Tag Archives: guns

“Tolerance” Strikes!

Ironically, not long after I posted my previous rant, “Holy Hysteria, Batman!” about how for the left everything is political, and the desperate attempts by folks in the liberal media to pin blame for acts of senseless violence on conservatives and Tea Party members, a shooting occurred in which the gunman himself actually did give political reasons for his attempted killing, telling his victim, “I don’t like your politics.”

Only, of course, the shooter wasn’t a crazed right-winger, or Tea Party activist, but instead a fellow active in the “gay rights” movement, who shot a security guard (but failed to kill him; the guard disarmed him) at the headquarters of the Christian lobbying group, the Family Research Council.  Apparently, one of the self-described advocates of “tolerance” could not tolerate other people having a different point of view on the issue of homosexual “marriage,” and sought to execute them for their horrific crime of having politics he didn’t like.

While this shooting/attempted murder got some cursory coverage from the mainstream media, you can be the bank that if some conservative activist had attempted to shoot up the headquarters of a gay rights group, or other liberal advocacy group, the media would never shut up about the shooting, and how the “climate of hate” fostered by conservatives and those who oppose homosexual “marriage” was to blame.

The liberal Southern Poverty Law Center had in fact labeled the FRC a “hate group” in 2010 for their stand opposing “gay marriage,” and some conservatives had made an issue of this regarding the shooting.  (Some years ago I once happened upon the SPLC’s magazines lying around, and it appears that this organization, which once fought against racist groups, has morphed into primarily a “gay rights” group.  I’m really not entirely sure what exactly homosexuality has to do with Southern poverty.)   Of course, you won’t see any liberals in the press blaming equating Christians opposed to state-recognized “gay marriage” with neo-Nazis; for those on the left, this will only yet again illustrate the urgent need for further restrictions on our second amendment rights.

While the SPLC’s statements regarding the FRC are utterly asinine, it’s their constitutional right to utter them, and the blame remains on the man who made the choice to pull the trigger.  (Charles C. Cooke here makes an argument essentially identical to what I said in my “Holy Hysteria” rant regarding responsibility for killings here:  “Words Don’t Pull Triggers.”)

Of course, the “mainstream” media continually tries to paint conservatives, and particularly Christian conservatives, as uniquely hateful and violent folks, but this caricature has nothing to do with reality.  (There’s few places I’d feel safer than among a gathering of conservative Christians.)  Over the past century, in fact, the majority of political violence in this country has been from the left, rather than from the right.

While I certainly don’t think most people in favor of “gay rights” are violent or advocates of violence, I think it telling that it is social liberals who regard it as a “hate crime” merely to have views different from their own, and a social liberal who was willing to kill simply because he “didn’t like” a group’s political views.

Among the largely socially-conservative crowds filling restaurants at the “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” events, there was nary a hateful face to be seen, while it was “liberal” mayors trying to bluster and bully the restaurant into submission, simply on account of the owner’s religious views that marriage is only between a man and woman.   For the self-appointed promoters of “Tolerance,” divergent viewpoints and ideas simply cannot be tolerated.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Holy Hysteria, Batman!

(Note:  This rant was originally scheduled to appear a week, ago, but there were delays in finishing it.  I apologize to my gentle readers for the untimeliness of this entry.)

Last weekend, like millions of other bat-geeks, I went to see the much-anticipated finale to Christopher Nolan’s often-brilliant bat-trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises.  While the movie brought the series to a generally satisfying conclusion (though, in my opinion, it failed to match its predecessor, 2008’s great The Dark Knight), it – and the horrific and senseless slaughter which occurred at a showing of the film in Aurora, Colorado – also managed somehow to spark an exceptional amount of leftist idiocy, proving that for the left today, everything is political, and to used as opportunity to spew propaganda, no matter how blatantly absurd.

Before the movie aired, liberal Democrats were already making an absurdly strained attempt to use it to promote their politics, based entirely on the similarity of the name of the film’s villain, Bane, to that of Bain Capital.  The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedford explained thus:“Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society.”

See, Bane’s just like Romney!   Holy too-good-to-be-a-coincidence, Batman, that’s it!  Never mind the inconvenient facts that this summary does not accurately describe the villain, who, rather than “having offshore interests” is an entirely foreign criminal, and the identity of whose father remains unknown in the film.  As plenty of conservative commentators have pointed out, if Romney resembles any character in the movie, it’s the wealthy capitalist businessman hero Bruce Wayne, rather than revolutionary class-warfare rhetoric-spewing terrorist Bane, who more closely resembles an Occupy Wall Street radical.  In the movie, mobs are incited to violently toss the rich from their homes, and for their crime of privilege, are put in French Revolution-style mock trials and sentenced to death.  (Nolan has cited Charles Dickens’ classic epic of the Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities, as an influence.)

(And never mind the fact that the character Bane was introduced in the comics back in 1993, long before Romney was governor of Massachusetts, and that the film script was written well before Bain Capital became a campaign issue, or Romney was even the clear GOP presidential front-runner.)

Unfortunately, rather than waiting to actually see the movie before opening his mouth, Rush Limbaugh apparently took the leftist “Bane=Bain” nonsense at face value, and went off on some incoherent babbling of his own, seeming to insinuate that the movie was some kind of sinister liberal Democrat plot to sabotage the Romney campaign.  (He quickly changed his tune after the ensuing backlash, praising TDKR for its conservative message, but by then the damage had already been done.  When James Holmes shot up the Aurora, Colorado movie theater where The Dark Knight Rises was playing, liberals were already, in typical fashion, blaming Rush for the slaughter. )

Predictably, the movie-house massacre has sent “liberals” into the usual histrionic pleas for the restriction of second amendment rights, blaming gun ownership, and “America’s gun culture” for the massacre.  (Never mind the inconvenient facts that countries with some of the world’s highest levels of gun ownership such as Switzerland have among the world’s lowest murder rates, and that countries with stricter gun laws such as Mexico and Russia have high murder rates.  But that’s a topic for a whole other rant.)

Besides liberals blaming Rush (a tradition dating back to the Oklahoma City bombings), ABC News’ Brian Ross immediately began speculation that the shooting was related to the Tea Party, finding a local Jim Holmes who may have had Tea Party involvement, who was in reality unrelated to the shooter James Holmes.  Though Ross and ABC later apologized for the gaffe, this follows the pattern of the media immediately looking to blame conservatives whenever there is a horrific high-profile murder, as when similar baseless speculation was immediately made following last year’s Arizona shootings which critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

While those in the liberal media try to lay blame on the second amendment or conservatives for every senseless murder, there are also a few on the right who are blaming the violence allegedly “glorified” in the Nolan Batman films for the murders.  (Holmes did tell police he was the Joker.)   While I don’t think conservative criticisms of our often sick culture are necessarily off-base, I personally don’t see the Nolan films as part of this problem.   The movies portrayed the villains such as the Joker as being blatantly evil and unsympathetic.  That people choose to identify with such evil says more about them than about the movies.

There seems to be a troubling trend across the ideological spectrum that whenever a horrific murder is committed, people tend to blame whatever happens to piss them off (whether gun ownership rights, conservatives, right-wing talk radio, violent movies, video games, “society” etc., etc.), rather than holding the murderers themselves as primarily responsible for their actions.   But only in a society and culture in which universal moral norms of right and wrong are acknowledged, and individual moral culpability for one’s actions is taught and upheld, can we have any hope of improving the situation.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Through Polarized Lenses

There’s a new book out by Jeffrey Bell, The Case for Polarized Politics, which makes the shocking argument that campaigning on “divisive” “social issues” can in fact be a winning campaign strategy for conservative politicians. (I learned of the book thanks to a review by Phil Lawler on CatholicCulture.org.) As I have not, as of yet, read the book, I will not discuss it further in this rant. But today I will rant on an old and more basic pet peeve of mine: the common and long-standing practice by those of the Left of denouncing everyone and everything to their right as “polarizing” or “divisive.”

Whenever somebody says something or takes a stance that’s in anyways at odds with liberal politically-correct orthodox opinion, you can always count on somebody on the left condemning it as “polarizing” or “divisive” – whether it’s Republican congressmen who vote against any one of Obama’s schemes, conservative talk-radio hosts, or anyone else not fully on board with the whole lefty program. Apparently we need to just shut up and gather together holding hands and singing Kumbaya in unified solidarity behind Dear Leader.

For instance, I recall a few years ago, while looking up local independent country singer Austin Cunningham’s song “Guns and Religion,” reading a post on a Texas music blog which denounced the tune as “divisive garbage” which should not receive airplay. I mean, how dare a musician sing a song with anything but a leftwing message! Of course songs with lefty protest undertones, for example, criticizing Bush or the Iraq War (actually not uncommon in the Texas indie music scene), are generally praised by the likes of that hipster music blogger as courageous truth-telling. But if you put out a little number singing the praises of guns and religion while knocking Dear Leader, you’d better shut up, lest your dissent stir up “division” amongst the hoi polloi.

When you strip away the attempts at high-minded rhetoric, this line of attack translates to simply, “Agree with us or shut the hell up!” Not exactly in keeping with lefties’ self-image as rational, tolerant, open-minded folks immune from the constraints of authoritarian thought. In fact, I can’t think of a stupider or lazier line of critique than condemning a point of view simply on the grounds of it being opposed to one’s own.

And this whole “divisive/polarizing” line does appear to be the almost exclusive property of the Left. I’ve certainly heard folks on the right accuse folks on the left of many things, but being “polarizing” or “divisive” is not among them. If you hear someone bitching about “polarization” or “divisiveness,” it’s a sure bet that person’s of a left-leaning persuasion. When I attack a liberal’s or leftist’s ideas or arguments, it’s because I find them wrong-headed, destructive, morally repulsive, or simply stupid, but never just because I find them “divisive” or “polarizing” (which would simply be saying that they disagree with me or other conservatives, which should go without saying).

Does it ever occur to left-wingers that many of their own favorite views and agendas are in fact “divisive” and “polarizing” to those of us who don’t share their worldview? Does it ever occur to them that there are in fact other points of view besides their own? Besides the utter lazy stupidity of the “polarizing” line of attack, I believe its prevalence in liberal rhetoric is revealing of the mindset of much of the current left.

For all its precious talk of “tolerance” and “diversity,” the Left is consistently intolerant of any diversity of opinion from its own viewpoints. For the Left, its own is the only legitimate point of view, and opposing points of view must be relentlessly silenced or marginalized.  This can be seen in the ruthless suppression of politically-incorrect ideas in much of the left-dominated worlds of academic and media institutions. (The great Mark Steyn refers to these folks as “Conformicrats” and the “Comformocracy.”) Any dissent from the notion that man-made global warming is heading us towards environmental apocalypse–or that massive government taxing, spending, and regulation is needed to save us–is dismissed as “propaganda” or “anti-science” (even if it comes from solid research at ivy-league universities), and the powers that be will ensure that the results of such studies go unpublished. Likewise with any suggestion that anything could be behind the creation and evolution of the universe and life on earth beyond blind, mindless chance (despite some very compelling evidence to the contrary from serious scientific researchers).  It can also be seen in the eagerness of many liberals to seek out any excuse to get right-leaning talk show hosts yanked off the air.  Any arguments in favor of a return to standards of “traditional morality”are denounced off-hand as “bigotry and “hate.” And any opposition to any aspects of statist “liberalism” and the notion that yet more government spending is the solution to all our ills is brushed aside as being driven by “racism” or other ugly motives, or is simply beyond the pale of educated opinion. Or, if that doesn’t stick, you can always just denounce it as “divisive.”

In countless online debates on any number of subjects I’ve read or been involved in, it seems that while conservative actually engage in reasoned argumentation, the “arguments” of those on the left consist overwhelmingly of labeling (“stupid,” bigoted,” “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” etc., etc.), name-calling, and personal insults and ad-hominem attacks (all the while praising their own superior intelligence and open-mindedness).  There are few people more narrowly conformist and doctrinaire than the “tolerant” “free-thinking” “liberal.”

Formal censorship is in fact unnecessary when you can create a general culture of opinion in which any deviation from the party line is instantly dismissed and disregarded as simply unthinkable. Somewhere in the depths of Hell, Uncle Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao are beaming proudly.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Nuge for President!

Looks like this is almost a year old, but I recently came across this via “Chicks on the Right.”  More proof of the shear awesomeness of Uncle Ted.

To hell with Mitt “Obama-Lite” Romney.  This man should be President of the USA.  “Suck on my machine gun!”

I admit to not being familiar with Piers Morgan and his  CNN show, but that moronic, pompous Brit reminds all us red-blooded freedom-loving Americans of every reason why we kicked the Redcoats’ asses back in the 1770s.

And while there is no shortage of left-wing idiot rock stars eager to share their political “wisdom” with the masses, Ted proves that even a conservative rock star is far smarter and better-informed than all the leftist professional “intellectuals” put together.

And as a follow-up to my commentary on Sandra Fluke and the HHS idiocy, I thought I’d share what is the most insightful and to-the-point (as well as damned funny) commentary on this excrement from the always brilliant, always hilarious Mark Steyn:  “The Fluke Charade: Why should we have to fund a middle-aged school girl’s sex life?”

All of us are born with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and a lifetime supply of premium ribbed silky-smooth ultrasensitive spermicidal lubricant condoms. No taxation without rubberization, as the Minutemen said. The shot heard round the world, and all that.

Tagged , , , , , ,