Two Views Of Two Things

Two subjects front and center today are walls and nationalism. But lets look at them first from the Left’s “mainstream” perspective.

Nationalism is a dirty word to progressives and Democrats. You know why. It is now sufficient to state that as a fact. The left already does, they will tell you all the reasons they detest it. They’ve tried to rub it out or stigmatize it.

Well, except when the issue is about nationalism in a foreign country, then it turns to loftier, respectable terms. But for us it is a nasty concept.

The wall
hardly needs any explanation now either. They hate it, and have no problems telling you that either. It’s a nasty thing that should be forbidden. It’s been called immoral. Yes, an object saddled with the symbolism of immorality. One prospective candidate said it kills people, and existing walls should come down. The stigma created is gigantic.

But before we put the two of them together, let’s look at the real view in the context of the US. Because, after all, we are talking about this country not some other place.

Nationalism is a pride in the country we live in. It is a sense of loyalty to this country –which I think one would get if one reads the oath of office. A love for the flag and simple pledge and anthem. Patriotism. Appreciation not apathy. Not supranationalism.

Walls are another welcome thing for a lot of reasons. They define boundaries and protect what is in them. The old saying was good fences make great neighbors. Walls haven’t always been bad. In fact, they are used for so many reasons that a wall-less world would seem pretty intimidating. And the walls we are talking about are not to keep people in, as has been suggested by critics. But then borders are another good thing too. Just saying.

Then we need to see it again from the same perspective what Leftists are doing with these two things – as much as they claim to hate them both.

Progressives are all about nationalizing everything. They want nationalized healthcare, nationalized programs and environmental policies on everything. They want nationalized policies that supercede state and local ones. And they want your obligatory pride in that.

They also want to nationalize us under the rubric of servants and serfs of the national government. It is hard to think of something the Left doesn’t want national government to control. All nationalized in one government. Finally, they want that national government controlled by progressives with the same ideological view. That includes the courts, where one court can intervene and control any national policy not satisfactory to the Left.

Basically, they believe in nationalizing everything from roads to healthcare, to diet, to mandates on ponds on your property And, as we saw with the Kelo decision, they want those property owners subservient to the national government authority for what it deems common use – even for more tax revenue.

The bill of rights should also be read only from the national government perspective, along with the notion that our rights are bestowed by the national government, which trumps everything. In fact, think about who is more the nationalist here. Just that they need to control it all. And, as we know, it really is all about control. Nationalized elections too.

But they want people then loyal to that government and more importantly under its nationalized thumb. They want a government, by government, for government. That is the nationalism they seek at all costs.

That wall they hate is a material, physical boundary. But they have plenty of walls that are not material, nevertheless they believe in these walls. These are walls to keep people in. They need walls around the Democrat party to keep people from leaving. They need walls to contain free speech zones, or walls behind which we can practice our faith – like prayer closets. And they want a thick wall of separation preventing people of faith from having any influence in that government. They want walls around Planned Parenthoods. Finally, they like real walls to protect them from other people and to preserve their private utopia, while they force others to live below standards set by their big-government dreams.

What a nationalist wants

Now I want walls to keep criminal elements and invaders out that we have no control over. I want the border to be real, not an imaginary thing. And not just some fictional boundary dishonored from both sides.

I want boundaries determined by geology not ideology. Not some borderless area of lawlessness. I also want laws that protect the nation’s borders, not open them up to meaningless interpretation defined by cartels, smugglers, invasions and radical groups.

I want a nationalism of individual people who are in control of their government, not vice versa. Not mobs that hijack government from everyone else, for their own agendas. I want a Republic not a Mobocracy. And I prefer to keep it as long as possible.

Right Ring | Bullright

Obama’s ‘ideology’ bandwagon running wild

Since the closest Obama will come to naming the Islamic terrorists is talking about “whatever ideology”, I’ll try to decipher some of his lofty linguistic perversion.

Allow me to remind him of the ideology that endorses wholesale slaughter, i.e. genocide, as a supreme “right”. His own ideology, which is only about 100 years in the making, but which is responsible for extinguishing over 50 million human lives and counting just in the last 40+ years. It’s now enshrined as a sacred fundamental “right”, and forces all people to swear on its altar of protecting the right to kill the unborn — using buzz words like “safe”.

He doesn’t even want babies to be born and believes in slaughtering and scorching them with saline baths in the womb. The ideology so extreme it doesn’t believe in providing measures in the event of a botched abortion. An ideology that celebrates the anniversary to “preserve” its butchery practice. Brain, meet scissors and vacuum hoses.

An ideology that claims to stand on the side of science, while boldly defying it on abortion. An ideology that believes in an “evolving, living Constitution” while devolving morality.

Or maybe the ideology which targets nuns on a mission to serve poor people. One that proudly lays bare the state’s right to target people for their “deeply held religious views,” persecute them, or lobbies to keep them from government service. One that believes America is lacking moral principles, but which attacks morality and values in every corner it can. One which stands truth on its head, and draws moral equivalences of its political opponents to tyrants, while it makes alliances with brutal regimes and tyrants.

Or we can talk about the ideology which attacks Israel as an occupier, and America as an enabler, while en masse it appeases regimes in their schemes against freedom.

The ideology that hurts and victimizes people, then claims to help them and uses them as political pawns to gain and retain power. Yet now Obama is talking about a “bankrupt” ideology. Really? Get off our “high horse”?

RightRing | Bullright

Time for a dialogue about national conversations

The Left often talks about “conversation” but the word is a euphemism for getting their way.

National Conversations Are Worthless

Column: Especially when Al Sharpton is talking
BY: Matthew Continetti | Washington Free Beacon
December 12, 2014

Activists outraged at the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner are not only causing traffic jams and disrupting holiday shopping. They have a new target: President Obama, who the radicals say isn’t doing enough to rectify injustice.

What about opening investigations into the white police officers who killed the unarmed Brown and Garner, what about inviting Al Sharpton and Bill De Blasio to the White House, condemning the decisions of grand juries not to indict the policemen, and calling the ensuing unrest, which has included looting and arson, “necessary” to prick “the country’s conscience”?

Meh. Those things do not appease the left, which never takes yes for an answer.

“Mr. Obama has not been the kind of champion for racial justice that many African-Americans say this moment demands,” reports a disappointed New York Times. For example, Obama “has not stood behind the protestors.” He has not “linked arms with civil rights leaders.” He hasn’t even posed in an “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirt.

The activists don’t want Obama in the Oval Office. They want him on the picket line. They want to bully the president “into seizing on the post-Ferguson anger.” And they might be winning: “White House advisers say addressing the nation’s racial conflicts is now an imperative for the president’s final years in office.”

Uh-oh. If the president has any sense, he’ll make sure this pledge is as worthless as his red lines in Syria. Sixty-seven percent of adults rate their local police good or excellent, according to a recent poll. A majority of the public already disapproves of Obama on race. As do 57 percent of whites. Does the unpopular Obama (or his potential Democratic successors) really want to see how high this president’s disapproval rating can go?

America does not need another “national conversation on race.” The previous one, which lasted from 1997 to 1998, was so utterly useless that hardly anyone remembers it. President Clinton delivered speeches, convened town hall meetings, empaneled an advisory board, and issued a report on race relations. It went nowhere.

Why? Because the public forums were characterized by self-indulgence, protest, confusion, miscommunication, and acrimony. The advisory board presented the view of race from Harvard Yard. Affirmative action was defended when it was not ignored, its critics muted. […/]

More: http://freebeacon.com/columns/national-conversations-are-worthless/

Funny how all the talk about “dialogue” and “conversation” is really cover for protests, arrogance and lawlessness. As I have said many times, it is now(if it ever was) almost impossible to have a true conversation with Liberals, especially in the collective. Progressives don’t discuss, they react. Their perception is to be considered fact.

Sure you can go through the motions. One can pretend, as Obama did, that he had some conversation with others who disagree.  When two or more parties are interested they can have a discussion. When the interest is not there, you have nothing but words.  Cut to the chase that with the Left, progressives, Liberals, Democrats, or whatever you want to call them, ideology rules.  They are not interested in conversation.  They are interested in getting their way.

When you put race or other issue into the mix, Liberals will dominate the issue to the point of browbeating anyone who disagrees in the same way. So they don’t want conversation. They want to make demands, such as what rules should be used with protestors. They want to limit their opposition in any way they can. And anything they take on is considered a “civil rights” matter, from abortion to cross-dressing or gay pride parades.

You only have to look at the trail of damage and victims to get the point. Michael Brown and the Ferguson protestors caused more victims than they ever prevented. Mike Brown was an excuse. But they call that social justice. We often chuckle at their tactics and strategies, when we aren’t crying at the damage they cause, namely because it is so predictable. The victims and damage they cause is justified as righteous. Think what they did in unison to the Tea Party rallies. Now they are back on the bandwagon, from OWS to anarchy in Seattle, now to Brown and ‘what can racism do for you?’

RightRing | Bullright

Obama to ISIS, the perfect comparison

There is one ultimate comparison which applies well: Obama to ISIS, the Islamic State.

It really fits. The Islamic state are terrorists at heart, engulfed in an ideology that has no options. I wrote about it in “the struggle we must understand”. Obama is a radical ideologue at heart, whatever else anyone thinks he is. It is only a matter of understanding and knowing that. It’s a fool’s mission to try believing otherwise. He’ll prove you wrong; as ISIS will prove you wrong if you term them anything but evil and radical.

But that is not where it stops. The motive of operation for the terrorists is to provoke and attack anything not aligned with it, or anything that threatens it. That is the nature of the beast. That’s why preemption is the only strategy that can work against it.

With Obama he is all about challenging every other form of power. He believes in radicalism that attacks any of its enemies, by Alinsky tactics. It is pure radicalism. The ends justify any means. Ideology rules. He’s shown contempt for our Constitution and he shows contempt for America. He sees us as the problem and he and his cohorts as the answer. Perception is reality to them. They only need to project whatever they choose. (Islamists are creative at that too)

This is why we now have another problem. Our taking the Senate matters not to Obama. He’s as comfortable without it as with it. His radical means are no match for the process. He does not live under the same rules as everyone else. Therefore, it didn’t matter to him whether Republicans controlled congress. It didn’t matter before and doesn’t now.

In fact, we’ve seen how effective Harry and Nancy were in the minority already. He was looking to defy Congress before while he controlled half of it. Don’t you think he will defy it more having lost control? If he acted like a radical before, he has even more reason to act like a radical now. I think we get that. (whether legislators grasp that or not is a question)

With radical Islamists, they don’t care what percentage they are. Actually, the nature of radicalism is to be effective as one or a small group. They don’t have to win elections either, though they do know how to play the game of democracy. (Egypt) The other part is recruitment is not based on ethics or morality, it is just the opposite with radicalism and ideology. So they have no problem with recruitment, it sounds exciting to some.

Just as the message of progressives is a radical ideology, it sounds attractive to some people. It’s a perfect fit and lends itself to identity groups and academia.(group think)

With both types of radicals, percentage or majority do not matter, they are adept at acting in a small minority by design. (Weather Underground) They base their activism on constantly testing and pushing any boundaries. They use an incremental approach that is constantly probing. They apply tactics to subvert the process, challenge or disrupt it.

All that said, now we can see the problems inherent with Obama occupying one of three branches. Also other radicals within the system, think Lois Lerner, can be effective. They share ideology and don’t require orders or communications. Like terrorist cells, they act on their own or in concert. For Islamists, it is all about ideology. Radical is as radical does.

Clinton may have been a master politician, but Obama is a master of radicalism.

RightRing | Bullright