ALGAEMAN FOR EX-PRESIDENT !


[Cartoons by Henry Payne]




[Cartoons by Ken Catalino]
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:28 AM |

 
MAYBE OBAMA'S PAST WITH AYERS WILL BE REVISITED AFTER ALL?
Back in the election of 2008, I wrote a post titled, "The Relationship Obama Doesn't Want You To Know About." The relationship was one of many questionable--and somewhat characterologically revealing-- relationships that should have made anyone question whether Obama should even be considered to occupy the highest position in the land. The Obama machine attempted furiously to squelch any and all attempts to shed light on these relationships; and the sheep-like media went along because they were blinded by worship. Consequently, Obama's connection with Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground was never throroughly vetted. In fact, Ayers even enjoyed a round of rather positive media coverage which attempted to show he wasn't such a bad guy after all. I mean, all he did was try to blow up and kill a few people (see here). But Ayers and Obama have always been dead serious about their committment to "social justice."

Here's what I said at the time about Obama's close relationship with that unrepentant terrorist:

"First there is the ad (Michelle Malkin has more) his thugs are trying to squelch:



Then there is this, from Ben Smith:

Barack Obama's campaign hasn't advertised this a great deal this week, but the campaign's "Action Wire" has been waging large-scale campaigns against critics. That includes tens of thousands of e-mails to television stations running Harold Simmons' Bill Ayers ad, and to their advertisers — including a list of major automobile and telecommunications companies.

And tonight, the campaign launched a more specific campaign: an effort to disrupt the appearance by a writer for National Review, Stanley Kurtz, on a Chicago radio program. Kurtz has been writing about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, and has suggested that papers housed at the University of Illinois at Chicago would reveal new details of that relationship.

The campaign e-mailed Chicago supporters who had signed up for the Obama Action Wire with detailed instructions including the station's telephone number and the show's extension, as well as a research file on Kurtz, which seems to prove that he's a conservative, which isn't in dispute. The file cites a couple of his more controversial pieces, notably his much-maligned claim that same-sex unions have undermined marriage in Scandinavia.

"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse," says the email, which picks up a form of pressure on the press pioneered by conservative talk radio hosts and activists in the 1990s, and since adopted by Media Matters and other liberal groups.

"It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies," it continues.

Kurtz, in case you are not aware, has been researching the connection between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, including looking into records from the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (see here, here, here, and here for more details).

I don't know about you, but I for one would like to know as much as possible about the personal and professional associations of a potential US President. Those associations matter because they give insight into character and judgment--or lack of same.

If you think John Edwards' "association" with Rielle Hunter; and his subsequent attempts to squelch the story make him unfit to remain in politics, then what about Obama's relationship with the likes of Bill Ayers? The Edwards-Hunter relationship is just another example of adolescent-style hormonal imbalance coupled with the narcissistic entitlement mindset so prevalent in our political culture these days. The Obama-Ayers relationship is far more dangerous in its implications--because Ayers is not exactly a beautiful woman attemptimg to capture a powerful politician with her sexual wiles, he is an unrepentent terrorist, murderer, and liar with an ideological agenda he wants imposed on American society. Ayers famously said in his Underground days:

Characterizing Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."

His successful seduction of people like Barack Obama means he doesn't plan on being "underground" anymore.



Above is Mr. Ayers stomping on an American flag in 2001
(and if that is not the symbolic equivalent of his words quoted above from 1970, then I haven't been practicing psychiatry for the last 25 years)."

As Peter Kirsonow noted in October, 2008:

Obama consorted with a terrorist who brags about planting bombs and whose organization planted hundreds of bombs. Some were meant to kill cops. Some were meant to kill soldiers. Some were meant to kill civilians.

Let's put this quite simply: This is an abomination. This alone disqualifies Obama from being president. Even if he can heal the planet. Even if the Dow tanks to 5000. Even if he puts a unicorn in every garage. A majority of Americans will not vote for a candidate who they know has had a working relationship with a terrorist — foreign or domestic. But they must know it.

Americans haven't suddenly become so tolerant of terrorism — and those who are tolerant of terrorists — that we'll vote for a smooth, glib, empty suit because we hope that somehow he'll work some form of alchemy on a scary economy.

This is not rocket science. The facts must be presented. Clearly, concisely, repeatedly. They haven't been.

Why do I bring this up now? Well, apparently, Andrew Breitbart's promise to release stunning new video of Obama from his days at Harvard will finally begin to dredge up a past that should have been thoroughly vetted the first time around. I hope we get information that goes all the way back to his "Barry Soetoro Obama" days at Occidental College, because it is a past that is littered with communists, fellow travellers, assorted alinskyites, and various unrepentant terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn.

We may be able to begin to connect the dots on Barack Obama and see how those dots led directly to people like Ayers and Dohrn.

Now, I am not much into conspiracy theories and there is no evidence to suggest that Breitbart's death was due to anything but natural causes, but it is interesting that Breitbart told CPAC that he intended to release the information on March 1, the same day he collapsed and died.

Fortunately, according to Steven Bannon, the tapes are going to be released by March 10.

Do the tapes have to do with Ayers or connect to him? I don't know obviously, but I am hoping that they may well might be the beginning of some real investigative journalism about all of this President's loose associations.

And, it is a good thing that there is a possibility these issues will be revisited prior to the Presidential election; particularly since the last 3 years have amply demonstrated to anyone with an ounce of sense that Obama's primary goal has been to force the transformation of America into becoming the country that William Ayers (as well as Jeremiah Wright AND the lovely Michelle Obama) can finally be proud of.

We simply can't afford four more years of a President with the Bill Ayers mentality in the White House.

Even in death, I'm hoping that Andrew Breitbart will have the last laugh .
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:55 PM |

 
PERFECT CRONY CAPITALISM = PERFECT CRONY SOCIALISM/FASCISM
At Zero Hedge, there is a guest post by Charles Hughes Smith on Crony Capitalism. Smith's point is straightforward:

In the U.S. we now have the perfection of cloaked crony capitalism: corporate cartels use their vast concentrations of capital and revenue to buy the political leverage needed to write regulations specifically designed to eliminate competition.

Recall that the most profitable business model is a monopoly or cartel protected from competition by the coercive Central State. Imposing complex regulations on small business competitors effectively cripples an entire class competitors, but does so in "stealth mode"--after all, more regulations are a "good thing" (especially to credulous Liberals) which "protect the public" (and every politico loves claiming his/her new raft of regulations will "protect the public.")

This masks the key dynamic of crony capitalism: gaming the government is the most profitable business model. Where else can you "invest" a few hundred thousand dollars (to buy political "access" and lobbying) and "earn" a return in the millions of dollars, and eliminate potential competitors, too? No other "investment" even comes close.

From Investopedia:

A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.
[...]
Both socialists and capitalists have been at odds with each other over assigning blame to the opposite group for the rise of crony capitalism. Socialists believe that crony capitalism is the inevitable result of pure capitalism. This belief is supported by their claims that people in power, whether business or government, look to stay in power and the only way to do this is to create networks between government and business that support each other.

On the other hand, capitalists believe that crony capitalism arises from the need of socialist governments to control the state. This requires businesses to operate closely with the government to acheive the greatest success. [Emphasis mine]

Let's think about that last emphasized bit above.

First off, the "cronies" come from both sides of the political aisle, it is true; but we have seen an unprecedented expansion of this sort of behavior in the 3 short years of Obamanomics. Even the media is noticing this reality with some alarm:

During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama promised to “end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all.” Don’t tell that to his friends. In May 2011, the pharmaceutical firm Siga Technologies, headed by Obama intimate Ronald Perelman, received a $443 million sole-source, no-bid, no-questions-asked government contract for an unnecessary anti-smallpox pill. Siga previously had been awarded a $3 billion contract after placing former Service Employees International Union boss and frequent White House visitor Andy Stern on its board.

Never in modern history has the U.S. government been used so extensively as a vehicle for benefiting political cronies at the expense of the rest of us. In his speech, Mr. Obama said America shouldn’t “settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by.” Given this administration’s rampant favoritism, special treatment and backroom deals, restoring fairness is a major argument against Mr. Obama’s re-election.

Next,when you consider Solyndra, LightSquared and the other cronies who are capitalizing on Obama's ecofanatacism (algae companies are next!); when you consider Government Motors and the large-scale political paybacks to unions; indeed, when you consider how Obama deliberately manipulates business (denouncing it on the one hand, while the other is pocketing the campaign contributions from them) and issues commandments from Mt. Olympus (e.g., Insurance companies will eat the cost of birth control; etc.) then it is very easy to understand why business is "gaming the system" and why developing a cozy relationship with Obama and his band of merry regulators and redistributors is a key aspect of the new, improved business model.

This is not to say that there aren't and haven't been businesses and "capitalists" who eagerly suck up to power in order to destroy their competitors throughout history. But that is not a function of capitalism any more than it is a function of socialism or any utopian system.

It is a function of the darker side of human nature.

And, let's remember that human nature is the same whether it is operating under a socialist system or whether a capitalist system. However there are some crucial difference between those systems that hinge on their differing attitudes toward human nature.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Among all known social, political and economic systems, democratic capitalism is the one that is most consistent with human nature.

-Far from encouraging the "survival of the fittest" or even a "dog-eat-dog" animal mentality, capitalism simultaneously encourages cooperation for mutually beneficial trade and for competition.

-Far from encouraging war and dominance; capitalism encourages trust and human cooperation; as well as alliances to maximize productivity and wealth creation.

-In a capitalist system, you must persuade others that your products and services are better or cheaper than others--otherwise they will not buy it. In a socialist system, you have to always resort to force to get people to buy or use the state-approved product or service.

-Far from concentrating all wealth in the hands of a few, capitalism makes it possible for anyone to accumulate wealth (contrast for example the number of people who earn over $100,000 a year in the U.S., with those do in Cuba. The only really wealthy person there is Fidel Castro and his cronies. Likewise, in any collectivist system you will find that the only wealthy people are the thugs in control and their cronies. It is certainly true that "the rich get richer" under capitalism--but so do the poor; and, that happens because the creation of wealth is not a zero-sum game.

Envy is a real human emotion that is often destructive socially and personally, but only in a capitalist system can one transform one's psychological envy or greed into socially acceptable and personally positive actions that improve one's own lot without stealing or looting from others, or attacking and destroying them.

The problem with the underlying ideology of socialism/communism/Marxism and the "crony socialism" that we enjoy here in the U.S., is that they all inevitably breed and encourages envy, greed, and a lust for power and wealth--emotions that tend to drive ALL economic and political systems. But these emotions are unrestrained in the utopian wonderlands mentioned above; and they exist in a pure, unadulterated, undiluted, and particularly vicious form.

Yes, to be sure, capitalism also thrives on envy--and even greed, power, and wealth. Those emotions are part and parcel of human nature, after all. But, (and this is important) capitalism does not condemn human nature or expect a "new man" to emerge in order for it to be successful for individuals or society as a whole. And, capitalism is not blind to them, like collectivist systems are.

Instead, unlike those other systems that seek to perfect human beings, capitalism offers a healthy channel for the redirection of negative emotions like envy and greed into something positive for both the individual and the larger society. There is no healthy channel in crony socialism. To survive, you have to do what the State and its Masters say as they pocket your bribe money and pretend that their motives are "for the good of all."

Capitalism does not pretend that those messy negative human emotions can be "stamped out" merely by the Will of the State. It does not pretend these emotions don't exist; nor does it hide them under the mask of "We're doing it for YOUR OWN GOOD".

Instead, it human nature as a given and simply provides a system through which humans are able to sublimate and redirect those negative emotions to better both themselves and incidentally the larger society.

As economic systems go, this is a miraculous psychological breakthrough; and it is why capitalism dovetails so nicely with political systems that promote individual freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Taken all together, democratic capitalism is about as close to "perfection" as humans are likely to get.

Human nature is what it is. This is not tragic, it is simple truth. History is littered with the corpses of the people whose nature the left has tried to "perfect" in some way; and all those utopian fantasies about changing human nature always end in misery, suffering and death for large numbers of imperfect homo sapiens wherever it is implemented.

In short, when you have perfected crony capitalism to the point that the Obama Administration has, you have really instituted perfect crony socialism and are well on your way to national socialism or some other redistributive utopian fantasy.

UPDATE: See what I mean here about how these virtuous, anti-capitalist utopians (i.e., the entire "Occupy" movement and their enablers) are perfectly OK with the dark side of human nature? Or, how about the environmental activist who hired a hit man to kill a random person wearing fur? She was very kind and sensitive about it, though.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:06 AM |

 
DEMOCRAT & MEDIA AMNESIA
Why is this not so shocking?
In 2008 prices at the gas pump surged under President Bush and there was a lot of media attention to that fact, even though it was significantly less than the current rise in prices at the pump. Recently, the Business and Media Institute decided to study how the media covered the situation back then as compared to now.

Per Bernard Goldberg on Fox News, the Business and Media Institute found several important differences between then and now:

Well, they found out two things, basically. One, they analyzed stories from four years ago when President Bush was president and from this month when President Obama is president regarding higher gas prices.

And they found that the three networks, the broadcast networks ran four times as many stories about gas prices rising when President Bush was president than now when President Obama was president. I'm shocked by that, by the way.

The second thing they found out is that the tone was different. Today, the stories are mostly unemotional. They're about how the gas prices affect the economy. But four years ago they were very personal about how people were having to make decisions between buying food and buying gasoline.

Of course, the biggest difference is that Bush was a Republican President; and Obama is a Democrat.

I believe, though, that there is a more of a ideological vulnerability for amnesia in Democrats--so IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT!! THEY JUST NEED TREATMENT FOR THEIR TERRIBLY DISABLING CONDITION!
Suggestion: For Democrats, who have little insight into the disorder, voting them out of office so as not to stress the rigid minds of the poor dears further would be very therapeutic; not only for them, but also for the American public. OTOH for the Media: their condition appears to be terminal and lead to permanent dementia.



[Cartoons by Gary Varvel]
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:38 AM |

 
LET THEM EAT ALGAE!
Obama's new 5-Year PlanEnergy Plan appears to not only depnd on solar power but also on using algae as a new form of energy.

I was pleased to hear Charles Krauthammer mock this idea yesterday on Special Report:

… I was impressed by the president’s analysis of this situation where we have no control over the global price of oil. We’re depending on oil from unfriendlies. And he says… drilling for oil to relieve our dependency is not a solution or a plan. He said we have to go to clean energy. He talked about something really revolutionary today: algae. A $14 million grant for the development of algae [was announced].

So it’s not oil. His solution is algae. And because we know the secretary of energy is a physicist who won the Nobel Prize, the president, knowing all this stuff, said one reason we should do this is because “we can grow algae here in the United States.”

It happens that algae will grow anywhere on earth!

Hey, it's even good to eat, being called "Nature's Perfect Food"!

This reminded me of Kim Jong Il's "Pine Needle Tea":

In the spring of 1845, Karl Marx wrote, ". . . the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." Marx's idea was that a change in the "ensemble of social relations" can change "the human essence."

In June 2004 the communist North Korean government issued a statement to its starving citizens recommending the consumption of pine needles. Pyongyang maintained that pine needle tea could effectively prevent and treat cancer, arteriosclerosis, diabetes, cerebral hemorrhage, and even turn grey hair to black.

Tragically, human nature isn't at all as advertised, and neither is pine needle tea. According to the U.S. State Department, at least one million North Koreans have died of famine since 1995.

Well, we may not starve here in the good old US of A (unless algae becomes the US Government policy position on food), but I bet that we will have a new kind of energy famine if we pin all our hopes on algae or on other blue-green energy sources.

Perhaps LET THEM EAT ALGAE! will become the new campaign slogan for President Marie Obamanette

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:18 PM |

 
RELIGION OF THUGS
Andrew McCarthy writes:

A state judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed an assault and harrassment case against a Muslim defendant who admitted attacking the victim. Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq and a convert to Islam, ruled that Talag Elbayomi’s sharia defense – what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed – trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Here is a video of the "outrage" that led the tender sensibilities of the Muslim to attack:


It mocks pretty much every religion; yet only in the "religion of peace" are there riots and murderous violence. Is it insensitive? So what? I'm Catholic born and raised and don't feel any need to go and defend Catholicism's honor--or my own-- and attack the zombie-Pope. Perhaps I don't like it much, but in a civilized world, there are appropriate ways of expressing one's dislikes that don't involve violence. Violence, as Isaac Asimove has notably pointed out, is the last refuge of the incompetent. I would add, that it is the first refuge of thug, bullies, and oppressors everywhere.

McCarthy notes: "In 27 years of trying and analyzing legal cases, this performance is as shocking and disgraceful as anything I’ve ever seen from an American trial judge."

Meanwhile our courageous President apologizes for the military burning some Korans in Afghanistan (Korans which inamates were using to send messages to one another); even as violent Muslim mobs kill two U.S. soldiers over the "outrage".

So, now we have two of our three branches of government, the Executive and the Judicial submitting to Sharia and the usual "death to all" Muslim outrage.

That leaves one branch of government left, and if we depend on those idiots to stand up for Western values like freedom of speech, we are truly doomed.

I sent a snarky Valentine blog post to the "peaceful" religion of Islam, and one of my commenters was offended at my rather harsh views toward this malignant religion:

My husband is Muslim. Often, I hear or see people vilifying his faith; it bothers me more than him. No one could find a sweeter or stronger man than my husband, and his faith is the source of that sweetness and strength.

I realize nothing I say would convince you to re-evaluate your "position". But I felt the need to make sure a different voice was heard. There are extremists of every faith. And it's easy to find examples of awful or crazy things someone has said and done and attribute it to the entire group. But do you have any friends or family members who are Muslim? It's a lot harder to hate a group if you love an individual in that group.

I love my husband, and look forward to receiving my Valentine.

In this recent post, the woman I quoted also apparently loved her Muslim husband who was dedicated to the annihilation of Israel.

Look, I will grant that there are decent people who are Muslim. But these horrific things are being done in their name, too. I blame the millions and millions of Muslim fanatics for the fact that Islam has become even more fanatical and violent than it was at its origins. Unfortunately, Muslim "fanatacism" is not just a few people here and there.

It is entire nations.

I will ask several simple questions: Is there one place in the world where Islam is practiced today that people are not oppressed; where freedom is permitted; where those who disagree with any ridiculous aspect of Islam are not persecuted and viciously murdered; where REASON, TRUTH and REALITY prevail over delusional thinking? Is there one place where Islam is practiced that is tolerant?

If that commenter has a brain, then I suggest to her that she begin to use it and she and her loving husband (who hopefully gave her a Valentine) need to either:
1. check their premises about their so called "peaceful" religion: and, if they decide to remain Muslims,
2. do something to alter their religion's cancerous metastasis in the free world.

But like all so-called "moderates" in that religion; they probably either don't disagree with what their fellow Muslims perpetrate in the world; or they are too afraid of their fellow Muslims to speak up and denounce them.

As far as I am concerned, anything less than that makes them enemies of humanity and dedicated to its enslavement.

Am I being harsh? With twenty dead over the latest Koran incident, including 2 American soldiers; and with our own freedoms in this country at stake, I fear I am not being harsh enough.

We need to stop apologizing and stop being afraid of the religion of thugs.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:57 PM |

 
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS NOT A RATIONAL ACTOR
In a post titled, "Isn't that nice?", Daniel Foster documents a wife's touching remembrance of her husband, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was recently assassinated:

“Mostafa’s ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel,” Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani told FNA on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, along the same lines as, "Isn't that nice?" guess who gets to decide what our FBI agents will learn about Islam and who gets to censor anything considered offensive to Islam in the material?

...the FBI — following the administration’s lead — is purging its training materials of publications that are deemed offensive to Muslims (you know, crazy stuff like claims that passages in the Koran and Hadith promote violent jihad, Islamic supremacism, killing of apostates, oppression of women, etc.). So what are the criteria the Bureau uses to figure out what materials are offensive? And who decides?

You’ll never guess. Steve, who has been talking to some mighty outraged law-enforcement officials, writes:

It was just revealed two days ago that FBI Director Mueller secretly met on February 8 at FBI headquarters with a coalition of groups including various Islamist and militant Arabic groups who in the past have defended Hamas and Hizballah and have also issued blatantly anti-Semitic statements. At this meeting, the FBI revealed that it had removed more than 1000 presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that was deemed “offensive.” The FBI did not reveal what criteria was used to determine why material was considered “offensive” but knowledgeable law enforcement sources have told the IPT that it was these radical groups who made that determination. Moreover, numerous FBI agents have confirmed that from now on, FBI headquarters has banned all FBI offices from inviting any counter-terrorist specialists who are considered “anti-Islam” by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

Holy Sharia, Batman! Even our FBI is infected with this PC idiocy.

What the hell is wrong with our government? Are they determined to lead us all like little lambs to the altar of Sharia?

But even worse is the Obama Administrations psychotic belief in the rationality (!!) of the Iranian regime. And the dearest wish of the heart of Iranian nuclear scientists is clearly to bring the peaceful power of the atom to help teddy bears and unicorns.

Unfortunately for the United States, the Obama Administration is NOT a rational actor.

Isn't that nice?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:19 PM |

 
THE DEMISE OF OF SOCIAL LIBERALISM?
Suzanne Venker has an interesting article on National Review titled, "Why Men Are Slackers and Women are Single" which proposes that all the recent brouhaha in the media celebrating the single life has one primary goal: to give the impression that there is something fundamentally wrong with marriage:

Then there are articles that aren’t so well-known — such as last month’s cover story in Boston magazine, entitled “Single by Choice.” The smaller caption reads, “This is Terri. She’s successful, happy, and at 38, just fine with never getting married. Ever.” It’s enough to make the average person think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the married state.

Which, of course, is the point.

Unlike women such as Condoleezza Rice, who quietly lead unconventional lives without a trace of resentment toward their fellow men, feminists are inherently insecure women who demand validation for their unusual choices. They do this by implying the so-called rise of women is a great thing — and proof that marriage is an outdated, patriarchal institution. At an event in Washington D.C., Bolick and Rosin appear together to do just that. Rosin, in her trademark elitist and condescending fashion, had this to say: ”Having reported a lot on Christian conservatives, I can tell you they get married, like, as soon as they fall in love and, you know, it’s probably because they can’t have sex unless they’re married — which is not the case for most of us.” (Envision lots of insulting facial gestures, as well as laughter coming from the audience.) Just imagine if I were to say in a similar forum, “Yeah, you know how those Jews are.”

High-profile feminists such as Bolick, Rosin, and Coontz celebrate the ascension of women as though it were a win-win. But the fact that today more women than men get college degrees and have good jobs is nothing to smile about. ”The good news about women is accompanied by bad news about men, which also turns out to be bad news for women,” writes Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto.

The “bad news” about men is always couched in the context that men aren’t “manning up,” or doing what’s necessary to be responsible adults. Perhaps they aren’t — they’re certainly retreating from marriage, that’s for sure. The question is, why? And the answer is simple. With premarital sex a foregone conclusion and cohabitation on the rise, men live the good life with no responsibilities. Moreover, women have made it clear they don’t need a man to support them, to be happy, or even to become a mother. The result is that men become slackers.

If we also consider the fact that the percentage of population that is married has declined from 72% in 1970; to 62% in 1990 and to 59% a few years ago. According to this site, the most impacted segment of the population are young people:

(September 2010) Marriage rates have dropped precipitously among young adults ages 25 to 34 during the past decade and the decline has accelerated since the onset of the recession, according to PRB's analysis of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2009 American Community Survey (ACS) and 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS). The data suggest that more young couples are delaying marriage or foregoing matrimony altogether, likely as an adaptive response to the economic downturn and decline in the housing market.

Between 2000 and 2009, the share of young adults ages 25 to 34 who are married dropped 10 percentage points, from 55 percent to 45 percent, according to ACS data.1 During the same period, the percentage who have never been married increased sharply, from 34 percent to 46 percent. In a dramatic reversal, the proportion of young adults in the United States who have never been married now exceeds those who are married.

The New York Times even trumpets that it is now the "new normal" for children in the US is to be born out of wedlock, though they have the grace to add:

What’s most troubling about these figures is that marriage is good for children.
“Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems,” write Mr. DeParle and Ms. Tavernise. Most births outside of a marriage are to couples who are living together, but marriages last longer than alternative arrangements. Tax-saving economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers may be the exception, but statistically, co-habitation arrangements in the United States are more than twice as likely to dissolve than marriages.

So, one wonders WHY there appears to be a concerted push, spearheaded by women, to celebrate this alarming unraveling in the fabric of the family? Why do they appear to be almost desperate to promote the idea that wanting to get married is very uncool?

And why is it that the only situation where marriage seems to be celebrated and encouraged--even culturally and politically demanded-- is in the area of Gay Marriage?

If the institution of marriage is in decline and the statistics, if they continue to proceed at the current rate of decline of 10-15% every 20 years or so; it would suggest that marriage among heterosexuals will all but disappear in the next 60 years or so, and along with it, any semblance of normal family life.

Yet, people and groups who express dismay at this decay of family life and the many social and economic consequences which directly result from it are vilified and regarded as extreme.

But, much as the political left refuses to acknowledge the destructiveness of their policies on marriage and family (policies which date back to the 60's and 70's sexual revolution), the rest of America is beginning to wake up to the fact that there are consequences of those policies that are destructive to individuals and which promote poverty and societal decline.

James Taranto thinks that America is becoming more socially conservative as a result of all this, not less. In a piece subtitled, "Why the Left Can't Handle the Truth About Social Conservatism", Taranto hits the nail on the head:

Social liberals have two basic approaches to social conservatism: mystification and triumphalism. Both reflect a failure of understanding--but more than that, an incapacity to understand, a will to ignorance that is best understood as a psychological defense.
[...]
In other words, less affluent Americans are socially conservative because they bear the brunt of the social policies and cultural attitudes that prevail among affluent liberal elites. You can see why it would be difficult for Krugman and Alter, who doubtless pride themselves on their compassion and moral rectitude, to acknowledge or even consider this explanation. They need to be obtuse as a psychological defense.

Their age may have something to do with it, too. Krugman and Alter were both born in the 1950s, which is to say that they are both baby boomers. Both were too young to be protesting on campus in 1968, but both are old enough that the triumph of contemporary feminism and the sexual revolution coincided with their formative years. That is to say, both presumably cast their lot with the cultural left in its moment of triumph and in the belief that by doing so, they were putting themselves on the side of progress.

One thing that unites the social liberals is their belief that social conservatives are "fools" and "religious nuts."

To paraphrase Obama Himself: "...it's not surprising then that the left get bitter, they cling to their birth control and their leftist theology or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-religious sentiment or anti-conservative sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

And they are very frustrated, even if sexually free, morality-free, and conscience-free. They must wonder anxiously, Why can't everyone just agree with us and appreciate the impending utopia we are ushering in with our beautiful liberal policies?

The problem is that their policies are ushering in a nightmare instead: destroying the importance of committment, marriage and family; all of which have been critical to the rise of civilization against the tide of barbarism. They accuse conservatives of being "anti-woman, but their policies are both anti-man AND anti-woman.

Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds reminded us of an appropriate Heinlein quote:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

When marriage as an institution is dead; when most children are born into poverty because they have biological fathers who won't commit to raising or supporting them; when most women find that men no longer see any benefit of the married state, then I'm sure that the right-thinking progressives will attribute it all to "bad luck" and encourage even more government and state interference into people's lives to counteract it.

The nicest thing I can say is that the left is very, very heavily invested in their psychological denial.

As long as they portray those of us who are shouting "STOP" to their agenda as "religious nuts looking to snatch your prophylactics," they can contiue to be oblivious to the damage they are doing to society, and to individual freedom AND individual responsibility.

Amazingly, you can be opposed to their policies AND still believe that people have the right to make their own choices in life (even bad ones)--as long as they understand that, along with those rights they have to be sufficiently grown-up enough to accept the consequences of their choices.

No wonder they are in such profound denial--if they could handle the truth (or reality) the demise of social liberalism--or, freedom without an iota of responsibility-- would be a done deal.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:07 AM |

 
SPEAKING OF PHONY THEOLOGIES...
GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum is being angrily criticized by the various crooks and liars of the left for criticizing Obama's religious bona fides:

A day after telling an Ohio audience that Obama's agenda is based on "some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible," Santorum said he wasn't criticizing the president's Christianity.

"I've repeatedly said I don't question the president's faith. I've repeatedly said that I believe the president's Christian," Santorum told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I am talking about his world view, and the way he approaches problems in this country. I think they're different than how most people do in America," he said in the broadcast interview.

Apparently, Santorum's social conservatism just gets under the thin skin of Progressives. Which is why I could get to like Mr. Santorum more and more.

However much I may disagree with Santorum's personal postions on a number of social issues, I do believe he is entitled to them. And on the idea of Obama having a "phony theology", he happens to be right on.

Remember, this is the Obama who sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for several decades--a church as phony, hate-filled and un-Christian as you can possibly get. This is the Obama who thinks God should be replaced by the State. This is the Obama who styled himself a modern Messiah in his election campaign, who fancies himself as some sort of god, standing before the Greek Temples and promising to halt the rise of oceans and bring peace to the world.

We can all see how that's working out for him.

But, as usual, the crooks and liars and looters miss the point. The ideology of the postmodern political left IS the new theology of many. It is a fervent belief system, with the requisite priests and imams preaching to the faithful; and based on the worn-out and useless ideology of Marx (Karl, not Groucho). The 21st century minions of Marx are just as worshipful of his discredited ideas in this century as they were in the last.

And, even more than his own phony Christianity, Obama fervently believes in all the same claptrap BS the political left has been spouting since the 1960's.

Obama has pushed the "reset" button on a number of fronts, but surprise! We are still hated, only now we are also routinely mocked because Obama is perceived as weak and uninvolved. Over the past two years we have routinely thrown our friends under the Obama bus; while appeasing and bowing to our enemies. We have routinely focused on the less important (to our national interest anyway) issues like Libya and Quadaffi; rather than take a strong stance on Iran, a major and imminent threat, not only to the region, but to our national interests in the region. Time and again, Obama has resorted to his supposedly "magical" rhetoric, as if words without the necessary backbone to stand behind them. When he actually does something like give the order to go in and take down Bin Laden (and, I still believe that all the psychological evidence suggests that Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that action, but when it turned out ok was perfectly willing to take all the credit) many on the left had a hissy fit and rushed to condemn it as somehow being "inconsistent with our values."

It's hard to be consistent with one's values when those "values" change on a daily basis depending on which way the wind blows. Remember, the goal is not reason or truth or consistency to values, but promoting a particular ideology. That is why there the left demonstrates "subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next."

For them, their magical thinking is absolute...magic. And a belief in some form of "magic" is the basis of all primitive religions.

Such beliefs make all those unpleasant realities simply go away when they do not fit into their philosophy.

Meanwhile, on the economic front it is undoubtedly clear that there is a considerable amount of magical thinking going on on both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to the economy, but in the last year there have been at least some attempts to start a rational conversation that could address the serious problem with debt and spending this country is faced with.

Paul Ryan, who came up with an Economic Plan a few months ago which called for both tax cuts AND decreased spending started the conversation. Yet, far from using his plan as a starting point to discuss reality, it was instead used for the purpose of villifying any Republican for wanting to deal with entitlements--they are now accused of vile "sins" against the dogma of the left. Ryan was caricatured as wanting to push granny off a cliff).

Meanwhile, in keeping with the magical thinking of the new-left's theology, believers hold onto the idea that doing nothing but listening to Obama's regular chants and incantations on the debt crisis, is a safe strategy (and it might well be from a political perspective in an election year); but reality probably isn't going to agree with the true believers for very long.

Fairy tales can come true, it can happen to you--if you're Democrat.

But they are simply following in the phony theology of their President, who believes as fervently as any religious fanatic that his wishes and feelings are more powerful than reality.


[Cartoons by Jerry Holbert]
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:29 AM |