When Fighting the Left, Never Give an Inch

I remember a while back ago when I saw a picture of Cindy and Meghan McCain made up in the “NoH8″ logo and it immediately occurred to me just how absolutely disgusting it was – while “NoH8″ had been around for a while, it suddenly struck me what it really meant – what the liberal fascists, that is, meant by using it:  that anyone who disagrees with them is a hate-filled bigot, unfit for decent company.  It told me, point blank, that by the mere fact of being a Catholic in accord with the Magisterium, I was the modern version of Bull Connor.  Plenty of  Republicans fell for it – after all, it was just about not hating, right?  Perhaps not.  Maybe the whole purpose of “NoH8″ was to get people to hate the “other” – in this case, anyone who disagreed with same-sex marriage?

I bring this up because in the Mozilla case, we can now all see where we are heading – into a world where the left hounds out of public life all of those who disagree.  Many years ago, a Russian girl got something like 10 years in Stalin’s Gulag for writing, “you can pray all you want, but only so God can hear”.  That seems to be what the left wants; a world in which we of the right might be allowed to exist, but only if we in no way, shape or form enter the public square in opposition to leftwing ideology.  A case can be made that hatred and a desire to suppress are the actual motivators of leftwing activity.  Anything else that they do or that results from their actions is pure happenstance.  Take gun control, for instance. If the left was motivated by the desire to reduce crime and reduce violent deaths, then the vast evidence now proving conclusively that more guns equals less crime would move the left to be opposed to gun control.  Given the facts and the left’s alleged concern for liberty, they’d be out there advocating for widespread gun ownership.  And yet, there they are – taking every opportunity they can to try to demonize gun owners and restrict the right to bear arms.  This indicates that the great gun control debate was never anything other than an attempt to generate hatred for gun owners so that they may be suppressed.  In the case of the Mozilla CEO, we have a situation in which the man’s past support for a now overturned law is used to force him out of his job.  This is not a heat of the moment fight – this is a cold-blooded attack on a man over an issue already settled as far as California is concerned.  Doing this does not advance the cause of gay rights – but it does allow free reign for hatred and a golden opportunity to not just get that CEO, but put fear into the hearts of all people in California that if they back anti-leftist causes, they will be exposed and fired from their jobs.

Here’s my warning to my fellow conservatives:  don’t be fooled.  You can’t partner up with any one on the left, ever.  Even if you believe that a particular bit of leftwing ideology is good (for instance, same-sex marriage) if you partner up with them – show your support for their views – then you are merely helping hate-filled people work up a system where everyone they hate will be suppressed.  Just because they are lauding you for being so open-minded and wonderful doesn’t mean there isn’t room for you in the Gulag. Your space is already reserved – and they’ll get you there all the easier once all those troublesome social conservatives are forced into silence because they are, in the public mind, hated as much as the segregationists of yore are hated today.

We are in a battle for the whole of society.  Either the conservative/libertarian side will win 100%, or the left will.  The two sides cannot meet in the middle.  This not because a reasonable conservative can’t be in favor of gay marriage, but because the left never quits in it’s quest for total power over everything.  Conservatives were pushed away from opposing divorce; were pushed away from opposing birth control; were pushed away from fighting political correctness on campus; were pushed away from one thing after another – because the left demanded it, and some conservatives were willing to agree, never thinking the matter all the way through:  that if you give these people an inch, they will take a mile.  Then demand yet another.

Ask yourself this question:  at the end of the day, what sort of society do you wish to live in?  If the price of backing this or that aspect of leftwing ideology is going to be a society where everyone who disagrees with the left is silenced, where will you be?  And, yes, I’m mostly looking at you libertarian, fiscal conservatives who wish the whole social issues thing would go away.  It may well go away – but only because we who back traditional morality will be turned in the LIV, public mind into monsters that no decent person will associate with.  This might work well in terms of making certain that abortion is not an election year issue, but it won’t work so well in the sense of having a 20 million or more hole blown in the anti-Democrat vote.  To put it to you bluntly:  the libertarian/conservative side of the aisle cannot survive with out the support of the tens of millions of people who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong.  True, social conservatives cannot win without you, either; but right now the left is on a campaign to make adherence to Judeo-Christian morality socially unacceptable…to a point where no one will dare defend such ideals in public. Once we’re silenced, you’re doomed – because you won’t be able to win, and then the left will turn the screws on you.

We’re all in this together, my friends.  My right to adhere to Catholic teaching lives and dies with your right to not adhere and just go on and do what you wish.  If I don’t have my rights, then you won’t have yours…and while I’ll be in socio-political Gulag for believing the Church, you’ll be in there with me for not adhering to 100% of whatever the left is on about at the moment.  Pick your side, and stand with it.

UPDATE:  Its not just me – from Richard Fernandez:

Much of the shock following the removal of Brendan Eich from the position of Mozilla CEO came from the realization that, in a manner of speaking, America was now at war. True it’s a culture war, not a physical conflict. But if you were waiting for the moment when the Cold Civil War actually begins, this might be it…

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE II:  Matt Walsh lets ’em have it:

…You fancy yourselves the ideological descendants of civil rights pioneers, but these tactics put you in the same vein as book burners and Puritan witch hunters. When your story is ultimately told, it’ll read more like The Crucible than the Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

And that’s why you’ll lose.

You might have fooled society forever if you’d just kept singing about love and kindness, and never started bombarding Christians with your bitter hate and hostility. You might have gained some lasting ground if you hoisted your banner of free love, and never used it to diminish free speech.

But the proverbial cat is out of the bag. You’ve been made.

Because of your own behavior, when people like myself tell the world about the vicious death wishes and vulgar hate mail we receive from your kind on a DAILY basis, everyone will believe us. It’s no secret anymore. Without question and without exaggeration, the ‘gay rights movement’ is the angriest, most ruthless, most controlling, most intolerant of all the ideological enterprises in the country. Now, everyone knows it.

So you’ll lose. People are starting to see that you are the pigs on this Animal Farm, and the equality of which you preach is a very unequal equality indeed…


51 thoughts on “When Fighting the Left, Never Give an Inch

  1. Retired Spook April 6, 2014 / 9:29 am

    Since I retired last December, I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking and reading about, as well as discussing with others, just exactly the dynamic you’re talking about, Mark. We really are engaged in a battle for the soul of America, and I think more and more people are beginning to wake up to that fact. I think many on both sides, who belong to that vast class of “go-along-to-get-along” followers, have been contently living their small, insignificant lives, comfortable in the fact that there was no down-side to doing so.

    Well, the down-side is becoming evident for both sides. The followers on the right see the freedom they’ve always taken for granted slipping away, more and more each day, while the followers on the Left see their conservative friends beginning to distance themselves. I have both friends and relatives who voted for Obama twice. I don’t enjoy even being around them, regardless of what other interests we share. I don’t know how potent a weapon isolation might be, but it feels good to know that I no longer have to compromise my principles or mask my feelings just in order to be friends with someone. I think Cluster discovered this fact with trying to be friends with Mitch. A love of cultural things like music, theater and cooking aren’t enough to overcome political and ideological differences, especially if your culture includes religious and moral underpinnings.

    As I look back on friendships with Liberals, there is one thing that almost all of them have in common. You can be friends as long as you don’t discuss politics. I never really thought about that before. I’m curious if anyone else here has had a similar experience.

    Most of us, and by us, I mean politically active Conservative/Libertarians, have read the other side’s playbook. We know how this turns out if we don’t do anything to stop it. It ALWAYS turns out the same.

    • Amazona April 6, 2014 / 10:02 am

      Spook, that was an excellent synopsis of where so many of us find ourselves these days.

      I have been disappointed in the outcome of an election before, but the presidential election of 2012 made me feel disgusted. 2008? I thought Obama voters were gullible fools, sucked in by the demagoguery of the Left, but I didn’t feel contempt for them. Now I do. Like you, I simply can’t find any excuse for the level of stupidity that allowed them to completely overlook political ideology and reality just to vote against silly, invented, transparently bogus, emotionally manipulative, claims against Romney.

      The Left has been playing the Divide And Conquer game so successfully, for so long, that they are pretty complacent about it being something they can use to their advantage. I see, as you do, the divide widening into a chasm, and I also see many who were comfortable with a line between the two sides now taking a harder look at what is causing the division, and being unwilling to be on the wrong side of a gigantic rift that now openly means siding with limitations on political speech, on freedom of religion, on undermining the Second Amendment, on allowing the Executive Branch to engage in massive power grabs that blatantly defy Constitutional restrictions on its scope and power.

    • Amazona April 6, 2014 / 10:25 am

      “You can be friends as long as you don’t discuss politics. I never really thought about that before. I’m curious if anyone else here has had a similar experience.”

      Oh, yes. I have often commented on how being a conservative is so much more demanding, because we talk about our political beliefs, we argue, we challenge each other and have to defend our positions, we have to be willing to realize and admit when we are wrong, we have to constantly study and learn, whereas on the Left all they have to do is let their unexamined emotions be stirred up by hate rhetoric such as that dished out with such relish by the likes of Ranty Rhodes and Ed Schultz and then vote AGAINST whatever false demons their demagogues have created for them.

      I have often referred to my cousin who is a poster child for the Lemming Left. She spent some time here last month and the morning she left we were having coffee and she brought up something about Obamacare. I carefully wended my way through the minefield of Leftist hysteria and said what I have learned is relatively acceptable to Lefties—that I have no problem with people voting to have some involvement by government in helping pay for health insurance for those who need help, but as one who thinks the 10th Amendment is a summary of the intent and design of the Constitution, I think this kind of government intervention is the job of the states, and not allowed to the federal government. (Naturally, this all came out in several sentences in a conversation—summarized here.) That was accepted, and we had a short and civil conversation about it in which she said she was going to go home and look up some of the references I made, to the 10th Amendment and the words of some of the Founders.

      All was well, till I commented (very mildly) on my concerns about Obama assuming the role of the legislature in simply writing some laws and dismissing others. Instantly, her eyes narrowed and her back stiffened and her mouth pursed. I ignored all of this and just went on, slipping away from what was obviously going to be a minefield because I had uttered a possible criticism of The One We Have All Been Waiting For, and just said that I would be more comfortable with a more strict adherence to the Constitution, where only the legislature makes or revokes laws, and then changed the subject. It was clear that I had gone as far as I could.

      However, she did sound interested in what I said about the Founders and the 10th Amendment, which was a big change from prior conversations. I have waited, so it wouldn’t look like I am pouncing, and we have had a couple of emails about the weather, her new granddaughter, and so on, and now I am going to send her some links and quotes.

      One thing she seemed to respond to was my comment that I thought elections should be about which form of government the voter thinks is the best way to govern the nation, not about scandal or personality or identity. What I find so interesting is that this comment has always been met with some degree of agreement. It’s why I think it is a powerful way to get through the chaotic mental muddle of so many Libs, who never think about how to govern the nation, being so wound up and twisted about things like THE WAR ON WOMEN !!!! and all the other garbage of the Left that demands multiple exclamation points to express the levels of outrage their minions are supposed to feel.

      But yes, I have learned that even when fellow conservatives disagree with me, or I with them, on points of government, tactics and so on, we are always willing to talk about our differences. There is no talking to a Lib, if you have even the slightest difference in political allegiance.

      It’s like the loon who called in last week to defend the illegal alien who, after three DUI convictions, being here illegally for ten years, got drunk again and drove down a major Denver thoroughfare at 80 MPH and T-boned a car driven by a 17-year-old kid, killing him instantly. When he argued that we had no idea of the stresses the driver may have been feeling that pushed him into driving drunk (stresses which, were told, included being “persecuted for being brown”) and the talk show host said she didn’t care what emotions made him think it was OK to do what he did, the response was “that’s what’s wrong with you Republicans”.

      Brilliant political analysis, that. But it what passed for thought on the Left, and it’s typical of what we run into when and if we try to talk about objective reality.

      • Retired Spook April 6, 2014 / 10:39 am

        There is no talking to a Lib, if you have even the slightest difference in political allegiance.

        What it ultimately comes down to is the difference between seeking the truth and seeking a comfort zone. I think most Lefties are afraid of the truth because they’re uncomfortable with having their core beliefs challenged. Actually, that’s probably true with most people, regardless of ideology, who haven’t engaged in any kind of self-examination. But based, at least, on my own experience, it’s primarily Conservatives who are not only not afraid of the truth, but actively seek it out because we know that the truth is generally — not always, but generally on our side. I love to have what I believe challenged. It’s how I advance and grow as a person. That’s not the case with most Lefties, and for the ones who are the exceptions, they, more often than not, become Conservatives.

      • roxannity April 6, 2014 / 11:45 am

        Hey, Spook, I accidentally posted my response to this posting under the next posting..it is addressed to you.

      • Amazona April 6, 2014 / 11:08 am

        My experience is that Lefties seldom if ever actually HAVE a core belief, other than a vague but overwhelming conviction that “conservative” is a pejorative that can be slapped onto anything they are told they should find objectionable.

        I used to have long discussions with a Lefty brother whose opinions were formed by such as Ed Schultz. When I tried to bring the discourse back to actual politics, Left vs Right in purely political terms, he got quite upset because I kept using the term “Left” which he considered an insult. I was quite taken aback. It had simply never occurred to me that he just didn’t know the actual definition of “Left” or “Right” in political terms.

        This was a defining moment for me, and led to my development of a strategy which I have beta tested, so to speak, in a few conversations with Lefties. That is, not talking about political identity but about the bare bones of how best to govern the nation.

        It also led me to test Lefties, as I have done so often here, and so far I have found only one, out of hundreds in person or on the blog, with anything even remotely resembling an understanding of, and support for, actual Leftist ideology.

        What creates the spasms of oppositional hysteria is the challenging of the emotional content of their positions, which only points out the lack of actual political understanding or support, and that makes them feel uneasy and threatened.

        Remember, nearly all who vote for the Left in this country only do so because it validates a self-image of liberalism (small-L liberalism, not political Liberalism, which is still a mystery to them) and dedication to progress (not political Progressivism, another unknown quantity) and tolerance and open-mindedness and charity and just plain goodness. Conservatives are baffled by the instantaneous snapping to outrage and just plain rage when political decisions by the Lefties are questioned, because to us we are questioning objective and therefore debatable ideas, but to them we are attacking their very identities as the very best most kind most generous most special most open minded most giving most sensitive people on the planet. To us, it’s ideas and concepts. To them, it is the very core of who they are, what they see when they look in a mirror.

        An example is abortion. Once a Lib has taken in the concept that abortion is a noble thing because it validates a woman’s right to control her own body, any effort to discuss the ugliness and brutality and inhumanity of the procedure and the inherent wrongness of allowing the value of a human being’s life to be determined by the persons who will benefit by its destruction (the female no longer pregnant and the doctor paid to make it happen) is not, to the abortion supporter, a discussion about how we as a society and as human beings should view the sanctity of human life, it is a personal attack on that sense of moral superiority gained by defending “a woman’s right to CHOOSE”.

        Every Liberal stance is buried inside a shell of personal identity gained by adopting that stance, which is why trying to address the pros and cons of the stance itself is something that sparks the defensive/offensive knee-jerk response of the Lib in question. We can’t get to the idea without going through the complexities of what this idea means in term of personal identity, and we can’t challenge the idea without appearing to be attacking that identity. They are like Tootsie Roll Pops—the chewy center can’t be evaluated for its validity without cracking the hard outer shell, and anything perceived as an assault on that shell, which is made up of layers of perception of personal worth, moral and intellectual identity, is going to be seen as a personal attack and any response is going to reflect that.

      • Retired Spook April 6, 2014 / 11:53 am

        My experience is that Lefties seldom if ever actually HAVE a core belief, other than a vague but overwhelming conviction that “conservative” is a pejorative that can be slapped onto anything they are told they should find objectionable.

        Point taken. Rather than having core beliefs, Leftists, for the most part, have core issues that they find emotionally attractive. You and I are on the same page on this.

    • roxannity April 6, 2014 / 11:40 am

      Spook, you have nailed my experience to a tee. I am married to someone who’s views and even moral judgement differs far and away from mine. We NEVER discuss politics and most definitely never encounter a common moral ground on which to stand as one. How does this happen? We married 22 years ago, when ‘things’ were, shall we say, yet emerging? But, we decided about 2 and a half years ago that the “lines” which separated us were coming up bolder and bolder with each conversation about policies, or God, himself. And now we live separate lives, and it was not until just recently that I have discovered feelings of a real dislike for him. I see him as being weak, and although it hurts to say this, we will never be able to change, because we are who we are. anyway, Thank you for your message, it is a relief just knowing I am not out here alone. Isolation beats mediocrity any day!!!

      • Amazona April 6, 2014 / 12:03 pm

        Roxannity, I am so sorry that these feelings of dislike and lack of respect are part of your marriage. I understand them, and experience them all the time, when having to deal with Libs, but I am so sorry that you have to live with them in your day to day life with your husband. It must be very painful for you.

        I know many Libs who really are good people, just so tangled up in the emotional rhetoric of the Left that they appear to be lacking even basic intellect or morality. I have often commented on the assumption of Lefties that if they adhere to the superficial agenda of the Left, which is, after all, all about “fairness” and “tolerance”, they have achieved the Higher Moral Ground without actually being fair, or tolerant. You have to admit, it is a seductive strategy—-it allows people to feel superior by exhibiting hatred while bragging about being against hatred, by being mean while sporting bumper stickers proclaiming “Mean People Suck”, by being completely intolerant of anything not part of their narrow world view while preaching tolerance, by sanctimoniously protesting capital punishment for brutal killers and rapists while supporting the wholesale butchery of innocent babies who have done nothing but lose the conception lottery and come into existence in the wombs of the pathologically selfish, by being dismissive and condescending about black people in assuming they lack the intellect or drive to achieve so they must be cared for and expectations for them must be lowered while accusing those who argue they are equal of being racists—-its appeal is obvious.

        But that does not mean we have to respect, admire or even trust those who choose this path. It IS weakness, of intellect and of character.

      • Amazona April 6, 2014 / 12:07 pm

        BTW, about changing—-I was a Lib, what I call an “unexamined Liberal” because it was totally emotional without a thought process even on the horizon. It took the hypocrisy of the Left, particularly the treatment of the woman who accused Bill Clinton of sexual misdeeds, to make me take a harder look at “my side” and that led me to reading, looking at facts, and so on.

        It has happened, and it might happen again, but it would require two things of your husband. One would be seeing something about “his side” that bothers him so much he has to re-examine his loyalties, and the other is the courage to admit it if he learns he was wrong.

      • Retired Spook April 6, 2014 / 12:11 pm


        I’m sorry to hear what you’re going through. My wife and I have been married for 47 years, and one of the lynch pins of our marriage is that we like each other. We were good friends long before we got married, and, nearly a half century later, we’re still best friends. And one of, if not THE main reason we’re still best friends is that we share the same values. We don’t lie to each other; we don’t cheat on each other; we don’t hide things from each other, and we both place high value on things like honor and integrity.

    • M. Noonan April 6, 2014 / 12:41 pm

      As long time readers of this blog can attest, I write a blog about social and political issues from the conservative point of view. As this is part of my life, people who get to know me tend to eventually find out about this aspect of my life. This includes my work friends – you know; we might discuss that guy’s recent fishing trip, that lady’s difficulty in getting her car repaired…the normal stuff of life, but the normal stuff of life might include asking me about how my writing is going. When that comes up, I have to walk a mine field, fearing lest I let a word slip which someone in the work environment might find offensive. And this is really irritating to me – because, of course, when people at work make comments on social or political matters from a liberal perspective, everyone knows that we on the right won’t be going to HR to complain about a “hostile work environment”…and if we did, it wouldn’t go anywhere.

      This is the problem we’re having – the left keeps pushing and once they have conquered a piece of ground, they won’t surrender it. Our areas of free speech are shrinking…and don’t think that the moves in various leftwing quarters to suppress the internet won’t go anywhere. They will. Eventually, we’ll only be able to speak our minds in our homes and in Church…and once we’re reduced to that, they’ll come after us there, too.

      We have to fight back – but it takes everyone who is not on the left to do it; this means we can’t allow ourselves to be broken in to political pieces because as smaller subsets, we are a small minority easy to suppress.

      • dcobranchi April 8, 2014 / 4:20 am

        We on the left do not want to suppress places like this blog. Why would we? Where else are we going to find our laugh of the day?

      • Retired Spook April 8, 2014 / 8:38 am

        We on the left do not want to suppress places like this blog. Why would we? Where else are we going to find our laugh of the day?

        Well, DC, we made the discussion as entertaining as possible, just for half-wits like you.

      • Amazona April 8, 2014 / 9:06 am

        “We on the left do not want to suppress places like this blog. Why would we? Where else are we going to find our laugh of the day?”

        And here we have a synopsis of what passes for political discourse on the Left. The funny thing about it, if you can find humor in something pathetic, is that dcobranchi is proving our point—that “the Left” in current American politics is not about politics at all, but about the fact that there is a subset of Americans who are irresistibly drawn to the movement that validates their negativity. Only in this kind of pseudo-political mental state could a silly, simpleminded snarky little non-comment be considered a response to thoughtful discussion.

        A thoughtful person would read what was said and process it, agree or disagree with it, formulate a response that reflected an actual idea, and present it as part of the discussion. A dcobranchi only knows that what is said doesn’t make him feel good, and is compelled to say SOMETHING, but lacks the mental capacity to actually address what was said. So we get the simpering little snot-nugget that attempts to convey a bemused observation on his part of something that is beneath him—while actually telling us that while our comments do not please him he simply can’t rebut them because they are true. Instead of a dismissive sneer from a lofty position of amused superiority, it is a whimpering admission that he can’t argue a single point made.

        Poor baby…………………….

      • dcobranchi April 8, 2014 / 10:05 am

        I’m not sure why but I cannot reply to Amazona…

        I’m perfectly capable of arguing with the folks here. It’s simply not worthwhile. We on the left do not need to suppress you. You’re dinosaurs and will die out, unloved, unremarked, and unmissed. You’ve lost the arguments. All of them. Gay marriage will be the law everywhere in a few years. Abortion is here to stay. Obamacare. Well, you’ve got your guns. Cling to them. While you can.

      • M. Noonan April 8, 2014 / 1:06 pm

        Actually, it is quite the other way around – just in simple demographics, the pragmatic facts of life are that people who still hold to traditional morality have vastly more children than those who don’t. To be sure, that is why the left is so keen to prevent school choice – not willing to make children of their own, they are more than willing to intellectually kidnap other kids…but school choice is advancing and eventually we’ll break down the public school system monopoly.

        100 years from now there will be no ObamaCare, no elective abortion, no same-sex marriage…there will just be a bunch of bitter clingers…

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 8, 2014 / 11:09 am

        I’m not sure why but I cannot reply to Amazona…

        And yet there’s your reply, such as it is. Why are most lefties such nasty creeps?

      • Retired Spook April 8, 2014 / 11:44 am

        You’ve lost the arguments. All of them. Gay marriage will be the law everywhere in a few years. Abortion is here to stay. Obamacare.

        Well, now there’s a sustainable society. Good luck with that.

      • tiredoflibbs April 8, 2014 / 12:16 pm

        “’m perfectly capable of arguing with the folks here. It’s simply not worthwhile.”

        the usual drone cop-out.

        dc, I have seen your comments at the pitchfork. Nothing spectacular, really. Just short one or two liners agreeing with the other forkers, attacking the opposition or swooning over sarah’s ta-tas.

      • tiredoflibbs April 8, 2014 / 12:20 pm

        A little to quick on the reply button.

        “Well, you’ve got your guns. Cling to them. While you can.”

        Ah, the usual lefty bile of mindless dumbed down talking points.

        “while you can” – I thought the left denies anyone trying to take away our 2nd amendment RIGHTS! At least that is what they say publicly. What they say behind closed doors……

      • M. Noonan April 8, 2014 / 1:15 pm


        I don’t think they fully realize (a) just how many Americans actually own guns, (b) how many of these gun owners are very well trained in how to use them and (c) just how many of them actually would fight confiscation. They’re playing with fire here and don’t even realize it.

      • Amazona April 8, 2014 / 5:37 pm

        “’m not sure why but I cannot reply to Amazona…”

        I think we all know why. Actually, I explained why you could not, and predicted that you wouldn’t even try.

        Good call, by the way. You made an excellent assessment of your abilities and made the right decision.

        “I’m perfectly capable of arguing with the folks here.”

        Wellllll, not so much. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, toss out little snot-nuggets and then scurry away, tittering, and then try to bluff with “I could have if I’d wanted to, but….” As if that has ever been convincing.

        Nope, you got nothing. You can’t debate the legitimacy of the President simply picking and choosing which laws to follow and which to ignore, and making up new laws on the fly as he decides he needs them. If you tried, you would run into the Constitution of the United States and its assignment of legislation to one branch of the federal government, which is by the way not the Executive Branch. You can’t defend the Attorney General of the United States refusing to prosecute some crimes based solely on the skin colors of the attackers and the victims. You not only can’t explain the actual political ideology of you “on the Left”, you can’t defend it in a head-to-head comparison of how it has worked when put into play, vs the success of our Constitutional model when it was actually followed.

        You seem pretty proud of abortion. I’m always interested in how someone like you can defend the claim that when one person’s life interferes with another person’s life, the decision to end the life of the first person is subject to the whim of the second. In a murder trial, where the accused is a mature adult who has made the decision to kill someone, no member of the victim’s family is allowed on the jury. Avoidance of conflict of interest is a foundational principle of American justice, even in matters far less serious than a decision to end a human life. Yet you, and people like you, have no problem at all in letting the two people who benefit from the death of a third person be the only ones allowed to make the call. That is, the pathologically selfish female gestator (NOT a woman, and NOT a mother at this point but merely a human who is capable of conception, lower than any animal, as even animals protect their young) who is relieved of any responsibility for the outcome of her pleasure seeking, and the person who gets paid to do the dirty work.

        THIS is what you brag about. Wow. You know, you might spend a few moments being grateful that it was not legal to just kill off inconvenient babies when you were conceived. Clearly you were brought up by a mother who failed to instill character, and I’m guessing a more Liberal attitude toward infanticide back in the day might have resulted in you being thrown in the trash with your limbs ripped off, having suffered agonies before you finally died.

        Those who escaped the butcher now brag that thanks to them fewer will be so lucky.

      • tiredoflibbs April 8, 2014 / 6:30 pm

        A typical example of dcobranchi’s postings at the pitchfork:
        “Wow! I’ve never been the title of a blog post before. Way cool.” After being praised for “explaining it all” in his 10:05am post here. Explaining what? It was nothing but the usual regurgitations of mindless talking points on the demise of conservatives.

        As I said, nothing spectacular.

      • Amazona April 8, 2014 / 7:55 pm

        He “explained” something? I guess I missed that. I saw a couple of typical mindless talking points and bragging about his hopes that the nation will degenerate even farther into even more callous disregard for the value of human life and avoidance of decency in the pursuit of hedonistic pleasure.

        He ILLUSTRATED some things, all of which we have already known about the intellectual and moral vacuum of the Left’s minions. Ignorance, meanness, malice and gleeful anticipation of even more innocent lives being sacrificed, but as I said, it was redundant.

        Seriously—–did he really claim he had “explained” things to us? Beyond the yellow stripe down his back, that is? Too funny.

      • dcobranchi April 9, 2014 / 8:57 am

        “100 years from now there will be no ObamaCare, no elective abortion, no same-sex marriage…there will just be a bunch of bitter clingers…”

        What evidence do you have that the obvious trends in our society are going to reverse themselves to make your prediction accurate? Wishful thinking doesn’t count. Or are you assuming that the end of the world will occur before then?

      • dcobranchi April 9, 2014 / 9:07 am

        “Seriously—–did he really claim he had “explained” things to us? ”

        No. That was the poster’s claim, to which I jokingly replied.

        As I stated, arguing in this echo chamber is fairly pointless. You all have your heads buried deep in something. The arc of history is against conservatives. It always has been and always shall be. Conservatism’s very existence is predicated on attempting to stand athwart history. Yelling “Stop!” is not only useless. It is sad. Just as the arrow of time points in one direction, so does the arrow of history. You conservatives will always be left staring and wondering where it’s gone and how did you ever get so far behind.

        Noonan makes some bold predictions for what society will be like 100 years from now. They sound a lot like society 100 years ago. Do any of you really believe that you can reverse 200 years of history? Good luck with that.

      • Cluster April 9, 2014 / 9:17 am

        Actually, the “progressive” movement only has about a 50 year history, at least in this country, and if you would objectively look at the results – they are abysmal. The first 150 years of this country were absent the heavy hand of self superior progressive elites and those results were rather amazing.

      • M. Noonan April 9, 2014 / 12:46 pm

        The trouble with you liberals is that you really know nothing of history – to you its sort of “well, we had Ozzie and Harriet 60 years ago, now we got gay marriage and so we’re winning!”. As a conservative, I view all of history and realize this isn’t the first time a society has gone from Ozzie to gay marriage (as it were) in a 60 year period. It happens, actually, on a fairly regular basis – and the people lauding the “gay marriage” period of it are sure they know it all and that there’s no going back. Well, there is. The clock can, indeed, be turned back – or, more accurately, the actual clock has been running in normal time all along while the bizarre people have been out there thinking they are changing things.

        Here’s a few things:

        1. People who don’t get married (in the traditional sense) and have children cannot continue themselves into future generations (by de-facto kidnapping other people’s children they can do it for a short while – the USSR lasted for 70 odd years, after all).

        2. People who don’t, by and large, produce their own food, clothing and tools get taken over by people who do (sorry, being a transgressive artist in the Bay Area is absolutely worthless for civilizational purposes).

        You liberals of 2014 are just the tail end of a long, sad line which started around 1750 and has been forever promising the New Dawn just as soon as the last scraps of the old Judeo-Christian morality were swept away. Well, you’ve swept them away – and you’ve got nothing. Nothing except weird “art”, tattoos, piercings, abortion, twisted sounds coming out of the music box…and two men getting “married” to top off the cake. We are not going to reverse history – your side is going to die off and future generations will wonder why anyone ever thought about going down your route.

      • M. Noonan April 9, 2014 / 1:30 pm

        Here’s another way of looking at it from someone a much better writer than I’ll ever be:

        “IT WOULD have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one’s own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom — that would indeed have been simple. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.”

        ~G.K. Chesterton: ‘Orthodoxy,’ Chap VI.

      • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 11:01 am

        Ah, the “arc of history” argument.

        Let’s start with a simple definition: “History” refers to what has already happened.
        So now that we have that straightened out maybe we can start talking facts, ouchy little things that they are to you Lefties.

        Go back (remember, we are talking about HISTORY here…) to the founding of this nation. The Founders were determined to avoid the problems of governance they had seen, and read about, and heard about, since pretty much the beginning of human civilization. Bold, I know, but it was this boldness that made them the heroes they were.

        So they came up with a system of governance that was designed to ensure that the government of THIS country would always be one in which the people run the government, and not the other way around. It was designed to make sure that power could never be concentrated in a Central Authority, but had to be distributed throughout the nation, with all but a small amount of authority vested in state and local governments, or left to the people.

        They had a hard time getting this new constitution passed, because the people of this raw new nation were pretty concerned that the way it was written, simply delegating specific powers to the federal government, was not a strong enough message that ONLY these powers were allowed to the federal government. So a compromise was reached—-they voted to ratify it on the condition that it quickly be amended to beef it up, to use a belt-and-suspenders approach in which the original document said what had to be done, the first amendments said what could not be done, and then they wrapped it up in the 10th Amendment which said, in no uncertain terms, that if something was not specifically delegated to the federal government, as long as it was not prohibited by the Constitution it was the responsibility of the States, or the People.

        So, if you are following me this far, we have established an “arc of history” that is the antithesis of the Central Authority model of Leftist governance.

      • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 11:36 am

        OK, so we are still arcing through history—that is, the past—-and we watch the amazing results of this radical new form of government. Within 100 years or so, this rowdy, disorganized, contentious group of states, the butt of jokes in the entire “civilized” world, has leapfrogged over every other nation in the world, to become a beacon of individual liberty and economic prosperity. And it is clear that the first has led to the second.

        People strive to come here, because this nation, above all others in the history of man, offers opportunity and freedom.

        Let’s add a few years to that 100 and get ourselves up to about 1920. We are still a dynamo of prosperity and energy and inspiration. So let’s look across the pond at the evolution of the Leftist model. This is where it gets interesting.

        The two nations, Russia and the United States, once had a lot in common—–rule by a Central Authority based upon inherited titles and power, vast natural resources, huge size, and a desire to change the form of their government.

        So, if you want to examine “the arc of history” you have to look at these two experiments in government, once these nations discarded their old forms of government and tried their radical new experiments. One was based on decentralizing government, and on personal liberty and the prospect of being able to advance according to one’s own talent and ambition. One was based not just on a central governing authority but on a central authority for everything, a communal form of living defined by the phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

        The former resulted in unprecedented freedoms, of religion and politics and economics and every other form imaginable. The latter resulted in the government-caused slaughter of so many tens of millions of people, in the pursuit and consolidation of power, no one can accurate assess the extent of the carnage, with estimates ranging from 20 million to well over 60 million. The former had to start restricting immigration, to keep from being overwhelmed by people eager to participate in this grand new approach to governance, while the latter had to erect walls and fences and patrol its borders with dogs and armed guards to keep its people from escaping.

        THIS is “the arc of history” you need to understand.

      • Retired Spook April 9, 2014 / 11:43 am

        The arc of history is against conservatives. It always has been and always shall be. Conservatism’s very existence is predicated on attempting to stand athwart history. Yelling “Stop!” is not only useless. It is sad. Just as the arrow of time points in one direction, so does the arrow of history. You conservatives will always be left staring and wondering where it’s gone and how did you ever get so far behind.

        Actually, DC, you’ve got it exactly backwards. You can’t point to a single heterogenous Leftist society of any significant size that has EVER succeeded like the United States did during our first 150 years — not a single one. Socialism and all its various cousins has always ended in either bankruptcy or totalitarianism — or both. You CAN point to some advancements that we’ve made that were considered, at the time, progressive ideas, like the ending of slavery and women’s suffrage, but you can’t find any Conservatives who are advocating reversing those achievements.

      • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 12:03 pm

        Now we get into more recent history. Americans have become complacent, taking the amazing results of the grand experiment for granted. They have become soft and lazy, while the Left—the same brutal, calculating Left that destroyed Russia, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, etc.—has been energetic and active. This Left has infiltrated the educational system of the United States, distorting our history to teach our young that what we have accomplished is wrong, that our country is evil, that we have committed sins against humanity in our progress toward unlimited freedom and prosperity, and it has started to twist the lazy and uneducated minds into an acceptance, not of the harsh reality of its own movement but of a lovely fantasy made up of platitudes and fairy dust.

        The Left has also been, at the same time, undermining the moral foundation of our country, gradually eroding its basic concepts of right and wrong, so that after fifty years of so of this they have convinced those lacking a moral compass that infanticide is a grand and noble thing, that selfishness in the pursuit of pleasure trumps everything else but that ambition is a vile and evil form of selfishness that must be penalized. In a nation where its people have never been truly educated, have never learned the lessons of history but have in fact been taught that history is irrelevant, where they have never learned of the courage and brilliance that formed this nation but only of lies about its alleged shortcomings, the Left has found enough traction to actually make some people defend the atrocities of its agendas.

        And this takes us up to dcobranchi, bragging that this descent into depravity and moral chaos is inevitable as well as “progress”. And that’s OK. If he is comfortable gloating over his conviction that the nation has not yet bottomed out, he gets to look into the abyss with gleeful anticipation.

        The optimists among us think that as the ugly brutality and inhumanity of this death spiral into moral decay becomes more and more evident, it will slow and hopefully even reverse.

        One example of what the Left has to gloss over is the reality of what they so carefully call “late term abortion”. Look at how little press coverage has been given to the nightmarish reality of Gosnell’s slaughterhouse—blood and body parts rotting in sinks and on the floors, layer of flies, dead baby bodies in cat food dishes, anesthesia administered by an 18-year-old with no training, all defended by the Left because it fits into their mantra of (drumroll to lead into the breathless admiration for the phrase….) A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

        dcobranchi can claim that subverting our Constitution to drag us into a model that has never, in its entire history, produced anything but economic disaster, and human misery and even wholesale slaughter when taken to its preferred level of control, is what he wants, is what he defines as progress. But he is really only mouthing off AGAINST the invented bogey-man of an invented “conservatism” because his minders know the mentality of their minions and know if they can be stirred into mindless hatred of an invented enemy they will throw themselves into battle and be willing cannon fodder, if only (as shown here) on an intellectual level. They just tell him his idiocy is proof of intellect and he’s ready to buy into that.

      • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 1:35 pm

        “Conservatism’s very existence is predicated on attempting to stand athwart history. Yelling “Stop!” is not only useless. It is sad. Just as the arrow of time points in one direction, so does the arrow of history. You conservatives will always be left staring and wondering where it’s gone and how did you ever get so far behind.”

        Who writes this crap for these people?

        “Standing athwart history”? “Yelling “Stop”? Huh? Poor dcobranchi, trying ever so hard to sound ever so erudite, yet tripping all over himself in the process. History is what has already happened. “Just as the arrow of time points in one direction, so does the arrow of history. ” Yeah, and it always points backwards. History is not what is going to happen.

        I suppose a defeatist would look forward (which is NOT “history”) and see a bad outcome ahead but just throw up his hands and choose not to alter the course of events to head off disaster. But history, real history, is made by people who do act, who do yell “STOP!” when they see something wrong. This is why and how we ended slavery, got women the vote, passed the Civil Rights Act, defended world freedom in two world wars. We DID yell “STOP!” and we prevailed.

        Slavery was an affront to human decency and dignity, and those who defended it and fought for it ended up losing to those with the courage to stand up and yell “STOP!” and fight to end it. Abortion is an affront to human decency and dignity, and those who defend it and fight for it will end up losing, after the United States bottoms out at its nadir of degeneracy and starts to look past the rosy rhetoric of the death culture to the reality of the butchery of our young. It might still be legal, but it will garner the disgust and disdain it deserves, and will carry the stigma of pathological selfishness and infanticide it deserves.

        “You conservatives will always be left staring and wondering where it’s gone and how did you ever get so far behind.”

        Oh my goodness, the melodrama! Nonsense, but ever so dramatic! From the ignorance about the meaning of the word “conservative” to the oddity of claiming that someone will be looking at history—that is, at the past—-and then wonder where it has gone (!) and then ponder the mystery of how he ever got “so far behind”—-it’s all overblown gobbedlygook.

        What is happening now is that people have history to learn from—that is, the lessons of history such as those taught by the fall of the Roman Empire—-to let us know what to expect when the citizenry allows itself to be bought with bread and circuses. A hundred years ago all we had to support our suspicions of Leftist ideology was common sense, but now we have abundant historical data to back up those suspicions of the inherent fatal flaws of the system, now backed up by more data on the brutality that inevitably results as the leaders of the Left scramble to gain and then maintain power. When Marx started luring the brainless with platitudes, we knew the system would fail, but now we have historical records, and memories of those who lived under Leftist dominance, to prove that the promises are the antithesis of the reality.

        And no, we are not in danger of looking back and wondering what happened to our ideals. We know what might happen, for a while, till the reality of Leftist life sets in and a tipping point is reached.

        What is so funny about these overwrought lectures on “HISTORY !!! ” is that the poster is so ignorant of history. He is looking forward into an illusionary future in which his wet dreams of unlimited infanticide, total control over personal decisions such as health care being made by an all-powerful Central Authority, and a world in which no one snickers at hearing a man refer to another man as his wife or husband are all blissful reality. And that’s fine. He gets to brag about having such low hopes and expectations. But he is ignorant of the fact that the actual political SYSTEM he supports, in his giddy pursuits of such goals, is the one which people literally risked their lives to escape.

        HIS “history” evidently does not include the Berlin Wall, the hundreds of miles of electrified fences topped with barbed wire along the Russian/Finnish border, the accompaniment of every visiting Russian celebrity by guards to make sure no one made a break for freedom, the desperation of oppressed Cubans that leads them to cross 90 miles of shark-infested water on rafts, the killing fields littered with bodies of people killed only because they wore eyeglasses and therefore identified themselves in the eyes of their Leftist masters as “intellectuals” able to read and therefore understand what was happening in their country, etc.

        There is no room in the starstruck giddiness of today’s Leftist for such reality. They are too busy anticipating their Brave New World, which will for some reason be made more wonderful by being littered with the bodies of slaughtered babies.

      • M. Noonan April 9, 2014 / 1:51 pm

        They don’t even understand why Buckley said that – “we stand athwart history yelling, ‘stop!'”…because the Communists and their fellow travelers in the United States predicated their actions by claiming history was on their side…the inevitable tide of history was leading to a world where Communism was everywhere triumphant. Buckley said, how about we stop that? And it was stopped.

        Eugenics was “the march of history”, too. So was the concept that some people are born criminals. That Darwin proved “survival of the fittest” is the unalterable decree of history (so, let’s shoot everyone who doesn’t fit in).

        The liberals know nothing of history – and not even of recent history. They can just see that now you can make crude sexual jokes on broadcast television and that two guys can get married and presume that everything is going their way…

      • Retired Spook April 9, 2014 / 2:30 pm

        The liberals know nothing of history – and not even of recent history.

        Mark, I’d agree that mindless little leftist foot soldiers like dcobranchi have a limited, if not non-existent knowledge of history, but the elite Leftists at the top of the food chain are well acquainted with history, which is why they keep re-writing it to enable them to try their failed ideas over and over and over. It’s why they had to get control of our education system, so they could teach generation after generation a distorted view of history.

      • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 6:16 pm

        Mark, your comment on the Lefty spin on Buckley’s comment reminds me of a similar effort to make something out of the old comment about wanting a government so small you could drown it in a bathtub. I remember some Libs here howling at the moon about that, claiming it means that all CONSERVATIVES (there’s that catch-all phrase again) want to destroy government. You know, drown it! CONSERVATIVES HATE GOVERNMENT !!!

        It’s always funny when a Lib thinks he has gotten the bit in his teeth and he goes galloping off in the wrong direction, whinnying in triumph, while we just watch and laugh.

        I remember one time when I referred to the observations of former Communist John Dos Passos, writing about the playacting of Leftist organizers who showed up at meetings of poor farmers (think “Grapes of Wrath”) to try to organize unions, trying to act the part of fellow farmers (think Kerry in his Elmer Fudd hat asking “anyone know where you kin git a huntin’ license around heeyer?) but wearing nicely pressed new dungarees, as they called jeans back then, complete with crease, and pristine chambray shirts with perfectly rolled cuffs, and with manicured fingernails. In what turned out to be the first of sooooo many Emily Litella moments, dolf responded that this observation didn’t mean anything, because “Latinos just like to look nice”.

        That one got a double take, a triple take, and a spit take. It’s still one of the funniest things I have ever read, and to this day I am sure he is utterly clueless about what makes it such a classic.

  2. Amazona April 6, 2014 / 11:47 am

    “A case can be made that hatred and a desire to suppress are the actual motivators of leftwing activity.”

    CAN be?

    Look at every single nation which has been taken over by Leftist ideology and governance, and you will see suppression of anything that does not comply with the tenets of the Left.

    This has always been a hallmark of the Left, so it does not surprise me. What does surprise me is how the blatant imposition of restrictions on freedom of political speech, and punishing of those who express any ideas contrary to Leftist dogma, are so blandly accepted by the majority of Americans. The “ho hum” attitude of so much of America to things like this, to the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president, to the de facto establishment of a whole new branch of government with vast scope and powers and consisting of unelected political appointees, to the acceptance of a nation with different sets of laws for different demographics (mostly based on ethnicity and skin color) , to the identification by political leaders of Americans supporting the Constitution as “domestic terrorists”, to the presence of armed drones watching American citizens in the United States and the statement that they would only be used to kill enemies of the state—it’s like the Zombie Apocalypse is really a reference to half of America, to the masses mindlessly oblivious to the incursions into their liberty.

    Oblivious or indifferent…………….

    • roxannity April 6, 2014 / 11:54 am

      I LOVE LOVE LOVE this one!! I will have to post this one to my Facebook wall, if you do not mind?

      • Amazona April 6, 2014 / 12:11 pm

        Roxannity, I come here to discuss my opinions and exchange ideas with people, and I write what I think in a public forum, so I have no problem in having it seen by others. If your question about Facebook is addressed to me and not to Spook, I’m fine with that, but thanks for asking. If not, then it is up to Spook.

    • M. Noonan April 6, 2014 / 12:52 pm

      Well, I still have to be at least a bit generous – after all, in any 1,000 liberals, there might be one or two who aren’t motivated by hate.

      But, I see you’re point – ignorant people being led about by the nose by a tiny minority of fanatics, and all of them turning in fury upon whomever the tiny minority proclaims as outside the pale. If Orwell had just titled his book 2014, he would have got it right.

      • Amazona April 6, 2014 / 3:56 pm

        I know many who are not hateful people, but they still think foolish things such as believing that “conservatives”, Fox News, Republicans, etc ARE hateful. So hate is a mandatory component of the attitudes of most Lefties, whether they wallow in it themselves or simply assign it as a characteristic of The Other Side.

        Look at ol’ Barry, carrying on about his “stinkburger” and “meanwich” and claiming that Republicans get mad at the idea of people having health insurance. He is a septic tank of hate, spewing it whenever he speaks, but always claiming he is really talking about OUR hatred, claiming that no matter what we think it is based on hate.

        Having to lie to make it possible to make these claims doesn’t slow these people down, not for a minute.

      • M. Noonan April 7, 2014 / 1:08 am

        Of course, those who aren’t hateful do tend to the ignorant – sometimes soft ignorance (they just never looked it up/thought it through) sometimes rather hard (they know the truth, but refuse to adhere to it – likely out of fear of social ostracism).

  3. Roxannity April 6, 2014 / 12:03 pm

    Thank you for the encouragement.

    • Retired Spook April 6, 2014 / 12:14 pm

      If your question about Facebook is addressed to me and not to Spook, I’m fine with that, but thanks for asking. If not, then it is up to Spook.

      I certainly don’t have a problem with it. As far as I’m concerned, the more people we get into the discussion the better.

      • Amazona April 6, 2014 / 12:30 pm

        I would ask, and I think Spook might agree with me, that if you post something from the blog on your Facebook page, you credit the blog, and link to it, because I would like to have more people like you participating in it.

  4. Retired Spook April 6, 2014 / 12:33 pm

    Even on something as innocuous as school lunches, ordinary Americans are starting to push back on the Left’s insistence that they know what’s best for the rest of us.

    • Amazona April 6, 2014 / 12:56 pm

      Does anyone think any of the Obamas eat the kind of food they try to shove off on other people?

      Just as in the old USSR, the elites, who live in fine houses with wonderful food, tell the proles they should be happy in tiny, cramped, “sustainable” housing, and eat only tasteless (if they are lucky) pap solely for the purpose of nutrition. Pleasure and comfort are reserved for the elites. (We often notice that these fine homes are paid for by other people…….Rezko, the congregation of Wright’s church, etc….)

      The elites have lots of space, while promoting tiny “micro apartments” of about 250 square feet for the common folk. (That’s about the size of my 20′ shipping container.) ” “It’s an accelerating trend in the industry, especially where space is at a premium,” says Ryan Severino, senior economist at New York-based research firm Reis.”

      BUT……… “Severino, who has a 3,300-square foot house in New Jersey, says he and his wife had a “good experience” living in a 450-square-foot Manhattan apartment for three years when they were younger. Yet he adds, “It was nice to move back to the suburbs. I have to admit, I like my space.” Space is for elites.

      The elites drive fine automobiles, often with drivers, while instructing the common folk that they should be happy with tin can cars like the laughably named “Smart Car”. Or they allow cronies to continue to sell vehicles that catch fire, stall and cause wrecks, and kill people. Safety and comfort are reserved for the elites.

      Many elites have armed bodyguards, while not only telling us WE don’t need guns to protect OURSELVES, they actively try to prevent us from having guns. Security is reserved for the elites.

      The elites fly in private jets, and often have energy-sucking homes (often multiple energy-sucking homes) while they lecture us on our “carbon footprint” and try to figure out how to tax us for our own energy uses. Conservation is for the proles, not for the elites.

      The elites lecture us on “alternative energy” but practice NIMBY—Not In My Back Yard. So, as an example, wind turbines well off the coast of Massachusetts were not acceptable to the Yachting Class. In a similar vein, placing wind turbines on a desolate, unvisited, remote bluff in Wyoming was not allowed because it was one of those sacred “wilderness areas”. No elites ever go into the wilderness, only a tiny fraction of Americans ever have or ever will, but they do legislate a lot of land to be off limits to those who want to provide energy, or food, for the country.

      When I was in school, “Animal Farm” was a reading assignment, and then we discussed it, in detail, as an allegory for the Soviet Union and communism. Do you think any school would, in today’s political climate, ever assign a book which outlines the fatal flaws of Leftist ideology, and its inevitable outcome? Do you think the Left would tolerate, for one moment, an expose of the inherent hypocrisy of their movement? No, today’s mandatory reading is based on “educators’ ” conviction that students need to understand the motivation, thinking and sensations of sexual predators, complete with graphic genitalia-specific descriptions of incestuous rape.

      Not too hard to see how the thinking of the next generation will be shaped, is it?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) April 8, 2014 / 7:41 pm

        Actually Amazona, Orwell was a socialist.

        Animal Farm was about how the Russian revolution went horribly wrong. Napoleon (Stalin) betrayed the Old Major (Marx or Lenin) and became as bad as Mr. Jones (Tsar Nicholas II)

      • Amazona April 8, 2014 / 7:49 pm

        Yes, I got that. I don’t think any school today would teach how the experiment went wrong, or the inherent fatal flaws in the model.

Comments are closed.