There’s a scene in the first Madagascar movie–the animated film–where a group of penguins are staging a breakout from the zoo. In order to cover their covert activity from the prying eyes of human visitors, the lead penguin advises his comrades, “Just smile and wave boys, smile and wave.”
That’s a pretty good analogy for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President thus far. She may have an army of highly-paid staffers working with all the diligence of military-minded penguins, but Hillary herself is mostly just smiling and waving for the cameras.
In fact, her checking out from real campaigning is measurable. The Washington Post created a clock which measures the minutes since Hillary last answered a question from the media. Currently the clock is at 24,547 minutes, which is just over two weeks. What happened to the candidate who was going to start engaging after her re-launch on Roosevelt Island just a couple weeks ago? Instead, Hillary is once again in hiding, but it’s a strategy that polling suggests is not working for her.
Hillary’s camp has been saying that she would run as the underdog not the candidate of inevitability. But underdogs press the flesh and meet the press. They don’t get to take two weeks off between questions. Hillary is running a smile and wave campaign, and the polls indicate it isn’t working for her. She has already “launched” her campaign twice, maybe the third time will be the charm.
Category Archives: Democrats
George Takei, last seen boycotting Indiana because religious freedom is hate speech or something, is at it again.
First, a bit of background. In Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in the gay marriage case — #LoveWins, everybody! — he wrote the following:
Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
His point seems self-evident: Dignity comes from within. Nobody can take away your dignity without your consent. It doesn’t matter who you are or what anybody does to you. The government can’t confer dignity on anyone, and the government can’t take it away.
This is pretty basic stuff, if you know anything about the founding of America.
So of course, elderly bigot George Takei took Thomas’ words and spiralled into a racist rant.
By referring to Clarence Thomas as “a clown in blackface,” George Takei has taken away nobody’s dignity but his own.
Why is it okay for a Japanese man to use such racist language against a black man? Because of their relative positions in the hierarchy of grievances. Sure, Thomas is black, and therefore he’s a designated victim. But he’s also a conservative, and he’s explicitly rejecting the narrative of victimhood that underpins the entire “social justice” movement. Therefore, the black dude is trumped by the gay Asian dude. Takei can spew as much racist garbage as he wants, and he’s protected because he not only embraces his own victimhood, but he treasures victimhood itself like the purest gold. Without it, he’s just another washed-up actor from a schlocky old show about spaceships.
Not that I doubt Takei means what he says. He really is a huge racist.
There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it’s criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.
Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them as their word.
The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left’s favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.
The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.
To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.
The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.
That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.
Common Core started out as a state-led effort to create high standards that states would voluntarily adopt, but the Obama administration had different ideas. It disrupted that process by forcing states to adopt the standards, first through Race to the Top grants, and next through waivers. Waivers from onerous provisions of No Child Left Behind are granted only to states that agree to implement the White House’s preferred education policies — Common Core.
It says a lot when even The New York Times refers to the waiver process as “the most sweeping use of executive authority to rewrite federal education law since Washington expanded its involvement in education in the 1960s.”
The Senate’s bill, the Every Child Achieves Act, would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Language I fought to include in this bill will, once and for all, end the Obama administration’s use of waivers to force or incentivize states to adopt Common Core standards.
And it will end the Obama administration’s — and, for that matter, any future administration’s — ability to use any tool of coercion to force states to adopt Common Core — or any set of standards at all, whether it’s Common Core by another name or some new set of standards. Period.
That’s one reason why in April the Every Child Achieves Act passed out of the Senate education committee on a unanimous vote. Republicans and Democrats alike voted to give control of academic standards back to states. The bill restores that responsibility to states, local school districts, teachers and parents.
There’s nothing like being called a bigoted pile of garbage in the first sentence and being told in the next that love has won. Indeed, you know love has emerged victorious when a bunch of liberals are screaming in your face, calling your children ugly, and urging you to kill yourself.
Progressivism, as we’ve seen, is a bubbling cauldron of vile, hideous hatred. They dress it up in vacuous, absurd little symbols and hashtags and bright colors, yet the elites who drive the gay agenda are not out to spread love and happiness, but hostility and suspicion. And the obedient lemmings who blindly conform, with rainbows in their Facebook photos and chanting whatever motto they’ve been assigned, don’t really understand what they’re doing or why they’re doing it. The fact that this is the same ideology to come up with vapid slogans like #LoveWins is an irony too bewildering to comprehend.
When our culture was grounded in Christian principles, we used to think of love in the way that St. Paul described it: love is patient, love is kind, love does not boast, love is not self-seeking. Now in this progressive dystopia, love has suddenly become something that tells you to drink battery acid and die. The difference is slight, but noticeable.
But I wasn’t especially troubled by the progressive lynch mob and their vulgar, wretched, hateful “love.” I’m used to it. I’ve been more concerned by the large number of self-proclaimed Christians and Conservatives who’ve repeatedly informed me that the whole gay marriage issue isn’t important. “It won’t affect us,” they tell me over and over again. It’s not relevant to our lives. We aren’t hurt by it. Who cares? It’s all good. Whatevs, man. There are matters more urgent than truth and morality and the future of the human race. Like, what about the economy and stuff?
Why do you think liberals care so much about this? If it doesn’t matter, why have they dedicated years to bringing about this past Friday? Because they want gay people to love each other? Nonsense. There was never any law preventing any gay person from loving anyone or anything. The State never had any interest in encouraging, preventing, or otherwise regulating love. The State does have an interest in the foundation of civilization, which is the family. That’s why, up until recently, it recognized True Marriage.
Gay marriage is not an essential or true institution, nor does it serve any real purpose in society. There’s no practical or moral reason for the romantic lives of homosexuals to be recognized or elevated or protected in any way. Even most homosexual activist know this, despite pushing for gay marriage. Gay couples in many cases aren’t monogamous, and gay activists like Dan Savage have been very enthusiastic in extoling the virtues of open relationships and fornication.
This whole gay marriage debate is about opening up the lifelong monogamous bond of matrimony to a community that often doesn’t desire a lifelong monogamous bond. Do you understand what’s going on here? They don’t want marriage as it currently is; they want to change it into something else.
It makes no sense. That is, until you come to understand that liberals desire not to fortify or strengthen the family, but to dismember it. This is purely a game of power and destruction. Why do you think their victory on Friday prompted such vulgar, bloodthirsty gloating? Did black Americans react that way when they achieved civil rights? Did women respond like this when they won the vote? No, because these groups were actually fighting to participate in, and embolden, constitutional liberties. Modern liberals, for their part, wage a war not of freedom but sabotage. Now with their triumph last week, they act like marauding pillagers who just sacked a village and burned it to the ground. They brag like conquering tyrants, not warriors for liberty. Just ask the Catholic priest who tried to walk by a gay rally this weekend in New York only to be spat on by two gay bullies.
And look at this homosexual staging a mock crucifixion. I don’t remember Dr. King ever doing that. Nor do I recall any civil rights rallies, other than gay pride parades, where men get decked out in assless chaps and drag makeup and engage in all kinds of debauchery in the middle of the street. I definitely haven’t read of any other march, besides gay rights marches, that feature barely clothed children gyrating before a crowd of apparent pederasts. This is the kind of perversion and debasement only found in liberal “civil rights” causes, because that’s what the movement is about. It is focused not on freedom, but on imposing its decayed values on our society.
Affect you? Yeah, I think so.
Some might say that’s already happened, and I wouldn’t disagree. But eventually we’ll arrive at a point where even the ones who think it “doesn’t affect them” will have to finally face the harsh reality that all of this really does, and always did.
But by then it will be too late.
And what has replaced Judaism, Christianity, Judeo-Christian values, and the Bible? The answer is: feelings. More and more Americans rely on feelings to make moral decisions. The heart has taken the place of the Bible.
Years ago, I recorded an interview with a Swedish graduate student. I began by asking her if she believed in God. Of course not. Did she believe in religion? Of course not. “Where, then, do you get your notion of right and wrong?” I asked. “From my heart,” she responded.
That is why five members of the Supreme Court have redefined marriage. They consulted their hearts. That is understandable. Any religious conservative who does not acknowledge homosexuals’ historic persecution or does not understand gays who desire to marry lacks compassion.
But let’s be honest. This lack of compassion is more than matched by the meanness expressed by the advocates of same-sex marriage. They have rendered those who believe that marriage should remain a man-woman institution one of the most vilified major groups in America today.
It is the heart — not the mind, not millennia of human experience, nor any secular or religious body of wisdom — that has determined that marriage should no longer be defined as the union of a man and a women.
It is the heart, not the mind, that has concluded that gender has no significance. That is the essence of the Brave New World being ushered in. For the first time in recorded history, whole societies are announcing that gender has no significance. Same-sex marriage is, above all else, the statement that male and female mean nothing, are completely interchangeable, and yes, don’t even objectively exist, since you are only the gender you feel you are. Which explains the “T” in “LGBT.” The case for same-sex marriage is dependent on the denial of sexual differences.
It is the heart, not the mind, that has concluded that all a child needs is love, not a father and mother. And therein lies one of the reasons that the notion of obedience to religion is so loathed by the cultural Left. Biblical Judaism and Christianity repeatedly dismiss the heart as a moral guide. Moreover, the war to replace God, Judeo-Christian values, and the Bible as moral guides is far from over. What will this lead to?
Yesterday’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges represents the culmination of a perfectly executed public relations campaign.
In a purely pragmatic sense, it’s difficult not to be impressed by what this activist-driven effort accomplished—I mean in real terms, not the unserious victory slogans of the campaign itself.
In no particular order, it:
1. Successfully and fundamentally transformed the definition of “marriage,” and did so in a way that portrayed efforts to preserve traditional marriage as the novelty, rather than the millennia-old status quo.
2. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public that there is only one side in this debate, despite the fact that the side claiming the monopoly had only existed in any meaningful form for perhaps 20 years.
3. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public that race and sexual orientation are directly analogous.
4. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public (and jurists) that there is no possible argument against gay marriage—to the point where federal judges found that not permitting same-sex marriage is definitionally irrational, and had prominent left-leaning outlets calling yesterday’s dissents simply “crazy.”
5. Successfully branded opponents as simple “bigots” for daring to hold a different view on a live political issue, going so far as to take punitive action against those who did not adopt the “correct” viewpoint.
6. Successfully portrayed the battle as, literally, love versus hate.
7. Successfully accomplished all of the above in about a decade.
My God, the magnitude of it is staggering.
President Barack Obama urged supporters of same-sex marriage Friday to “help” people to overcome their religious convictions, so they are no longer held back from a progressive American view of equality.
“I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue,” he said in a speech following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling to Constitutionally recognize same-sex marriage. He initially espoused respect for those who disagree with the ruling.
“Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs,” he said. “All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact. Recognize different viewpoints. Revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”
“But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple often painfully real change is possible,” he continued, abruptly switching gears, clearly implying that those who disagree must come around to the more righteous, more American, and more equal view of marriage.
“Shifts in hearts and minds is possible,” he said. “And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we could ever be alone.”
“That’s always been our story. We are big and vast, and diverse. A nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, with different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are, or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love — America’s a place where you can write your own destiny.”
Perhaps reeducation camps?
First, many compare man-woman marriage laws to bans on interracial marriage, but whereas anti-miscegenation laws separated the races, marriage unites the genders. Laws against interracial marriages are historical anomalies, but the requirement of a man and woman is the universal characteristic of marriage across time and culture. Far from discrimination, the union of man and woman is the very definition of what marriage is.
Second, same-sex marriage advocates argue that the children of same-sex couples are disadvantaged if those couples cannot marry, yet the same advocates argue there’s no difference in child outcomes for same-sex couples. Both cannot simultaneously be true. Are the children of same-sex couples disadvantaged or are there no differences? Katy Faust, who was raised by her mother and lesbian partner, believes there are differences, but not because her mother could not legally marry her partner. Once a supporter of same-sex marriage, now that she’s a parent herself, she feels differently: “I see how important the role of [my children’s] father is and how irreplaceable I am as their mother. We play complementary roles in their lives, and neither of us is disposable. In fact, we are both critical. It’s almost as if Mother Nature got this whole reproduction thing exactly right.”
Third, to prove a constitutional deprivation, same-sex couples argue that the right to marry a member of the opposite sex is impossible and meaningless, but this ignores the tens of thousands of LGBT people in traditional marriages. Recent studies show that 51 percent of bisexual adults with children and 18 percent of gays and lesbians with children choose man-woman marriages. Same-sex marriage advocates stigmatize such relationships as unnatural and dangerous, but powerful examples are proving otherwise.