And they have always despised the American Experiment, castigating the idea that the popular vote without the oversight of the guardians of social justice can achieve an equitable society, as hypocritical and deceitful. That is an idea that the American liberals of the day are driven by. It burns through their revisionist history and their rhetoric. It is what drives their exposes and condemnations. All of it aimed at one thing. The replacement of America as we know it, with their system. And they are closer to it than ever before.

Where the Constitution promised Freedom, the Left promises Equality. But the former did so by limiting government. The latter promises to do so through the unlimited exercise of government power. Those are the stakes here in a very old contest, ever since Thomas Paine sailed back to the Continent in a huff accusing Washington of betraying the revolution. The original American Revolution took power only to return it back to the people. The left's Second American Revolution would remove power from the people in exchange for protecting them from each other. The state of freemen vs the nanny state. That is the choice here.

When you limit government power, you expand individual freedom. When you expand government power, you limit individual freedom. As government power expands, it begins to impose a particular social order. This social order benefits those who are already in power. Law then becomes a tool by which the dominant cultural and political forces remain in power and impose their will on the people.

The Framers understood this, as even we cannot, because to truly understand freedom, one must experience tyranny. Freedom has no meaning except in the context of oppression. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were Documents of Resistance, created to stand against tyranny as doctors would create antibiotics against infection. But the infection still crept in and we are all sick with the disease. The documentary antibiotics forced it to come through a back way, to use more guile and stealth than it would have needed to otherwise. But the crisis is nevertheless here.

Given a chance, the left will do to America, what they have done to nation after nation. Suck it dry and destroy it. Because their ideology represents a dead end. Their ideas are so old, that there is sand and dust on their breath. It is the promise of a benevolent tyranny, the protectors of the people who will protect the people from everything, but what they really need protecting from, themselves. They have no new ideas. Only old ones relabeled, rebranded and polished to make them seem new again. The American Experiment was a chance to break the cycle of kings and tyrants that had dominated so much of human history. The left would destroy that experiment, in the name of their own experiment. And their experiment has always proven to be fatal to the test subject.

The question before us is whether freedom will survive or perish. Whether we will be the land of the free and the home of the brave, or the land of the fee and the home of the slave.

Daniel Greenfield

Visit Daniel's Blog Sultan Knish by clicking HERE

Daniel Greenfield is a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City. Daniel is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at Family Security Matters.

Daniel's original biweekly column appears at Front Page Magazine and his blog articles regularly appear at Family Security Matters, the Jewish Press, Times of Israel, Act for America and Right Side News, as well as daily at the Canada Free Press and a number of other outlets. Daniel has a column titled Western Front at Israel National News and his op eds have also appeared in the New York Sun, the Jewish Press and at FOX Nation.

Daniel was named one of the Jewish Press' Most Worthwhile Blogs from 2006-2011 and his writing has been cited by Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Philips, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Judith Klinghoffer, John Podhoretz, Jeff Jacoby and Michelle Malkin, among others.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - The Left Thinks Chris Dorner is a Superhero

Liberals are such hypocrites about violence. When one of their own, Chris Dorner, recently went on a killing spree, many of the left thought he was a rock star. Professor Marc Lamont Hill even went so far as to say he was a kind of superhero. Find out what AlfonZo Rachel thinks about all this on this Zo Nation.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Doug Giles - Disgusting Leftist Mark Lamont Hill Compares Cop Killer to a 'Super Hero'

Nothing really stuns me anymore about the Left and their lunacy. That was until this week when soulless Columbia professor Mark Lamont Hill appeared on CNN and got giddy about cop killer Chris Dorner. Hill said Dorner’s murderous revenge spree was “exciting,” and was like Jamie Foxx’s character in Tarantino’s latest flick, D’jango Unchained.

Hill doubled down on his stupidity during the same interview by stating Chris’ homicidal orgy was akin to the exploits of a “super hero.” I was speechless when I heard such vomit roll off that quack’s tongue.

In contrast to numb nuts, Dorner's mother, Nancy Dorner, expressed condolences for the victims in a statement given to Robin Sax at Fox 11 Los Angeles. "It is with great sadness and heavy hearts that we express our deepest sympathies and condolences to anyone that suffered losses or injuries resulting from Christopher's actions. We do not condone Christopher's actions.”

Note, those closest to Chris didn’t commiserate with/for him but rather for those who were ruthlessly killed. Mark Lamont, eh … not so much. His capital lay with Chris.

In my book, Hill jumped the shark with those comments and I hope that all of what’s left of legitimate talent bookers on the various networks treat him like the plague. Like a Rottweiler with rabies. Hill is unbelievably disgusting.

Can you imagine someone of a conservative stripe stating that James Holmes’ melee in Aurora was titillating, understandable and smacked of a heroism? Huh? Holmes had a manifesto, is he cool too, Mark?

And what about Cho Seung-Hui, Mr. Hill? Is he like Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan? I mean, he also drafted docs explaining why he “had” to frickin’ destroy three dozen college students' lives at Virginia Tech.

Oh, and I almost forgot: what about Adam Lanza? Is he a super hero? Is he “Kick Ass”? I mean … he might have been an offended twenty-something of divorced parents, daddy didn’t love him, the color yellow made him sad or his friends made fun of him on Facebook for his Three Stooges haircut. Should we give Lanza faint praise and cut him some slack for his senseless massacre of six year olds at Sandy Hook because of possible and plausible offenses, huh, Mark?

Here’s my prediction: as long as Hollywood celebrates revenge murders and the likes of CNN keep putting clowns like Hill on TV, we will continue to see whiners shoot up innocent civilians in hopes that jerks like Lamont will sympathize on TV for their murderous plight and make ‘em posthumous heroes.

However, if our culture and our commentators uniformly condemn such actions, the clowns who praise them and the pathetic losers that carry them out, I’m a-guessin’ we could see a reduction in the senseless slaughter of innocent people.

We could call it a High Capacity Idiot Ban.

Finally, I hope to God that families of those murdered by Dorner didn’t hear that BS roll off Hill’s tongue. I cannot imagine the grief they’re going through now accentuated by such callous and calamitous comments.

Check out my BRAND NEW BOOK: Sandy Hook Massacre: When Seconds Count, Police Are Minutes Away.

Doug Giles

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Andrew Klavan - Liberal Fantasies versus Reality, Can you Spot the Difference?

PJTV's Andrew Klavan explains how culture in America has become an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically turned into liberal fantasies. From JFK conspiracy theories to murderous evangelical Christians, can you spot the difference between "culture" and reality?

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Piers Morgan Makes It Happen

Piers Morgan infamous host of CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight is afflicted with the same self induced mind-control that most if not all Liberals suffer from - if Reality does not match their Liberal feelings then they create an alternate reality that does match their feelings.

Piers Morgan was so dissatisfied with the War in Iraq in 2004 while he was Editor of the UK Newspaper The Daily Mirror, that he published doctored and/or fake pictures of British troops torturing an Iraqi detainee.

In one picture a soldier is seen urinating on a hooded man while in another the hooded man is being hit with a rifle in the groin. The Queen's Lancashire Regiment (QLR) said the Mirror had endangered British troops by running the pictures. The regiment's Brigadier Geoff Sheldon said the vehicle featured in the photographs had been located in a Territorial Army base in Lancashire and had never been in Iraq. He said the QLR's reputation had been damaged by the Mirror and asked the newspaper to apologise because the evidence they were staged was "overwhelming".

"Piers Morgan was sacked as the editor of the Daily Mirror last night as the newspaper's board made an unreserved apology for publishing fake pictures of British troops torturing Iraqi prisoners. Morgan's departure came only hours after a devastating rebuttal of his defence of the pictures by Brig Geoff Sheldon, colonel of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, whose soldiers were accused of torture and abuse in the Mirror under the headline "Vile".

Piers Morgan Fired and Escorted from Building:

For most of yesterday Morgan was his customary bullish self, "laughing and joking" with colleagues as they prepared the paper.

He told a television interviewer yesterday morning: "All I want to say is we published the truth." But the end of his eight-year editorship came suddenly. At 6.30pm he was called to the executive floor to be told by Sly Bailey, the chief executive, that the board had "lost confidence in him". Morgan, who had made it clear that he would not resign, was not given the option of apologising and keeping his job. According to staff, he was not allowed to bid farewell to his newsroom before being ushered out of the building by security staff. His personal assistant was said to be in tears.

Morgan's jacket was still on the chair where he had been sitting before being summoned by Miss Bailey.

Piers Morgan Phone Hacking Scandal (2012):

Piers Morgan Media Misinformation:

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Andrew Klavan - The Facts of Life for Liberals

Award winning author, screenwriter and media commentator Andrew Klavan is the author of such internationally bestselling novels as True Crime, filmed by Clint Eastwood, and Don’t Say A Word, filmed starring Michael Douglas. Andrew has been nominated for the Mystery Writers of America’s Edgar Award five times and has won twice. His books have been translated around the world. His latest novel for adults, The Identity Man, has been praised by Nelson Demille as “fast paced, intelligent and thought-provoking; a great read!” Television and radio host Glenn Beck says “Andrew Klavan never disappoints…one of the best illustrations of the power of redemption that I’ve ever read.” His last novel Empire of Lies was about media bias in the age of terror, and topped Amazon.com’s thriller list. Andrew has also published a series of thrillers for young adults, The Homelanders, which follows a patriotic teenager’s battle against jihadists. The books have been optioned to be made into movies by Summit Entertainment, the team behind the mega-successful Twilight film series.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - America Gone Psycho: Why Do Liberals Resist Securing the Border?

Zo thinks there is a simple solution to illegal immigration: better border security. So why do liberals resist securing the border? Could it be that liberals don't want immigration reform, just an additional issue over which to divide the nation and grow government? Find out on this ZoNation?

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

DHS - Options for Consideration Active Shooter Training Video

Options for Consideration demonstrates possible actions to take if confronted with a active shooter scenario. The instructive video reviews the choices of evacuating, hiding, or, as an option of last resort, challenging the shooter. The video also shows how to assist authorities once law enforcement enters the scene.

The DHS suggests that if a 'Madman' armed with an AR-15 Weapon enters your workplace and begins killing people - you might consider stopping the 'Mass' Murderer with a pair of scissors.

A law abiding Armed Citizen is NOT even considered or mentioned, instead the DHS recommends a suicide mission.

DHS’s recommended responses to such shootings, demonstrated in a generic office setting, include the obvious instructions to try to either evacuate the area, or hide someplace the shooter won’t think to look, while also warning innocent bystanders in such situations that it is necessary to follow the instructions of police officers and other law enforcement personnel who appear on the scene.

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."
Thomas Jefferson

Celia Bigelow vs. Zerlina Maxwell Debate DHS Video Lesson

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Daniel Greenfield - Gun Control, Thought Control and People Control

Originally Published on the Sultan Knish blog

---

The gun control debate, like all debates with the left, is reducible to the question of whether we are individuals who make our own decisions or a great squishy social mass that helplessly responds to stimuli. Do people kill with guns or does the availability of guns kill people? Do bad eating habits kill people or does the availability of junk food kill people?

To the left these are distinctions without a difference. If a thing is available then it is the cause of the problem. The individual cannot be held accountable for shooting someone if there are guns for sale. Individuals have no role to play because they are not moral actors, only members of a mob responding to stimuli.

You wouldn't blame a dog for overeating; you blame the owners for overfeeding him. Nor do you blame a dog for biting a neighbor. You might punish him, but the punishment is training, not a recognition of authentic responsibility on the part of the canine. And the way that you think of a dog, is the way that the left thinks of you. When you misbehave, the left looks around for your owner.

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem.

Individual behavior is a symptom of a social problem. Identify the social problem and you fix the behavior. The individual is nothing, the crowd is everything. Control the mass and you control the individual.

That is how the left approached this election. Instead of appealing to individual interests, they went after identity groups. They targeted low information voters and used behavioral science to find ways to manipulate people. The right treated voters like human beings. The left treated them like lab monkeys. And the lab monkey approach is triumphantly toted by progressives as proof that the left is more intelligent than the right. And what better proof of intelligence can there be than treating half the country like buttons of unthinking responses that you can push to get them to do what you want.

Would you let a lab monkey own a gun? Hell no. Would you let it choose what to eat? Only as an experiment. Would you let it vote for laws in a referendum? Not unless it's trained to push the right button. Would you let it drive a car? Nope. Maybe a bicycle. And if it has to travel a long way, you'll encourage it to use mass transit. Does a monkey have freedom of speech? Only until it annoys you.

You'll take away most of the monkey's bananas, which you're too lazy to go and find for yourself because you have more important things to do than fetch bananas. You train monkeys to fetch bananas for you. That is how the enlightened elites of the left see the workers whose taxes they harvest; as monkeys that they taught in their schools and created jobs for with their stimulus plans for. And the least that the monkeys could do is pay their taxes, because the monkeys didn’t build that. You did.

You do plan to take care of monkey's medical expenses, at least until they get too high, and spay and neuter it with free birth control. You will train it to be the smartest and most well-behaved monkey it can be. And when it gets too sick, you plan to have it mercifully put down so it doesn't hang around spreading diseases and depressing you with its misery.

And what's wrong with any of that? Human beings are just evolved monkeys. It's not as if you're being cruel to the monkey. You're engaged in what you might charitably think of as a symbiotic relationship with the monkey. If the monkey were smart, it might think of you as a parasite. But you have a whole lot of rounds of ammunition stockpiled in case of a Planet of the Apes scenario.

If you assume that there is as much of a substantive difference between the elite and the common man as there is between a man and a monkey, there is nothing particularly inappropriate about such behavior. We herd animals. Liberals herd people. The human being is the livestock of the liberal animal farm.

The Nazis believed that they were the master race because they were genetically superior. Liberals believe that they are the master race on account of their superior empathy and intelligence. There's an obvious paradox in believing that you have the right to enslave and kill people because you care more, but that didn't stop millions of people from joining in with revolutions that led to a century of bloodshed in the name of movements that cared more.

The defining American code is freedom. The defining liberal code is compassion. Conservatives have attempted to counter that by defining freedom as compassionate, as George W. Bush did. Liberals counter by attempting to define compassion as liberating, the way that FDR did by classing freedoms with entitlements in his Four Freedoms.

On one side stands the individual with his rights and responsibilities. On the other side is the remorseless state machinery of supreme compassion. And there is no bridging this gap.

Liberal compassion is not the compassion of equals. It is a revolutionary pity that uses empathy only as fuel for outrage. It is the sort of compassion practiced by people who like to be angry and who like to pretend that their anger makes them better people. It is the sort of compassion that eats like poison into the bones of a man or a society, even while swelling their egos with their own wonderfulness.

Compassion of this sort is outrage fuel. It is hatred toward people masquerading as love. And that hatred is a desire for power masquerading as outrage which in turn is dressed up as a deep love for others and empathy for all living creatures. Peel away the mask of compassion and all that is underneath is a terrible lust for power. And the only way to truly justify the kind of total power summoned by such lusts is by reducing the people you would rule over to the status of non-persons.

The clash that will define the future of America is this collision between the individual and the state, between disorganized freedom and organized compassion, between a self-directed experiment in self-government and an experiment conducted by trained experts on a lab monkey population. And the defining idea of this conflict is accountability.

To understand the left's position on nearly any issue, imagine a 20th Century American and then take away accountability. Assume that the individual is helpless and stupid, has little to no control over his own behavior and is only responding to stimuli and functions in a purely reactive capacity. Then use that data to come up with a response to anything from kids getting fat to a football player shooting his wife to terrorists firing rockets at Israel. The only possible answer to reactive behavior is to find the thing being reacted to and condemn it.

If you want to fake being a member of the left on any topic and in any setting, master this simple phrase. "But we have to look at the root causes to see who is really responsible." Congratulations, you can now get by anywhere from Caracas to Brussels to Berkeley.

The root cause is a perpetual search for an accountability vested in systems rather than people. That search always ends up with systems and ideologies, rather than mere people, because it justifies the destruction of those systems and ideologies. And destroying systems and ideologies allows them to be replaced by their progressive replacements.

The final failure of accountability for the left is a failure of moral organization, while for the right it is a failure of personal character. The right asks, "Why did you kill?" The left asks, "Who let him have a gun?", "Who didn't provide him with a job" and "Who neglected his self-esteem?"

Freedom goes hand in hand with personal moral organization of the individual by the individual. Organized compassion however requires the moral organization of the society as a whole. A shooting is not a failure of the character of one man alone, or even his family and social circle, it is the total failure of our entire society and perhaps even the world, for not leveraging a sufficient level of moral organization that would have made such a crime impossible. No man is an island. Every man is a traffic jam.

Social accountability on this scale requires the nullification of the personhood and accountability of the individual, just as the moral organization that it mandates requires removing the freedom of choice of the individual, to assure a truly moral society. When compassion and morality are collective, then everyone and no one is moral and compassionate at the same time. And that is the society of the welfare state where compassion is administered by a salaried bureaucracy.

Choice is what makes us moral creatures and collective compassion leaves us less than human. The collective society of mass movements and mass decisions leaves us little better than lab monkeys trying to compose Shakespeare without understanding language, meaning or ideas, or anything more than the rote feel of our fingers hitting the keyboard.

This is the society that the left is creating, a place filled with as many social problems as there are people, where everyone is a lab monkey except the experts running the experiments, and where no one has any rights because freedom is the enemy of a system whose moral code derives from creating a perfect society by replacing the individual with the mass. It is a society where there is no accountability, only constant compulsion. It is a society where you are a social problem and there are highly paid experts working day and night to figure out how to solve you.

Daniel Greenfield

Visit Daniel's Blog Sultan Knish by clicking HERE

Daniel Greenfield is a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City. Daniel is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at Family Security Matters.

Daniel's original biweekly column appears at Front Page Magazine and his blog articles regularly appear at Family Security Matters, the Jewish Press, Times of Israel, Act for America and Right Side News, as well as daily at the Canada Free Press and a number of other outlets. Daniel has a column titled Western Front at Israel National News and his op eds have also appeared in the New York Sun, the Jewish Press and at FOX Nation.

Daniel was named one of the Jewish Press' Most Worthwhile Blogs from 2006-2011 and his writing has been cited by Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Philips, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Judith Klinghoffer, John Podhoretz, Jeff Jacoby and Michelle Malkin, among others.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.