Good comment left in response to this story at Big Hollywood: Palin Derangement Syndrome: Bristol’s ‘DWTS’ Success Drives Man to Shotgun TV
The list of [alleged] angry, violent libs grows longer:
11/16/10 – fired shotgun into television and engaged in standoff with police: Steven Cowan accused (hated Bristol Palin on Dancing With the Stars)
09/09/10 – Philadelphia Kraft factory shooting killed 2, injured 1: Yvonne Hiller accused (angry about Ground Zero Mosque protesters and call for Koran burning)
09/01/10 – Hostage standoff at Discovery Channel: James Jay Lee accused (angry about lack of “Climate Change” programming)
08/25/10 – stabbing of Manhattan cab driver for being Muslim: Michael Enright accused (Ground Zero Mosque supporter [likely attempting a “false flag” attack])
03/04/10 – shooting of two pentagon police officers: John Patrick Bedell accused (9/11 truther, anti-Bush obsession)
02/18/10 – Austin IRS plane crash guy: Joseph Stack accused (angry about healthcare not being passed, anti-Bush obsession)
02/13/10 – University of Alabama shooter: Amy Bishop accused (reportedly: “obsessed with President Obama to the point of being off-putting”)
11/05/09 – lone gunman at Fort Hood leaves 13 dead, 30 injured: Major Nidal Hasan accused (anti-war obsession)
06/10/09 – U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter: James von Brunn accused (anti-semitic, 9/11 truther, anti-Bush obsession)
The left might not want to claim them. But these folks are definitely not right-wingers. Still, the right is repeatedly accused by the left of violent rhetoric and hate-speech.
Think there might be some “projection” going on?
Other than the guy who murdered partial birth abortion doctor George Tiller (an action which all pro-lifers on the ‘Right’ immediately came out 100% against), the ‘Right’ has not been committing any crimes over the past 10 years. It has been the unhinged liberals… continuing the great tradition of our President’s best buddy, domestic terrorist William Ayers.
We can also add to this list:
Great article by Sultan Knish: Breaking the Siege Mentality of Airline Security
Under our current system, all we can do is wait. Gather intel, tighten security, send out alerts… and wait. Wait for another attack.
But we’re not on the defensive because we have to be. We’re on the defensive because we choose to be. We stand around getting shot at, and insist that it must be raining. We have a gator chomping on our leg, and we blame muscle aches. We have Muslims trying to kill us, and we insist that it’s religiously undifferentiated extremists. Like Glenn Beck.
After 9/11, our goal was to kill terrorists. We went on the offensive and we actually succeeded. Not just in killing terrorists, that’s not hard to do, but in frightening them. In terrorizing them. And then we decided to turn their countries into humanitarian projects, rebuild them, provide free electricity, dig their wells and protect them. And not only did we get played for suckers, but the terrorists rebounded. They were back in their element, trying to bring down a regime and terrorize the occupation forces. And we were on the defensive.
And we’re still on the defensive.
We could end 99 percent of the threat of terror by shutting down every mosque and deporting every first and second generation Muslim immigrant from this country. And every convert. But of course we can’t do that. That would be “Un-American”. On the other hand TSA agents groping female air travelers, now that’s properly “American”.
In the same way, we could save the lives of our troops, by dropping all the “Hearts and Minds” nonsense, and focusing on wiping out terrorists and anyone who collaborates with them. Not to mention take back the American oil fields that the Saudis nationalized, and turn off the money tap for Al Qaeda. But that too would be “Un-American”. But burying fallen soldiers every week, who aren’t allowed to defend themselves under the “Hearts and Minds” Rules of Engagement, that is just very “American”. Isn’t it?
It’s possible to do anything, so long as you’re willing to accept the consequences. But on the other hand if you’re not, then the options are limited. If we go on living in a world, in which Islam is the “Religion of Peace” and our primary goal is to appease them, then we will always have the choice between being oppressed by the authorities or murdered by the terrorists. Which one we choose doesn’t really matter. Because they’re really a balance. More security, less security. More killing, less killing. As long as we remain in denial, then we’ll have to live with a measure of both at the same time.
That’s life under siege. And the only way to change that is to break out of the siege. We are under siege by Islam. By Muslims, inside and outside our country. The goal of their siege is to wear us down and beat us down to the point where we’ll give them anything they ask for, so we can just have some peace. To the point where we’ll give up our freedoms, our religion and our country — and accept slavery, just to bring the terror to an end.
The Third Option is breaking the siege mentality. And breaking out of the siege. Muslim terror hopes to contain us, isolate us and then move in, and take over. But the effectiveness of their siege depends on our unwillingness to name names, to call them out for what they are doing, and deprive them of their ability to wage war on us. That is how we break the siege. That is how we break them.
Good discussion of the importance of marriage in the comments of this post at AoSHQ: Wednesday Stupid: Married Couple In Love With Each Other Getting Divorced Because They’re “Fed Up With The Hetero-Husband-And-Wife Brigade That Is Afforded So Much Status and Privilege”
It also got me thinking about people who blame “marriage” for their own bad marriages. I left this as my status on Facebook:
You know, I don’t get it. Some people act as if “marriage” is to blame for them being involved in bad marriages. Huh? Did “marriage” force you to marry the wrong person? Is “marriage” to blame for YOU making a wrong choice? Is “marriage” to blame for YOU not taking seriously the decision to get married? Marriage is what it is. The fact that people screwed up their marriages doesn’t make marriage itself bad.
Not everyone who is divorced does this, mind you, but many do. Instead of taking personal responsibility for their part of their failed marriage, they blame… “marriage”. Sad.
Here are some of better comments, in my opinion, from the discussion at AoSHQ:
Being married pulls you into a new elite. It lends you an air of stability and reliability that singles and divorcees are denied.
Because being married to someone means you made a lifelong commitment to them. It means you can never again make an even moderately important decision without considering someone else.
It means you’re now accountable to another person for everything you do.
It means someone is depending on you to love and support them for the rest of their lives.
Kind of a big deal. Sorry you don’t get equal credit for bringing home a puppy from the shelter, but that’s life.
Posted by: Warden at November 10, 2010 11:10 AM
Lefties dislike marriage because it can sometimes be difficult. Marriage can sometimes be difficult because it is based on love which is an ACT OF THE WILL.
To love another is to CONSCIOUSLY WILL AND ACT for their good- regardless of how inconvenient or disadvantageous that may be for you.
Being inconvenienced is anathema for the left.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 10, 2010 11:24 AM
Actually, there IS status and privilege and that’s the way it should be. Male and females, in reproductive pairs, make all the new people.
Constraining sexual activity by privileging a legal tie to one partner in wedlock, promotes social order and stability. Children, which may or may not be produced by a given couple in the married state, are as far a possible for the state to encourage, born in wedlock to be supported by the parents instead of the rest of us, or by the state who has taken money from the rest of us to do so.
Bastardy has other ills that attend it – including more poorly socialized individuals.
Encouraging sexual continence and fidelity by privileging the married state is a means to manage the results of human sexual activity.
This is the way it should be and should remain.
Any attempt to lower marriage to some sort of roomate arrangement, easily fungible or dissolved, threatens the stability of our entire society or at the very least, its structure.
This the avowed aim of many – feminists, some gay activists, social revolutionaries, who see the nuclear family as an obstacle to “justice”, who wish to destroy “patriarchy” oppressing women, or eliminate the social unit that gets in the way of the “new man”, and utopia, where family ties are weak, and all are brides of the state.
This means we can spend our own money helping ourselves and our own families to prosper.
Posted by: SarahW at November 10, 2010 11:53 AM
I’ve long argued against not only gay “marriage” (which has little enough to do with any compelling state interest to reduce bastardy and keep order by protecting childbearing women and ensuring orderly transfer of property along bloodlines) but civil unions as well, under the premise that if a “lower tier” sort of roomate relationship is created, that men and women will in heterosexual pairs will demand to have it in the place of marriage, weakening marriage and family stability, with serious, even disastrous, consequences for society.
Posted by: SarahW at November 10, 2010 11:57 AM
I think that liberals are just inherently against order…order of any kind. Of course life without order is chaos, which perfectly suits their style of governing. Up is down and down is up. A tax cut is money ‘given’ you by the overlords of government and reducing the rate of spending is a ‘cut’ in funding. Up is down and down is up.
So they rebel against any form of order in society. God. Marriage. Civic duty. It doesn’t matter if you sit for hours explaining the obvious and horrific stats concerning the fate of children raised without a married mother and father in the home. Their eyes blur over and they repeat their mantra…marriage is oppressive, marriage is oppressive.
They’re just over grown adolescents really. No need to listen to them any more than you are forced to because of sheer proximity.
Posted by: redstatedeb at November 10, 2010 12:12 PM
To love another is to CONSCIOUSLY WILL AND ACT for their good- regardless of how inconvenient or disadvantageous that may be for you.
To hear Hollywood tell it, love just happens to you. That’s an awfully convenient idea for a lot of people because it gives them an excuse to never work hard at their relationships.
But it’s also bullshit.
Love doesn’t happen to you. It’s an affirmative act, not a passive bit of happenstance.
Not every marriage works out — my parents’ marriage didn’t — but a large part of having a successful marriage is deciding that you want your marriage to succeed, then taking the necessary steps to make this happen.
Like not being a selfish, self-centered, uncompromising asshole who lacks the capacity to forgive.
Which is hard for liberals.
Posted by: Warden at November 10, 2010 12:41 PM
Its interesting out here in 50ish single land… how many very Hawt mid 40’s to 50’s women are out there…. who are suddenly newly divorced once the kids are out of the house…
With no intention of ever remarrying. You tolerate a lot during a bad marriage (selfish sex, infidelity, carrying the lions share of the work load, emotional abuse). So when you’re free, the kids are happy adults, why the hell would you ever give up the new found joy of having the remote to yourself, cooking meals you like, sleeping in the middle of the bed, spending money on things you want, having really good sex and not having to endure snoring, being told you’re too fat (when they’re fatter) and becoming Nurse Mom all over again?
Marriage is a needed construct for healthy children and a stable society, but honestly, if you want a happy life afterwards, go for it!
Posted by: EZB at November 10, 2010 12:40 PM
It was meant as a civilization tool, sorta. Why the institution? The above and to ensure children didn’t starve or be killed. It was in a woman’s best interest to ensure the survival of her offspring and to make sure she wasn’t cast out when she was no longer “useful”. This thing where women punch the card for free with no expectations of commitment is counterproductive.
I’m not saying women should be sluts, but I am saying women don’t face misery if they don’t marry. We see it in countries with Sharia law… you’re grateful you’re not starved, beaten or killed. It’s a live or die kind of situation.
Here, because women can earn their own way, pay for their own cars and mortgages, they can also be a little more demanding/discriminating about what they want from marriage and husbands– it’s no longer “if I don’t marry I’ll pereish!” mindset of my mother’s generation. The options were pretty cold blooded when she was a girl- it was pure survival, no romance or affection. Which is why when she and all the ladies in the community became widowed, they became the “Old Widows Club”, ran in a pack and didn’t even look at man— they’d had enough to quote my Granny.
It’s not for everyone. Some components that are pure heaven for some people are pure hell for others. It’s not bad or good, it’s that we are a nation of individuals.
It’s a sign of civiilzation advancing — no longer is marriage a ‘marry or die or watch your children die’ proposition, but a choice for your happy life. If you want children — it’s a must. If you want companionship, lots of company and being alone terrifies you, its a must. If you want to grow old holding someone’s hand, it’s a must. If you don’t , your kids are grown etc…. then it’s an option but not the only or best one.
Posted by: EZB at November 10, 2010 12:53 PM
An attorney explained things very succinctly to me:
Marriage creates wealth.
Divorce destroys wealth.
Marriage. Creates. Wealth.
Wealth creates stability.
Stability creates security.
Security creates happiness.
So, yeah, marriage is better.
Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico’s ass since 1836) at November 10, 2010 01:05 PM