The left’s poisoning of everything

(A quarter of a century ago when I still voted for the notably different Democrat Party, still lived in Houston with my second wife, I enjoyed watching Dennis Prager’s television show. Prager is a conservative Jew, a radio talk-show host, author and columnist. Even back in those days, I always agreed with him, which means I was a conservative at heart. I just had not quite seen the light.

(Prager is the source of one of my favorite quotes, one of those I have in the right sidebar here: “The usurpation of the word ‘liberal’ by the left has been a catastrophe.” The left’s superior skill with words often leaves conservatives coughing in the dust. But without further ado, here’s Dennis Prager.)

* * * *

Guest Post

new-image2The only way to save Western civilization is to convince more people that leftism — not liberalism — is a nihilistic force. Quite literally, whatever the left touches it ruins. So, here is a partial listing of the damage done by the left and the Democratic Party:

The most obvious is the near destruction of most American universities as places of learning. In the words of Harvard professor Steven Pinker — an atheist and a liberal — outside of the natural sciences and a few other disciplines (such as mathematics and business) “universities are becoming laughingstocks of intolerance.”

If you send your children to a university, you are endangering both their minds and their characters. There is a real chance they will be more intolerant and more foolish after college than they were when they entered college.

When you attend an American university, you are taught to have contempt for America and its founders, to prefer socialism to capitalism, to divide human beings by race and ethnicity. You are taught to shut down those who differ with you, not to debate them. And you are taught to place feelings over reason — which is a guaranteed route to eventual evil.

The left has ruined most of the arts. The following three examples are chosen because they are scatological, a favorite form of left-wing artistic expression. Before the left poisoned the arts, art was intended to elevate the viewer (or listener). But to the left, “elevate” is a meaningless term; it is far more at home depicting urine, fecal matter and menstrual blood.

In 2011, a lifelike German sculpture depicting a policewoman squatting and urinating — even the puddle is sculpted — received an award from a prestigious German foundation, the Leinemann Foundation for Fine Art.

In 2013, the Orange County Museum of Art in California placed a huge 28-foot sculpture of a dog outside the museum, where it periodically urinates a yellow fluid onto a museum wall.

In 2016, one of the most prestigious art museums in the world, the Guggenheim in New York, featured a pure-gold working toilet bowl, which visitors were invited to use. The name of the exhibit was “America” — so one could literally relieve oneself on America.

Thanks to the left, The Philadelphia Orchestra, one of the greatest orchestras in the world, allowed itself to become a voice of leftist hate last week. It featured the premiere of Philadelphia Voices, “a political rant put to musical garbage,” as some musically knowledgeable Philadelphians described it to me. In the fifth movement, titled “My House Is Full of Black People,” the black teen narrator chants the following lines: “The county is full of black people/ All wanting to be heard/ While old white men draw lines on maps/ To shut all of them up.” Later in the movement, he yells, “If you would all just f—-ing listen!”

Uplifting, no?

On the left, that’s considered art.

And, of course, such politicization of the arts is accepted as the norm.

Indeed, that’s part of the left’s poisoning of everything — its politicization of everything.

The left is increasingly poisoning sports. In most football stadiums this past season, one could not attend an NFL game without being subjected to left-wing contempt for America and its flag.

So, too, one cannot watch late-night television if one desires to simply be entertained before drifting off to sleep. Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert and other hosts have changed late-night TV into left-night TV. Why merely be funny when you can use your monologues to advance your left-wing views?

The left has poisoned mainstream religion. Mainstream Protestantism, non-Orthodox Judaism and much of the Catholic Church — including and especially Pope Francis — are essentially left-wing advocacy groups with religious symbols.

The left is destroying the unique American commitment to free speech. Almost half of incoming college freshmen do not believe in free speech for what they deem “hate speech” (merely taking issue with a left-wing position is, in the left’s view, “hate speech”). They do not understand that the whole point of free speech is allowing the expression of opposing ideas, including what we consider “hate speech.”

The left has poisoned race relations. America is the least racist multiracial society in the world. On a daily basis, Americans of every race and ethnicity get along superbly. But the black left and the white left constantly poison young minds with hate-filled diatribes against whites, “white privilege,” “systemic racism,” black dorms, black graduations, lies about the events in Ferguson, Missouri, and the like.

The left has made innumerable women unhappy, even depressed, with its decades of lying about how female sexual nature and male sexual nature are identical — leading to a “hookup” culture that leaves vast numbers of young women depressed — and its indoctrinating of generations of young women into believing they will be happier through career success than marital success.

And, in some ways scariest of all, the left is poisoning our children with its commitment to ending male and female as distinct categories. One of the great joys of life, celebrating one’s sex, is now deemed nothing more than a hateful idea in many of your children’s schools.

For these and other reasons, if you treasure American and Western civilization, fighting the left — something all liberals and conservatives need to do — is the greatest good you can engage in at this time.

In praise of window locks and border walls

train
The Criminal Special: Central Americans ride the rails through Mexico.

NATIONS NEED border walls because a nation is a family, and families are good things, so nations are good things too, the concept.

Nations, like regular family units, are groups of people connected by race, religion, history, language and culture. Some families are dysfunctional, and some nations are dysfunctional. Those latter are the ones President Trump allegedly labeled “shitholes.”

A bit harsh but correct in some cases.

The dysfunctional families and nations are dysfunctional not so much due to race but to a troubled culture, religion and history. Some cultures are superior to others, sometimes far superior. How do you grade a culture, giving it an A-plus, a C or an F?

Its grade depends on the lifestyle it provides its people. Thus, Haiti gets an F, Bolivia gets a D and Canada, Australia and New Zealand get an A. Due to the problem the United States created for itself centuries ago with the slavery thing and now its blowback, it gets a B on average though some states get an A (Texas), and others get a C-minus (California).

If you’ve got a well-functioning nation (or family), which depends, as we have already established, on race, religion, language, history and culture, you must exercise caution when people from other nations (or families) want to move into the house with you.

Sweden had an A-plus culture for a long time. They were a homogeneous people with a common culture, language, etc. Sweden then decided it would be a swell idea to open its borders to hordes of people from the Middle East, no questions asked.

Sweden is now known as the “Rape Capital of Europe.” This should come as no surprise when you consider they invited into their midst a staggeringly different culture, one that suppresses women and embraces an extremist, macho religion.

Sweden shot itself in the head with an AR-15. In the name of multiculturalism.

If you’ve got a successful nation (or family), caution is in order before unlocking the door to your neighbors. That’s why border walls — and locks on your home windows — are very wise things. When Trump said he would build a wall, he also said it would have a “big beautiful door” for the deserving to enter. That latter part is seldom mentioned.

Mexico is very insulted by Trump’s border wall idea. How dare he? And yet millions of Mexicans have entered the United States illegally, so many that the culture in some parts of the United States seems more like Mexico than the United States.

And to add the proverbial insult to injury, Mexico lets Central Americans enter through its southern border, hoists them atop that famous train where they jump off near the Rio Bravo to swim, hike, tunnel and fence-climb into the United States.

How dare Trump suggest a wall? The man has such gall.

The United States already has many miles of border wall, but it needs lots more and even higher. Maybe a moat with gators. But Mexico needs a wall down south too. Sweden needed one, but it seems too late now. Sweden is a goner. R.I.P.

All nations need border walls if they want to maintain their integrity, and if the nation is a very successful one (great culture), the need for a wall grows exponentially.

* * * *

(Note: It is common knowledge that Jews and Asians are smarter than the rest of us. Do the Asian nations or Israel leave their doors wide open in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? Not on your life, Bub, proving their high IQ.)

Gun control: an American fantasy

fantasy
Democrat National Committee headquarters.

(The following is an editorial in today’s Washington Examiner.)

The shooter who perpetrated the recent massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland, Fla., succeeded in killing 17 people. He also got Americans talking about gun control again.

Once again, too, there were those whose contribution to debate was to sneer at people who offered prayers for the victims and their families, instead of advocating or promising gun control. Even if you set aside the sneers, there is a problem with their attitude, no matter how good their intentions are otherwise. Prayer might actually help. Gun control, on the other hand, doesn’t work and can’t work in the U.S. and is a fantasy now just as it ever was.

By “fantasy,” we mean to express several important facts that are ignored in this debate. It is fantasy as policy because stricter gun control, within the limits of what is considered reasonable today (i.e., anything short of a total ban on sales or even gun confiscation), does not guarantee or even statistically correlate with lower gun homicide rates in any given state. This fact merits your time for some research, but to give just one prominent example from the FBI data, Texas and California have comparable gun homicide rates each year (they were actually tied in 2015).

If gun control were effective, that is not what you’d expect in the nation’s two most populous states with two of the most different gun policies. And that is by no means the only observation of its kind that you’ll take away from the FBI’s annual numbers.

Gun control is a political fantasy because the Second Amendment and various states’ constitutions protect the right to bear arms. This will not be changed, full stop. You don’t need to support or even like the Bill of Rights to see that gun control is an administrative fantasy as well.

In a country where private citizens own more than 300 million firearms, no effective form of gun control can be practical, and no practical form can be effective. Even an obviously unconstitutional ban on all new sales would take a century to make its effects felt. Universal confiscation of hundreds of millions of firearms would be several orders of magnitude more difficult than deporting every illegal immigrant in the U.S.

Gun control advocates seem frustrated that this country is not and cannot ever be Luxembourg. But the sooner they accept that reality, the closer everyone will be to starting a productive conversation about how to prevent the next Parkland.

This conversation ought to begin with the question of why the nation’s existing background check system and law enforcement agencies are so woefully ineffective in preventing known threats, like that from the Parkland shooter, whose irregular and threatening behavior was no secret, from becoming school shooters.

Why is the government so bad at keeping guns out of the hands not only of people who arguably shouldn’t have them, but even of people who by law are already not allowed to have them? The Charleston church shooter was a felon who should not have been permitted to buy his gun, but for an FBI error during the background check process.

The Parkland shooter, like the Pulse Nightclub terrorist and the Boston Marathon bombers before him, had been flagged for FBI attention long before his crimes. In each case, the bureau shrugged.

Is the government incapable of safeguarding citizens’ rights and safety? Could it do so with more resources, or with more authority? Congress should at least consider granting money to the states to pay for the personnel and computer resources required to make the background check database work as intended.

Meanwhile, it should also consider creating a universally accessible, voluntary background check system, as we have recommended in the past, to replace or supplement the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The next step will likely fall to state governments, which may want to consider new ideas such as temporary gun violence restraining orders. They probably ought also to be reconsidering procedures for officially identifying and legally recognizing mental illness in people who are suspected threats to themselves and others.

There is also an entire universe of discussion that hasn’t been had in decades, about whether we as a society are inappropriately neglecting to prescribe and perhaps heavily subsidize assisted living arrangements and even partial physical confinement for certain disturbed individuals. In today’s technological context, many of these might benefit and even become productive members of society, without posing a threat.

These ideas should be at the center of this debate. Once we’re talking about them instead of trying to drink from the dry well of gun control, we’ll actually be making some progress.

* * * *

(Note: A more accurate headline would have been Gun Control: a Leftist Fantasy. Conservatives tend to be more realistic. We are people with our feet on the ground, with some exceptions. The Democrat Party, i.e. leftists, excel at dreaming.)

The hysteria

WILL THE gory head of Trump, so grotesquely exhibited by Kathy Griffin, and the blowback it created, spell the end of the Democrats’ hysteria over losing the election?

Not Trump

Don’t bet the farm. Will it reduce it a bit?

Let us hope so.

My child bride occasionally views U.S. news, and she asks me what’s going on up there.

And I always tell her the truth, that the Hillary-and-Bernie people are toddlers on the floor, kicking arms and legs, and screaming bloody murder. Seven months now.

Democrat

They didn’t get their way. They want that Snickers! But there’s another way to see the situation.

It’s the theater in which Americans sit or, more specifically, which of the two screens in that theater they are watching.

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, writes a blog that often touches on the political scene. He maintains that Americans are watching two different movies.

One side side of the theater is the movie of President Trump making America Great Again and giving the endless raspberry to insufferable coastal elites.  Much of the audience, likely most, is watching that blockbuster film.

But on the other side of the theater is the horror flick depicting the Mongol hordes that have invaded the White House. That’s the movie New Yorkers are watching, plus folks in Washington DC, Seattle, California and much of Oregon.

It’s the movie Hollywood is watching, and it’s the movie shown repeatedly on 99 percent of university campuses.

When Weepy Barry was re-elected in 2012, I was flabbergasted. And so were almost all conservatives. We thought we had the election in the bag, but we did not.

We were severely disappointed, but we did not take to the streets. We did not burn cars. We did not photograph ourselves with bloody heads of Obama. Didn’t even occur to us.

We accepted the loss with grace. Well, most did.

America has been subjected now to seven months of nonstop screaming, bawling, death threats and rioting by Democrats. Enough! Perhaps Kathy Griffin’s grotesque stunt that horrified many Democrats too will inspire a calming on the left.

Let us hope so. It’s quite important.

Pocahontas

You’ll get another chance in four years. But skip geriatric socialists and charmless wives of ex-presidents. Be imaginative! Nominate Al Franken or Pocahontas. We would love that.

Meanwhile, grow up. Get off the floor. You look absolutely ridiculous because you are.