The Real State of the Union

 

 

 

Hmmm…

The Poignancy of the Picture…

…in which the irony drips from the page:

Points to Ponder

(Courtesy of Patriot Post; with emphases added)

The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence:  Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects — his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity.

–American economist Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)

It takes a person of great character and self-control to continually imbibe and mouth the mantras of the left — that everyone on the right is sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, islamophobic, racist and bigoted — and not become a meaner human being. If I believed just about everyone with left-wing views was despicable, I would be meaner, too. In a previous column, I wrote about Thomas Friedman making one of the classic anti-Semitic libels when he wrote that the reason the Senate and the House gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu standing ovations was because ‘that ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.’ How does a Jew write an anti-Semitic libel? Because he’s on the left. That was the reason Rep. Andre Carson said that members of Congress who support the Tea Party want to see blacks ‘hanging on a tree.’ Because he’s on the left. Leftists’ meanness toward those with whom they differ has no echo on the normative right. Those on the left need to do some soul-searching. Because as long as they continue to believe that people on the right are not merely wrong but vile, they will get increasingly mean. The problem for the left, however, is that the moment it stops painting the right as vile, it has to argue the issues.

–radio talk-show host Dennis Prager

2011 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,700 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 4 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

The True Foundation of Socialism

The two quotes below amply expand upon the title of this post.  (Emphases added.)

From economist Walter E. Williams:

If a person without health insurance finds himself in need of costly medical care, let’s investigate just how might that care be provided. There are not too many of us who’d suggest that we get the money from the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. That being the case, if a medically indigent person receives medical treatment, it must be provided by people. There are several possible methods to deliver the services. One way is for people to make voluntary contributions or for medical practitioners to simply treat medically indigent patients at no charge. I find both methods praiseworthy, laudable and, above all, moral. Another way to provide those services is for Congress to use its power to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another. … I’d personally find such a method of providing medical services offensive and immoral, simply because I find the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another, what amounts to slavery, in violation of all that is decent. … I share James Madison’s vision, articulated when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees in 1794. Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, ‘I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents,’ adding later that ‘charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.’ This vision of morality, I’m afraid, is repulsive to most Americans.

And then from columnist J. K. Gregg:

Jeffersonian liberty, the bedrock of America’s founding, rests on the idea that individuals are means to their own ends, never the ends of others; that individuals should be free to engage in voluntary acts of mutual agreement with each other; and that they deserve that which they produce. Progressivism represents the antithesis of these simple concepts. It’s dawning on the American polity during the turn of the nineteenth century brought about structural changes that gave rise to iniquitous lobbying that dominates politics even to this day; to the administrative state that continues to circumvent natural economic forces; and to a fundamentally new and perverted definition of liberty and America’s founding philosophy. President Obama has endorsed this Progressivism, and should be held accountable for those ideas.

Ah, yes…THE Election Strategy

For those who have read A Brave New 1984, you know that the above strategy is amply aided and abetted by the fact that we’ve let liberals teach our children for so long that our country is currently possessed of a cerebral mind-rot of epic proportions.  And please note that many of the current crop of main stream media pundits are a product of this public edjamacation.

Non compos mentis defined

The Consequence of an Ideology

First, read the story:

"Last week in Boston, a seven-year-old boy named Mark got into a fight with a bully. The bully put his hands around the boy’s throat and began to squeeze. That’s when Mark fought back; he kicked his aggressor right in the family jewels. In a normal society, we’d celebrate Mark. Throw him a ticker tape parade or something. … But in Boston, Mark was charged with sexual assault. … [The left] treat all violence as equal … and so they recommend counseling and training, as though a little classroom instruction can solve boys’ basic biological urge toward aggression. … The left has instead come up with an alternative solution: eunichism. … We will teach them that fighting bullies is the same as being a bully. … Jerry Sandusky wasn’t going to stop raping little boys based on taking a few seminars — but Mike McQueary was going to avoid reporting that rape to police if he was trained into spinelessness by the surrounding culture. … The fact is that males’ aggressive instinct is good for the world, if channeled properly. Without it, Hitler goes unpunished. Without it, millions continue to starve in the Soviet Union. The key to the aggressive instinct is training it to act along proper moral lines, not eradicating it." –columnist Ben Shapiro

I agree 110%.  The problem is, there must be morals to act upon, and morals imply a standard external to the mighty exalted self of today’s culture.  Good heavens!  It might even be God!!!  And since we can’t have that, we are doomed, indeed, unless and until this society and culture gets pushed back to its Christian foundations.  (Note:  this can be done without pushing “religion” down people’s throats.  Christian morality encompasses most of what most atheists believe to be in their best interests anyway…they just don’t have a foundation for saying so.  [Um…yes, that’s a rather short, concise generalization, but a full explanation would be another whole post.]  You know, things like doing unto others as you would have them do unto you….)