When the Past Offends the Present

No history and no future in this new utopia of Social Justice

Someone pointed out that you can tell how little influence conservatives have on American culture, in that it took liberals to finally "cancel" Margaret Sanger, the bigoted founder of Planned Parenthood. This has to do with a Planned Parenthood facility in New York removing her name and declaring that, well what everyone knows, that she was not only a bad person her goal was the destruction of "inferior" races.

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York on Tuesday said it’ll ditch the name of Margaret Sanger — one of the founders of the national organization — from its Lower Manhattan clinic over her “harmful connections to the eugenics movement.”
The group is also talking to New York City leaders about scrapping Sanger’s name from a street sign that’s hung near its Bleecker Street offices for more than 20 years.

The main reason I transformed from a liberal to a conservative is that I could no longer justify the lies I had to ignore in order to maintain a liberal ideology. This is a similar situation, eventually the hypocrisy begins to show and the leftist cancel culture, in order to maintain any legitimacy must begin to eat its own.  This is a very small bite, but there are others.

Princeton University says it is to remove the name of former US President Woodrow Wilson from a building on its campus because of his racist beliefs and policies. 

Well being that Woodrow Wilson was the most racist President in modern US history, and a democrat, it is understandable. When they come for LBJ we will know they are serious. 

Then today I read this:

The Sierra Club will remove monuments of its founder John Muir over his racist history, the environmental conservation organization announced Wednesday morning.The green group, which Muir founded in 1892, said that as the country begins to reassess the purpose and meaning of Confederate statues and memorials, “it’s time to take down some of our own monuments, starting with some truth-telling about the Sierra Club’s early history.”

The total insanity and hubris of this movement to destroy history is pretty much summed up in this statement from the Sierra Club:

“The most monumental figure in the Sierra Club’s past is John Muir,” it said in a statement. “Beloved by many of our members, his writings taught generations of people to see the sacredness of nature.”

 

This is why they must eventually come for Washington, Jefferson and all the founding fathers, slave holders or not. They all in some way fall short of today's  standards. All of history falls short of today's standards, that is the point of preserving history.  The fact that John Muir was a man of his times is too deep a concept for the shallow minds that inhabit the progressive movement, talk about your oxymoron.  Muir, and all of history really, has not lived up to the woke understanding of the modern day mental pygmies, so they must all be cannibalized to nourish the unquenchable thirst of the social justice vampires. They must suck the blood of the past in order to create a darkness in which they can survive. Enlightened humility is beyond their grasp.

 If  Muir, a shepherd who led mankind to a better understanding of our place with nature is to be wiped clean because he held popular beliefs of his time, where will we find ourselves? Where will it all end? Shouldn't we close Yosemite National Park? It, after all, is truly the greatest monument to Muir's life there is.  If yesterday's beliefs are to be today's crimes we will have no history and no future in this new utopia of Social Justice, for we all have sinned and fallen short of the Woke.

If history is to be judged by the present with no context then perhps Louie Gohmert, has it right. For if past performance is to be the judge of current acceptability, there is one institution that must surely be removed, even before the Redskins.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) introduced a Privileged Resolution calling upon Congress to ban any political organization or party that has ever held a public position supportive of slavery or the Confederate States of America.
It also calls for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to remove from the House wing of the U.S. Capitol or any House office building any item that names, symbolizes or mentions any political organization or party that supported slavery or the Confederacy.

Why not? Nancy Pelosi made a big show of removing the portraits of Speakers of the House who ended up in the Confederacy. The House has voted to remove statues of any confederates in Statuary Hall in the Capitol. They were all Democrats. The confederacy was entirely a product of the Democratic Party to preserve slavery in the south where all the slave holders were Democrats. This is without even getting into the founding and support of the KKK and instituting Jim Crowe laws and segregation throughout the south. Bull Connors was a Democrat, George Wallace was a Democrat. The Democratic Party were by far the worst offenders in American history of institutional bigotry, hell the Democrats invented systemic racism in America. Oh did I mention Harry Byrd or William Fulbright or Albert Gore Sr. the list of Democrat bigots is almost limitless. 

 

Why do they get a pass in this new cancel culture. They surely need to be destroyed for the sins of their fathers, lest their legacy offend the present. If the past offends the present, not only does the past not care, it is not the past's fault. 

All of history is a tapestry woven together with threads that created the now. Few if any of those threads were unsoiled and we will not build a better future by attempting to remove those threads. The simple undeniable truth is that there is no Martin Luther King Jr. and his tremendous inspiration without George Wallace. Overcoming, change, recognition and advancement is the historical record of mankind. To hide from or to destroy that record out of some sense of self-righteous arrogance is not some form of enlightened justice, it is the opening a door into the dark cave of ignorance. ISIS destroys the past in order to enslave the present, that is what the new Woke culture is seeking to do and it must be stopped at all cost.   

The three other pictures point to the hood

When they tell you who they are...believe them

Outside NYC City Hall 6/29/2020

AS SEEN ON TWITTER

In order to defeat white supremacy, it’s important to rebuke black people who won’t do what they’re told.pic.twitter.com/7m7chVobIg

— Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) June 23, 2020

I just found a KKK hood in my bedroom. Wait! That’s a pillowcase #BubbaWallace

— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) June 24, 2020

AS SEEN ON TWITER

A video out of the ‘Capitol Hill Organized Protest’ zone in Seattle shows white people enforcing a segregated area of a park reserved for black people only.https://t.co/MtGRyXspzr

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) June 22, 2020

AS SEEN ON TWITTER

Antifa rioters on Sandy Blvd. in Portland draped a US flag over a George Washington statue & set it on fire. They then toppled the statue. “Genocidal colonist” & “f— cops” are sprayed on monument. Rioters have began to build another autonomous zone nearby. pic.twitter.com/TrZkhPK9zp

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) June 19, 2020

Life in Chaz

Nails it

These crazy Kavanaugh hearings have emphasized one very important thing about the Left...@conservmillen pulls no punches in this one ==> https://t.co/f6Lmpu9LhY pic.twitter.com/v2533DamIw

— CRTV (@CRTV) September 7, 2018

#WalkAway

No Substitute for Total Victory

No Substitute for Total Victory

As the Left continues to spiral out of control -- foaming, spitting, frothing in rage -- it's time to state the obvious: that in the battle for the soul of America, there can be only one winner. Either we retain as much as possible of the country-as-founded, including its national character, or w...

Behind Cruz's Florida Rampage, Obama's School-Leniency Policy

Behind Cruz's Florida Rampage, Obama's School-Leniency Policy | RealClearInvestigations

Despite committing a string of arrestable offenses on campus before the Florida school shooting, Nikolas Cruz was able to escape the attention of law enforcement, pass a background check and purchase the weapon he used to slaughter three staff members and 14 fellow students because of Obama administration efforts to make school discipline more lenient.

Left and Lefter in California

Left and Lefter in California

The California Democratic Party's refusal to endorse the reelection of Senator Dianne Feinstein represents a breaking point both for the state's progressives and, arguably, the future of the party nationwide. Feinstein symbolizes, if anyone does, the old Democratic establishment that, while far from conservative, nevertheless appealed to many mainstream businesses and affluent suburban voters.

Worse than Censorship

Some things happening in the media/technology arena are worse than censorship. You cannot really call it "fake news" because it is not news, it is just propaganda and manipulation of technologies  which we now come to depend on.

- Jer

A Liberal/Progressive Epiphany

Via-American Thinker

By Jeffrey T. Brown

Now that the low-information/low-knowledge segment of the country is waking up to what conservatives have been pointing out since Barack Obama was first sanctified by the left, we are being treated to the spectacle of a liberal epiphany. How, they ask themselves, could this have happened? How could they have been suckered so completely? After all, liberals/progressives tell us all the time, they are a superior manifestation of the species. They are always right, and their political opponents are always bad people, motivated by ignorance and stupidity at best, and impure designs at least.

Our progressive masters proclaim that they are not nearly so ignorant, and that those to whom the liberal legions pledge their fealty have "evolved" into more modern, nobler beings. That they have done so in direct proportion to the demands of political correctness presents a hitherto unknown form of evolution, but science somehow always favors liberals, doesn't it? And if it is necessary to ignore truth now and then to enhance the evolution, or cook the science, so be it. Progress demands blindness to all prior lessons, especially those involving human nature and human failings. Progressives evolve in the opposite direction of history, experience, and evidence.

And yet, at least some of these self-appointed wizards are finally asking themselves how it's possible that those troglodytes, those conservatives, might have been right all along about the pathological dishonesty of the lords of progressivism while they, the ever-evolving, were duped.

Perhaps the answer lies in the modern practice of progressivism. Progressivism as played out in the last fifty years in America is the belief system of deeply unserious people. It exists to indulge a complete and utter lack of maturity and responsibility in large enough numbers that it is assured of getting its way. It celebrates vices. It must be imposed coercively. Overt fraud and deceit are admired skills. Its practitioners wallow in behaviors and beliefs that prior generations recognized as embarrassing character flaws. It is the belief system of spoiled, antisocial children and misguided enablers, rather than responsible grownups.

Mature adults disapprove of outright deception. It is a violation of the social code. Progressives, however, need it like air.

Indeed, no vice is quite so highly prized and honored in progressivism as lying. Every achievement attributed to progressivism is a product of pure dishonesty. Welfare, illegal immigration, gun control, socialized medicine, energy policy, our present concepts of diplomacy and foreign policy -- all are based on lies, as to both the original object and the ultimate progressive claims of success. They spring from modern liberal concepts of charity, fairness, safety, respect, and cooperation, but those concepts have themselves been redefined to conceal the progressive's immoral interpretation of them from the casual observer.

Progressives have thus brought us Socialism, economic paralysis, rampant unemployment, social division, officially endorsed discrimination, rejection of God and traditional morality, the hyper-sexualization of children, devaluation of all human life, and absolutely no hope of improvement. Despite their successes in this effort, and do not doubt that they consider these outcomes successes, they lie to Herculean heights to conceal them. They lie even about their victories lest we see them clearly in time to reverse them.

When one sets about to fundamentally transform a moral country -- that is, one which has adopted a legal code and social structure founded upon traditional morality -- one simply cannot do so transparently. We have seen that when liars profess their transparency, they are lying. When liars blame their enemies for events that either did not happen or which the liars themselves brought about, they are lying. When liars tout their own actions or intentions, they are lying. One does not create an unjust social structure and replace justice with injustice by telling the truth about what is afoot.

We have never had a more dishonest president than we do at this time in our history. He is the embodiment of progressivism. He lies effortlessly. It is not merely second nature to such a man. It is his essence. Every public statement he makes is the perfect opposite of truth.

Thus, however implausibly, we are assured he knows nothing of his own actions. He has never done anything, approved anything, or been informed of anything that can be held against him. He is not merely Teflon -- he is invisible. Those working for the most powerful man in the world also know nothing. Those in his Cabinet know nothing. They do nothing. They see nothing. They sign nothing. They produce nothing. They are responsible for nothing. And yet, somehow, enormous things keep happening that required someone to do something, and know something, and produce something.

Everything is the fault of someone else. When the progressive errs, others are to blame. Those bad straw people made the progressive do what he did. It's not his fault. It is never his fault. Thus, the unserious child, the one who is never to blame and who is always a victim, emerges to offer his excuses. His enablers do the same, possessed of the same lack of seriousness and integrity, at least for as long as they can do so without worrying that they are becoming obviously foolish. That some of them seem to know where that line is speaks volumes about the lies they tell before seeing that it is in their best interests to stop.

One of the problems with this system, however, is that to eventually overwhelm its precursor, the deceptions must be carried out constantly and on a very grand scale, and some of us who have read books know that while there are still serious people contributing to the country, something will eventually give. It appears that we may finally have reached such a tipping point.

Those who have shielded and coddled the liars from scrutiny and criticism have themselves been bitten by the spoiled brats. They have seen briefly what it is to be the target, both of lies and of bad behavior, and they don't like it. In brief moments of lucidity, despite having such clarity forced upon them, even the enablers begin to grasp that everyone is expendable for the cause. The question is, are there enough serious people left in this country to see progressivism clearly, as it is being laid bare before them, and punish the liars who have already done so much damage?

What the Obama Scandals Reveal About Progressive Ideology

Via-Front Page Magazine

By Bruce Thornton

The three scandals dominating the news this week all reveal the moral and intellectual corruption at the heart of progressive ideology. Whether are not these revelations gain enough traction to halt the country’s downward spiral is the more important question.

Benghazi

The moment it came into office the Obama administration bought into the delusional narrative that Islamic jihadist terror is a response to Western historical crimes against Muslims, rather than an expression of Islamic theology. The Israeli “occupation” of Palestine, the depredations of colonialism and imperialism, the resulting dysfunctional economies and oppressive governments in Muslim countries, the arrogant xenophobia and intolerance of American culture, the invasions of Muslim countries after 9/11––all were identified as the “root causes” of terrorism.

Obama’s foreign policy, based on the assumptions of American guilt and the malign consequences of George Bush’s arrogant, unilateralist foreign policy, thus was an attempt to correct the bad policies and behaviors that instigated terror. Thus Obama apologized in his Cairo speech, eagerly extended a diplomatic “hand” to the genocidal mullahs in Iraq, rushed for the exits in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported the dubious “Arab Spring” uprisings and their Islamist prime movers like the Muslim Brothers, and distanced America from Israel.

The intervention in Libya seemed to be an easy way to validate these beliefs, at the same time avoiding the charge of retreat and withdrawal from America’s global responsibilities to advance human rights and protect the victims of tyranny. The overthrow of Gaddafi was sanctioned by the U.N. and engineered by NATO, thus confirming the progressive belief that unilaterally pursuing national interests was, like nationalism itself, immoral, and that only transnational collective action sanctioned by international institutions was legitimate.

For a while the optics were good. A creepy psychopath was eliminated, no casualties were suffered, and a seemingly secular democracy was aborning. The idealism of democracy promotion, one bungled by the unilateral, trigger-happy George Bush, was indulged at little political cost, while the “legitimate” war, against al Qaeda, was being pursued just as cheaply with out-of-sight, out-of-mind drone killings, proving that Obama was no crypto-pacifist squish. Hence the foreign policy narrative peddled during the presidential campaign that al Qaeda was on the ropes and democracy was on the march.

The attack on Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, eight weeks before the election, exploded that narrative. Al Qaeda and its affiliates were not on the ropes, but were growing and expanding, and could swiftly organize the sack of an embassy office and the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador, humiliating the infidel superpower. Libya was not a democracy-in-the-making, but a Darwinian tribal and sectarian jungle dominated by jihadists armed with the weapons we put in their hands when we destroyed the Gaddafi regime. The refusal to beef up security in Benghazi, which would have been an admission that things weren’t so rosy in the fledgling democracy, now looked like a political calculation that cost American lives. Worse yet, once more the idea that terrorism is a response to our bad behavior was exploded, as many of those Libyans we had liberated turned against us, just as thousands of Afghans and Iraqis have.

So of course the attack had to be spun into something closer to Obama’s foreign policy narrative: the attack was caused by a “spontaneous” protest against an Internet video insulting Mohammed. The administration knew this was a lie the day of the attack, but could not admit this repudiation of Obama’s foreign policy claims so close to the election, and so kept repeating the lie for two weeks, trusting the media spaniels to spin the attack and collude in the still on-going cover-up.

IRS Political Harassment

The IRS and Big Government

Via-NRO


Obamanomics has spurred increasing distrust of government — and that was before the tax scandal.

By James Pethokoukis

The expanding Internal Revenue Service scandal could hardly be any more Drudgeriffic. Well, maybe if in addition to singling out groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, the agency had purchased a few billions rounds of hollow-point ammo. Maybe then. But even as is, the scandal is looking pretty bad and getting worse. The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that the IRS also “scrutinized conservative groups for raising political concerns over government spending, debt and taxes or even for advocating making America a better place to live.”

We’ll see where this eventually goes. Maybe the whole story really is just about a few bad apples in the IRS Cincinnati office — or maybe as more details emerge, the mainstream media will start tagging it “IRS-gate.” Either way, it probably represents the last shovelful of dirt on the central mission of Barack Obama’s presidency: rehabilitating Big Government’s reputation as a necessary first step toward a new Progressive Era. In his first inaugural address, Obama tried to reframe in technocratic terms the issue of government’s proper size and scope: “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.”

In essence, Obama was reopening an issue many hoped had closed after President Bill Clinton declared that the “era of big government is over” in his 1996 State of the Union address. Then, at his second inaugural, Obama answered the question posed back in his first, saying that although “we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, . . . we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” Big Government was back, baby.
But those bold words were out of sync with the results of the Obama agenda. Indeed, they were barely out the president’s mouth when Pew Research put out a damning survey with this conclusion: “As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high.”

And why wouldn’t it? Little about Obamanomics has built confidence that government led by the Left’s best and brightest can actually solve problems — or at least solve them without creating even worse, unintended consequences. Take Obama’s three major policy achievements: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The $800 billion stimulus was supposed to kick-start the economic recovery. Instead of the unemployment rate’s dropping back to 5 percent, as Team Obama predicted for 2013, the collapse in labor-force participation, notes a new Goldman Sachs report, means the real jobless rate is more like 9 percent.

A recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only 35 percent of Americans viewed Obamacare “very” or “somewhat” favorably, statistically tied with the lowest level of support since it passed in March 2010. And that was before a landmark study cast into doubt whether the heart of Obamacare, the vast Medicaid expansion, will do much of anything to improve health-care outcomes.

And last week, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke reiterated that Dodd-Frank has yet to end “too big to fail.” Instead, the megabanks have become only bigger and the financial sector even more concentrated.

If you are keeping score at home, Obama is zero for three. And now Americans have been reminded that not only is big and intrusive government inefficient, it is also often corrupt. The Obama administration and its all-star cast were supposed to be progressivism’s 21st-century proof of concept. Instead, they may have set progressivism back for another generation.

Tale of two terrorists

Via-NY POST


Columbia job for Boston bomber?

By JOHN M. MURTAGH

Somewhere near Boston early Monday morning, he packed a bomb in a bag. It was by all accounts relatively crude — a pressure cooker, explosives, some wires, ball bearings and nails . . . nails which, hours later, doctors would struggle to remove from the flesh of bleeding victims.

His motive is unclear. His intent is not: It was to maximize injury, suffering, pain, trauma and, yes, death.

Perhaps Monday’s bomber will be caught, perhaps not.

Perhaps Monday’s bomber will be offered a teaching job at Columbia University.

Forty-three years ago last month, Kathy Boudin, now a professor at Columbia but then a member of the Weather Underground, escaped an explosion at a bomb factory operated in a townhouse in Greenwich Village. The story is familiar to people of a certain age

Three weeks earlier, Boudin’s Weathermen had firebombed a private home in Upper Manhattan with Molotov cocktails. Their target was my father, a New York state Supreme Court justice. The rest of the family, was presumably, an afterthought. I was 9 at the time, only a year older than the youngest victim in Boston.

One of Boudin’s colleagues, Cathy Wilkerson, related in her memoir that the Weathermen were disappointed with the minimal effects of the bombs at my home. They decided to use dynamite the next time and bought a large quantity along with fuses, metal pipes and, yes, nails. The group designated as its next target a dance at an Officer’s Club at Fort Dix, NJ.

Despite the misgivings of some, it is reported that Kathy Boudin urged the use of “anti-personnel bombs.” In other words, she wanted to kill people not just damage property. Before they could act, her fellows were killed in the townhouse explosion. The townhouse itself collapsed; Boudin fled.

She reappeared over a decade later driving the getaway car for the rag tag mix of Weathermen and Black Panthers who held up a Rockland County bank in 1981, murdering three in the process. Survivors of the ambush along the New York State Thruway recount how Boudin emerged from the driver’s door, arms raised in surrender, asking the police to lower their guns. When they did, her accomplices burst from the back of the van guns blazing.

As I said, people of a certain age remember this history. For those that don’t, Robert Redford is kindly about to release a movie recounting the Rockland robbery (albeit relocated to Michigan). By all accounts, the film lionizes the Weather Underground terrorists, Boudin and her accomplices.

Perhaps to bring it full circle, Professor Boudin can soon guest-lecture at a film class at Columbia when the Redford movie is screened.

Other than the passage of time, one can find no real distinction between the cowardly actions of last Monday’s Boston murderer and the terror carried out by Boudin and her accomplices. Yet today we live in a country where our leading educational institutions see fit to trust our children’s education to murderers and Hollywood sees fit to celebrate terrorists.

The Web site of Columbia’s School of Social Work sums up Boudin’s past thus: “Dr. Kathy Boudin has been an educator and counselor with experience in program development since 1964, working within communities with limited resources to solve social problems.”

“Since 1964” — that would include the bombing of my house, it would include the anti-personnel devices intended for Fort Dix and it would include the dead policeman on the side of the Thruway in 1981.

Maybe, if he is caught, Monday’s bomber can explain that, like Boudin, he was merely working within the community to solve social problems.

Perhaps Monday’s bomber will be caught, perhaps not. Perhaps, some day, Monday’s bomber will be offered tenure at Columbia University.

Tales from the Hive-Plan B

Dr. Marc Siegal asks what should be a rhetorical question,

How many parents think it’s okay for a twelve-year-old girl to have unprotected sex and then decide on her own to follow it up with the morning-after pill?

It is not a rhetorical question because a Federal Judge has ruled that in his opinion society has "evolved" to the point that evidently, again in his opinion, teenagers and preteens are considered women simply because they can have children and thus should have equal access to the Plan B contraception.

The contradiction that these newly defined "women" can not even go into a R rated movie without an adult because some scenes may contain sexual activity or language judged too "mature" for children seems not to have dissuaded the judge  from this ruling. This is what happens when law fails to to be grounded in common sense, when defining bureaucratic rules are judged to be more important than the health of society.

But Dr. Siegal's question remains how many parents would agree that it is okay for girls to engage in the sexual activities that require the morning after pill and then obtain it over the counter? Dr Seigal answers this question with what most of us agree would be our judgement of such a parent.

If you find any parents like this, please contact social services right away

A parent who would promote the idea that their daughter ought to engage in sexual activity in their early teens and then take a pill to "protect" themselves from the consequences would be considered to be not only outside the mainstream but actually unfit. Yet here we are with a judge ruling and liberal's applauding a public policy which promotes just such behavior.

 I know many liberal friends and family members who probably agree with the ruling making the Plan B pill available without a doctor's prescription,  parental consent and over the counter.  But in no way would they agree that their child should engage in such activity or that they, as parents, should be deemed not to have a say in their child's sexual "choices". The disconnect here is both obvious and stupefying.

Why are they so disconnected? How is it that they recognize the ill affects of activities that they would not allow their own children to participate in, yet promote as public policy laws and regulations that make it possible for such activities to expand and make common place thus corroding parental and societal traditions and norms?

Perhaps the answer comes in another recent headline grabbing story.

I am referring to the controversial promotional spot made by college professor and political commentator Melissa Harris-Perry for MSNBC where she makes the "progressive" argument for child rearing.

"...we’ve always had a private notion of children, your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s we start making better investments."

When it "takes a village to raise the child" familial love and responsibility is not only diluted, it ceases to be a major factor in the decision making process. If everyone is responsible for the child, nobody is. Public policy based upon collectivist responsibility makes everyone less responsible not more so.

When public policy prescriptions become divorced from core traditional family oriented structures, then it is easy to see the child not as someone's daughter or son, but rather as simply a member of the hive who needs to be controlled so as not to adversely affect "the collective." By viewing people as members of the collective rather than as individuals it has the affect of dehumanizing the process.

To the progressive mind the problem isn't that children are having unprotected sex, or that children are having sex at all, the problem is that they are a burden to the collective if they do get pregnant. Teenage pregnancy is a societal problem which adversely affects the collective so the progressive's solution is not grounded in parental control, but rather in collectivist control. "The kid is having unprotected sex, so let's give her a pill." End of problem

Young girls have always  made "mistakes", it is simply nature, but in the past "old fashioned" moral codes were such that the boy was expected to "do the right thing". Many a family, mine included, at least two generations maybe more, started this way. Now we are saying that there is no need to do the right thing since childhood sex is no longer the wrong thing, just something that needs a solution so as not to be a burden on the collective.

Is over the counter unrestricted use of Plan B a better solution to our daughter's "mistake"  than doing the "the right thing"?  I don't know, but I seriously doubt it.  It seems that asking children who engage in what we consider adult activities to take responsibility for their actions by doing the adult thing and raising the child in a family setting, or at least taking care of the child as adults are supposed to do for their offspring is better for society than a policy that promotes sex among children without consequences.  Or is sexual activity no longer considered adult activity? Then why the R rating at movies?

But the bigger issue here is that when you begin to make judgments and policies based on a collectivist view point, it becomes inevitable that those judgments and policies will cease to be grounded in reality. Policies will drift further and further away from the people they are intended to protect and serve.

You don't think so?

Real parents don't want their teenage daughters out having unprotected sex, or any sex for that matter, then "covering it up" with a pill that they can buy over the counter at the store, do they? Do you? Of course not, it is not the way parents feel and operate in the real world. But in the collectivist world, it makes total sense.

  While this collectivist  philosophy superficially seems to protect society and the child from "unintended pregnancies"  in reality it helps undermine the foundation of all successful societies, the family. What the family finds destructive, a judge has ruled must be promoted and liberals who would not promote such activities for their own children, cheer it on for the good of the collective, insanity.

Will young girls become more promiscuous  as the result of the unrestricted  availability of the Plan B pill? Given time it is very likely they will but I suspect  that sixteen year old boys will be purchasing Plan B pills in greater numbers than twelve year old girls and that too is the reality of human nature inside the hive or outside of it.


The naivety and shallowness of the liberal ideology is both  frightening and sad. To be so disconnected from the real world in which they live that they constantly promote superficial unworkable solutions for nearly every societal problem they encounter. Solutions grounded not in their own experience or in human nature, but in some hoped for Utopian vision of "what ought to be." In the real world we call this  unrealistic view, childish.

How is this disconnect even possible?  This policy based on hope rather than reality is possible because in the progressive's  world the individual is viewed as subservient to the collective.  But this too is not a true in  reality. In the real world self interest dictates peoples choices most of the time. People do not live their lives making choices and decisions based on what will be most beneficial to their neighbors, they make choices based on what is best for themselves and their family. Yet the progressive's would design a political system based on the premise that people should live their lives contrary to their ingrained and necessary human nature of self interest and self survival.

It is easy to see how people such as Melissa Harris-Perry who are so steeped into the progressive's collectivist view of the world that they would fail to see how disconnecting traditional parentage from society would destroy society, but one wonders how a judge could be so far removed from reality.

Redefining America

Via-PJ Media

By Larry Greenfield

Superman, the character created in 1938 whose deeds inspired generations of young Americans, renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2011, for the 900th issue of Action Comics. The fictional patriotic warrior for American values stated: “Truth, justice, and the American way — it’s not enough anymore.” Further: “I intend to speak before the United Nations and inform them that I am renouncing my U.S. citizenship. I’m tired of having my actions construed as instruments of U.S. policy.”

Superman is not alone: today, UN mandates seek to regulate individual free speech and gun ownership rights — Agenda 21 pushes global regulation over private property rights.

Also, global governance advocates assert international legal authority over American national interests. U.S. Secretary of State Kerry ran for president in 2004 promising “a global test” for U.S. foreign policy; running for president in 2008, Barack Obama declared himself “a citizen of the world.” The post-WWII bipartisan security consensus endorsed by Truman, JFK, and “Scoop” Jackson has been replaced with a foreign policy that rejects American exceptionalism and seeks to engage enemies and to lead from behind.

Only two modern presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, never wore the uniform of the Armed Forces of the United States. Sixteen million Americans served abroad in World War II, and millions more served on the home front.

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 challenged British rule and taxation without representation, and established the American belief in individual rights, limited government, and local control over our lives. The Civil War tax was temporary and set at 3%, and the initial low federal income tax was not constitutionally authorized until 1913 and applied to only the top 1% of the citizenry.

Today, the Internal Revenue Code is 17,000 pages long, and mandates the highest corporate tax rate among Western economies. Many Americans bear an astonishing 50%- plus tax burden from federal and state income, estate, social security, Medicare, workman’s compensation, real property, excise, and fuel taxes, among many other assessments, duties fees, fines, and imposed costs. And now, the Obamacare health care insurance mandates are justified by the Supreme Court as a previously unconstitutional un-apportioned direct tax on every American.