Topmost (in use)

Tag Archives | liberalism

Unbalanced columnist lists Fox News as “far right,” the others as “balanced”

If I understand the Left (and the “far-left!”) correctly, anyone to the right of Maxine Waters is not merely “conservative,” “traditional,” “conventional,” or heaven forbid a “moderate,” no no no. You’re a fascist, and by golly, even if you’re black, you’re a “radical” “racist” “right-wing extremist,” a “white supremacist,” and parenthetically, a “Republican.” It’s hard to not laugh. And so I do.

Today’s laughable left-wing blather is from the Globe & Mail’s Lawrence Martin (my bolding):

…Hit hard by Charlottesville were far-right outlets that have supported Mr.Trump. With Fox News, whose support he desperately needs, Mr. Trump is losing ground as well. …

… James Murdoch is not about to turn it into a more balanced media vehicle like the traditional U.S. networks, but he is likely to move it in a more conventionally conservative direction…

Whoooboy. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, see — they’re “balanced” — notwithstanding their demonstrably left and far-left bias in actual fact. FNC is not merely “conservative-tolerant,” as I correctly — and in a balanced way — dub them, they’re actually “far-right.”  (Notice there’s rarely just a plain old “right” or a “center-right” — it’s always “far-right?” Also notice MSNBC and CNN are never described as “far-left.” There is no “far-left” to the “balanced” set.)

And so — again if I understand correctly — Lawrence Martin is “balanced,” while those to the right of him are “far-right” — even if they’re liberals. Like Maxine Waters, this is stupidity.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

“Guns are people too!”

“Gun are people too!” sounds like a turn on the idiotic PETA memes where they raise the status of a lowly farm animal like a chicken to that of a real person.

Except we’re not talking about PETA or chickens, we’re talking about LIBERALS and guns. I do understand the confusion. Chickens are not people, and guns are not people. Liberal are only marginally people. I joke.

When problems arise, most people blame that which actually caused the PETA idiocyproblem. This is a habit of pure logic that liberals like President Barack Obama could learn, inasmuch as they and he are the cause of most of the problems, yet they and he choose instead to blame “Bush.” Or Fox News. Or “the 1%,” or the banks, a tsunami, Europe, or the weather.

The last time you read about a drunk driver careening into a crowd of people and killing them all… well I just gave away the ending, didn’t I? The point is that the skillful reporter who is not drunk blames the DRIVER. Not the CAR.

That’s manifestly because the driver killed the folks. Cars don’t suffer mental maladies, and cannot make poor choices. Which is why I’d rather see cars in office than Obama and his administration. But I digress.

When it comes to gun-related violence, the liberals like Obama (he’s the AR-15 of liberals — snarf!) and his absolutely like-minded fan-boy media reflexively blame the gun instead of the usually mentally-deranged shooter. Well actually they blame Sarah Palin, the NRA, conservatives, gun “clingers” (hi Barack!), Republicans, and even gun manufacturers (kind of like blaming GM for the drunk-driver slaughter — and then Barack Obama for bailing them out!). And others too numerous to mention. But mostly the gun. It’s like they’re idiots.

Nate Beeler, cartoonist for the Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), was bang on with this editorial cartoon, today. At the risk of putting words in Nate Beller’s mouth, it seems to me he’s mocking the asinine group-think liberal mainstream media for what is really their obvious liberal-left, agenda-ridden reporting. This style of reporting, which I like to call total, unadulterated BS reporting, is a result of their mindless group-think adherence to the idiotic talking points of the Democratic Party and sundry liberal fascists’, and their gun-control fetish. As you can tell, my own cartoons would be a lot more wordy than Nate Beeler’s.


Damn that’s a funny cartoon! Now, I don’t want to turn this into a downer, but it’s dark humor. It’s funny because it’s an absolutely true depiction of the liberals and their media, and the logic portrayed here is so totally absurd. Logic dictates that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Guns are not people, and yet liberals make out like guns are people too. They’re a little like PETA!

The funny bit (is it still funny, really?) includes the subversive notion that that liberals are now so heavily invested in this gun-control lunacy — politically and within the media — that simply in order to appear consistent and decisive, they now have to accept regularly appearing as idiots — just like in the life-like cartoon by Nate Beeler. Every time there’s a shooting, we’re off to the races — or the funny pages — again. Like the annoying TV ad that’s repeated way too often, liberals hope eventually people will buy their crap.

The problem may be history itself. Liberals and progressives can be credibly held to account for being partially responsible for the societal root cause of these tragedies, which we all know, whether liberals admit it or not (not), is mental health issues.

In the 1970s, liberals tackled this problem as they often do — with pure emotion rather than reason and hard empirical or scientific facts. It was entirely ill-conceived. It was an experiment. They closed mental health institutions, forcing the erstwhile institutionalized mentally ill to somehow magically blend into society, which would somehow deal with it. Somehow. Well it failed. That’s your hope ‘n change philosophy at work again.

It has resulted, I think, in homelessness, poverty, crime, drug abuse, family break-down, and more.

Their experimental feel-good policy on the mentally ill was another failed liberal experiment, using human lives as if they were lab rats or PETA’s sacred chickens. And yet liberals are still experimenting in other similar and potentially disastrous ways.

So this gun-control canard is to deflect from their massive, historic, and what is very much their liberal philosophy-rooted gaffe.

Instead, liberals including Barack Obama should be admitting that liberalism has proved to be an abject failure. That’s right, admit it, and move on. But no. They blame the shooter’s problem on the idiotic, unscientific idea that guns are going around wielding mentally-deranged individuals, and killing people. This, to maintain face, and gain power. That’s their ultimate objective. Power over the people. A notably unarmed people.

Sadly, that’s the joke.

Oh my sides ache with all the funny. No not really. Wow. I bummed myself out! Or should I pass the buck and say liberals bummed me out?

For more on this, see my article from yesterday, The Problem: Gun Violence? Yeah, But Liberal Media Lies, Too. Here’s my PTBC Facebook page meme for that one:

Sandie_Rinaldo_misinforms_re_shooting_AR-15(sq-403px fb-meme)The Problem: Gun Violence? Yeah, But Liberal Media Lies, Too.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Good luck, America (you’ll need it)

And here I believed that Obamacare, chronic 8 percent unemployment, stagnant economic growth, crippling spending and the potential for more would sink a sitting president. Boy howdy, was I ever wrong. I take small comfort that people far smarter than I am were much more mistaken than I was – Michael Barone and George Will among them – but even so, I and my fellow crestfallen conservatives must ask ourselves just why we were so far off the mark.

My friend David Frum (also smarter than I am) has for years been urging Republicans to moderate if, in David’s parlance, they wish to orchestrate a “Comeback” in national politics. With a monsoon of respect for David’s intellect, I disagree with that notion.

Hi Barack!Our previous nominee, John McCain, was as moderate as they come – even downright lefty on some issues – and he got trounced. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, despite apparently successful efforts to paint him as a corporate pirate, swinging in from the hard right with a dagger in his mouth and a briefcase full of pink slips in his free hand, is and was a moderate, too.

This may seem like utter rhubarb to those who have been fed a steady diet of Romney’s supposed radicalism, but here is a man who spoke of tax cuts as “spending,” enacted gender quotas (see also, “binders”), and, not for nothing, constructed the state-level prototype for Obamacare.

Moderate or not, we have seen that GOP presidential candidates are painted as extreme. With that in mind, can Republicans reconcile their core beliefs with an electorate that thinks in completely different terms? For example, we believe that a simpler tax system with lower rates increases tax revenue, while causing the wealthy to pay a greater share, and we can prove it by citing presidencies all the way back to Calvin Coolidge (as economist Thomas Sowell has done). But what good does that do when the reflex of every journalist, politician and undecided voter is to refer to tax cuts as something you “pay for”?

On social issues, Republican candidates will always be asked the most difficult, gut-wrenching questions, regardless of whether they choose to campaign on such matters. In a way, this is a good thing, as it forces us to scrutinize our views. But Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock ought to have known that, sure as God made little green apples, Republicans running for office will be asked about abortion in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. If the best you can do is make Leviticus sound like a Planned Parenthood pamphlet, let someone else run.

To be sure, Democrats will almost never be asked to defend partial-birth abortion (or “late-term” abortion, as they insist it be called, along with attendant euphemisms like “evacuating the cranial cavity”), nor will they be asked just why an infant who survives an abortion should be denied medical care and left to die – as was Barack Obama’s policy as a member of the Illinois legislature.

But that’s just life on the right. There are many such unfair double standards; it’s why Republican Sharron Angle is supposedly too obtuse for the US Senate, yet a Democratic loony tune like Debbie “I can feel global warming when I fly” Stabenow cruises to re-election.

Republicans knew much of this going into the election, though. So again, why were we wrong and can we win without compromising our beliefs?

Columnist Andrew Klavan notes, “The smartest political writers in the country, all of whom are conservative, will now be addressing those questions.” But is it even a question of who is smarter than whom? For example, is Charles Krauthammer smarter than Paul Krugman? (Answer: Oh, yes). That said, Krugman was closer to calling this election than Krauthammer was.

Barone has been typically gentlemanly and philosophical in defeat: “So I was wrong. I take some pleasure in finding I have been wrong, because it’s an opportunity to learn more. As I prowl through the 2012 election statistics I will have an opportunity to learn much more about America and where we are today…Lots to learn for all of us.”

And perhaps therein lay the answer. Maybe we were so far off because the United States simply isn’t the country we thought it was.

As an American immigrant, I idealized this nation’s embodiment of liberty. Bit by bit, I have had to let go of those illusions. The Land of the Free locks people up at a rate 13 times faster than its population growth, and holds more prisoners than any other country on Earth. Its tax department treats citizens and their families as US government property, regardless of where they live in the world. And now that same IRS will be the arbiter of whether your health care meets the requirements of the federal government that ordered you to buy it.

Two years ago, I wrote that Americans would not stand for the excesses of a depraved organization like the TSA. And yet, polls show widespread support for that literal manifestation of government overreach, even as its perversions have spread beyond airports. Citizens born into freedom obediently line up to be molested and manhandled by government employees in the name of “safety.” No one wants to break from the herd. In truth, Americans would rather belong than be free.

Actually, it seems Americans rather like being told what to do. And that is what modern liberalism is all about – telling you what you can say, what you can eat, what kind of car you can drive, and whether you must wear a helmet while talking, eating or driving. The late William F. Buckley described a liberal as, “someone who wants to reach into your shower and adjust the temperature of the water.” Americans have voted for just that kind of official officiousness.

I never would have thought it, and it flies in the face of convention to say so but, with lower tax rates, greater freedom of movement, and a more liberated view of industry and energy, Canadians are more attuned to freedom than their American cousins are (socialized medicine notwithstanding, but just wait…).

It is said that Americans will elect anyone to Congress – once (John Edwards, please call your office). Since 2008, I have wondered if the same is true of the presidency. Obama swept into his first term amid a unique confluence of events, including a financial crisis, a deeply unpopular incumbent party, and a somnambulant Republican opponent. It could have been a fluke.

And despite his liberal leanings, I thought it was possible Obama might pleasantly surprise. As I wrote at the time, “Here’s hoping that he is such a smashing success that he gets busted onto Mt. Rushmore and his face knocks Thomas Jefferson’s right off the nickel.”

But it was no fluke, and Obama was utterly unsurprising. As I said on radio after this year’s election, nothing would make me happier than to become a fan of Barack Obama. But this time, there is far less reason for hope. He has proven to be the hard-left, big-government liberal he seemed. And Americans seem to be okay with this.

I genuinely do not know if conservatism can win again, or what this will mean for the future of the nation. While others on the right have pronounced this to be the end of America, perhaps they’ll forgive me if I rage a little longer against the dying of the light.

Lord knows I have been wrong before (and recently), so I hesitate to make hard and fast predictions. Nevertheless, it seems that in re-electing Obama, the United States has ratified its own decline. Good luck, America. You’re going to need it.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Theo Caldwell Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

It's a question.