... it's what's wrong with most left-wing writers who ground their so-called "liberalism" in a distortion of Christianity.  (Although I would submit that "liberal" Catholics' views are the most inconsistent.)  Christ may have said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven, but it doesn't follow that He would advocate the creation of a government that takes a rich man's wealth by force.  And I have a hard time believing that Christ would defend abortion as a necessary evil that must be funded by the government, until we obtain perfect "social justice." 

Mark Judge writes a great article about it here.

... it ought now to be "get the U.N. the hell out of the U.S.," and locate them somewhere that better reflects their attitudes.  Like Pyongyang, or Darfur, or Yangon.

Or Havana.  Calling Castro a "world hero"?  God, what a Bizarro world we live in now.  The next thing the U.N. will do is give Benito Mussolini a posthumous award for his prescient promotion of public transportation, and Adolf Hitler one for being an early proponent of single-payer health care, and "end of life" counseling.

Great interview with Ramesh Ponnuru from National Review

The Lefties are at it again. Having completely destroyed that fine word, “liberal,” along with the enlightened 18^th century sensibilities that went with it, they have now moved on like locusts through the lexicon, and want to be called “progressives.” An astonishing number of conservative commentators are going along with it.

Not me.

It is always easy to point out the flaws in liberal ideology so big you could drive a truck through them. But recent events keenly expose the utter absurdity of referring to liberals as “progressives.” The policies they advance, the behavior they display in support of them, and their inevitable consequences are taking this country backward, not forward, as these same policies have every time they have reared their ugly heads throughout human history. If liberals want a new moniker, they should be called regressives.

Bubbling up within last week’s media paean to Teddy Kennedy was a running theme of the regressive: if your death advances the party line, you’re expendable. Teddy Kennedy left poor Mary Jo Kopechne to drown in his sinking car 40 years ago. But she is collateral damage; just “a controversial footnote in a dynasty’’; a necessary casualty of the larger worldwide struggle for the proletariat. Huffington Post blogger Melissa Lafsky even went so far as to surmise that Kopechne might have thought her death was “worth it” for Ted Kennedy’s “life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.” 

Well, gee, given the 100 million other people who died in the fruitless pursuit of contemporary collectivist dystopias, what’s one more?  I’d call this Stalinesque, but even Stalin was more tempered. He reportedly said, “One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” Apparently, today’s regressive does not even view the single death as a tragedy, at least if it is a stepping stone to the greater good.

Regressives also showed their true colors two weeks ago when Whole Foods CEO John Mackey offered a libertarian free market alternative to Obamacare. Did they defend his right to free speech? No. They howled “betrayal,” screamed obscenities on YouTube, and called for nationwide boycotts of the stores. That is their right, but demanding ideological lockstep is not. In one characteristically asinine remark, a (former) patron said, "I think a CEO should take care that if he speaks about politics, that [sic] his beliefs reflect at least the majority of his clients." (CEOs now join beauty pageant contestants on that score.) Good luck with that one.

Critics may raise the spectre of right-wing hostility at August townhalls. Ah, but there is a difference. Townhall protesters are angry about the money that is taken from them by force; no one threatens Whole Foods customers with jail time if they don’t shop there.

For all of the regressives’ self-righteous posturing, John Mackey is their moral superior many times over. Did he ask them to take a loyalty oath or administer a litmus test of ideological purity before he let these people in the door to shop? No. They wanted fresh, wholesome, organically grown and healthfully produced foods.  John Mackey obtained and sold these to them, and all he ever asked in return was the voluntary exchange of their money for his goods. So we see the regressives’ deceit exposed again.  It isn't really about businesses producing healthful products, or supporting sustainable agriculture. It isn't about free exchange. It isn't even about "corporate social responsibility." It is, think like us, or we will destroy you.

But nothing demonstrates the regressive nature of liberals’ beliefs like their participation in and encouragement of the cult of Obama. Surrounded by temple columns, billowing clouds, or Photoshopped halos, Obama is hailed as a Caesar, a god among us; his every pronouncement heralds a better tomorrow for all; opposition is heresy, and opponents are insulted, smeared, vilified, and denigrated in the Pravda press.

What is “progressive” about America is its grounding in individual liberty and human freedom. We hear Obama talk about many things, but liberty and freedom are rarely among them. He has no particular love for the American Constitution, which he views as “flawed.” He displays an astonishing and inexcusable ignorance of the Founding Fathers’ knowledge of history and understanding of human nature, and their corresponding reasons for drafting the Constitution the way they did. He resents the prosperity produced by individual initiative and free exchange, seeing it rather as the ill-gotten gains of those who have stolen from others in a racist system. These are disturbing and destructive ideas in the leader of the freest, most prosperous country in the world.

He also seems to be a conflicted man who has personally profited from living by the values his white grandparents instilled in him (love, hard work, academic achievement, financial autonomy, and individual personal responsibility), while resisting their applicability to those whose lives he hopes to improve.  If Obama cannot embrace the African father who abandoned him, at least he can embrace the man’s failed collectivist philosophies. And he does it all amidst the clamor and tumult of adoring throngs, who hear precisely what he wants them to hear. 

This is not brilliance. It is political megalomania fueled by ideological schizophrenia.

Despite Obama’s obvious philosophical inconsistencies (and his apparent inability to speak without a teleprompter), the media and other chattering regressives still try to maintain the tired trope that Obama is supremely, uniquely gifted. This is idiocy, intended for the masses that the media view as idiots. Praising Obama for his political brilliance is like complimenting the naked emperor for his sartorial style: it’s not skill if you decide to be deceived. 

So let’s recap: incensed mobs demanding collective adherence to failed ideologies; the abolition of personal freedom; millions of impoverished individuals dependent upon a handful of self-appointed elites; the confiscation of more and more individual wealth to satisfy the appetite of an insatiable and bankrupt government; the elevation of deeply flawed human leaders to the status of gods, and the willingness to sacrifice other human beings to appease them. You can call these behaviors many things, but “progressive” they are not; one need know only a little history to see the frequency with which they occur.

Ok, I thought this was hilarious.  If a little ominous.

A characteristically astute article from Dr. Sowell.  Here is a great excerpt:

"Those who are pushing for legal action against CIA agents may talk about 'upholding the law' but they are doing no such thing. Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the Geneva Convention gives rights to terrorists who operate outside the law.

There was a time when everybody understood this. German soldiers who put on American military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge were simply lined up against a wall and shot-- and nobody wrung their hands over it. Nor did the U.S. Army try to conceal what they had done. The executions were filmed and the film has been shown on the History Channel.

So many 'rights' have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don't meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn't protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you.

That should be especially obvious if you are part of an international network bent on killing Americans. But bending over backward to be nice to our enemies is one of the many self-indulgences of those who engage in moral preening.

But getting other people killed so that you can feel puffed up about yourself is profoundly immoral. So is betraying the country you took an oath to protect"

So here's a question: if you deliberately betray the country you took an oath to protect, it is treason, is it not?  What do we call it when it is done out of abject stupidity?

"Diplomacy"?

Somebody finally mentioned Ted Kennedy's first wife, Joan, in an article.  She who is now best known for her alcoholism.

When I read articles like these - whether about politicians, or athletes, or actors, or rock stars, I always wonder: why do we hold ourselves out as being so morally superior to cultures that have legalized polygamy?  After all, that's really what no-fault divorce has wrought in this country: serial polygamy.  Only in a legitimately polygamous culture, First Wife always has higher status, as do her children, and (perhaps even more importantly), husbands cannot take second or third wives unless they can afford to support all of them.

In our country, however, we call our marriage culture "monogamous," and then we allow husbands to divorce their first wives, toss them out onto the "street" (the courts now call this "getting a job"), go off and start a new family with another woman, and leave the first wife to fight for every penny of child support, while the child or children fight for whatever scrap of time they can get with their dad.  Who wins?  The matrimonial lawyers, of course.  (And, speaking as someone who has done a bit of matrimonial law, I can tell you that most of the lawyers doing the work hate it, too.)

And yes, I know all about the women who divorce perfectly decent men for no reason other than that they are "tired" of them, soak their ex-husbands for every damn dime they can get, try to turn the man's children against him, and make him a criminal by filing trumped-up requests for "orders of protection" every time he gets pi$$ed off about the once-a-week-dinner-and-every-other-weekend the court systems "allows" him with the children he still wants to be living with.  I think she'd be better off, too, if the legal system made her continue to live with her husband AND whatever new man she's decided she likes better.

The whole system sucks.  And reading the blurb about Joan Kennedy made me think about it.

From a Brit.  The comments from posters are even more telling.  One admits that while city care in Canada is fine, in smaller towns or rural areas, it sucks.  He seems to think that's no big deal.  The thing is, medical care is usually quite good in the United States even in smaller cities and rural areas.  (Many would say better, since they would tend to be smaller, more personalized, and less overwhelmed by the stresses of urban emergency roon issues.)

I'd love to think people can understand this.  Dare we hope?  In any event, it's one of the best efforts I've seen to explain BASIC ECONOMICS to the average person in the context of this health care debate.

From the title on down.  Kudos to Andrew Breitbart for an extremely well-written article.  It echoes my own sentiments.  I didn't have any particular antipathy for Ted Kennedy - beyond recognizing that he should have been prosecuted for manslaughter at the least.  And I thought Michael Jackson was the most pitiful of characters.  But I have the deepest loathing for the media's efforts to canonize these two people, and otherwise use them to advance their sociopolitical ends.