my job to have kids, Mr. Mayor, and your job to take care of them."
Left wing woman on welfare yelling at Mayor Lindsay of New York
“The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of
Paul” George Bernard Shaw
"The Budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public
debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be
tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be
curtailed, lest Rome will become bankrupt. People
must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." Cicero
, 55 BC
A Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged
Hawk is a liberal who's been targeted for death by al Qaeda
John Podhoretz referring to anthrax packages sent to the media in Oct, 2001
Liberal is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.
me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.
am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to
the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them
out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the
poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.
And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for
themselves, and became richer.” Benjamin Franklin
liberal is "so broadminded he won't take his own side in an
argument." Robert Frost
“There is no God
and Karl Marx is his Prophet’”
Today, a leftist
in America is like an apologist for fatal diseases
the real meaning of
“free” in the liberal lexicon: something paid for by your neighbor — best, by
liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, a debt he
proposes to pay off with your money.” G. Gordon Liddy
The more politicians repeat
something the more likely it is to be false. The statement most repeated
by politicians all over the world is that Islam is a Religion of Peace.
“The urge to save
humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
progressives as a species of religious fundamentalists planning a redemption.
Like fundamentalists they look at the world as fallen – a place corrupted by
racism, sexism and class division. But the truly religious understand that we
are the source of corruption and that redemption is only possible through the
work of a Divinity. In contrast, progressives see themselves as the redeemers,
which is why they are so dangerous. Because they regard those who oppose them as
the eternally damned. Progressives are on a mission to create the kingdom of
heaven on earth by redistributing income and using the state to enforce
politically correct attitudes and practices in everyone’s life. They want to
control what you do, and who you are, and even what you eat. For your own good,
of course. David Horowitz
following video captures a woman explaining her beliefs that she is entitled to
free water from a store. This is part of the mentality of a large portion
of the left
Liberal Thinking Explained by Evan Sayet
Above is a video of
a liberal student who became conservative after being mugged by tuition and
overexposed to PC wierdness
Socialism has beautiful ideals of sharing. The problem is the
result is nothing to share. North Korea identifies itself as a socialist
state. South Korea is capitalist. This photograph from space
demonstrates what is wrong with socialism.
I am related to two sisters, one of whom is
on the right of the political spectrum and one who is on the left. Both of
them are very intelligent, both have PhDs and both went to Ivy League schools.
Both sisters are generous and moral people.
There are many liberals who view
conservatives as bad selfish stupid people and many conservatives who have a
similar view of liberals Bad motivations
can come into play but since there are also good people on both sides of the
political spectrum I will start by addressing the differing assumptions that
leads good people to differ.
There are two opposing ways to approach
making the world a better place. One way is to focus on promoting freedom
and individual rights.
The other is to promote benevolent control for the benefit of the group.
That control generally consists of forced wealth redistribution. Their
Utopian ideal is to redistribute money from those who have more to those who
have less including themselves. Control is the opposite of freedom. Although there are exceptions
to the rule, the right tends toward the freedom and individual rights approach and the left toward the
benevolent control approach. It is important to make clear that the belief
in benevolent control does not mean that the left is unwilling to hurt the
opposition. Benevolent control just means that actions are taken to
control others in order to do what the left believes is best for the group.
Mao may have believed he was doing what was best for the people when he purged
Heather Mac Donald was invited to Claremont McKenna College to give a
speech titled “Blue Lives Matter”, blue referring to the police.
Black lives matter protestors blocking entrances; and assaulted attendees
and even those who were simply trying to interview the disruptors? For
safety reasons, Mac Donald had to livestream her speech to a mostly empty
room. The police urged her to cut her talk short and, when she was finished,
multiple officers had to escort her off campus. One of the chants of the
Black Lives Matter group was "America was never great". America's
greatness which derives from freedom and freedom of speech is not a value of
the left wing Black Lives Matter group. Totalitarian shutting down of
free speech they don't like is a value of theirs.
One could argue that a group is made of
individuals and it is to the benefit of the group that individual rights are
respected but the left doesn't see it that way.
pointed out that dead people are more likely to vote Democrat. If
you believe in benevolent control than it is OK, even good to engage in
voter fraud to bring about Utopia. That is also the reason that the
left is against voter ID. The left accuses those of being for voter ID
as being racist. It's OK to slander the opposition if it helps bring
Utopia on earth. There was a scandal in which leftist operatives who
incite violence at Trump rallies were exposed. They did that to make
Trump supporters and Trump look bad so people would vote for Hillary
instead. According to the leftist mindset this is OK as Hillary is
much more left in her thinking than Trump and so much more likely to bring
about a leftist Utopia. Interestingly the right does not incite
violence at Trump rallies but there are videos of Trump supporters being
attacked by leftists. According to the leftist mindset those right
wingers are bad because they are against Utopia and so it's OK to attack
them. Trump doesn't need to incite left wingers to violently
attack his supporters to get support.
Belief in freedom is a moderating force
because if you are a conservative who believes in freedom you believe that
an individual has a right to be a leftist and vote for a leftist politician.
Likewise you believe that they have a right to freely speak about their
leftist views. If you are a leftist however, you believe in benevolent
control and so are more likely to believe that actions must be taken to
silence the opposition.
Obama allthough he gave lipservice to
democracy had a totalitarian mindset. McAffrey wrote in Family
But nothing so perfectly reveals Mr.
Obama's authoritarian mindset than his 2016 order to public schools
throughout the country that boys and girls must tolerate members of the
opposite sex in their bathrooms. Mr. Obama said to the American people, in
effect, "I know what's best, and you will do what I tell you to do." Nothing
could be further from the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
Yet it is perfectly consistent with Mr. Obama's understanding of government
as the enforcer of positive rights. Mr. Obama acted, throughout his
presidency, as though the "fundamental transformation" that he promised in
2011 had already taken place, and the United States was no longer a
constitutional republic in which the legislature writes the laws and the
president merely executes them.
If you believe in creating a Utopia on earth
and that requires getting into debt you are much more likely to do it than
if you don't believe in creating Utopia on earth. That may be one
reason Democrats rack up so much debt. Another reason is that you are
not as concerned about destroying the status quo with debt. You don't
like the status quo, you want Utopia if you are a leftist. Also if you
are a leftist you promised voters
goodies and find out it cost more than you thought you need to get the money
Democrats wanted cheap housing for the
poor and claimed that Fannie Mae was a lot more solvent than it was.
There is a tendency to minimize the tradeoff when you want to create Utopia.
What do leftists want. Equality,
equality of wealth and of health care.
Jarrett Wolstein wrote an outstanding article about what
happens when a country decides it wants to legislate equality of health
care. Here is one quote from the
article that is very insightful.
Abolishing inequality requires massive government
power. But power by its nature is unequal: there are those that have it and
those that do not. Giving government the power to make everyone equal
necessarily creates the worst form of inequality: that of master and
It also creates equality of poverty. Instead of
raising the welfare of the poor to that of the rich it makes everybody poor.
This has been the result of socialized medicine as explained in the
Tom McAffrey in an article in Family Security Matters
"The Left have remade the family to suit homosexuals,
and now they are remaking our whole idea of male and female. (Next up, they
plan to repeal the law of gravity.) And they are remaking the ethnic,
religious, and cultural demography of the United States, to the point where
one must make amends for being Caucasian.
All of this is premised on the idea that the needs of
the "oppressed," such as blacks, women, homosexuals, immigrants, and even
nature, must take precedence over the rights of individuals whenever a
democratic majority (or an organized, determined plurality) deems it
necessary. This is called tyranny of the majority, and it is as antithetical
to the Founders' Constitution as was monarchy. It does not take a paranoiac
to recognize in all of this a dire threat to one's own wellbeing, to one's
family's, and to the nation's"
Robert Arvay in an article titled
Sorry Son You are not a Girl gave an example of how the left only cares
who it labels as "oppressed". He wrote:
are now laws on the books, in some jurisdictions, which give men a right to
walk into gymnasium showers for women, including showers for high school
girls. In California, when parents objected to this rule, they were
horrified to be told, by the government, that their daughter should become
comfortable showering with boys. There was no mention of the transgender
student becoming comfortable showering with members of his own biological
sex. They have rights, and you do not.
are also other complications that arise. Murders have been committed when a
man discovered that his “girlfriend” was born as a boy. Would liberals ever
countenance a law requiring full disclosure about one’s transgenderism? Or
would that be a privacy right that outweighs those of high school girls?
The attitude Mr. Arvay experienced
when arguing with a liberal about this was
we conservatives are heartless, cruel, and insensitive ideologues who
wish to impose our beliefs on others...
and anyone who opposes the agenda, including laws with civil and criminal
penalties for dissidents -- is a bigot, and should be neutralized.
We can explain a lot of leftists beliefs if we keep in mind
this core leftist desire because a lot of leftist rationalizations stem from
this core belief. A key leftist belief is that all groups are morally
equal (except those on the right of course who are absolutely terrible) and
to portray one group as worse than another is racist, bigotted,
discriminatory and whatever awful thing you can think of. One result
of this thinking is that history and the news is revised to fit with this
belief. For example 25 years after black mobs
attacked Jews in Crown Heights the New York Daily News wrote an article
that made it look like Jews and Blacks were attacking each other and were
The view that groups are morally equal leads
to the view that we are no better than they whoever they are. So while
Conservatives are more likely to subscribe to the goal of America first
liberals are more likely to see themselves as
citizens of the world. In fact Trump said during his campaign that
the biggest difference between his and his opponents plans is that his plan
would put America first.
If we want to redistribute the wealth we
have to commit the injustice of taking wealth away from those who worked
hard and earned it and giving it to those who didn't. To make
ourselves feel better we can rationalize that away by arguing that those who
have more wealth are just lucky or even worse that they have it because they
took it away from others. These are the arguments Obama made in a
speech at Howard University. When black people look at the
disparity between white success and their own many prefer to blame whites
than themselves. Leftists who want black votes will cater to this
belief as Hillary Clinton did in a
speech. It may seem kind and compassionate to redistribute the
wealth and to redistribute opportunities. A public school my children
go to decided to shut off people with higher incomes and only admit children
from lower income households and argued that doing so would lead to a more
diverse school. What about the person who struggled with 3 jobs to
create a better life for his children only to find out that now he can't
send his child to a good school without sending him to private school.
Is that fair? His children would have been better off if he had simply
bounced from one woman to the next and let welfare take care of them ie the
rest of us.
Charlie Daniels is a conservative song writer who
wrote a letter to Obama about leftist thinking. He
You seem to think that America needs a monolithic, big brother type government
to oversee and regulate every aspect of American life, that citizens are not
competent to control their own affairs and make their own decisions without some
oppressive bureaucracy to call the shots.
Mr. President, the answer is not government, conversely, the problem is
government. A government that has doubled the national debt, increased
unemployment, lowered take home pay, increased food stamp participation and
disability claims and introduced socialized medicine.
A classic example of the benevolent control belief of the
left was the decision by Carmelyn Malalis of the New York City Human Rights
Commission to fine the landlord of Best Apartments $100,000 because a judge
determined that he discriminated against a section 8 tenant. There are
many horror stories of section 8 tenants bringing in large groups of people to
live with them and trashing property. A conservative opponent of this
decision wrote that
"it's the right of the landlord not to rent to people who are likely
to cause him and other tenants problems. Unfortunately social justice
warriors don't believe in property rights."
The left seems to have a lot more compassion for troublemakers than it
does for their victims and very little concern for the suffering of innocent
people that its policies will create. An example that illustrates
this selective compassion is an
enforcement directive issued by Obama's Housing and Urban Development
Secretary, Julian Castro. Mr. Castro wrote that housing discrimination
against people with criminal records is unlawful and argued that it is
because it results in more discrimination against blacks than whites because
blacks are a larger part of the criminal population. Such
discrimination, Mr. Castro wrote, is a violation of the fair housing act.
Mr. Castro wrote:
"A housing provider violates the Fair Housing Act when the provider’s
policy or practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect, even when the
provider had no intent to discriminate"
Another example of selective compassion of the left is toward people who
believe they are transgendered i.e. the opposite sex is trapped in their
body. The left demands that these people be able to go to the bathroom
of the sex they claim is trapped in the wrong body. They demand that a
genetic male who claims to be female have a right to go to a female bathroom
no matter how much that infringes on the rights of females who don't want
him in their bathroom.
One of the most shocking examples of selective compassion by the
left that I have ever seen was in a video of a demonstration in Australia.
I have embedded the a few scenes from the video from a Daily Mail
article below. I couldn't embed the original video but there is a
box in the upper right hand corner of the video that will show the entire
Earlier I wrote that the right is concerned about
individual rights but here we have an example of the left being concerned
for the rights of the transgendered and the right being concerned about the
rights of the majority that is being infringed by the leftist crusade
against privacy in bathrooms. Is the left really concerned about rights in
this example? Is it really a right of a man who claims to be a woman
to enter women's bathrooms?
Perhaps the holiest leftist belief is "Thou shalt not
discriminate." Donald Trump suggested during his campaign for
president that Muslim immigration be shut down for security reasons.
The response of the left is a
bill that states: "
“An alien may not be denied admission to the United States because of
the alien’s religion or lack of religious beliefs.”
This response despite the outrageous acts
committed by Muslim immigrants against the countries of Europe who have let
them in. For a summary of some of these see the video below.
The right believes in protecting property rights.
The left believes in wealth redistribution which means violating property
rights. Taxation is taking the property of someone and giving it to
someone else or to some institution. The left tends to favor taxation
more than the right
This lack of compassion for the innocent
members of society is justified in the leftist mindset by viewing criminals
as innocent victims of society. Society therefore is not innocent in
the leftist mindset and if it suffers because it created those criminals,
that's just. An extreme example of this was the guilt expressed by
Karsten Nordal Hauken a member of the Norwegian Socialist Left Party.
He felt guilty because a Somali man who raped him was deported to Somalia.
found himself unable to blame his attacker, saying “he is not
responsible for his actions”. Rather than the rapist being in charge of his
own destiny, he said he was merely “a product of an unjust world. A product
of an upbringing marked by war and deprivation”, and said that rather than
the attack being sexually motivated, it was all about “exerting power” over
Although the left sees criminals as innocent victims the left doesn't see
everyone as innocent victims. The right in their view is not innocent.
Whites are not innocent. Whites have white privilege which is
automatic guilt from the leftist point of view.
The Obama administration
wants felons' voting rights restored. It supports legislation "banning
the box," that is, banning employment applications that ask if the applicant
has a criminal record. Matthew Vadum wrote:
a black would-be tenant's criminal history amounts to what David Horowitzcalls"black
skin privilege." The African-American lawbreaker gets a free pass because of
the color of his skin.
This type of reasoning fits in with the moral
relativism of the left which says that we can't judge others as bad by our
moral code because morality is relative and who are we to say that are
morality is better than anyone elses.
The left tends to believe that wealth should be redistributed for the
sake of fairness and rental properties should be offered to everyone
regardless of their propensity to do harm. In fact the left thinks its
racist to argue that one group is likely to be more harmful than the other
unless that group is Republican.
An example of this selective racism thinking was when Obama accused
Republicans of convincing their base of the notion that Muslims aren't nice
in March 2016. Obama will not accuse violent Muslims of creating that
notion but he has no problem blaming it on peaceful Republicans.
Kyle Smith in an opinion piece in the New York Post
Obama is fighting the war for criminals to get closer to you on several
fronts. Last month, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
he went after landlords, threatening them with penalties if they barred
criminals from living in their buildings. In November, Obama unilaterally
ordered federal agencies to strike the box asking applicants whether they
had committed crimes and referred to criminals as “folks.” This would be the
same president who on Oct. 25, 2010, referred to Republicans as “enemies”
and suggested voters should “punish” them. Convicted rapists? They’re just
Republicans believe centralized control is dangerous.
This was explained in a short talk given
by Utah county GOP chairman Casey Voeks about Common Core.
If we assume that people generally act in
what they believe is their best interest than local control is more likely to
benefit more people than centralized control.
An example of sacrificing individual rights
for benevolent control is the
case of Andy and Ceil Barry. The Barries had purchased and idyllic 10
acre parcel of land in the midst of the White River National Forest. The private
land had on it a rustic cabin, an outhouse, and an old boarded-up gold mine. It
was a day use cabin, and therefore totally off the grid. The government wanted
their land. The Barries did not have the money to fight against the bottomless
coffers of the government. They were paid $115,000 for the land with taxpayer
money. The couple had spent $75,000 waging a legal defense. Ceil Barrie said in
“The cabin was condemned on the grounds of plumbing and
electricity, when it doesn’t even have plumbing or electricity. All those
things added up in my mind. This is ridiculous, we can never win and our
money is not unlimited. I have two kids in college this year. To me, what
just came out of it is, you can’t fight the government.”
The government also argued that when the
Barries drove to the road to the property they were threatening the alpine
tundra and thus the habitat for the endangered lynx. This sounds
ridiculous to me but we are assuming here the purest of motives and fanatics are
fools so perhaps the government really believed it was saving the lynx.
The individual rights of the Barries was considered less important than the
benevolent purpose of saving the Lynx assuming saving the Lynx was the real
The left believes that lying is OK for the
greater good, so we don't really know if the argument they gave about saving the
Lynx describes their real motivations or not. An excellent article about
how the environmentalist movement sacrificed individuals for the cause can be
here. The article quotes Montanan, Terry Anderson, who said “One
of the people instrumental in shutting down the forests told me that ‘if the
spotted owl hadn’t existed, we would have had to invent it.’ The goal was to
stop logging, and the supposedly endangered owl was a tool to achieve this."
This statement by Terry Anderson is reminiscent of a statement Adolph Hitler
said "If the Jews didn't exist we would have to invent them".
Agenda 21 is an extremist environmentalist agenda whose goal
is to get people out of rural areas. The result is totalitarian councils
imposing the will of these environmentalists on people who didn't elect them. Here is a video of
Tom DeWeese speaking about it.
Using deception to achieve what they
perceive to be the greater good shows not only a lack of concern for what the
people want it shows the environmental left knows the people don't want it.
Interestingly the left likes to portray itself as fighting for the people
against the evil corporations.
Another example of how the left tends to
believe that individual rights are superseded by group rights is the attitude of
the left toward education. The left tends to believe that the government
has the right to control education for the greater good and that parental
control of education should be limited if not non-existent.
The benevolent goal of children educated with the mindset of the left superseded
the rights of parents in the leftist mindset. From the leftist point of
view they are more enlightened than mere individuals and their enlightenment
should be given to the ignorant young to promote social justice. Obama's buddy
Bill Ayers at a World Education Forum in Venezuela in front of President Hugo
Chavez expressed this viewpoint when he
I walked out of jail and into my first teaching
position—and from that day until this I’ve thought of myself as a teacher,
but I’ve also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with
In 1973 Dr. Chester M. Pierce, a Harvard Professor of
Education and Psychiatry, gave an address to a Childhood International Education
“Every child in America entering school at the
age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain
allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected
officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural
being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate
entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick
children well – by creating the international child of the
Dr. Pierce believed that individuals have sick
beliefs that should be removed by the educational establishment for
the greater good.
Benjamin Bloom a psychologist and educational
theorist stated a similar viewpoint when he
“…a student attains ‘higher order
thinking’ when he no longer believes in right or
wrong. A large part of what we call good teaching is
a teacher's ability to obtain affective objectives
by challenging the student’s fixed beliefs. …a large
part of what we call teaching is that the teacher
should be able to use education to reorganize a
child’s thoughts, attitudes, and feelings.”
Wlliam Seawell a professor of education, University of
showed the leftist mindset when he said “Each Child belongs to the state.”
Likewise Hillary Clinton said that: “There is no such thing as other people’s
This statement by Dr. Bloom raises another viewpoint of the
left which is moral relativism. I saw an example of this thinking in an
editorial in the Brandeis student newspaper about Ayaan Hirsi Ali which argued that it
was right to withdraw its plans for an honorary degree for her because she did not see all groups as morally
John Goodlad a consultant for Boston
University's Education Department made statements that illustrate the leftist
mindset about the greater good superseding individual rights. He
“Public education has served as a check on the power of
parents, and this is another powerful reason for maintaining it.”
- John Goodlad, Developing Democratic Character in the Young, pg. 165
“Parents do not own their children. They have no ‘natural right’ to control
their education fully.” – John Goodlad / Developing Democratic Character in the Young, pg. 164
William Baer is a New Hampshire parent who was arrested at a Monday night
school board meeting after he voiced outrage his ninth grade daughter was
assigned a book that contains a page detailing a graphic sexual encounter. “I
was shocked when I read the passage and not much shocks me anymore,” William
told EAG News. He was arrested for not showing respect at the school board
meeting as shown below.
Baer, who is an attorney, believes that if someone stood
outside the school and handed out copies of the novel’s sexually charged passage
to students, he would likely be arrested and prosecuted.
He questions why it’s acceptable for “the state, through its schools and
agents,” to mandate reading and discussing this same material.
In a written response to an EAGnews inquiry, Gilford school leaders admit they
didn’t warn parents of the book’s controversial nature like they have in
previous years, and promised to send a letter to the home “of all students who
are currently assigned the book.”..
For Baer, this incident is the latest indication that the nation’s public
education system is bent on indoctrinating children with moral relativism.
He believes the politicians and educators running the public school system want
to dismantle the family unit, and undermine traditional morality, “though
they’re never going to admit this.”
“Many people in education and government truly believe our children are theirs.
That parents are only the custodians who feed them and put a roof over their
head. These school incidents are a byproduct of this ‘we know best’ philosophy.
They believe they have the authority to do this. If people were more complacent,
which is hard to imagine, it’d be even worse.”
Children are seen as a way to control the
parents. The leftist writer Allen Ginsberg once told a conservative "We
will get you through your children."
The right I think are more focused
on protecting their own group first before saving the world. We see this
in the recent Ebola crisis where the Obama administration sends medical
personnel and the army abroad to Ebola stricken areas. When they
come back they could bring Ebola with them. This has generated a lot
criticism from the political right where there is a belief that one should
protect one's own. This kind of thinking may partly explain the difference
between right and left wing attitudes toward illegal immigration.
A major goal of the left is equality. Freedom
and equality conflict. If people are free to make money and keep that
money some will make more than others thus creating an unequal distribution of
wealth. The left supports a government that exercises its power to
redistribute the wealth.
Redistribution of wealth and the right to
property conflict. John Locke was an Englishman who proposed that
individual rights as granted under natural law were life, liberty, and property.
Redistribution of wealth means taking away someone's property most likely
against their will so it conflicts with liberty and the right to property.
Redistribution of health care could and does lead to loss of life as the result
can be that people have to wait too long for critical treatment.
This redistribution can take many forms for
example the leftist department of education says that all children in the United
States whether here legally or not have a right to go to Public School.
The DOE is not worried about the cost or even the impact on children who are
here legally as explained in the video below. That is typical of the left,
little details like costs are not allowed to get in the way of leftist
According to the leftist mindset all races
are equal or black is better than white. More blacks get expelled from
schools than whites. The Obama administration's response to this problem
was not to conclude that more blacks engaged in bad behavior but rather that it
was racial bias in the schools that was responsible. The DoJ and DoEd put
schools on notice that they are prepared to use their authority to investigate
the claims of racial disparity in the punishment of students and to enforce
civil rights protection. Allen West
I taught high school for one year in Deerfield Beach,
Fla and in the end, it was such an enjoyable experience breaking up fights
daily, that I decided to return to the combat zone of Afghanistan.
Teachers are already disrespected and attacked, not feared. There were
students at Deerfield Beach who steered clear of the lunchroom for fear of
being picked on or engaged in a fight. A kid was stabbed while I was on the
Yes, this violence on campus was perpetrated 8 out of
10 times by black students, male and female, but it had nothing to do with
racial disparity. It had everything to do with a lack of discipline and
When a young man took a swing at me while I broke up a beat down that he and
three others were giving a young man already on the ground, it had nothing
to do with civil rights. It had everything to do with a criminal behavior
which does not belong in a learning environment – and he was expelled. Now
imagine under these new guidelines and rules, DoJ and DoEd would initiate an
The left tends to view all religions
are equal except Christianity which is a target of much of the left. If
there is more violence by Muslims it must be due to income inequality or
oppression of the Palestinians. If they engage in atrocities those
atrocities have "nothing
to do with Islam". According to the left wing president Obama, if
the Iranians shout "death to America" and build intercontinental missiles while
spinning nuclear centrifuges and saying that the destruction of Israel is
non-negotiable, that's because of the history of oppression of Iran by the West
and not Islam. Obama
“Part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past
experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United
States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting
the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal
The left tends to view world government as
a way to avoid war. This is similar to the anti-individualism of the left,
though in this case the individuals are independent countries. The left
favored the formation of the European Union partly because of the belief that
joining European governments into a single government would prevent war
between them. When Hitler was rising to power the
policy recommended at a British Labour party conference recommended a policy
of "subordinating our defense to the permission of Geneva, abolishing allegiance
and loyalty to England, and pledging British citizens to a world-commonwealth
which would 'override any national duty in time of war'.
The left believes that all people should have equal health care,
equal income and so on. The left tends to view sources of inequality has
bad. The left instead of viewing the wealthy as people who earned their
wealth see the wealthy as people who exploited the masses unjustly to obtain
that wealth.. If some people are richer than others they are that
way because of the work of others. Obama actually gave a speech in that
regard mocking how the rich believe they got their wealth due to their work and
creativity when in reality it was the people who built the roads etc.. who made
it possible for them to become rich.
There were many conservative responses to Obama's comments.
Here is one I liked.
The left sees violence as being a result of inequality.
The Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram whose name means "Western Education is
Bad" attack schools in Nigeria. Here is a video about Boko Haram abducting
reaction of the Obama administration is that their violence is due to income
The left also tends to believe that if a group does a bad
thing it must be justified in some way. If a
Palestinian suicide bomber blows himself up among a class of school children,
the guilt must lie with Israelis who must be guilty of state sponsored terrorism.
The left thinks we are all morally equivalent except for right
wingers who are the scum of the earth. Daniel summed up left wing
They hate us, therefore we’re guilty.
American guilt requires perpetual atonement.
Greenfield explained that foreign policy that is based on this philosophy leads
to appeasement of enemies and abandonment of friends.
If a bad person shoots a gun than nobody should have guns because people are not
better than that person. If Muslims tend to commit more terrorism than
other people that truth must be kept quiet because it will lead to unequal
treatment of Muslims. Instead opponents of the left such as the tea party
must be painted as terrorists to treat them equally.
The left ideology is like a religion which defines good
and evil. Jack Cashill
summarized the 7 deadly sins of the left as:
global warming denial
Several of these sins are sins of having negative feelings
toward a group. Apparently that is only legit if the group is
Republican. If a large percentage of a group believes they should
subjugate or kill the infidel, that's OK.
The left has a
tendency to believe it is entitled more than conservatives do. The
entitlement fits in with the belief that all should have equal wealth, if
someone has less and is left wing he is likely to believe that he is entitled to
more. The left tends to believe they are entitled to control other
people's lives for the common good.
One of the creepiest expressions of
entitlement that the left expresses is towards other people's children. In
one recent example Paul Reville, a professor of education at Harvard, who was
arguing for Common Core standards
stated that "the children belong to all of us." Paul may
think that this is a noble expression of feeling responsible for the welfare of
other people's children but it also means that others should have influence over
what happens to your children (assuming you have children). A panelist at
the liberal think-tank Center for American Progress discounted the opposition to
Common Core as only a “tiny minority,” who should be ignored
because “the children belong to all of us.” Common Core is
a great example why the left should not have
influence over what happens to children.
NBC is far to the left of the political spectrum.
MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry argued for the same idea as Paul
Reville in the video below.
She is arguing that we would invest more
money in education if we considered everyone's children our own. Perhaps,
but with that belief comes the belief that the children don't exclusively belong to the
parents and the belief that the state or the federal government has the right to
control what children learn beyond reading writing and arithmetic. It
means schools and textbooks can advocate left wing political opinions to
children (which quite a few do). It means its that much easier for the
state to take children away from their parents if the state does not approve of
how children are raised.
The Republican view opposes centralized
power over what happens to children and is more supportive of parental rights.
Republicans Senators Introduced a Resolution Denouncing Obama Administration’s
Coercion of States with Common Core. Senator Cruz said:
“Common Core is another example of Washington trying to
control all aspects of Americans’ lives, including the education of our
children. We should not allow the federal government to dictate what
our children learn; rather, parents, through their teachers, local schools
and state systems, should be able to direct the education of their
The left tends to oppose Charter
schools where as the right sees it as school choice. The Success schools
in NY have outperformed the public schools. Left wing mayor DeBlasio
revoked the school space allotted to some of the Success schools. Michael
Goodwin wrote an article about DeBlasio in which he
explained the liberal outlook:
Money — it’s the root of all evil. Behind every great
fortune lies a great crime. Or at least an unfair advantage.
That’s the gist of the liberals’ creed and justification for their war on
wealth. The other half of their view holds that the poor are innocent
victims of life’s rigged game.
Their narrative of evil winners and noble losers clears the way for
self-heroic redeemers. They will deliver social justice by meting out
punishment and spreading the wealth around. Their virtue entitles them to
Michael Chapman gave a very eye opening talk about the
government take over of education.
In his talk he outlined what educators are teaching now versus
the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration principles align with conservative thinking the sustainable
development principles align with the left.
I highly recommend Michael Chapman's talk which I've embedded below.
An extreme example of the socialist mindset
toward children took form in the kibbutz where children were raised
collectively. Children's lives had three focal points: the children's
house, parents' house and the whole kibbutz. They lived in the children's house
where they had communal sleeping arrangements and visited their parents for 2–3
hours a day.
Illegal immigration that divides the right
and left. Arizona governor Jan Brewer in her book Scorpions for Breakfast
wrote about how the left wing media portrays the issue.
...immigration is often portrayed as a tale of good versus evil, a political and
cultural battle that pits two different visions of America against each other.
One is the vision of America in which it's our moral obligation to absorb
virtually unlimited numbers of poor, uneducated immigrants. Those who hold this
view are the good guys -- the ones who cherish and defend America's welcoming
and generous spirit. The other vision, in the media's black and white
interpretation, is the restrictionist view. In this vision, consciously or
unconsciously racist Americans (there can be no other motive) seek an airtight
border in order to preserve their western white privilege. These, needless to
say, are the bad guys.
The moral compass of the right is freedom.
The left believes that people should be controlled in order to make them behave
the way the left thinks is right. The left believes wealthy people should
be forced to pay more taxes and that money should be given to those who are not
as well off. This is a form of control. The left has been pushing a
common curriculum called Common Core because they believe that leftist values
should be instilled in children. This too is a form of control.
The fundamental natural state of things is
inequality. If government does not interfere a free market society will
lead to unequal distribution of wealth. In order to change this a powerful
group such as the government has to use force or the threat of force. When
a government taxes the rich and uses the money to support the poor they are
using the threat of force to collect those taxes. The wealthy know that if
they don't pay the government could take more money and put them in jail.
The left by supporting equality supports the use of force.
An interesting paradox results from the
fact that the natural state of things is inequality which is that attempts to
force equality create another kind of inequality. It creates an inequality
of opportunity. Lets consider a situation where everyone starts off with
the same amount of money and has an equal opportunity to become rich.
Those who study hard in school and work long hours can buy a business and make
it become a prosperous one while those who don't study in school and don't work
hard end up making a small salary. If one takes the money from the people
who worked hard and redistributes it so that everyone has the same amount of
money one has created unequal rewards for work. Lets say after
redistribution everyone makes $20,000 a year. The people who worked 12
hours a day 7 days a week would be getting $20,000/(12 * 365) =
$4.56 an hour whereas the people who did the
equivalent of 5 hours of work a day 5 days a week for 9 months a year would be
making approximately $20,000 * (5 * 5/7 * 9 * 30) = $20.47 an hour.
The result is that the people who worked
hard are going to think, why should I work so hard when lazy Joe over there
makes just as much money while enjoying himself in the sunshine with the ladies?
The result will be people put in equal effort into being productive and that
effort will be a lot less than they used to make. The result will be less productivity and less money to redistribute. The
next time the government collects taxes to redistribute to those who have less,
there will be less taxes to collect. This has been the outcome of
Communism the world over. A good example of this effect as I write this in
in oil rich Venezuela where there is a shortage of food. The leftist leader
blames his opposition and the CIA for the situation. This is part of the
reason for animosity between the left and the right. When the left takes
over and things get bad it blames the right. Freedom is appealing to most
people and is a threat to dictators and since left wing ideology leads to
dictatorial policies freedom becomes a threat to those with left wing ideologies
and left wing leaders blame free countries for the problems they create.
Andrew Klaven created a good video about
income redistribution which I've embedded below.
John Mackey gave a very good interview about the source of hostility to
capitalism which I've embedded below.
Perhaps one of the best explanations of
what is wrong with income redistribution came from a person who was for it,
Jonathan Gruber. Jonathan Gruber was Obama's health care adviser who
together with the Obama administration wrote the Affordable Health Care Act.
The word "affordable" was a lie as it made insurance less affordable to a great
many people. Gruber said Obama knew that but
lied that it would bring down costs so he could get the bill passed.
Deception was used to coerce the American people into supporting a bill they
would not have wanted if they had understood it. This was in line of with
the leftist belief of the Obama administration that they knew best what was good
for the American people and that coercion and deception was the right thing to
do in order to "help" the American people.
The problem with wealth redistribution as Obamacare
demonstrates is it impoverishes the middle class. The Washington Times
A third clip of Obamacare architectJonathan
Gruberhas emerged, this time
of the MIT professor speaking to a University of Rhode Island crowd in 2012
about the health care law’s
so-called “Cadillac tax” — and bragging at the utter inability of the
American people to comprehend its complexities.
The “Cadillac tax” requires that
insurance companies, not individual policy holders, pay the
difference between higher- and lower-cost packages — a plan that was pushed
into realization by then-Sen. John Kerry,Mr.
Grubersaid, Fox News
Mr. Gruber then said that a tax on individuals would have been “politically
impossible” — but that a tax on companies would prove palatable to voters,
mostly because they didn’t understand.
His comments, Fox News reported: “So basically, it’s the same thing. We just
tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax
break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s very clever, you know,
basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American
Jonathan Gruber explained here a
fundamental problem with wealth redistribution. You tax the rich (in this
case the insurance companies) and the cost gets paid by the consumer. Tax the
insurance companies and everyone will pay higher premiums as well as higher out
of pocket costs when they see a doctor. Another consequence is less
medical care for people. My costs have gone up so much that I don't go to
the doctor anymore. On the other hand my premiums are paying so that
others are more likely to get medical care. So my health care has been
redistributed to other people. Health care redistribution does not mean
more health care just as wealth redistribution does not mean more wealth.
These principles don't just apply to
insurance companies and the costs can take many forms. If a large domestic
company is taxed but its overseas competitor is not taxed than the large
domestic company will have to raise prices and if it does it may go out of
business. The cost then is a lot of jobs. Supposing both the
domestic and foreign competitor is taxed. Then the cost of what they
produce goes up. People who buy what they produce then have less money and
so spend less on other needs. If they buy less products then there are
fewer jobs for those who make those products.
The United States is losing its freedom.
The left wing administration of Obama is using the IRS to target the Tea Party
opposition. The IRS was planning to make new rules. According to
If you’re involved in the Tea Party, 9/12, or
ANY other grassroots groups, the new IRS rules
will make it ILLEGAL
for you to:
candidate up for re-election within 60 days
of an election. That includes every single
member of the House of Representatives – you
won’t be able petition your own
the election or defeat of a political
candidate forums so voters can decide who
would best represent them.
Previously I wrote
that inequality is the natural state of things. This is true on a primal
level. Predators that are faster are more likely to catch their prey than
predators that are slower. That may seem very unfair. Why should a
predator through some random mutations that made him faster get more food that
the one who isn't as fast? It's not fair to the hungry slower predator.
The same applies to organisms on a unicellular level. Why should a cell
that has genes that makes it more capable of surviving do better than a cell
that through random chance doesn't have those genes. That's not fair to
the cell without those genes. What if we could create a fair world where
random sets of genes did not confer an advantage. The result would be no
natural selection and no evolution. Living organisms would not be able to
improve their ability to survive and find food and so are more likely to be
hungry than if natural selection occurred. Likewise people in socialist
societies are more likely to be hungry.
forms a hole to swallow money. What does this quote of mine have
to do with differences between the right and the left? When the
government makes money available the services for which the money is made
available have a tendency to become more expensive. If the government
makes money available to help students pay University tuition the University
can raise its tuition for example. In fact I read an article which said
the money the government paid was proportional to the cost of tuition and so
Universities had the incentive to charge very high tuitions so as to get more
government money and then to give out aid to students in effect decreasing the
tuition. The students think they are getting a great deal and they think
the University must be very prestigious if it is so expensive. Another example
of where costs increase to meet the money available is in the adoption
industry. To adopt in 2004 cost usually about 25K. The social
workers get a large chunk of this money. People are so desperate to have
a child they'll mortgage their houses to pay these costs so the social workers
charge. The Left likes to throw money to help the unfortunate, one thing
they need to keep in mind is that when you throw money at something the need
will increase as the prices go up to meet the increased available money.
I had an epiphany regarding what makes the left
the left after
reading about a left wing graduate student named Tal Nitzan at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem who claimed that the absence of any history of rapes of Arab women by
Israeli soldiers proves that Jews are racists, because they do not even regard
Arab women as sexually desirable. The student at the Mount Scopus campus and her
“research” were then awarded a university honor for these impressive
The fundamental assumption underlying
Tal Nitzan's accusations is that we are no better or worse than they are. "They"
can be criminals, terrorists whoever. The left believes that if we think we are
better than "they" are we are racist. The fact that Muslim soldiers rape Jewish
women and Jewish soldiers don't rape Muslim women creates a disturbing cognitive
dissonance in the mind of the left wing kook. If everyone is equally nice and
equally bad how can the behavior of one religious group be so evil and the other
be so good? Tal Nitzan solved the problem by explaining the good behavior of the
Jews as the product of evil racism.
This kind of reasoning explains the
support of the left for the peace process. They think that if we are no better
than they (the Palestinian terrorists) then something we are doing wrong is
making them fight us and if we stop doing that wrong thing (withdraw from
settlements) they will stop attacking us. Anyone who points out that
withdrawals lead to increased violence is labeled as a racist. The
way the left deals with evil is going to be different than the way the right
does, because the left doesn't see the other side as any worse.
Jamie Glazov in a talk about a way the
leftists defend Islam spoke about how the desire not to see people as different
motivates leftists to defend Islam. It's a very good short talk and I've
embedded it below.
This kind of reasoning explains the
left's view of success and failure. Daniel Greenfield
To the left, success has become the Mark of Cain. Where
success once used to be proof of good character, the balance has shifted and
it is now proof of bad character. The left blames all disparities on
injustice. If A has less than B, then B has somehow discriminated against A.
All that’s left is for the sociologists and critical race theorists to plug
in the variables, write their papers and explain the mechanism for the
injustice and how it can be remedied through centralized redistribution.
This is the era of “You didn’t build that” where achievement is inherently
unfair and an object of guilt. To succeed is to steal. Anyone who has
achieved more than those around him has unfairly taken from them. And the
more he succeeds, the more he has to feel guilty about and the more he must
atone through social justice.
Ben Shapiro was asked why the left
supports Islam after a talk he gave the University of Missouri. He gave an
excellent answer which I've embedded below.
If one sees the enemy as not so bad
one is less likely to attack him. It may be that a motivation for not
seeing the enemy as so bad is to avoid getting into a military conflict with
him. The left is not a monolith, the Russian left and Chinese left are
very violent, but if we look at the left in the United States and Europe their
primary goal above all else appears to be to avoid military conflict with the
enemies of the United States. That becomes a motivation to not view the
Arab world and Russia as bad and to whitewash any evil actions that they
do and blame the victim for enemy actions. After
Russia invaded Georgia
Ralph Peters wrote (Russia's Georgia Win, New York Post 8/16/08) :
Georgia has been raped. In the West, journalists and
politicians rushed to blame the victim, suggesting that the hussy deserved
what she got for brassy talk and bare knees.
Knocked off balance politically, American leftists rushed to blame both
America and democratic Georgia. Their hypocrisy rivals Putin's...
When Russia's invasion began, commentators who knew nothing of the issues
and less of the region nonetheless felt the need to leap on a mike or rush
Heartbreakingly, they parroted Moscow's line about Georgia's alleged
misdeeds - under deadline pressure, they couldn't be bothered with research
or serious analysis.
The greatest allies Russia has had in this savage invasion have been Western
journalists eager to say something. While Russian-backed Ossetian death
squads executed Georgian civilians and looted Georgian cities, the press
continued to argue for moral equivalence between tiny Georgia and the
Why was our press so outraged over the mistreatment of
a dozen prisoners in Abu Ghraib but indifferent to the massive suffering of
the Georgian people - who weren't just photographed in embarrassing
positions, but murdered, raped, tortured and driven from homes that the
Russian army and its local henchmen destroyed?
The desire to avoid conflict by blaming the
victim increases the chance of conflict as shown by the cycle diagram below.
Enemy realizes that the
West won't fight back.
European and U.S. left blame the target
of the strike, in part to minimize the chance that they will have to
counterattack the enemy and get dragged into a conflict.
Neville Chamberlain made it clear that his
goal was to avoid conflict but his actions paved the way for Hitler to invade
Czechoslovakia and then to World War II. Mr. Chamberlain said:
We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war,
by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a
spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a
program would be rejected by the people of this country even if it does mean
the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.
The radical left sees their conservative
opposition as the real enemy and the cause of what it sees as legitimate
hostility in the world toward the U.S.. Steve Forbes wrote a letter on
behalf of the Heritage Foundation in which he quoted such thinking. He
Can you believe how outrageous the left has become?
This post on a leftist blog is typical of their attitude:
"I am far more afraid of being falsely imprisoned by
Homeland Security than I am of being attacked by terrorists."
Another leftist writer, Eric Alterman, had this to say:
"If Bush is not the Manchurian President, then perhaps
he is in the pay of Satan... has evil ever had a better time of things than
under this guy?"
And George Soros, billionaire funder of radical causes
said this: "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in
Germany... We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process."...
according to a Rasmussen poll taken last year, more
than a third of Democrats believe that President Bush knew about he 9/11
attacks in advance.
Liberalism likes victimization
narratives and the related assumption that individuals are blank slates on
which "society" writes. Hence liberals locate the cause of crime in flawed
social conditions that liberalism supposedly can fix.
We can see the difference in the approach of the left toward evil
in a clip from
the Hannity and Colmes show, in which incitement of children to hate by using
cartoons of lovable creatures is discussed.Lagnado posed the question of how to deal with the
incitement by Hamas.
LAGNADO: Because I guess I keep
thinking, how do we deal with it?
(right wing): How do you deal with it? I think you go to war with them. With
people like this, I think you've got to go to war.
(left wing) : If you go to war you're only creating more hate and continuing
the cycle of hate.
The left wing attitude was not they are the source of hate but rather than we
are creating the hate which is a cycle caused by both sides.
Can Hamas hate Israel or the United States any more than it already
does?Does war only create more
hate?Is it possible that if those
doing the inciting or hatred are thrown in prison that the result might be less
hate?The result of the war of the
United States against Germany and Japan in World War II was to turn two enemies
into two allies.
Further listening to the discussion reveals that
left wing Colmes attitude is to minimize how evil it is by saying it’s a known
procedure that others use and that the approach should be to talk to Hamas
about it in order to stop them.Right wing Hannity’s approach is to say that anyone who does this is
really evil and talking won’t do any good and we should fight them.I think that underlying these attitudes
is the left wing attitude to avoid fighting at almost any cost as opposed to
the right wing desire to fight evil.The desire to avoid fighting leads the desire to believe that the evil
isn’t as evil as it seems and that talking will solve the problem.This difference in outlook between
right and left has been perceived by others.Jennifer Lazlo Mizrahi of the
Israel Project in a speech mentioned how the left looks at the Middle East
as something that can be solved by Dr. Phil i.e. talking whereas the right wing
It is important to note that attempting to avoid fighting at any price may
actually increase the probability that there will be a fight whereas being
willing to fight evil may decrease the chance of a fight or minimize the
fighting. If England and France and the United States had gone to war with
Nazi Germany early enough, millions might have been saved and a great deal of
fighting might have been avoided.
America’s military might has been offset by a weakness
of spirit that has become a hallmark of the modern Western world. It is a
frailty that derives entirely from the leftist worldview that has infected
America over the past half-century. This view identifies Western (especially
American) culture as a uniquely evil, exploitative player in the story of
mankind, and depicts all acts of barbarism against the U.S. as wholly
understandable reactions to American transgressions. It is a mindset that
has gradually, incrementally, and inexorably made its “long march through
the institutions,” -- the schools, the seminaries and churches, the media,
the entertainment industry, the courts, and the political sphere
weakness may well lead to the destruction of the United States since leftist
opposition to sealing the border with Mexico may have allowed Al Qaeda to
smuggle in nuclear weapons. John Perazzo wrote:
In other words, while the Left, ever since 9/11, has
argued passionately against sealing the southern U.S. border on grounds that
such an initiative would constitute “racism,” “xenophobia,” a violation of
“human rights,” a repudiation of “American values,” and a “threat to the
environment,” bin Laden has quietly and happily exploited our national
insanity and set the stage, from his cave somewhere in the remote mountains
of Pakistan, for the cataclysmic end of the most powerful nation in world
basic difference between the right and the left in the explanation they give to
criminal and hostile behavior. The right wing is likely to see the
criminal as responsible for his actions and those who are hostile to them as being
evil, the left wing is likely to see the criminal and those who are hostile as
being victims of their society who if only given more money, food and in some
cases land, will become good. This left wing mentality goes a long way to
explain Jimmy Carter's words of support for anti-American dictators, or
Clinton's attempt to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons with
financial aid. The right wing outlook would be that financial aid props
up the evil regime of North Korea and should be stopped in fact all financial
transactions with the regime should be stopped which is exactly what the Bush
administration was trying to do with North Korea (2006). The left wing is
likely to see sanctions as antagonizing North Korea and being the reason North
Korea developed nuclear weapons in the first place. The right wing is
likely to believe that North Korea would have developed nuclear weapons even
without hostile statements by the United States. Similarly in the war
with radical Islam the left sees U.S. military actions against radical Islam as
antagonizing the Muslims whereas the right wing sees the radical Islam as
hostile whether the U.S. fights them or not.
When a Republican and a
Democrat see a beggar on the street they both have different views as to who he
is and how he got there. The Democrat is likely to view the beggar as an
innocent victim of social injustice and the Republican is more likely to view
him as someone who is to lazy to work and who is living off the hard work of
others. The liberal is more likely to see the beggar as equal morally to
the man with money and equally deserving of money. The Democrat is
likely to think giving money to the beggar will help him get fed whereas the
Republican is more likely to believe that the money he gets will be spent on
liquor and prostitutes. The Democrat is more likely to think giving the
beggar money will make the world a better place whereas the Republican is more
likely to think giving him money will just encourage him to avoid working for a
living and will make the world a worse place and will funnel money away from
worthwhile investments that could benefit everyone. In other words what the
Democrat believes to be compassionate policy the Republican may see as
ultimately hurting people. Discover the networks has a large section
addressing the disastrous
consequences of liberal compassion. One recent example is the
decision of a liberal judge, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin that New York's Stop
and Frisk law is unconstitutional because more blacks and hispanics get stopped
than whites. Mayor Bloomberg pointed out that policy was one of a number
of programs that helped the city’s murder rate drop — it’s 50% below the rate
when he took office nearly 12 years ago, he said. The mayor said:
“we want to match the stops to where the
reports of crime are. One of the problems we have in our society today is
that victims and perpetrators of crime are (disproportionately) young minority
men — that’s just a fact. That has nothing to do with, however, where we
stop people. We go to where the reports of crime are. Those unfortunately happen
to be poor neighborhoods and minority neighborhoods.
Bloomberg filed an appeal. Asked
if he hopes an appeal will delay the order until he leaves office next year,
“Boy, I hope so, because I wouldn’t want to be
responsible for a lot of people dying.”
This is an example of misplaced liberal compassion. A
lot of people will die because of this "compassion" of Judge Scheindlin.
Scheindlin appointed a monitor to make sure her will was implemented.
Bloomberg vetoed her decision and the overwhelming Democrat New York City
overrode his veto.
I think underlying all of this is the equality obsession of
Democrats. Blacks should be treated equal to whites even if they commit
more crimes. Those who work hard to get ahead should be no wealthier than
those who don't. Inherent in this "equality" believe is inequality.
A mad result of this type of liberal
thinking is the idea of bedtime reading
privilege and the thought that parents should be aware of the injustice of
stories to their
children at bedtime because it confers an unfair advantage to them over children
who aren't read bed time stories. The assumption here is that if you can't
help everyone equally you shouldn't help anyone. This type of rational may
underlie the Common Core curriculum as well.
The outcome of liberal compassion is
devastating to the targets of that compassion. Ironically those
targets keep voting for the welfare that destroys their cities. The more
the economy collapses as a result of liberal policies the more people become
dependent on handouts and the more people vote for those who will give them
handouts. Thomas Sowell wrote an outstanding article that showed how black
increased with welfare for blacks.
A stark example of lack of compassion is the mostly liberal
attitude toward the Middle East which goes "The Israelis have a state so the
Palestinians should have one too." Never mind that Palestinian Arabs are
persecuted by their leadership, and that a state with such leadership would
be a nightmare to live in. Nevermind that such a state will be militarized
and may result in the annihilation of Israel.
A large segment of the left seems to be
composed of people who want unrestricted freedom to satisfy their desires
whether convenient or not. They don't want any interference in their sex
lives which undesired pregnancy is so they favor abortion. Melanie
Phillips started out as a leftist working for the very left wing Guardian
newspaper. Her coworkers became more and more hostile to her when
she disagreed with them. Gradually she saw that what the left hated about
that “they understood that the banner behind which I was actually marching
was the Biblical moral law which put chains on people’s appetites.”
That may be why the left pushes tolerance so
much. They want tolerance of themselves no matter what they do. They
don't want to be held responsible for what they do. Detroit is a city that
went bankrupt. One reason was Union demands and politicians who gave in to
those demands to get votes and voters who voted for politicians who gave them
more goodies. George Will
Steven Rattner, who administered the bailout of part
of the Detroit-based portion of America’s automobile
industry, says “apart from voting in elections, the 700,000
remaining residents of the Motor City are no more
responsible for Detroit’s problems than were the victims of
Hurricane Sandy for theirs.” Congress, he says, should bail
out Detroit because “America is just as much about aiding
those less fortunate as it is about personal
There you have today’s liberalism: Human agency, hence
responsibility, is denied. Apart from the pesky matter of
“voting in elections” — apart from decades of voting to
empower incompetents, scoundrels and criminals, and to
mandate unionized rapacity — no one is responsible for
“People like Carter, liberal Christians, they really
identify virtue with weakness, and they think they have an obligation to do
justice by being on the side of the weak. They never entertain the notion
that the weak can be, say, Fascists.”
The Boston Bombers were Chechen refugees. The United
States let them in not
considering that these refugees were potential terrorists.
Dennis Prager, in an
article published in frontpagemag
in 2006 wrote:
way to describe the moral divide between conservatives and leftists is whom
they blame for acts of evil committed against innocent people, especially when
committed by non-whites and non-Westerners. Conservatives blame the
perpetrators, and leftists blame either the victims' group or the
Americans are used to this. For decades, leftists have blamed violent crime in
America on racism and poverty, i.e., on American society far more than on the
murderers, rapists, arsonists, and muggers themselves. Conservatives blame the
examples of leftists refusing to blame criminals and terrorists for their
behavior are legion, let's try to figure out why this moral inversion is so
are three hypotheses:
is that leftists tend to blame outside forces for evil. This emanates from the
secular humanistic view of people as basically good -- and therefore human evil
must come not from the bad choices and bad values of the evildoer, but from the
unfortunate socioeconomic and other circumstances of the person's life.
second explanation is that as you go further left on the political spectrum, it
becomes increasingly difficult to blame the "weak" for any atrocities
they commit. The Left does not divide the world between good and evil nearly as
much as it does between rich and poor, and between strong and weak. Israel is
stronger and richer, so Palestinian terror is excused. White America is
stronger and richer than black America, so black violence is excused. The West
is stronger and richer than the Muslim world, so Muslim violence is explained
third, liberals tend to be afraid of the truly evil. That's why the leftist
newspapers of America refused to publish the Danish cartoons, probably the most
newsworthy cartoons ever drawn, but have never had any hesitance about showing
cartoons and photos that mock Jewish and Christian symbols. Christians and Jews
don't kill editors.
don't know who will be the next target of Islamic or other murderers from poor
or non-Western or non-white groups. All we can know is that liberal and leftist
thought will find reasons to hold the targeted group largely responsible.
could explain the leftist attitude toward guns. When a terrible crime is
committed with a gun liberals want to pass laws restricting the availability of
guns whereas conservatives want to lock up dangerously people or provide more
guns so that people can defend themselves. From the liberal point of view
the problem isn't people it's the gun.
Dennis Prager wrote
another article titled “If It’s Bad For America It’s Good for Democrats”
(frontpagemag.com 8/14/07) in which he showed that the better off people are
and the more they identify themselves as Americans the more likely they are to
vote Republican. This make sense when one considers that the reasoning of
the Democrats leads them to support groups who are not well off and who are
hostile to the United States.
In 2015 Dennis Prager wrote a series
of articles about the differences between the right and the left. One of
those articles argued that the left chooses to believe what feels good vs. what
is good. I like a comment that was made about that
article which I include below:
I think Mr. Prager is on to something here but this raises the question why does
believing the wrong thing feel good and believing the right thing not feel good?
We live in a scary world in which most policies have tradeoffs that are both bad
but one is worse than the other. It is painful to face that truth and pleasant
to deceive oneself that it isn't true. Believing that we have to go to war with
Iran and overthrow it's leadership or else face a nuclear Holocaust is very
painful although it's true. It's much more pleasant to believe that all we have
to do is make some concessions and pressure Israel into making some concessions
and then all will be well. If we do that we can smear our opponents as war
mongers and come across like Chamberlain did as the great peace maker.
It's very unpleasant to believe that Islam itself is a religion that makes
decent people into monsters. After all over a billion people are Muslims, that's
more than 20% of the world's population and a lot of them live where we live. It
feels a lot better to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and terrorism
has nothing to do with Islam and if we just give in to Muslim demands all will
be well. We can always dismiss those who raise the alarm as Islamophobes and
It's very pleasant to believe that all that needs to be done to bring wealth to
America and end poverty is to redistribute the wealth from the super rich and
give it to the poor. Unpleasant realities occasionally raise their ugly head
when you do that like the fact that there is a point when you tax more that you
actually decrease your revenues because the rich can't make money anymore
because you took all their resources away. Also in order to provide more for the
"poor" people you wind up taking from the middle class because there isn't
enough money available from the rich. (see for example
You can dismiss those ugly realities and call your opponents the greedy party of
the rich who doesn't care about the poor and needy.
There is a basic immorality in choosing to believe what feels good over what is
good. It entails smearing those who tell the painful truth as bad greedy people
and deliberately ignoring unpleasant truths. It is the evil of choosing wishful
thinking over honest thinking and if you're a politician, of promoting delusions
in order to get elected. That is one of the basic immoralities of the Utopian
left. I just read an example today (10/6/2015) about how the left not only
deliberately ignores unpleasant truths but silences people so that they won't
damage the cause.
A young, female ‘No Borders’ activist working in a migrant camp on the
France-Italy border remained silent about her gang rape by Sudanese migrants
for over a month because “the others asked me to keep quiet.”
Colleagues are alleged to have said that reporting the crime would set back
their struggle for a borderless world.
The ‘No Borders’ activist had dedicated a month of her life to helping
migrants. Her group was stationed between Italy and France in Ponte San
Ludovico in Ventimiglia when the atrocity occurred, according to reports
from local papers La Stampa and Il Secolo XIX, and now reported in the major
Italian national Corriere Della Serra.
One Saturday night, as loud music played at a nearby party, the woman was
reportedly trapped in a shower block set up near the camp in a pine forest
know as Red Leap.
A gang of African migrants allegedly raped her there, and her cries for help
are said to have gone unheard because of the music.
Ed Koch in an article
called "Democratic Defection" (Forward 1/12/04) explained that he was
a lifelong Democrat and he wrote that the Democratic philosophy is:
you need a helping hand, we will provide it.
and that the Republican Party's philosophy,
can be summed up as:
I made it on my own, you will have to do the same.
It is interesting that this
is the same Ed Koch who said something to the effect of,
"The more money
you put into outstretched hands the more outstretched hands there will
That is why the welfare system ballooned into a crime ridden
dead weight pulling the economy down. A great example of how the welfare
system expands to swallow money happened a few years after Ed Koch passed away.
The New York Post
reported that people on food stamps were sending food to their relatives in
the Dominican Republic who sold it on the black market. Also when Koch said the Democratic
philosophy is "If you need a helping hand, we will provide it, he did not
say how we will provide it. Perhaps the democratic philosophy could be
someone needs a helping hand we will put our hand in your pocket and provide
The liberal ideology is
that all people are equally deserving and that therefore there should be
equality in wealth and that they should enforce that equality of wealth.Dennis Prager wrote an article titled The Left
Hates Inequality, Not Evil, about this.
Some of the left not only believe we are equally deserving but we are all equal in other aspects. According to this point of view a criminal is no less moral than a person who does not commit a crime, he is just a victim of society which made him act the way he does. If he is mentally ill, he has just as much of a right to be on the street as normal people even if that causes harm to himself and others.
David Horowitz, a former leftist
wrote about the unwillingness of the radical left to see differences as
Radical feminists are social engineers in the same way that
Communists are social engineers. They deny that there is a human nature, and
they deny that there is a female nature, that human biology in any way
fundamentally influences who or what we are. The solution to all social
problems, conflicts and disappointments in life is to manipulate laws and
institutions so as to create liberated human beings – beings who will not hate,
have prejudices, exhibit bad sexual manners, get into conflicts, or go to war.
By changing institutions, especially powerful institutions like the military,
and using their administrative power to brainwash people into adopting attitudes
that are politically correct, these radicals believe that the problems that have
plagued mankind since the dawn of creation will be miraculously cured.
A large component of people who support the left
are people who are on the public dole since the left is more likely to dole out
more money. They develop a sense of entitlement as demonstrated by the
woman I quoted at the beginning of the article who said
"It's my job to have kids, Mr. Mayor, and your job to
take care of them."
You can view a video of a detroit
councilwoman telling Obama "we paid for you now give us some of the govt bacon"
here. That's like asking Obama to pour money down a sewer not that he
won't do it, in fact he's wasted a lot of money before he was reelected.
Both the right and left spend money that
the country doesn't have but the left is more guilty than the right of that.
Ronald Reagan, a Republican, increased the deficit in a dramatic way in order to
strengthen American's military and boost he economy. The debt has been
increasing ever since. Obama, a Democrat, increased the debt more than all
his predecessors combined. The Tea Party at least originally has people
from the right and the left who were against bailouts and spending of money that
the country doesn't have but the majority of the Tea Party is Republican.
People generally elect Democrats to provide them with services whether or not
their state can afford it and when the state is on the verge of bankruptcy they
elect a Republican to fix the finances. The Republican makes the necessary
cuts and the Democrats howl about the cruel soulless Republican who doesn't care
about poor people. I have a friend who lost her job when the city of
Philadelphia couldn't afford to pay her anymore. Instead of being enraged
at the Democrats who had run Philadelphia into the ground she was determined to
vote Democrat. She argued that the former governor Rendell had spent a lot
of money on education whereas the current governor Corbett wasn't spending as
much on Philadelphia. It never occurred to her that it wasn't the
responsibility of people out in Altoona or other cities in Pennsylvania to
support the Philadelphia school system. It also didn't occur to her that
since 1952 all the mayors of Philadelphia were Democrats and that, that was the
problem not a Republican governor. In fact the debt of Pennsylvanians
tripled under Governor Rendell. That's probably how he paid for votes of
people like my friend. That's probably how he supported the Philadelphia
He wrote: "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against
the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government
meet their needs from cradle to grave." "A social scientist who
understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice,
voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A
political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual
differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to
impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a
legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules
which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their
character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of
inferiority in the population by:
1) creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
2) satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
3) augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
4) rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of
He said that:
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated
madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop
from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the
irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind
whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks
above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives,
the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Liberals are less likely to be patriotic because
they see their government and their country as their victimizer. Principal
Greta Hawkins of P.S. 90 in Coney Island New York refused to allow children to
sing the song "God Bless the USA" as part of their graduation ceremony.
U.S. Rep. Bob Turner, R-N.Y
gathered students outside the school and together they sang "God Bless the
USA". The hostile liberal reaction to the children's expression of
patriotism is shown in the video below.
The United States has shifted leftward and one result
is visible in the picture below:
Liberals like to see themselves as
compassionate to the unfortunate. George Will wrote an article
about the consequences of the sweet compassion called Bye, Sweet Jobs (New York
Post 2/12/2004). In this case the Republican Bush Administration as well
as the Democrats, in order to protect American jobs supported an import quota
on sugar. One consequence of the sugar quota is the cost of sugar in the
United States is higher than elsewhere leading candy makers to move their
factories outside of the United States with the resulting loss of jobs. George
Will wrote that:
Valentine's Day, sweets will be showered on sweethearts - a bonanza for candy
makers. But the very next day all 242 Fannie May and Fanny Farmer
chocolate candy stores will be closed.
This is one example of
sweet compassion leading to a bitter aftertaste.
Another example of
compassion that hurts is the subsidies the U.S. gives to American
farmers. Those subsidies makes farmers from poorer countries less able to
compete so that their countries remain poor. In addition they take money
away from taxpayers.
If a country is hostile to the
United States, left wingers are likely to take the view that the U.S. is
responsible for their hostility because they oppressed them in some way and
that the leaders of the hostile country are just as good if not better than the
U.S. government. Right wingers are more likely to see the hostile country
as bad people who hate the U.S. because they're evil.
Senator Kerry's plan to deal
with the impending threat of mass production of nuclear weapons by Iran was to
offer to give them nuclear fuel in return for a pledge that it would not be
used for weapons production and in return for inspections. If that failed
he would go to the security council. Bush's approach was not to view the
United Nations as a good group that the U.S. can rely on and to develop nuclear
bunker buster bombs that could destroy hardened targets. Senator Kerry
said that he would end the nuclear bunker buster bombs. His idea was that
the U.S. should not be developing nuclear weapons while asking other countries
not to. The right wing outlook is probably that Iran will develop those
weapons anyway and if the U.S. is to have any chance at preventing terrorists
from setting off Iranian nuclear weapons in American cities they better
preemptively destroy them and not wait for a hostile U.N. to agree to such a
preemptive strike an agreement that is unlikely to ever happen.
Bill Clinton addressed his
view of the differences between the left and right in a speech he gave at the
Democratic National Convention in Boston (7/27/04) in which he said:
and Republicans have very different and deeply felt ideas about what choices we
should make. They're rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should
meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the
Mr. Clinton gave the following examples:
-- now, at a time when we're trying to get other people to give up nuclear and
biological and chemical weapons, they are trying to develop two new nuclear
weapons, which they say we might use first...
the first time when America was on a war footing in our whole history, they
gave two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top 1 percent of us...
look at the choices they made, choices they believed in. They chose to protect
my tax cut at all costs, while withholding promised funding for the Leave No
Child Behind Act, leaving 2.1 million children behind. (Cheers, applause.) They
chose to protect my tax cut while cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of
their job- training programs, 100,000 working families out of their child-care
assistance, and worst of all, while cutting 300,000 poor children out of their
after-school programs when we know it keeps them off the streets, out of
trouble, in school learning, going to college and having a good life!
They chose, they chose to protect my tax cut while dramatically raising the
out-of-pocket costs of health care to our veterans, and while weakening or
reversing very important environmental measures that Al Gore and I put into
place, everything from clean air to the protection of our forests.
homeland security -- on homeland security, Democrats tried to double the number
of containers at ports and airports checked for weapons of mass destruction. It
cost a billion dollars. It would have been paid for under our bill by asking
the 200,000 millionaires in America to cut their tax cut by $5,000. Almost all
200,000 of us would like to have done that, to spend $5,000 to make all 300
million Americans feel safer. The measure failed. Why? Because the White House
and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives opposed it. They
thought our $5,000 was more important than doubling the container checks at our
ports and airports.
Clinton in his speech did not
mention the vast support
of the Bush Administration for the Leave No Child Behind Act and the Bush
Administration's proposal for large scale funding of job training programs.
Clinton did not mention in his speech the reason Bush proposed cutting after
school programs. That reason was the results of a federally commissioned
evaluation of the after schools programs which found that test scores of
federal program participants were no better than those of students not involved
in the programs and that student behavior appeared to worsen among program
participants. Clinton didn't mention the environmental measures
that the Bush administration has taken. Clinton didn't mention that
the Container Security Initiative that he argues the Bush administration
does not fund sufficiently was launched by the Bush administration. So
what can we learn from President Clinton's arguments? His argument
basically is if we Democrats won the election we would tax the rich more and
give that money to important programs.
There is a price however
to taxing that Clinton does not mention. If you tax the rich, the rich
may leave to other shores where they are taxed less. Those that don't
leave may lose incentive to work hard and build up a money making business
because of the increased taxes that would result. Rich people buy goods
from others less fortunate than them and if they are taxed more they buy less
goods and the less fortunate have fewer customers. One example I read
about was boat builders many of whose businesses drowned when the taxes on
wealthy clients were increased. Wealthy companies usually make a lot of money
because they are efficient and produce a good product, taxing them will reduce
their money available for investments in research and development and other
money making projects that benefit consumers as well as the company
employees. If the companies make less money than even if they are taxed a
higher percentage the end result may be less and not more taxes available for
needed social programs. Another price is that when the government taxes
it is taking power away from the wage earners and giving it to itself.
Equalizing and totalitarianism go together which is one reason communist regimes
have historically been totalitarian.
Don Feder wrote an
excellent article about liberal policies that were not mentioned at the
Democratic convention called (What the
Democrats Won't Tell You, frontpagemag.com 8/5/04)
Andrea Peyser wrote a
column in the New York Post 6/7/04 about her conversion from a liberal to a
conservative and in the process revealed a lot about liberal
thought. She wrote:
hardly seems conceivable today. But back in 1980, I was an eager,
uncompromised leftist - or so I thought...In many political lives, there comes
an epiphany in which your nonsense rises to the surface and laughs in your
face. War. Injustice. For me, it came down during a Women's Studies
class at SUNY Albany where, each week, I dutifully indoctrinated myself into
the methods by the patriarchal, capitalist society to disenfranchise women and
people of color. One day, the professor decided to give virtually every
student a failing grade.
I'd worked hard on a paper detailing how our consumerist culture negated the
gifts of females and nonwhites, taking care to omit the pronoun "he"
from each sentence. But the the professor was disappointed because,
during a group project - something about the rape mentality behind rock music -
two students became too busy or lazy to participate in this important work.
no-show students were granted "A"s. Then the professor laid a
tear inducing guilt trip on the rest of the class, declaring that those who
actually did the work had clearly failed to bring our recalcitrant sisters into
Underlying this professors
thinking is the liberal assumption that all people are morally equal (except
Republicans) and that if someone does wrong he is no worse than we are and we
are equally responsible for his actions. If we apply this thinking about
criminal behavior than the liberal view would be that society made the criminal
who he is and so is guilty for his crimes. A conservative would view the
criminal as responsible for his crimes. A Republican would want the
criminal punished and kept off the street. A liberal is more likely to
want to release him since it wasn't his fault that he committed the
An example of how Democrats are
selectively compassionate is an attack by Obama on Republicans
in which he said that the "Republican base has been fed the
notion that Islam is inherently violent". In that one
statement he implied that Islam is not violent and that the
Republicans are a collection of bigots who lie about Islam.
He showed compassion to Islam many of whose members do not show
compassion to anyone else and attacked Republicans who see the
Why this selective
compassion? One reason is likely to be power. Muslim
money and Muslim votes are valuable for Obama. Obama is
near the end of his second term but he has ambitions for the UN
and wants a democratic president to be elected after he is gone.
A female friend of mine told me on June 29,
2012 that a gang of youth were knocking over and breaking mail boxes on her
street. When a female youth knocked over her mailbox she told her not to
and the youth told her "there's nothing you can do to me I'm a minor" and she
hit my friend. My friend hit back and they had a fight. Later my
friend called the police who told her not to confront gangs like that and said
that the laws were in favor of minors. Why were such laws passed?
The arguments for such laws are the need to be compassionate to minors and that
minors are should not be held responsible for their actions the way adults
are. This so called compassion encourages criminal behavior that is not
compassionate to the adult victims or even to the perpetrators for whom a
punishment might help improve their character. Compassion that prevents
punishment of minors leads to their chaotic and disrespectful in school which
prevents other minors from learning and encourages them to behave badly.
Lack of discipline makes it possible for bad minors to attack other minors in
schools. Liberal compassion to badly behaved youth results in child abuse
by children of other children.
I have a good friend who shocked me
when he told me that in his youth he was a bully who "played with people's
minds". My friend said that the best thing that ever happened to him was
when he was beaten to a pulp. He is now a good character.
There is no question that injustices
in society can contribute to criminal behavior just as there is no question
that individuals have responsibility for their behavior. So in a way both
the conservatives and the liberals are right. The question is in a
particular case how much is the responsibility of the criminal and how much
isn't. Clearly Andrea Peyser's professor had extreme views in this
regard. The professor rewarded the students who did no work with the
likely consequence that they didn't do their next assignment. In fact I
wonder if any of the students did their next assignment.
Recently there was an
election in my home town. I looked up the records of the various
candidates and found that both the left wing (liberal) and right wing
(conservative) candidates were campaigning to lower taxes. They had
different approaches however. The liberal's plan was to ask the state
government to provide more funds. The conservative's plan was to audit
spending in the town and find programs that could be cut. It seemed to me
unlikely that asking the State Government for money would result in the state
government being overwhelmed with charitable impulses. Also in the
unlikely event that the state government was overwhelmed with such impulses in
order to support a mayor from their party, it occurred to me that money that
they would fork over would have to come from somewhere and that somewhere was
the taxpayer. The conservative's plan seemed more realistic and since my
town was paying the second highest taxes in the county I decided to support
him. I had a liberal friend and I told him my reasons and his reply I
think was revealing about what liberalism is about. He told me that he
never concerned himself with taxes. He said that if the conservative made
cuts it would be in needed social programs. He felt that conservatives
cut money from those who really need it and that conservatives supported the
powerful at the expense of the weak.
His arguments showed one
clear difference between the left and the right. That difference is that
the left focuses more on obtaining support from the poorer segments of society
than the right. The left does this by supporting legislation that
transfers money from the middle and upper classes to the poor. The term
"Tax and Spend Democrat" comes from this tendency.
One can get an idea of the
differences between right and left from the campaign accusations that
candidates level against one another. The general accusation by the
Republicans against the Democratic candidates are that that the Democrats raise
taxes. The general accusations of the Democrats against the Republicans
are that the Republicans cut funding for needed social programs for the
elderly, the poor and the sick.
Liberalism has at it's heart,
compelling the haves to fund the have nots. Liberalism is an equalizer
that forces the haves to make sacrifices to help the have nots.
On the surface this is
wonderful. Certainly those who really need help should get it. The
rich who don't really need the money should help those in need. What
could be wrong with that? I think the answer is that certainly assistance
to the poor is necessary but one carry that too far with destructive
consequences to both the haves and the have nots.
The answer to what could
be wrong with liberal ideals comes from examining what has gone wrong with
programs that fund the poor such as welfare. In the United States
increased funding of welfare did not solve the poverty or crime problem.
The welfare roles increased as did crime. People lost the incentive to
work. Often they were better off financially when they were on welfare.
Mothers on welfare had more and more babies since each baby bought in
government money. Often that government money was spent on crack and the
babies grew up in a violent criminal environment and turned to crime. As
welfare and overcrowded prison costs drain society, corporations have less
money to invest and eventually there is less corporate money to tax. So
in the end liberal policies may lead to less funding for the poor.
Democrats overlook that taxes
hurt the elderly and sick since they also pay taxes. In my home town
taxes have gone up so much that elderly townfolk complained to the liberal
mayor that they couldn't afford living there any more. The mayor said to
them "So leave." The liberal mayor's compassion to the elderly
vanished when it came to reducing their taxes.
The left wants to build safety
nets to protect those who have trouble finding jobs etc. The right focuses on
providing incentives to people to work by not providing safety nets since
safety nets encourage dependence and reduce the incentive to work. The right
wing approach has the problem that if there is no safety net those who don't
find work could find themselves in a very difficult situation. The left
wing approach has the problem that the safety nets encourage growth of the
number of people relying on them. As this population grows so does the number
of voters who support the laws transferring money into these nets. This can
lead to self reinforcing cycle of increasing spending.
Eventually the safety nets may not be able to protect the increasing burden so
that more people are at risk than if there had been less of a safety net to
The left and right differ
on how to deal with discrimination. It is likely that this discrimination
led to crime which in turned led to more discrimination thus creating a crime discrimination cycle. Should the government
intervene in these situations to force employers to hire a certain percentage
of minority groups? What if these minority groups don't have the
skills. What if these minority members already had criminal
records? The left wingers are likely to say force employers to hire
The left are much more
likely to promote forced social engineering such as school bussing. The
idea of school bussing is to bus children from poor areas into more well to do
areas so they get an equal education. The result often is that the
people in the better areas get poorer education's as a result of the violence
and strife introduced by the children who are bussed in. The Democrats
probably oppose school vouchers because they want an equal opportunity for all
children and are concerned that vouchers will allow more talented children or
children with richer parents to go to better schools than poorer or less
talented children. The Republicans favor school vouchers because that
would create competition among schools for students and is likely to lead to
better standards for schools. My own experience has been that I have
worked harder and come closer to reaching my potential when I've been in a more
competitive environment. There are two consequences of keeping students
of different levels of ability and motivation in the same class. One is
that the students with the higher levels of ability don't work to live up to their
potential and get a poorer education. The second is that the students
with the lower levels of ability don't have their needs met as the teachers
strive to challenge the motivated students.
The left is more likely
than the right to sacrifice the wellbeing of the middle and upper classes in
order to promote the wellbeing of the lower classes although often the social
engineering involved doesn't help the lower classes either. Increased
welfare spending may result in increased drug use and crime and worse
conditions for the poor.
There is a fundamental
difference between the way the left and the right view crime. The right
winger is likely to divide the world into the good guys and the bad guys and
the left winger is more likely to see the world in terms of moral equivalence and to believe in moral relativism. The right is likely to see a
criminal act as the responsibility of the criminal and to believe that the
appropriate response is to lock up the criminal. The left is likely to
see the behavior of the criminal as the fault of society. The left is
likely to believe that society is responsible for the conditions that created
the criminal. The response of the left to criminal behavior is likely to
be efforts to improve the environment in which the criminal lives. For
example the left might want to increase welfare payments so that the poor would
be less likely to turn to crime. The left is likely to improve the
conditions in prisons and even to release dangerous criminals from prisons to
This attitude toward the
left toward individual criminals also extends to countries that engage in
criminal behavior. For example after news broke that the Palestinian authority
had spent money donated by the Europeans on luxury apartments (November 1998)
the left wing president of the United States (Bill Clinton) offered 100 million
dollars of further assistance to the PLO. Mr. Clinton probably believes
that poverty is what has caused Arab animosity toward Israel and even the
criminal tendency to embezzle funds. He probably believes that giving
more money to the Arabs will improve their conditions to the point where they
will no longer wish to destroy Israel.
Another example of this is a
Democratic scheme to become popular in the Muslim world by throwing money at it
(USA Today 4/27/04). Since Muslim morality is at least equal to ours
according to the liberal mindset that other cultures our equal to our own, they
must be doing bad things only because we have done bad things to them.
The liberal conclusion is that we must not be giving them enough money.
If poverty is the source of Muslim hatred toward the U.S. than why does the
London Arabic-Language Daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat report that Iran is providing
Iraqi insurgents 70 millions dollars worth of military aid every month to fight
the United States? Any country that can provide that kind of aid is certainly
not poor. If the Democratic assumption that money will buy Islamic love is
correct, than why, inspite of receiving over 100 million dollars in annual U.S.
aid, did Palestinian Arabs celebrate on Sept 11, 2001? Why inspite of the 1.3
billion of annual aid to Egypt by the United States, does the government
controlled Egyptian newspapers write that "Rumsfeld is a new Hitler"
and write that "Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld are the Axis of Evil" and
claim that American planes over Afghanistan dropped "genetically treated
food" into areas full of land mines in order both to lure the population
to their deaths?
the belief in equality requires leftists to be
indifferent or hostile to Western culture, regardless of its virtues, and to
excuse and celebrate non-Western cultures, regardless of their vices, because
Western culture is currently the successful and "dominant" culture.
Indeed, under the inverted moral order of leftism, the more backward or even
savage a non-Western culture happens to be, the more we must puff it up, cover
its sins, and blame its catastrophes on ourselves. Thus the glowing,
celebratory documentaries on the history of Islam, such as "Empire
of Faith" and "Muhammad:
Legacy of a Prophet" (described by National Review Online as a
"whitewashed commercial for Islam"), that have become a staple on
Public Television over the last three years, during the very period when the totalitarian
and murderous nature of a significant section of the Islamic community has
become horribly apparent. Thus 9/11 Commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton's
statement that Moslems blame us (justly, he implies) for their poverty and
backwardness, and that to win their trust (!) in the war on terror we must
create a giant welfare state for the whole Islamic world—providing new kinds of
schools for them, ending their poverty, giving them democracy, and so on. It
follows from Hamilton's thoroughly "liberal" premise that if the
Moslems continue to distrust and hate us despite our massive assistance, that
would only show that we have not yet done "enough" for them and must
The left does not only
whitewash Islam, it allies itself with Islam. The following is an excerpt
from an Iraq
News Network interview with George Galloway, a member of the British
Parliament which demonstrates that.
Mohammad Basirul Haq Sinha: "You often call for uniting Muslim and
progressive forces globally. How far is it possible under current
Galloway: "Not only do I think
it's possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening
already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and
the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation,
American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim
countries. They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist
globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us
basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of
everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture. And whose only role
in life is to consume the things produced endlessly by the multinational
corporations. And the progressive organizations & movements agree on that
with the Muslims."
George Galloway explained in 2005, "the progressive movement
around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies," which he then
went on to indicate were Israel, the United States, and Great Britain.
And if you listen to the words that are spoken about, say the United
States, you can see that this is in fact the case. Howard Pinter has described
America as "a country run by a bunch of criminal lunatics." [big
applause and shouts] And Osama Bin Laden [stops … ] I'll do what I can to get
an applause line. [laughter] And, get ready for this one: Osama Bin Laden
called the United States, "unjust, criminal, and tyrannical."
Noam Chomsky termed America "a leading terrorist state". And
Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a leading Pakistani political leader, called it the
"biggest terrorist state." [scattered applause]
Such common ground makes it tempting for those on the Left to make
common cause with Islamists, and the symbol of this would be the [huge,
anti-war in Iraq] demonstrations in Hyde Park, on the 16th of
February 2003, called by a coalition of leftist and Islamist organizations.
At other times, the Left feels a kinship with Islamist attacks on the
West, forgiving, understanding why these would happen. A couple of notorious
quotes make this point. The German composer, Karlheinz Stockhausen termed the
9/11 attacks "the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos," while
American novelist Norman Mailer, commented that "the people who did this
Such attitudes tempt the Left not to take seriously
the Islamist threat to the West. With John Kerry, a former aspirant to the
[U.S.] presidency, they dismiss terrorism as a mere "nuisance."
to put it mildly, that the left – with its obsessions with issues like gay
rights, equality for women and sexual license – should have forged an alliance
with radical Islamists who preach death to gays, the subjugation of women and
the stoning of adulterers. It is an eye-opener to see, on the streets of
London, so-called ‘progressives’ marching shoulder to shoulder with radical
Islamists under the metaphorical banner of human rights and the literal banners
of Hamas. Both the left and the radical Islamists have put aside their
differences because they recognize the value of using each other in pursuit of
their common objective, the destruction of western society.
One manifestation of this
alliance was when Al Gore
sold his Current TV Network to Al Jazeera. Current TV’s co-founder and
CEO, Joel Hyatt, explained that Al Jazeera was a perfect fit for the sale. Al
Jazeera, he said, “was founded with the same goals we had for Current.” Among
those goals were “to give voice to those whose voices are not typically heard”
and “to speak truth to power.” Those voices often include Muslim
Like the Muslims the extreme
left believes that hating the West is a virtue.
"We have to understand the depth of the disgrace of the enemy, until our holy
hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave." Likewise Che Guevara
said: “We must keep our hatred [against the U.S.] alive and fan it to
paroxysm! “ They are both willing to use nuclear weapons to advance their
goals. Che Guevara said: "If the nuclear missiles had remained [in
Cuba] we would have fired them against the heart of the U.S. including New York
City. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!”
In 2004, a leading critic of
the Bush administration, published a stinging
criticism of the U . S . government’s war on terrorism . He found Bush’s
conduct abhorrent from the time the president was informed about the 9/11
attacks . He impugned Bush’s motives for the war on terror and for the
invasion of Iraq . He said Bush knew Iraq posed no security threat, so that
Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was made because of “oil and more business for
his private companies . ” “Black gold blinded him and he put his own
private interests ahead of the American public interest . ” “Bush’s
hands,” said his critic, “are covered with blood, and Iraq has become a
quagmire . ” Moreover, while Bush pretends to promote liberty abroad, “he
has brought tyranny and the suppression of liberties to his own country”
through “the Patriot Act, implemented under the pretext of fighting terrorism .
The name of the critic is not
Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi . He is none other than Osama bin
Laden! Bin Laden simply cited and even commended the writings of the
American Left . In his 2004 missive to America, bin Laden said his message
would be better understood if Americans read westerners like author William
Blum, a former State Department employee, who calls on America to withdraw from
the Middle East and “give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those
that were tortured” by American troops.
Bernard Lewis in an essay titled Communism and Islam wrote:
"Quite obviously, the Ulama [religious leaders] of
Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer
examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess
a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on
heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in
their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the
eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and
followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers,
who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are
always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of
being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically
inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The
traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the
House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the
collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has
obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the
content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the
believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as
"There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet'" was laying his finger on a
real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new
faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy-might well strike a
The left in the United
States tends to share communist ideals more than the right and so tend to be
more sympathetic to communist regimes.
The American left tends to
oppose military spending more than the right. One reason is the greater
sympathy of the left for the Communist regimes which the military spending is
designed to defeat. Another reason is that military spending reduces the
money available for beloved left wing social programs. Yet another reason
is the liberal belief that the way to deal with hostile countries is to give
Al Gore, the democratic
candidate for president, gave a speech in Aug 2000 at the Democratic National
Convention in which he said the Republicans were the party for the
powerful implying that he was for the weak. An interesting
exception to that is Gore's and the Democrats stand on abortion. When
Gore announced his support of abortion a loud cheer went up from the floor of
the convention. Yet abortion is the destruction of the weak and
helpless. One would expect that the Liberal ideal of helping the weak and
helpless would be extended to unborn babies. The liberal explanation for
this is that it can be more compassionate to the unborn to kill them than to
allow them to live a miserable life. The truth is though that there are
many people who want to adopt children and who would give these children a good
life. Another liberal argument is that they are supporting the right of
women to choose. The desire of liberals to be able to do whatever
they want are in conflict with the
compassionate ideals toward the unborn and those ideals are stronger.
Why are they not more concerned about the rights of unborn women?
A clue to the answer to that question was given by a rant by a
feminist named Amanda Marcotte in which she
You can give me gold-plated day care and an awesome
public school right on the street corner and start paying me 15% more at
work, and I still do not want a baby. I don’t particularly like babies. They
are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding. No matter how
much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking
monsters with their constant neediness. No matter how flexible you make my
work schedule, my entire life would be overturned by a baby. I like my life
how it is, with my ability to do what I want when I want without having to
arrange for a babysitter. I like being able to watch True Detective right
now and not wait until baby is in bed. I like sex in any room of the house I
please. I don’t want a baby. I’ve heard your pro-baby arguments. Glad those
work for you, but they are unconvincing to me. Nothing will make me want a
And don’t float “adoption” as an answer. Adoption? Fuck you, seriously. I am
not turning my body over for nine months of gaining weight and puking and
being tired and suffering and not being able to sleep on my side and going
to the hospital for a bout of misery and pain so that some couple I don’t
know and probably don’t even like can have a baby.
The people who suggest that she adopt
aren't doing so because they want adopted parents to have a baby, they are doing
so because they want to save the life of her child. Amanda has an answer
for that though. She writes:
Given the choice between living my life how I please
and having my body within my control and the fate of a lentil-sized,
brainless embryo that has half a chance of dying on its own anyway, I choose
The liberal argument is they're not
aborting a baby, they're aborting a lentil. Most abortions should not be
done before 8 to 12 weeks or pregnancy we'll average that to 10 weeks.
Here is a picture of a baby at 10 weeks.
It has eyes hands and feet. Is that
embryo just a lentil? The neurons of the embryo multiply during the 11th
week. This is how the embryo looks like at the 12th week.
Abortion is legal until the 25h week. By the 20th
week the baby can hear and recognize it's mother's voice. Can a lentil
The pleasure of sex comes with a price,
pregnancy and Amanda doesn't want to pay the price. For many people having
a baby is a wonderful thing but those people aren't selfish. Amanda's
liberalism is not about compassion it's about me me me. Most liberals
cloak their selfish under the hubric of compassion toward women and even toward
babies who if they were born would have a bad life (according to the liberals).
They also cloak their selfishness as defense of women's rights as in the "right"
to choose to murder the baby.
Several letters were sent to the
New York Post on August 31, 2000 in response to Gore's promises which are
instructive about the pitfalls of liberalism. I paraphrase them below
Al Gore promises
cheap or free prescription drugs for everybody ("Steal Al's Issues! - It's
Bush's Best Bet to Win," Dick Morris, Opinion, Aug. 24).
Wow, what a
deal! I'm going to vote for Gore. How nice of him. Where has he been all these
Wait a minute.
There must be a reason why some drugs are so expensive. Could it be that drug
companies spend a fortune on research and are seeking to recover their costs?
If Gore's idea
wins out, then we might have lower drug costs. But we might also find ourselves
having to accept lower quality drugs.
Another reader wrote
Gore repeatedly preaches that he will fight "Big Oil," HMOs, and
greedy pharmaceutical companies on behalf of "working families."
about those "working families" now employed in these very industries?
Another reader pointed out that higher taxes hurt working families.
The left favors affirmative actions
policies to force schools to lower their standards to help blacks
graduate. Thomas Sowell, a brilliant black professor from Stanford
University, in an article titled Left Wing
Friends Hurt Blacks (Townhall.com 4/28/04) revealed the problem with this
approach when he wrote that:
own experience as a teacher was that black students would meet higher standards
if you refused to lower the standards for them.
An interesting distinction between the right and left
was made by Professor Stanley Rothman in an interview with frontpage
Why do you think the Left thrives on conflict and why are conservatives such a
failure in fighting political war? Why don't they know how to stand up for
themselves? It took David Horowitz, a former leftist, to do what conservatives
should have been doing years ago.
Rothman: Part of the answer to that, it seems to me, lies in the nature of
radicalism The left is persuaded that collective political action can remake
the world, and political action gives meaning to their lives. To many of them,
human beings will be perfectible once the reactionary forces of evil are
destroyed. Theirs is a Manichean view.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to believe that love, work, family and
culture are the stuff of which life is made. They turn to politics reluctantly
and, only as a last resort, to defend themselves. They are also persuaded that
civility plays an important role in the preservation of a decent community, and
are reluctant to violate the rules of civility. While radicals also believe
that they can achieve immortality by remaking the world, conservatives do not
believe that immortality is possible except through religion and/or their
Keith Thompson wrote an article Leaving
the Left 5/23/05 in which he explained a key difference between the left
it took a while to see what was right before my eyes. A certain misplaced
loyalty kept me from grasping that a view of individuals as morally capable of
and responsible for making the principle decisions that shape their lives is
decisively at odds with the contemporary left's entrance-level view of people
as passive and helpless victims of powerful external forces, hence political
wards who require the continuous shepherding of caretaker elites.
Eric Alan Beltt wrote an article titled Liberalism is a Psychology, in
which he argued that Liberal beliefs stem from what makes the liberal feel good
and avoid feeling bad.It stems
from wanting to feel moral noble unique and to avoid being ostracized.Certainly it feels better to believe
that we don’t have to arm and fight an enemy, just give them money.It feels much better to talk about
peace. Certainly we feel better and noble when we insist on money for the
poor.Eric Beltt’s theories are
consistent with Liberal thinking.Dennis Prager wrote an article
in frontpage magazine 8/28/07 that argued that the desire to be loved
drives liberal thinking and gave examples of how doing the moral thing and
doing the popular thing are not always the same thing.
the left or the right become extreme they are usually wrong though not
always. There are situations when the centrist point of view is wrong.
When the left and the right take on extreme point of views they are
usually distorting reality. The left wing way of distorting reality
is usually to make those who have the villains and those who have less the good
guys. The right wing way of distorting reality is to view all those who
belong to a group as being the evil enemy if the group is different in some
way. The extreme left and extreme right often view each other as evil and
as "the enemy".
The extreme left is
unlikely to view the right in terms of moral relativism though, the extreme
left is likely to view the right as the bad guys. Extreme left and right
are both likely to believe in taking the law in their own hands and in forcing
their utopia on everyone else. There is thus convergence of ideas between
left and right extremists. This concept is illustrated in the diagram
The far left and right
both believe in conspiracy theories. “If I told you I thought the world
was controlled by a handful of capitalists and corporate bosses, you would say
I was a left-winger,” an anarchist demonstrator told the online Russian
publication Pravda. “But if I told you who I thought the capitalists and
corporate bosses were (the Jews), you’d say I was far right.” (Anti-Capitalist
Anti-Semites, Mark, Strauss, Frontpagemag.com 10/29/03)
The left wing is more likely to be pacifist than the right although
there are segments of the right that are likely to be isolationist which can
translate into avoiding military intervention.Extreme left wing pacifists ironically often show support for
terrorist groups, The Quakers for example are sympathetic to the PLO. Judith
Butler, a U.C. professor expressed support to terrorists groups his goal is the
destruction of Israel. She
Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that
are on the left, that are part of the left, that are part of the
global left, is extremely important."
Orwell saw that pacifism and defeatism were rampant
among the English intelligentsia, especially the very young intelligentsia
. He notes that people who started by renouncing violence often ended up
supporting Hitler . The opponents of war simply lacked the intellectual
courage to think through the practical consequences of their anti-war position:
their opposition to the war made them objectively pro-Fascist .
(One may say the same of today’s Cultural Left in America , whose opposition to
the presence of U . S . troops in Iraq is objectively pro-terrorist, despite
any antipathy they may feel toward terrorism . )
There is an alliance
between neo-Nazis and Muslim extremists. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross wrote in
the Weekly Standard that (The
Peculiar Alliance, Weekly Standard, 9/6/05):
Such an alliance seems
unlikely on its face; after all, neo-Nazis view most Muslims as racially
inferior, while Islamic extremists believe that neo-Nazis are just another
flavor of infidel. However, a closer examination reveals that many
white-supremacist groups have expressed solidarity with Islamic terrorists
recently, and in turn some white supremacists and far-right Holocaust deniers
have found newfound supporters among the Islamists.
Mr. Gartenstein Ross writes that
in 2005 August Kreis, the head of the Aryan Nations, told a CNN interviewer
regarding al Qaeda:
"You say they're
terrorists, I say they're freedom fighters."
I remember reading once
the statements of a leader of a right wing anti black, Neo-Nazi group who said
he shared some of the beliefs of Farrakhan the leader of the black anti-white
nation of Islam. Osama bin Ladin said on 2/14/03 that:
"The interests of
Muslims and the interests of the Socialists coincide in the war against the
Moveon an extreme and powerful leftist group in the United
States petitioned the United States not to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist
group despite or perhaps because of Boko Haram's murder of Christian civilians.
After Boko Haram kidnapped Nigerian school girls and sold them off as slaves
into forced marriages Moveon.org
removed the petition from its web site. When Hillary Clinton was
Secretary of State she would not
designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group despite requests to do so from
Senators and the CIA.
David Stolinky wrote an
article for frontpagemag.com (Bin Laden and Marx, Strange Bedfellows, 9/29/04)
in which he listed similarities between radical Islam and communism. Here
is an excerpt of what he wrote:
How can I compare
communists, who are militant atheists, with Islamic extremists, who are
fanatically religious? True, they disagree on theology, but they agree on many
They both believe that people’s behavior is
governed by their environment, which therefore must be rigidly controlled.
They both believe that people have no
inalienable rights, and must be regimented by harsh rules that govern all
aspects of human activity.
They both think people can’t be trusted, and
must be watched by a vast police apparatus.
They both attract unhappy, angry, alienated
people. Remember John Walker Lindh and the Beltway snipers?
They both use schools to brainwash young people
– Muslim schools in the case of radical Islam, universities in the case of
They both dehumanize nonbelievers. Marxists
call their opponents "capitalist pigs," "racists,"
"oppressors" and "Nazis." Islamic extremists call
their opponents "infidels," "sons of pigs and monkeys"
and "followers of Satan."
They both claim that nonbelievers should be
converted by force, and those who resist should be persecuted without
mercy – or brutally murdered.
They both believe their role is to create a
perfect society, so they are justified in using any means, including mass
They both hate Judeo-Christian civilization in
general and capitalism in particular. The 9/11 terrorists could have
destroyed a cathedral or a synagogue. Instead, they destroyed the World Trade
Center. That tells a lot about their priorities.
They both refuse to take responsibility for
their backward, poverty-stricken societies. Instead, they blame others for
their own failures.
They both take the anger that should be aimed
at their corrupt, incompetent rulers, and misdirect it at the West, and
America in particular.
They both believe they are entitled to
control the world, and they hate America for standing in their way.
of the extreme left/Islamist alliance surfaced when the Freedom Center which
David Horowitz founded organized Islamo-Fascism awareness week for Oct 22-22 07.In a fundraising letter Mr. Horowitz
left is also organizing - to kill Islamo Fascism Awareness Week and silence the
vital truths it will tell. The powerful American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee is intimidating university administrations all over the country into
canceling the events our campus coordinators have set up. The Muslim Students
Association, campus arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, is planning
disruptive actions to drown out our message. And most alarming of all, the Revolutionary
Communist Partyand other radical groups have promised violent
confrontations that put our speakers in physical danger.
Interestingly enough there
is an alliance between the left and radical Islam. The Soviets have been
supporting Iran's nuclear program inspite of the threat of Chechen terrorists
someday igniting an Islamic nuclear weapon in Moscow. Phyllis Chesler in
her book, The New Antisemitism wrote the following about the similarities
between left wing and right wing radicalism:
we are dealing with at least two kinds of racism. One is right-wing,
neo-Nazi, and traditional; the other (and here's where it gets complicated) is
left-wing, anticolonialist, anti-imperialist, and ostensibly antiracist, but
new about the new anti-Semitism is that acts of violence against Jews and
anti-Semitic words and deeds are being uttered and performed by politically
correct people in the name of anticolonialism, anti-imperialism, antiracism,
and pacifism. Old fashioned anti-Semitism was justified in the name of
ethnic, Aryan, white purity, superiority, and nationalism. Many Nazi-era
Germans and Americans viewed Jews as inferior racially and biologically.
The new anti-Semite cannot, by definition, be an anti-Semitic racist because
she speaks out on behalf of oppressed people.
Phyllis quotes Jochnowitz about
the mystery of the left wing Islamic alliance:
is the great mystery of the left. Leftists are totally silent about the
excesses of radical Islam. They are equally silent about the fact that
Israel allows dissent... the most fundamentalist of Americans does not believe
in executing women who have been raped although such things happen in Islamic
American and European Left have made a marriage in hell with their Islamic
terrorist counterparts. The same Left that has still never expressed any guilt
over its devotion to communist dictators who murdered millions of their own
people in the service of a Great Idea has now finally, fatefully joined the
world jihadic chorus in the call for the end to racist Zionism and to the
Jewish Apartheid state.
Melanie Philips in an article
of the Old Hatred (frontpagemag.com 3/1/04) wrote about the left wing,
Islamic alliance as follows:
outcome is that an astonishing axis has developed between Islamic Jew-haters
and the Left, marching behind the banners of 'human rights' on demonstrations
in Europe producing chants of 'Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas'.
Noam Chomsky after meeting with Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s “secretary
general,” announced his support for Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm. Then, in an
echo of Nasrallah’s recent declaration that President Bush is the world’s top
“terrorist,” Chomsky pronounced his own fatwa on the United States calling it
one of the “leading terrorist states.”(frontpagemag.com
Vijay Kumar witnessed
the transformation of Iran from a modern nation to a fundamentalist repressed
state. In July 2008 he was running for Congress and was interviewed by
Frontpage Magazine. He was asked why the left refuses to stand up for
those who suffer under Islamic despotism and replied:
The Left and Islam
share many of the same values. Both deny that individuals have a personal
ethic. A central authority should control all things. Both insult and
denigrate their opponents and see themselves as victors in the movement of
history. Both hate the native cultures and individual efforts.
The mindset of the Leftist is one of deliberate ignorance. I was a Leftist,
a bleeding heart liberal until a few years ago. I came from a Marxist family
in India. The Left, by its silence on the issue of radical Islam, has
betrayed its own professed ideals, if it has any.
The fight against Political Islam should have been led by the liberal
intellectuals in our universities, but instead they deliberately and
systematically support a seventh century totalitarian ideology that negates
all forms of rational thinking, intellectual pursuit, and pluralism - the
very ideals which are supposed to be central to the philosophy of the Left.
The Liberals have become the lackeys of Islamic imperialism in their words
and deeds. They fail to mention the 1,400 years of Jihadists' terror in this
world. How can we cry for the genocide in Darfur and ignore the cause?
The media only has a concern for white oppression and white evil. If the
source of evil is non-white and non-Christian, they don’t care. Our Leftist
media is forcing us to fight this ideological struggle with both hands tied
behind our backs. To them, saying anything negative about other countries or
cultures is not telling the truth, it is racism. To them, portraying
America’s values and accomplishments in a positive light is propaganda – and
God forbid they indulge in anything so base as pro-American propaganda.
Another aspect of Leftist thought is
that there is no absolute morality. Everything is relative, every kind of
behavior and belief should be tolerated, and therefore the American system
isn’t better than any other. How can we engage in a battle of ideologies
when you see all ways of life – even those that preach an end to tolerance
and an end to intellectual freedom – as acceptable?
Of course there is a set of beliefs that according to the left that should not
be tolerated and that is those of the right wing. Ralph Peters wrote an
Thought Police about this.
The left in Sweden is aligning
itself with Islamic radicals.In
an article titled Sweden’s
Unholy Alliance, Nima Sanandaji wrote: (frontpagemag.com 5/19/06)
Indeed, as the September elections draw closer, it
seems as if the Swedish left are openly embracing radical Islamic groups.
Recently, Swedish public television revealed that the leading Social Democratic
party has started fishing for votes with the help of radical Muslims clergies.
For several years the Christian wing of the Social Democratic party, called The
Brotherhood, has been working with the influential Muslim leader Mahmoud
Aldebe, president of
But the new ally of the
Social Democrats is anything but democratic. Already in 1999, Aldebe went on
radio proposing that Sharia – the Islamic law – be introduced in Sweden. In
addition, Aldebe has in a letter to the Swedish minister of Justice in
2003 involved himself in a heated debate regarding an incident of
honor-related murder where a Kurdish girl was murdered by her two uncles, shot
several times in the head. Aldebe did not condemn the murderers – rather he
forcefully defended the perpetrators. Aldebe sees the entire debate regarding
honor-related murders as an attack against the Islamic religion and claims in
his letter that a public debate regarding these acts of murder risk to
“encourage immigrant girls to revolt against the tradition of the families and
their religious values.”
One might ask how a democratic party can justify co-operating with Sweden’s
Muslim Association. During the above mentioned documentary the Social Democrat
Ola Johansson referred to the book Social Justice in Islam by the Islamic
ideologue Sayyid Qutb as proof that the social democratic ideology could
find common ground with Islamic ideas. As the Swedish paper Expressen has exposed, Sayyid Qutb
was not only a social thinker; he was also inspired by the German Nazi
movement. He was an important figure in the Egyptian Islamic movement in the
50's and remains an inspiration for Muslim Extremists.
al Qaeda recruits tend to be loners who come from liberal, nonreligious Muslim
backgrounds and convert to Islam as adults
One would expect that
people with liberal ideals would be the last to join Al Qaeda but on the
contrary most Al Qaeda recruits come from liberal non-religious Muslim
Ben Shapiro gave a good
answer that can be viewed in this
video about why the left aligns with Islam.
Perhaps the greatest mystery is the identification
of feminists with Moslems. Phyllis writes:
some time some feminist marchers have waved the Palestinian flag and worn Arab
headdresses in various demonstrations. (They don't have it right, though,
because they wear Arab male keffiyahs. Were they marching anywhere
between Cairo and Kabul, they'd be wearing burqas, headscarves, veils.)
The International Campaign Against U.S. &
Zionist Occupations, high-profile anti-war left wing activists got together
with radical Muslims in a quest to join forces to gain their respective
objectives. Robert Spencer wrote:
Cairo Conference demonstrated that Socialist anti-war activists don’t mind
sharing a podium with radical Muslims who want to establish Sharia states in
Iraq and elsewhere. Of course, the peace movement has betrayed a taste for
totalitarianism and brutality before. Today’s radical Muslim terrorists are
worthy heirs of Lenin, Stalin, Feliks Dzerzhinsky, and all the rest who filled
the Gulag for the sake of peace. Evidently nowadays as long as the struggle
against “imperialist aggression” is won, a few amputations and stonings along
the way will be just fine.
what boggles my mind. Women are second-class citizens in a large part of the
world, treated as property, and it is not only acceptable for their husbands to
beat them, but it is expected. Rape victims are stoned to death in
"honor" killings while gang-rapists face no punishment. And yet the
West’s feminists are silent. In a large part of the world, gays can be jailed
and subject to chemical treatments in an attempt to change their gender
preference. They are hanged and beheaded simply for being gay. And yet the gay
rights activists in the West are silent.
I really don't get it. There are very severe offenses against humanity
occurring all over the world, and yet the left ignores them. It seems they are
constitutionally incapable of recognizing any injustice unless they can somehow
blame it on the West, on white males, on Christians or Jews, or on the United
After Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with
a brain tumor the right wing opposition expressed a lot of sympathy. Ben
Johnson, in Frontpage Magazine, contrasted this with the way the left responds
to deteriorating health of people who opposed them. He wrote:
As Ted Kennedy’s recently diagnosed brain tumor
demonstrated, Right and Left are also divided based on whether they display
basic human decency when misfortunes befall a member of the other side. The
American people seem to be fundamentally cleft about how they treat news of
an opponent’s impending death in a conservative manner – with prayer – or a
leftist one – with champagne and hate mail.
article gives many examples of this.
Here is a chart of how causes align with left and right.
In real life there are cross overs you get some on the right supporting what I
would identify as a left wing cause and vice versa but in general this is
Rationale: 1)The more
powerful government is the less freedom there will be.
2) Private Enterprise with a profit motive outperforms government and
is much more efficient.
Incentives to believe: Won't be taxed as much.
Redistribution of the Wealth
Government should redistribute the wealth to the needy
Rationale: Needy should be cared for.
Government should not redistribute the wealth to the needy (note
this is a grey area. People on the right will believe in varying
degrees of help for the needy, I doubt any of them will want the needy
Rationale: Government should not steal money from people
who have earned it.
Universal Health Care
For Government Controlled Universal Health Care
For free market health care
Government Control of Education e.g. Common Core
Government Control of Education is Good
believe: Government will indoctrinate children in good beliefs and
into supporting good government policies..
Alignment: Belief about Government Power
Government Control of Education is Bad
will indoctrinate children in bad beliefs and into supporting bad
Alignment:: Belief about Government Power
Global Warming is real and the science is settled and
those who disagree are deniers.
Incentives to believe: If global
warming is real then carbon dioxide emissions of corporations can be
taxed and redistributed to the needy.
Alignment with goals of government power and redistributing the wealth.
Global warming is a hoax.
Incentives to believe: If global warming is false no reason to
tax corporations and corporations can generate wealth and benefit the
Alignment with goal of allowing corporations to flourish.
Abortion should be permitted
Incentives to believe:
One of the consequences of sex is pregnancy and when people have casual
sex outside of marriage that pregnancy is often unwanted. The left
is more likely to believe that casual sex outside of marriage is ok than
the right and more likely to engage in casual sex. Abortion is a
way to terminate an unwanted pregnancies that result from such behavior.
Rationale: Women should have control over their own bodies.
Note this is a rationalization because there are two bodies involved.
What about the fetus's control of it's own body. That part is
conveniently ignored by the left.
Alignment: Abortion does not align with the left wings
ostensible concern for the weak and vulnerable. Selfishness is
trumping concern for the weak and vulnerable in this case. The
lack of alignment of abortion suggests that although the left claims to
be for the weak and vulnerable they do so only for public relations but
that the underlying motivations of the left are selfish ones.
Abortion should be discouraged
Incentives to believe: There
are secular and religious reasons to oppose abortion. Catholic
doctrine opposes abortion. The secular reasons have to do with
concern that termination of the fetus is murdering of a baby.
Secular Rationale: People can practice abstinence outside of
marriage, children are a blessing and if people want sex they should get
married and have children. If they have an unwanted pregnancy they
should give their child up for adoption, there are many parents
desperate to adopt who would give their babies a good home.
Religious Rationale: Life is sacred from conception and God is
Alignment: Abortion does not align with the right's desire for
freedom and noninterference by the government. One would think
that a desire for freedom would include the freedom to abort.
Moral and religious concerns are trumping the desire for freedom in this
Israel-Palestinian Arab Conflict
Left are more likely to side with the Palestinians
Left may see the Palestinian Arabs as the occupied victims of Israeli
Right is more likely to side with the Israelis.
Right is more
aware of the bible and the historic connection of Jews to the land of
Israel. The Christian right are more likely to be aware of the
oppression of Christians by the Muslims and so be sympathetic to the
situation of the Jews of Israel.
Maybe should have separate chart for left wing and right wing. 3rd
column could be the goal it is aligning with. Start with core goals such
as equality vs. freedom.
Thomas Sowell on the difference between right and left.
Perhaps the most basic divide between left and
right has to do with wealth distribution. The right tends to favor the
free market whereas the left tends to favor the government taking away money
from those who have more and giving it to those who have less. Those on the
right argue that taking money away from those who have more will result in
everyone having left because those who have more are the job creators and the
wealth creators. Those on the left accuse the right of not making the rich
pay their fair share and putting an unfair tax burden on the poor and elderly.