Controlling Thought and Speech Through The Censorship of Political Correctness

“It’s hard to define political correctness, but like pornography, you know it when you see it. Some say it is a social philosophy that strives to ensure nobody will ever be offended by anything, ever. Wikipedia defines it as a term which “denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts.” Merriam-Webster defines it as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities — as in matters of sex or race — should be eliminated.” No matter what you call it, one thing is certain. For decades now, the perceived orthodoxy of political correctness has been eating away at the institutions which have made America great — precisely as it was intended to.

Long-time liberal Juan Williams was recently fired from his position with National Public Radio for saying what many Americans think. “When I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous,” Juan said on Fox News. Never mind that Juan was simply admitting to a personal feeling he has experienced in a post-9/11 world, it cost him his job. Being afraid of Muslims on a plane is perhaps a bit ridiculous, as clearly most Muslims are not terrorists. But some are. Most pit bulls don’t attack when you pet them either, but that doesn’t mean you’re not cautious around them. It’s hard to tell the good ones from the bad ones, until it’s too late. And is Williams’ nervousness any more ridiculous than a fear of flying — the safest form of travel known to man? I agree with very little that Juan Williams has to say, but I will defend to the death his right to say it without fear of the Political Correctness Gestapo kicking in his door.

Juan’s comment was not much different than when Jesse Jackson said, “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” Jesse, of course, was merely admitting the same politically incorrect truth President Obama volunteered years later on March 18, 2008, about his own white grandmother who he claims once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street. The Thought Police are merely the latest tool in the left’s assault on free speech and free minds. And once you learn and understand the origin of political correctness, you realize it is a powerful and effective tool being used to fundamentally transform America — one worthy of resisting.

My earliest memories of this social cancer in its earliest stages was when I was admonished by one of my law school professors that airline stewardesses and stewards were properly called “flight attendants.” Shortly thereafter, I recall being admonished for referring to African-Americans as “blacks.” Indians became Native Americans. The crippled became disabled, midgets became little people, and the retarded became mentally ill. Frankly, I think being called “ill” would be the more offensive choice here, but that is just the political correctness in me.

Proponents of political correctness argue that they wish to bring unconscious biases into awareness, allowing us to make a more informed choice about our language and making us aware of things different people might find offensive. The year 2010 A.D. has become 2010 C.E. and “bias guidelines” now govern what will be in our children’s textbooks.

The language police literally ban even the mere vocalizing of certain words — even words which sound like the forbidden words. Despite its common, non-racist use today in both literature and pop culture, Dr. Laura Schlessinger was forced to publicly apologize for a non-offense reference to the “N-word.” Shortly thereafter she resigned and ended her 35-year long radio career, saying, “I want to regain my First Amendment rights.”

Any utterance of the word “whore” is apparently banned now, too, after Democrat Jerry Brown and a staffer used it in reference to California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. It is now simply the “W-word.”  I guess what Jerry Brown truly meant to say was “comfort woman.” After the disgrace of what happened to Juan Williams, we apparently also have the “M-word.” Also banned is the “F-word” referring to homosexuals. We’re quickly running out of letters.

Entire lexicons have been forced into retirement. The term “gay” has been hijacked from the English language. The word “fairy” can no longer be used to refer to a petite airborne humanoid with mystical powers. White trash is still referred to as white trash, however. Washington, D.C.’s black mayor, Anthony Williams, gladly accepted the resignation of his white staff member, David Howard, because Mr. Howard uttered the word “niggardly” in a private staff discussion about funding. Dallas city officials have apparently also removed the term “black hole” from permissible use after Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield found himself guilty of talking while white. Mayfield observed that the bureaucracy “has become a black hole” for lost paperwork, whereupon fellow Commissioner John Wiley Price took great offense, shouting, “Excuse me!” That office, the black commissioner explained, has become a “white hole.” Seizing on the outrage, Judge Thomas Jones demanded that Mayfield apologize for the “racially insensitive analogy.”

I refuse to believe that Native Americans could legitimately take offense at the name “warriors,” or that they have cornered the market on a word used by the Greeks, Romans, Africans, and Germans to describe courageous soldiers. The word refers to anybody who fights with courage and strength — from cancer patients to the Marines. But sure enough, when I returned home to Wisconsin after practicing law in Houston for 20 years, the Marquette Warriors had been forced to change their name.

As is usually the case, however, it wasn’t the Native American people who were complaining about the sports team names or mascots. It was a handful of liberal activists, mostly non-Native Americans. In 2002, the Peter Harris Research Group conducted a poll asking if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames. Eighty-one percent of Native American respondents said “no” and 83% said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols. The poll also found that 75% of Native Americans don’t think the use of these team names and mascots “contributes to discrimination.” But now we have the Marquette Golden Eagles — a bird which tears apart young martens, foxes, marmots, rabbits, and mice, and even scavenges off of dead animal carcasses in the road during the winter months. Enter PETA.

Political correctness seems harmless enough at first glance. After all, it simply seeks to avoid offending certain segments of our society, right? It is seemingly just a few innocent code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. While I have no doubt that many liberals genuinely think policing our words and thoughts helps lift society in some well-intentioned way, the origins of political correctness acutely reveal that it is actually a powerful tool for those wishing to divide our country and destroy the America we know.

In 1923, followers of György Lukács and other Marxists joined forces with the Communist Party of Germany to establish the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt. When the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled. Most came to the United States and many became influential in American universities. The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to form the basis of what became known as “critical theory” — destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism. Sound familiar? It should. It’s the Democratic Party platform.

Lukács instituted a radical sex education program in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’ advocating of “cultural terrorism” was the precursor of what would later become known as political correctness — the most powerful tool of the American Left.

These critical theorists knew that traditional American beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and substituted with a “new thinking” that would become as much a part of basic social consciousness as the old one had been. Their theories took hold during the 1960s, when the Vietnam War opened raw nerves and created an opportunity for infiltration. In stepped political correctness and its hidden agenda. Over the years it grew, and now even the most fundamentalist of conservatives among us kowtow to the Thought Police.

Today, if you say out loud that giving condoms to middle school students is a bad idea, you are labeled a religious zealot. If you utter the once-assumed truth that marriage should be between a man and a woman, you are homophobic. If you agree with the Arizona immigration law, you are considered a bigot. Nobody likes to be called these names. So many people simply give up and remain reticent — silent out of fear of “offending” a vocal minority and as evidence of how “tolerant” they really are. Like dutiful frogs sitting in the proverbial pot of water, the temperature keeps rising, and we keep sitting there. If you can get the opposition to silence itself, you are half way to victory. The comprehensive and detailed control of all ideas, beliefs, and statements is one of the signature features of all totalitarian regimes.

Far too many Americans have forgotten the lesson they learned as children about sticks and stones. In a country overly sensitive about far too many things, where people are offended at the slightest joke or benign comment, political correctness is accomplishing its goal — not the stated purpose of protecting people from hurt feelings, but a much more insidious purpose: the silencing of political opposition and free speech.

It’s time to recognize political correctness for what it is: a tool of those wishing to destroy America and a doctrine which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd from the clean end.”

(The above article was written by Gary Wickert at Pajamas Media.)

Comment:  For more precise information on the nature of  the ‘speak’ of political correctness, please refer to George Orwell’s “1984” and his explanation of the nature of  “Newspeak”.

Hugo Chavez Thugs Active in Cancun Climate Chat Charade

The major Brit Leftwing sheet, the Guardian reports the following details about these Cancun Climate Chats:

“The UN climate talks in Cancún were in danger of collapse last night after many Latin American countries said that they would leave if a crucial negotiating document, due to be released tomorrow, did not continue to commit rich countries to emissions cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (Alba) group of nine Latin American countries – who claim they are backed by African, Arab countries and other developing nations – said they were not prepared to see an end to the treaty that legally requires all of its signatories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

They challenged the Mexican presidency of the UN summit to prepare a negotiating text including a commitment by rich countries to set fresh targets for a second period of Kyoto beyond 2012.

The Guardian understands that if the new text includes a reference to a continuation of the Kyoto protocol, the talks will continue. But if it omits the wording and opts only to support negotiations based on the weaker Copenhagen accord agreed last year, then developing countries are likely to stop the talks.

Mexico will publish its text on Saturday evening in preparation for the arrival of ministers from 193 countries for the high-level talks on Monday. The energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne will arrive then, leading the UK delegation.

The potential crisis was provoked by Japan stating earlier this week that it would not sign up to a second period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Other countries, including Russia, Canada and Australia are thought to agree but have yet to say publicly that they will not make further pledges.

Kyoto is considered iconic to developing countries because it is the only legal agreement that binds rich countries to emissions cuts. It is feared that wealthy countries, led by the US, which has not ratified the treaty, want an agreement that will commit them only loosely to targets.

“We will not support any situation where these countries get away with this and make no commitments. We want concrete commitments for Kyoto. A handful of countries have no right to do this,” said Claudia Salerno, Venezuela’s special climate envoy.

Salerno was joined in Cancún by diplomats from Bolivia, Nicaragua, Dominica and Ecuador, who said they speak for other Alba members including Antigua, Honduras and St Vincent.

She said she had come from a meeting where one country, presumably Australia, had said “they might as well go to the beach” rather than set new pledges for Kyoto. “We will not accept the destruction of the Kyoto protocol in exchange for anything. The new text must include the second period of Kyoto,” she said.

Wealthy countries were last night trying to avoid a diplomatic disaster, saying they were not trying to kill Kyoto. Britain and the EU have said they are prepared to sign up to a second commitment period – provided others do so too.

Developed countries have indicated in closed meetings that there is now little chance of a second commitment period for Kyoto being negotiated in Cancún.

Few heads of state are expected to attend this year’s talks – in sharp contrast to the summit in Copenhagen. However, Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, and Bolivia’s Evo Morales have said they will be there. All were accused by Gordon Brown of “holding the world to ransom” at the Copenhagen talks. They will be joined by the presidents of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Colombia, Brazil and Guatemala.”

Comment:  These gangsters making noise at this Cancun climate show, especially those from Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador are the puppet gangsters of Marxist  Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.  Why  are the less uncivilized in the world attending these embarrassing gangster shows peddling climate change myths and wasting time and  money associated with these bodies?

Hillary and Wikileaks

“Hillary, don’t go>” is the title of a HotAir piece by Patrick Ishmael:

Wikileaks is making waves again this week, and the immediate consequences of its revelations are lapping onto the shore of at least one administration official: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As one of the primary executors of Barack Obama’s foreign policy, Clinton’s role as First Mate to Captain Reset places her on the front lines of the President’s international failures and successes, and the cables released this week have her, like President Obama, trapped in the squall.

As the S-o-S, we all knew  Hillary’s job was to ask questions. Now, we know the sorts of questions she’s asked. Which is why some think she must go.

Jack Shafer at Slate:

[W]hat makes Clinton’s sleuthing unique is the paper trail that documents her spying-on-their-diplomats-with-our-diplomat orders, a paper trail that is now being splashed around the world on the Web and printed in top newspapers. No matter what sort of noises Clinton makes about how the disclosures are “an attack on America” and “the international community,” as she did today, she’s become the issue. She’ll never be an effective negotiator with diplomats who refuse to forgive her exuberances, and even foreign diplomats who do forgive her will still regard her as the symbol of an overreaching United States. Diplomacy is about face, and the only way for other nations to save face will be to give them Clinton’s scalp.

How embarrassing are the WikiLeaks leaks? A secret cable from April 2009 that went out under Clinton’s name instructed State Department officials to collect the “biometric data,” including “fingerprints, facial images, DNA, and iris scans,” of African leaders. Another secret cable directed American diplomats posted around the world, including the United Nations, to obtain passwords, personal encryption keys, credit card numbers, frequent flyer account numbers, and other data connected to diplomats. As the Guardian puts it, the cables “reveal how the US uses its embassies as part of a global espionage network.” …

Anne Applebaum writes in Slate today that nobody should be honestly horrified at the image of the United States spying in the United Nations. Nobody in the diplomatic community is. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not going to take advantage of the moment to demand retribution that will shame the high-and-mighty United States.

Mr. Shafer is right that the leak is embarrassing, but he’s wrong about Secretary Clinton: Dismissing her is one of the worst things the President could do right now.

The secretaries of state of every other country in the world would ask, or should be asking, the same sorts of questions and seeking out the same sorts of information as Hillary if they were taking their jobs seriously, and as Allahpundit noted,

My hunch: Knowing that [Obama] can’t afford to further alienate Clinton Democrats ahead of 2012 and fully aware that dumping her won’t do a smidge of good to improve U.S. standing in the eyes of rabid anti-Americans like Assange, he’ll pat her on the back and say she’s guilty of nothing more than being a bit too zealous in defense of her country’s interests. And pretty much every last voter in America aside from 20 percent on the far left fringe will agree with him.

Domestic political reaction aside, it is extraordinarily short-sighted to set a precedent whereby leaks of honest and relevant intelligence gathering communiques by the secretary of state would get the S-o-S booted. 1.) It’s disruptive to American interests and organizational continuity, 2.) it rewards bad actors by punishing vigilant work, and 3.) it doesn’t really soothe any of the grumbling that may result among our international friends, foes, and frienemies (think of a family reunion, where everybody pretty much knows where they stand relative to one another, with or without each other’s private conversations about each other fully known.) The notion that the diplomatic community is honestly shocked-shocked! that the US doesn’t mince words about its intelligence gathering operation in private is naive. Our international peers do, or would do, the same kind of intelligence work as we’ve done if given the means and opportunity. And the Obama Administration is right to continue backing her. That Clinton is actively involved in seeking out and monitoring the states of minds of friends and foes alike means she’s doing her job. She shouldn’t be punished for it.

And not only is Hillary her job for the American people properly; it sounds like her department is not coming off too shabbily, either.

[F]rom what I have seen, the professional members of the U.S. Foreign Service have very little to be ashamed of. Yes, there are echoes of skullduggery at the margins, especially in relation to the conduct of the “war on terror” in the George W. Bush years.

For the most part, however, what we see here is diplomats doing their proper job: finding out what is happening in the places to which they are posted, working to advance their nation’s interests and their government’s policies.

In fact, my opinion of the State Department has just gone up several notches. In recent years I have found the American Foreign Service to be somewhat underwhelming, a bit dandruffy, especially when compared with other, more self-confident arms of American government, such as the Pentagon and the Treasury. But what we find here is often first rate.

For as embarrassing as the leak of the cables may be for the United States, the communications showcase much more about American restraint and unvarnished geopolitical realities than it suggests about supposed American malfeasances around the globe. All that said, there is real damage being done by the Wikileaks. My worry isn’t about the effect this new information will have on our mature democracies, led by rational actors who are by-and-large accountable to their electorates; it’s that unstable regimes, revealed to be more precariously situated than previously believed, act irrationally to the detriment of their neighbors and their captive populations. The U.S. is going to be just fine, but it’d be worse off if solely on account of these cables we lost a secretary of state.

Stick around, Hill. We may disagree on the particulars, but where it matters, it looks like you’re doing your job as we’d have you do it.

A Marine Writes……..about the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Matter……

to the folks at PowerLine, complimenting them on their questioning the survey taken by the  establishment regarding Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.   I would never trust a government agency at any level which conducts an inhouse survey.  Having worked in an urban public school system for eight years in the early to midseason years  of my professional careers, I can assure readers these institutions  arrange the results of these in-house surveys to fit their preferred purposes.

I suspect the same with the military, so with this prejudice, I offer the two following  paragraphs from a note written by a marine to the powerline people for your review.

The marine writes:

“I think that anyone who has been in the military more than a couple of years recognized what was going on. The decision to seek repeal has already been made and this survey is just part of the show trial. The results from the junior enlisted would be dismissed as ill-informed and contrary to “evidence,” just as you suggested. The results from officers and senior enlisted foolish enough to actually provide negative answers will be used later to “remediate” those whose answers showed that they were not with the program.

Even with the clear disincentives to provide negative feedback, the Marines still weighed in overwhelmingly against the political correctness. God bless them. Once again, for yet another reason, I am proud to be a Marine.”

Comment:  When I was in the Army, I had just married….this is about 55 years ago.   Any talk about anything ‘gay’ either private or public,  did not exist in the general population, certainly not in my world, and I had just finished my undergraduate education.   It did not at all exist among any enlisted men in my units during my two year stint in the service.   It should also be made clear that in those years no one was expected to say anything about sex in public, period.  I had been raised to avoid any and all issues regarding the subject whatsoever.

There were some advantages and some serious disadvantages about such silence in such cultures.   I was mildly concerned about my own sexuality, but I was thoroughly and totally at home being a guy.   I was trained to be a gentleman and tried to fulfill its requirements.

Eventually the cultural, political and social gay world became an ‘in-the-public’s-face  subculture. ….and in its public expression quite a repulsive  one.   

I personally consider homosexuality is a normal human abnormality.   The condition occurs in nature among mammals.   In the animal world those males unwilling to compete for females are usually driven from the group.   Until recent times in the vast majority of human societies, the gay male has been driven from human society  into the unknown.  Some of those who initiate the attacks on gays or instigate their  isolation are genetically programmed to do so.   Unbeknownst to them they are triggered automatically  to oppose  whatever they perceive as a female “guy” .

I have the belief that more such  guys  serve in  the military   than likely occur in the general population.  If this supposition is true, authorities should be aware  of its issues.

Personally, I think allowing these single guys  to join  the military might be good policy for all concerned.   Maybe some in the gay community will finally grow up and think about something outside of themselves.

Why Has Obama and Obamaland Been So Wimpy About Wikileaks?

Nile Gardiner at Telegraph.co.uk  writes about that very question:

“It has undoubtedly been a hugely embarrassing few days on the world stage, not only for the Obama administration, but also for America. The United States’ position as a superpower and the trust of important allies has been undermined by unscrupulous, America-hating figures with the aid and comfort of several major newspapers including The New York Times, Le Monde and The Guardian.

However the WikiLeaks scandal to date has not resulted in demonstrable consequences for the Obama presidency or for the president himself. This despite the fact the Obama administration appears to have done little to halt the latest leak, even though this is the third unlawful disclosure of government documents this year.

The Obama team has been spectacularly caught napping by America’s enemies like a deer in the headlights. As Marc Thiessen noted in a superb piece earlier this week:

Because of its failure to act, responsibility for the damage done by these most recent disclosures now rests with the Obama administration. Perhaps this latest release crosses a line that will finally spur the administration to action.

Fortunately for the president, the main focus of blame in the US media so far has not been directed at the failures of the White House or State Department, but upon the individual or individuals directly responsible for leaking information within the US government, as well as Julian Assange and his nefarious WikiLeaks organisation.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill will though be demanding swift and immediate action in the coming weeks to prevent future leaks. There will certainly be Congressional hearings into the leaks, and the US administration’s handling of it, with both the House and Senate seeking answers to a massive security breach. Should these hearings produce clear evidence the Obama administration was culpably negligent, the administration will then no longer enjoy the benefit of the doubt, and will suffer the political consequences it is due.

No such benefit of the doubt would have been accorded to the previous president of the United States, however. Imagine what the response would have been if George W. Bush was president and not Barack Obama? The Left would have been up in arms with pitchforks at the ready, demanding the resignation of his Secretary of State and key intelligence officials, and all but putting the administration on trial.

The Wikileaks revelations would have perfectly suited the liberal elites’ silly caricature of Bush as a “cowboy” president, supposedly alienating the world while acting as the globe’s policeman. The left-wing media would have queued up to denounce the Bush Administration as incompetent, lax with America’s security, and disparaging towards the rest of the world. And as for the suggestion of spying on those dictator-friendly bureaucrats at the UN – that would have led to an avalanche of liberal condemnation, and wall to wall coverage in the press.

President Obama, on the other hand, has been given a free pass so far, and has not even felt the need to comment personally on this latest scandal, which happened directly on his watch. Is there a blatant double standard which the Left, and the overwhelmingly liberal “mainstream” media, applies in the United States? Absolutely. And the WikiLeaks fiasco just further confirms it.”

 

Scams Die Hard……Even Dems Might Be Leaving the CO2 Hysteria!

“Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.

The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion. The United Nations is hanging the usual lamb chop in the window this week in Mexico for the U.N.‘s Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the Washington guests are staying home. Nobody wants to get the smell of the corpse on their clothes.

Everybody who imagined himself anybody raced to Copenhagen last year for the global-warming summit, renamed “climate change” when the globe began to cool, as it does from time to time. Some 45,000 delegates, “activists,” business representatives and the usual retinue of journalists registered for the party in Copenhagen. This year, only 1,234 journalists registered for the Cancun beach party. The only story there is that there’s no story there. The U.N. organizers glumly concede that Cancun won’t amount to anything, even by U.N. standards.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, who wrote and sponsored the cap-and-trade legislation last year, says he’ll be too busy with congressional business (buying stamps for the Christmas cards and getting a haircut and a shoeshine) even to think about going to Cancun. Last year, he joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of other congressmen in taking staffers and spouses to the party in Copenhagen. The junket cost taxpayers $400,000, but Copenhagen is a friendly town and a good time was had by all. This year, they’re all staying home, learning to live like lame ducks.

The Senate‘s California ladies, cheerleaders for the global-warming scam only yesterday, can’t get far enough away from Cancun this year. Dianne Feinstein says she’s not even thinking about the weather. “I haven’t really thought about [Cancun], to be honest with you,” she tells Politico, the Capitol Hill daily. She still loves the scam, but “no – no, no, no, it’s just that I’m not on a committee related to it.” She’s grateful for small blessings.

Barbara Boxer, who was proud to make global warming her “signature” issue only last year, obviously regards that signature now to be a forgery. She would like to be in Cancun, but she has to stay home to wash her hair. She’s not even sending anyone from her staff, willing as congressional staffers always are to party on the taxpayer dime. “I’m sending a statement to Cancun.” (Stop the press for that.)

This is another lesson that Washington’s swamp fevers inevitably subside. Who now remembers Smoot-Hawley, Quemoy and Matsu, and the Teapot Dome? But these were once issues on which the survival of the known world rested. The only global-warming news of this week was the announcement that the House Select Committee on Global Warming would die with the 111th Congress. Mrs. Pelosi established the committee three years ago to beat the eardrums of one and all, a platform for endless argle-bargle about the causes and effects of climate change. The result was the proposed job-killing national energy tax, but with the Republican sweep, there’s no longer an appetite for killing jobs.

Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, the chairman of the doomed committee, organized one final event this week, a splashy daylong exercise in gasbaggery starring the usual suspects assigned to drone on for most of the day about the coming global-warming disasters, the melting of the North Pole and the rising of the seas that would make Denver, Omaha and Kansas City seaside resorts. Wesley Clark was the only former presidential candidate to accept an invitation, and he was a no-show. The star witness of the afternoon session was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an “environmental attorney” who talked about how “clean energy” is nicer than the other kind. Mr. Markey himself, as bored as everyone else, didn’t bother to return after lunch.

The members of the committee can now retire with their scrapbooks of clippings to recall the happy days of hearings about global warming (some of them before “global warming” became “climate change” and “liberals” became “progressives”), about how clean energy could replace smelly oil wells and provide Democrats with the means to enact sweeping climate-change legislation. Who could have foreseen that the only “sweeping” would be the sweeping out of so many Democrats?”

(The above article was written by Wesley Pruden, Washington Times.)

Will America Recover from Its Feminization by Academics and Their Democrats?

I happen to be concerned with  the cultural and political dilemma endangering the traditional pillars of  the American experience, E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty.   I see it as essentially an extension of the modern  battle of the sexes.  

The modern American Democrat Party, that is, the one created by the cultural revolution of the college antiwar  rebel , the black and the hippy street riots and bombings of the late 1960s,  is the composite  rejection of the old America, a rejection sufficiently successful by creating a New America, the feminzed America, a culture valuing the feelings of its female instincts over tradtional problem solving, essentially a male expression.

Feelings begin to dominate the nation’s academies.   Matters unisexual will now count.  Compensation will be required.

The Democrat Party has become the instrument to force equality upon all, that is, upon all who have been nurtured by its political and financial payoffs of these past 40 years.  Through the Party’s creation of national censorship called political correctness, those deemed enemies of its program to control and expand forced equality are demonized….for emotional, not intellectual purposes.   One is to recognized  this new world’s sins.

As a former teacher of older youngsters I had  noticed the powerful preferences  of the two sexes in their learnings.   I am culturally pressured not to write about such observations, because I, too, have been trained to avoid such topics…..a result of the  censorship that there cannot be discussed  in modern society any causes for the differences between the sexes be caused by anything beyond  socialization, an idiocy devised by the American academy and picked up politically by the Democrat Party’s leftwing.   Contemporary American society has since declared it a sin to consider such thoughts.   Americans  have been punished for expressing such sins of thought by not being hired, and often being fired.   I am retired.

The human female by nature is an emotional creature, a reactive one not particularly curious about the problem world around her.  Not that she is not capable of developing some degree of curiousity about her environment in general, but that is not her basic drive.   As a child she did not plug hairpins into the electrical wall socket, she did not play with fire, or play-fight with sticks.  She did not build forts or play with motors.   I never met a girl or woman who enjoyed playing soldiers or playing with toy soldiers.   Girls and their older kind read novels.   The human male is by far more attracted to the ‘non-fiction’  from his natural sense of curiosity.

The modern Democrat Party is a university trained-cadre which has become the religious body to advance and protect its belief that forced equality, being society’s ideal,  demands males  be made more female and females  be made more male.   It dictates registrations and choice and content of its curricula to make certain its academic dogmas are institutionalized.   Academic atheism, I guess, would be a good title for its religious devotions. 

The feminized Democrat Party is not interested in LIBERTY, a basic male American belief for national and personal identification.   Being feminized the Party now  sells   SECURITY and censors liberty.   Its support, financial and religious become  government programs which weaken the age-old natural role of  the human male with his duties and responsibilities and ideologically foist them onto the human female.   Through  censorship so similar to the Soviet system to control  ‘truth-telling, the Party  eventually believes its own religious propaganda and begins to corrupt honest research inorder to achieve power to govern…..the ultimate  goal of any  Marxist-atheist Big government program.

Conservatives presently still believe in an America of the American dream.  It is a masculine America, for America, as well as any govenmental-societal-economic regimen ever created on Earth was created almost exclusively by the mind, soul, and energy of the human male.  (The  group the feminists, both male and female call the (good-old-boys’ network.) 

 The human male has never been as weakened as he is today in modern America, made so primarily by the Democrat Party-new age feminist movement and its religions arising from it.

The goddess of feminization  has become a curse upon free inquiry, free speech, upon Liberty itself…..and certainly upon “In God We Trust”.  The Democrat Party is the polical organization around which the feminized is advanced, both fair and foul.  It is the feminzed who run its universities and public schools.  The culture suffers the poison of their teachings.    It is the feminized who emote wildly against capital punishment.   It is the malelessness and fatherlessnes of  modern America, both in person and in teaching, that enforces the political hand of the nation’s political Left.  With every additional step to weaken  the traditional American family, the nation becomes more corrupt.  

It has become popular among the country’s feminized to indoctrinate its school’s young to believe they are exceptional creatures by merely being alive (and available for such indoctrination, of course.   Nothing needs to be earned.  The student simply needs to “FEEL” self esteem, a narcissism which should  repel one and all as a teaching goal.     Our culture’s traditional values used to  include teaching its male population to be male,  encouraging his sense of duty, responsibility, his inate drive to problem solve, to experiment and to learn knowledge.

Simply, women are generally  not interested in the breadth of knowing knowledge.  They read novels.  They are romantics, preferring fantasy of harmony over the reality of  physical and mental competition…….for it is the male who is nature’s principal creation  to handle  society’s  major competitions. 

Yes, of course there are overlaps….no one is programmed by nature to be a clone of another.   That doesn’t mean the human being doesn’t attempt cloning for that is precisely what the modern American Democrat Party, as an agency of modern academia, is attempting to do …..to create through government order a mass of unisex creatures, for underlying its politics is the leftwing religious tenet which rises above all others, its Marxist belief that the world would be a far better place if humans were made to be  equal, economically,  sexually, intellectually  and  physically, one to another.

Today’s conservative is the collection of people who don’t accept, knowingly or unknowingly, the Democrat Party’s Marxist assumptions.  

Americans have been taught to be a private peoples……To work their way through life as independenttly from government as possible……to live   ‘free’ in  a society organized to benefit from  what such   freedom might produce.  It did produce the American we knew until that nasty revolution forty years ago.

But today we have Barack Obama and his constituencies within his Democrat Party.  These  people believe in big government creating an equality by directives replacing citizen liberties with  a caretaker government,   feminizing the culture to depend on its bureaucrats to provide  SECURITY, security above all.

Unfortunately, we  haven’t been provided learnings for many decades which have identified what the duties and responsibilities of citizens in  a free society are.  Marxists have  begun to fill the vacuum. 

I believe the battles against the Leftwing feminization of America have already begun.   There may be hope for the rational after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cX2pR6TRHc

“Cultivating Home Grown Terrorists.”

“Homegrown terrorists, recruited from the newly arrived from the Muslim countries of the Middle East and Africa, are the latest menace to America. They’re new transplants to these shores and sometimes even the native born.

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a Somalia-born U.S. citizen, planned to detonate a van loaded with explosives in Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Ore., during a crowded Christmas tree lighting, sabotaging a joyous celebration of the Christmas season. Fortunately, he only knew how to make a fake bomb because his tutors were FBI agents working undercover.

Two months earlier, Faroque Ahmed, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen, was arrested in Washington for plotting to blow up the Metro trains. In May, Faisal Shazad, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, tried but failed to explode a car bomb in New York’s Times Square. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

The foiling of these plots before they caused harm are triumphs of intelligence, diligence and increased awareness of the enemy in our midst. But for all of our success, the terrorists have a sly and insidious strategy — a strategy detailed in three English-language editions of a jihadist propaganda magazine called “Inspire”.

“The latest edition of Inspire is not very inspiring,” says Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The call for lunch-counter attacks in Washington, D.C., is alarming, but consistent with the type of smaller-scale terrorist attacks that al-Qaida and its affiliates are seemingly focused on these days.”

Inspire may not be inspiring, but it’s slick and glossy and appeals to the young who pursue the thrill of dealing violent death to the despised infidels in the West.

Some of the tips seem aimed at the slow-witted: “If your opponent covers his right cheek, slap him on the left.” Others are more sophisticated and more violent: An illustrated tutorial shows how a Ford F-150 pickup truck can become the “Ultimate Mowing Machine” and inflict “maximum carnage” with the addition of steel blades to the front grille and driven at high speed into a crowd of pedestrians. There are descriptions of how to wrap packages to foil metal detectors and sniffer dogs.

The magazine mixes the sensibility of violent electronic games and real-life seriousness to describe grisly ideas for creating death and chaos, invoking the instructions and blessings of Allah: “We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.”

The appeal is new and frightening. “The concern is that this magazine will reach kids who have never really been very interested in violent jihad before,” a counter-terrorist official tells National Public Radio. “The magazine seems to make it fun and accessible.” Arabic is no longer the necessary language. English translations of violent jihad videos are readily accessible.

Inspire is published by al-Malahim, the media arm of the Yemen-based al-Qaida, which is on the front line to spread the jihadist message in the West, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), which studies attempts at jihad in the United States.

The strategic and technical details in Inspire could be called “terrorism for dummies.” When the detailed techniques are combined with psychological appeals to the lone-wolf loser who aspires to be a martyr, they have the potential to wreak destruction and panic across what the magazine calls the “the United Snakes of America.”

In a letter, written in script, the reader is asked to attack the West in its own backyard, where a jihadist can get more bang for his buck, literally and figuratively: “The effect is much greater, it always embarrasses the enemy, and these types of individual attacks are nearly impossible for them to contain.”

Online sites in English are the newest tools for homegrown terrorists. The teenager who wanted to explode the bomb in Portland wrote articles for “Jihad Recollections,” an online magazine that promotes violent jihad.

Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who will regain the chairmanship of the House Committee on Homeland Security in January, will hold hearings on “al-Qaida’s tactic of recruiting and radicalizing individuals residing in America.”

That’s improvement, but there’s a lot more work to do to find the terrorists living among us.”

(Suzanne Fields at the Washington Times wrote the above article.)

Is It Barney Frank’s Turn to Be in Trouble with the House Ethics Committee?

Ed Morrissey at HotAir writes in “House Ethics Committee Targeting Finance Next?’

“The case of the missing e-mail in the Maxine Waters ethics investigation appears to be getting deeper.  Earlier this week, the panel acknowledged that it had suspended two attorneys in the probe, including its lead investigator Cindy Morgan Kim, at the same time it postponed its hearing for Waters as new evidence emerged — specifically e-mail that tended to implicate Waters’ chief of staff and the House Finance Committee, chaired by Barney Frank.   Now the Ethics committee has turned its attention to Finance to find out why the committee withheld the e-mail during the initial investigation, and whether the panel has withheld any more evidence:

House ethics investigators have begun a probe into why the powerful House Financial Services Committee did not fully comply with its promise to turn over all documents pertinent to an investigation of subcommittee chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), according to congressional staff and other sources close to the inquiry.

After wrapping up their ethics investigation of Waters this summer and preparing for trial in October, the investigators learned about an e-mail that they considered important to their examination of Waters’s efforts to help a troubled bank tied to her husband. …

The e-mail surfaced because investigators started interviewing a former Frank aide, John Hughes, in September. They asked him at the time if he had any relevant documents, and he reported that he did not. But then they asked him in October to be a witness at Waters’s trial, and when he checked again for documents, he found the e-mail and turned it over, according to a source close to Hughes.

Barney Frank insists that he has done nothing wrong:

Frank said on Tuesday that the concern about late-arriving documents is news to him.

“When I received the Ethics Committee’s 2009 request, I instructed my staff to turn over every document in personal office and committee files. I have every reason to believe they did that,” Frank said yesterday.

The House ethics committee, called the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday. But deputy chief ethics counsel C. Morgan Kim and three colleagues said in a memo to the committee members last month that they believe the e-mail “may have a material impact on the investigative subcommittee’s investigation and the resulting statement of alleged violations.”

That would be the same C. Morgan Kim who has been suspended from her duties.

When the news of the postponement broke during Thanksgiving and the nature of the problem came to light, I warned that this may turn into a huge problem for Democrats, much more so than the Rangel trial:

That opens up questions about the ethics not just of Waters but of those committee members who cooperated with Moore and his pleas for “small bank” assistance. OneUnited ended up with millions in TARP money, and unlike other applicants, got to count that cash among its assets before actually receiving the money.  The preferential treatment the bank received — unique among over 700 applicants for TARP money — seems oddly coincidental to Waters’ status and the newly exposed machinations of Moore on her behalf.

How long will it be before the House takes up this case?  One would presume that the Democrats would want to conclude the ethics trial before the end of the lame-duck session in order to have a majority on the House floor for Waters’ eventual punishment, but the news of the e-mails may have them hoping they can get everyone to forget about it forever.  That’s not likely to happen, but it may be a little more likely that a future Ethics committee may be looking into the actions of other Financial Services Committee members.

Brian Faughnan at Liberty Central notes that this may well push Waters’ trial into next year:

The inquiry over the failure to deliver this E-mail seems likely to extend into next year. Ethics Committee investigators will want a good explanation as to how such a critical piece of information was overlooked for so long.

It may also result in more than one trial next year.  If Finance withheld this and other documentation related to the OneUnited case deliberately, censures may be the least of their worries.”

Helen Thomas, Womanhood’s Jimmie Carter, Speaks ‘Islamist’ to Arab-Americans

I see the folks at Powerline like Helen Thomas too.  I am glad, for I wouldn’t want to lose track of this female version of Jimmy Carter……well, in speech,  politics, and bigotry anyway.   What are the older generation grumpy lefties doing these days……I might wonder.   The following tidbit about this former princess of the Democrat Party presidential press conferences,  was written by John Hinderaker:

Ninety-year-old Helen Thomas gave a speech at the eighth annual “Images and Perceptions of Arab Americans” conference in Detroit yesterday. Before her talk, she spoke with reporters about her infamous suggestion that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go “home” to Germany, Poland and the U.S.:

I stand by it. I told the truth,” the 90-year-old Thomas told reporters…. “I paid a price but it’s worth it to speak the truth.”

But Thomas was just getting warmed up. This is what she had to say in her speech:

“Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists,” Thomas said. “No question.” …

“I can call the president of the United States anything in the book but I can’t touch Israel,” she said.

Yes, that must be frustrating for her.

The Associated Press actually covered for Thomas by mischaracterizing the comments that got her fired by Hearst:

Her speech followed her resignation from Hearst Newspapers in June, after she told an interviewer that Jews should “get the hell out” of the Palestinian territories and go to Germany, Poland or the United States.

The AP just volunteered that part about the “Palestinian territories.” If you listen to Thomas saying the Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine,” it is obvious that she is using “Palestine” in the Arab sense to mean Israel. If she had merely meant that Jews should get out of the West Bank, she would have said they should go home to Israel.

The AP reports that Thomas received a standing ovation at the “Images and Perceptions of Arab Americans” conference. Yesterday was a big day for her; she was also “the guest of honor at the Arab American National Museum, where a sculpture of her was unveiled during a private reception.”

The following is a paragraphe from a HotAir article on the same subject, Ms. Thomas’s ideas about Zionism shared in this talk to the Arab community in Michingan:

In a speech to about 300 people inside a center in Dearborn, she talked about “the whole question of money involved in politics.”

“Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists. No question, in my opinion,” she said. “They put their money where their mouth is. … We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.” …

In an interview, Thomas, 90, said that criticizing Israel led to her resignation and ostracism in Washington.

“I can call a president of the United States anything in the book, but I can’t touch Israel, which has Jewish-only roads in the West Bank,” Thomas said. “No American would tolerate that — white-only roads.”

For the entire article, click here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/03/helen-thomas-jooooos-run-the-world-or-something/

---