Of the many contradictions in progressive practice, none is more striking than the defense of Islam. 

It must be admitted, I think, that as a rule progressivism is allergic to religion. The latter, with its stress on faith, received wisdom, traditional morality, etc. is naturally offensive to proponents of progress who believe that humanity is the measure of all things. So on any number of issues—abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual morality—progressives and religious believers find themselves at odds. Hence the ongoing progressive effort to push religion out of the public square.

Quite often this effort is accompanied by the most crude and offensive expressions of bigotry, e.g. the anti-religious diatribes of Bill Maher. It so happens that a good number of progressives are atheists of a particularly obnoxious strain: the kind of atheists who, as George Orwell put it, don’t merely disbelieve in God but bear him a personal grudge. Radical feminists, for instance, are always going on about religious patriarchy, supposedly a mechanism for the oppression of women. And of course if one takes a long historical view of the matter the feminists have something of a point. Times have changed, however, and there are vanishingly few believing Christians around today who regard women as second-class citizens or chattel.

But it so happens that there’s one real, existing religious patriarchy that does regard women as second-class citizens or chattel and treats them as such: Islam. A good case can be made that the number-one human rights issue in the world today is the oppression of women and that a leading (though not the sole) offender in that regard is Islam. Female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor killings, flogging and execution for sexual immorality, denial of education and legal rights—the list of abuses is long and infamous. Nor can it be said that Islam’s attitude toward homosexuality is particularly enlightened. Finally, Islam’s claim to temporal as well as spiritual authority directly challenges the progressive principle that religion has no place in public life.

Yet when Bill Maher—give him credit for being consistent—uttered some inconvenient truths about the nature of Islam he was roundly condemned as an “Islamophobe” by progressives who’d nodded along with his hateful anti-Christian rants. Maher’s observations about Islam, which though offensively phrased were factual enough, sent these people into a three-foot hover.

You can see why. Islam isn’t a Christian family, offending progressives by joining hands and saying grace in a restaurant. It’s not a Catholic speaking out against abortion. It’s not an evangelical Christian church refusing to conduct a same-sex wedding ceremony. Islam, in the eyes of progressives, is the faraway Third World, oppressed by Western capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, etc., etc.

Here again progressive have a point—historically. Much of the Islamic world has experienced the heavy hand of Western domination, either directly or indirectly. For a culture with a proud imperial past, the decline in Islam’s fortunes that set in around 1800 was painful indeed. Islam went from ruling a large chunk of Europe to being ruled by European countries. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the Great War completed this shameful turnabout. Carving knives in hand, the victorious European powers gathered around the Ottoman carcass.  To some extent, therefore, the condition of the Islamic world today is the legacy of European imperialism.

And here we come to the contradiction. The narrative of the oppression of women by a religiously sanctioned patriarchy is one theme of progressivism. The narrative of the oppression of Third World peoples by Western imperialists is another theme of progressivism. Islam is the point at which these narratives intersect—and something had to give. Thus it is that the same people who wring their hands over the (largely phony) issues of equal pay for women and the rape culture close their eyes, plug their ears and cry “Bigot!” when Islam’s long list of crimes against women is flourished. Think about that the next time you hear some nosebleed feminist fulminating about the patriarchy.

Posted by tmg110 at 7:30 AM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 7:33 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

An Amazon “review” of the new book by Kirsten Powers, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech, virtually makes her case. Here’s the first paragraph: 

Numerous scientific studies have found that today's conservative “thought” processes are derived from the brain's more primitive fight-or-flight amygdala that essentially overrides the higher brain functions of the cerebral frontal lobes. This book offers an excellent window into such “thought” processes for scientists and future historians dissecting the behavior of today's amygdala-dominated—particularly of value to the future given that the amygdala-dominated are destined to expire eventually—at least as a political force.

 And it gets worse. Toward the end we’re told that:

The only question here is whether Powers is actually one of the amygdala-dominated sheeple or just another of the Right's “thought” leaders trying to take advantage of the amygdala-dominated sheeple to make a buck, just like Rush, Bill-O, Sean, Murdoch, and all the multi-millionaires that have made millions of dollars fully-practicing their free speech for profit?

The “reviewer” does not of course bother to grapple with Powers’ copiously documented argument. No, instead he resorts to the pseudo-scientific babble quoted above, which would no doubt have delighted the author of “Politics and the English Language.” In fact he provides a fine example of how an illiberal leftist (Powers’ term) reacts to criticism, opposing views or instances of thought crime. One could, indeed, characterize such behavior as “primitive fight-or-flight amygdala that essentially overrides the higher brain functions of the cerebral frontal lobes.”

Pretentious malarkey, adolescent name calling, bullying, shaming, stereotyping, even vile sexist smears and physical violence constitute the debating style of that faction of progressivism—a large and dominant faction—that is the subject of The Silencing. The sheer number of such incidents that Powers cites is eye-opening. From the imposition of totalitartian speech codes at public and private universities to the sexist stereotyping of women who don’t toe the feminist line, list is long and dishonorable. Take, for example, the illiberal left’s jihad against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman whose bioigraphy should make her a feminist hero. Born in Somalia, she was subjected as a girl to genital mutilation, then forced by her family into an arranged marriage with a distant cousin. Hirsi Ali fled to the Netherlands, eventually becoming a Dutch citizen and member of parliament. She not only renounced Islam but became a bitter critic, focusing on Islam’s treatment of girls and women. Threats against her life multiplied and she left the Netherlands for the US after Theo van Gogh, her collaborator on a documentary film about Islam’s abuse of women, was murdered in the street by a radical Muslim.

So do illiberal leftists celebrate Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a champion of women’s rights against the abuses of a patriarchal religion? No doubt they would if the religion in question was Roman Catholicism or Orthodox Judaism. But Hirsi Ali is excoriating Islam, which the illiberal left simply cannot abide. So this courageous woman is reviled as “dangerous,” an “Islamophobe,” an “extremist,” a “bigot,” etc., etc. Closing its eyes to what could well be called the world’s number-one human rights issue, refusing to grapple with the uncomfortable facts about Islam upon which Hirsi Ali shines the spotlight of truth, the illiberal left takes refuge in personal insults and doublethink. Meanwhile there are no restrictions on the illiberal left when it comes to jeering, mocking, vicious, bigoted, even scatological lampoons and denunciations of Christianity.

Then there’s the charge, a favorite of the feminist wing of the illiberal left, that opposition to abortion is “anti-woman.” A black, female, liberal, pro-choice Democratic candidate for Congress in Pennsylvania was sandbagged in this manner when as a state legislator she (along with some forty other Democrats) voted for a bill to impose regulations on abortion clinics—this in the wake of the horrifying Kermit Gosnell case. Margo Davidson had a particular interest in the issue: a young cousin had been one of the women who died as a result of Gosnell’s butchery. But neither this nor the obvious need to subject abortion providers to at least minimal oversight deterred the National Organization of Women and Planned Parenthood. In the Democratic congressional primary the two groups backed Davidson’s male opponent. Planned Parenthood went so far as to send out mailers saying that Davidson opposed screening for breast and cervical cancer—a total lie. Thus does the illiberal left treat those whom it regards as apostates.

And so it goes. Take a look at Kirsten Powers’ Twitter feed for some choice examples of the hateful sexism and misogamy that the illiberal left directs against women who don’t have all the right thoughts. Sample:  “fascist twat who thinks she gets to control others and decide who speaks.” Nice. Stay classy, comrades, stay classy. With every Tweet, you're making Kirsten's case for her.

Posted by tmg110 at 1:04 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 30 May 2015 1:13 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Trigger warning! We’re supposed to have our knickers in a twist of outrage over some movie called Aloha that—wouldn’t you know it?—disrespects native Hawaiian culture. And if you’re not offended on behalf of the downtrodden Proles of the Paradise Island. then you’re a bigot, a racist and, probably, a homophobe. (That last one always gets tacked on.) Why, I’ll bet you don’t even like pineapple!

Here’s the deal: It seems that the cast of the movie is too heavily weighed down Caucasians like Bradley Cooper, Emma Stone, Rachel McAdams, Bill Murray, John Krasinski, Danny McBride and Alec Baldwin. And this has the effect of rendering native Hawaiians invisible. Eeven the movie’s title constitute an offense: “The ongoing appropriation and commercialization of all things Hawaiian only makes it clearer as to why it is inappropriate for those with no ties to Hawaii, its language, culture and people to invoke the Hawaiian language. This is uniquely true for aloha—a term that has been bastardized and diminished with its continual use,” moans author Janet Mock, a native indigenous Polynesian person of the Hawaiian Islands whose ancestry actually predates colonialism and the arrival of Captain Cook in 1778, as she describes herself. How dare we Ice People even use the word?

Well, Janet, if I ever catch you eating corned beef and cabbage on Saint Patrick’s Day I’m going to bash you with my shillelagh, then have you arrested and sent to sensitivity training. Put that in your poi and ponder it! 

I know, I know, this multicultural uproar over title of a chick flick is ludricous and stupid. But it’s revealing as well, owing to the number of non-native indigenous Polynesian persons of the Hawaiian Islands who are nodding along with the aggrieved Ms. Mock and her cohorts. But of course, to progressives the notion that words can be “stolen” is compelling. It’s a neat way to manufacture victims—without a copious supply of whom progressives just couldn’t get through the day.

Posted by tmg110 at 11:44 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 28 May 2015 11:46 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Some people in the media are thrilled that Senator Bernie Sanders, Bolshevik of Vermont, is running for president. The country needs a “progressive voice at the level of presidential politics, don’t you know. Well, fine. So what are we hearing from this progressive voice? This, for example: “You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don’t necessarily need a choice of twenty-three underarm spray deodorants or of eighteen different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.”

Nor I think, does the media appreciate how deeply, deeply idiotic Senator Sanders is, at least when he’s thinking and talking about economics. Who suspected that consumer choice is the underlying cause of all our social ills or that pudding-bowl haircuts, blue overalls and Victory Gin constitute the solution? But what do I know? Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc.

That progressives are allergic to choice (except, of course, when it comes to partial-birth abortion or sex-change operations) is a fact often overlooked. But that’s what it means to be a member of the enlightened elite: Replacing choice with compulsion lies at the root of the progressive project. Craft a policy proposal including the word control and progressives will swoon for it: birth control, gun control, rent control. Take Senator Sanders. He’d like to limit, i.e. control, the American consumer’s choice of casual footwear and underarm deodorant. Bernie didn’t actually explain how this would help to reduce poverty for fight climate change but you can bet he believes that it would. Concentrate enough power in the hands of those who know what’s best for us all and anything is possible! Such are the ambitions of the self-described reality-based party.

Bernie Sanders claims that he’s in touch with “ordinary Americans.” (The fact that he uses that particular term tells you what he really thinks of us.) It’s news to me, and probably news to you, that we ordinary Americans are yearning for a world in which there’s only one brand of toilet paper. But if that’s what it takes to get to the Radiant Future…

Posted by tmg110 at 9:38 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 28 May 2015 10:21 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

A major Iraqi city falls to ISIS and the Obama Administration calls it a “tactical setback” while insisting that its overall strategy in the war against ISIS is on track. Or to put it another way: “They may be winning—but we’re not losing!”

Such is the Community Organizer-in-Chief’s conception of war. With their trademark superciliousness, Obama, his cabal and his media-based enablers lecture America to the effect that there’s no “military solution” to the threat posed by ISIS. This is a convenient claim for a man who’s allergic on ideological grounds to military solutions. But the fact that it’s convenient doesn’t necessarily make it false. Is there, in fact, no military solution to the ISIS threat?

Well, obviously an armed invasion can’t be opposed by non-military means alone. I doubt that any number of UN Security Council resolutions or State Department hashtag campaigns would deter the advance of ISIS. As long as the Islamofascists have no effective military opposition, they’ll continue to advance and continue to win. And if they’re winning we’re losing, for in war an ironclad principle of polarity applies: What’s good for A is bad for B. So when ISIS routed the Iraqi Army and captured the city of Ramadi it was a clear defeat for the United States—a defeat that could only have been staved off by military means.

Now it’s true in a general sense that the problems of Syria and Iraq can’t be solved by military means alone. But it’s also true that they can’t be solved at all without a decisive military victory over ISIS. That’s the only way in which the declared policy of the Obama Administration—the rollback and destruction of ISIS—can be successful. The Administration’s avoidance of this uncomfortable truth explains the comically disconnected rhetoric that emanates from the White House and the State Department whenever the issue of ISIS is raised. Barack Obama is simultaneously too cowardly to do what’s necessary to win against ISIS and too cowardly to admit that he’s not willing to do the necessary. So he and his people are conducting a day-to-day damage control operation in the vague hope that some deus ex machina will appear to bail them out of their predicament.

It’s a sad and sorry situation but, after all, President Obama did this to himself, first by pulling out of Iraq and abandoning that country to its fate, then by bragging about the great success of his Iraq policy and finally by allowing the crisis in Syria to spin out of control. Too late did he realize that war isn’t like youth soccer: Not everybody gets a trophy.

Posted by tmg110 at 11:15 AM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 26 May 2015 11:30 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Marie Harf, the Propaganda Barbie of the State Department, said when asked what the US government proposed to do about the destruction of Iraqi antiquities by of ISIS that she wasn’t sure. The question and Harf’s lame answer followed the appearance of video footage showing ISIS goons smashing sculptures and other precious antiquities to bits in a Mosul museum. On the video one of them is heard explaining that the antiquities are blasphemous idols that must be destroyed in the name of Allah. And this lamentable episode is but one of many. In the areas it controls, ISIS is working systematically to erase Iraq’s pre-Islamic past by demolishing its physical fabric. What’s not being destroyed outright is being marketed by ISIS on the black market. Much the same thing appears to be happening in the ISIS-controlled areas of Syria.

But aside from various experts around the world, nobody outside Iraq seems particularly troubled by these desecrations. If Barack Obama has condemned them, I haven’t heard about it. As has become typical, Western progressives and leftists prefer to avert their eyes from the evidence of radical Islam’s viciousness. The destruction of antiquities certainly exercised them in 2003, when antiwar activists tossed blood clots over the looting of the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad. The United States was roundly and furiously condemned for its failure to protect the museum and other archeological sites around the country. The President of France called it “a crime against humanity.” Admittedly these condemnations were to some degree merited, though the losses and destruction proved much less extensive than originally thought. Since then, however, the Left seems to have lost interest in the welfare of Mideast antiquities.

Now you’d think that the destruction of precious artifacts and archeological sites in the name of religion would produce an outcry among progressives and leftists. And I have no doubt that it would—if the agents of destruction were fundamentalist Christians or ultra-Orthodox Jews. Radical Muslims, though, are not to be condemned for fear that “Islamophobia” might be sparked. Besides, the whole thing is Bush’s fault! And Cheney’s! And the neocons’! Anyhow, what do you expect Barack Obama and Marie Harf to do?

At least the Obama Administration hasn’t mounted a hashtag campaign—#SaveOurAntiquities or some such foolishness. We saw how well that kind of thing worked when a radical Islamist group calling itself Boko Haram kidnapped 276 schoolgirls in Nigeria, most of them Christians. More than 200 remain accounted for and many are feared to have perished. Spare us another such descent into frivolity! Marie Harf’s all but open admission that the US government is prepared to stand idly by while ISIS continues its rampage at least has the pallid virtue of honesty.

But can you imagine what will happen to the National Museum of Iraq if ISIS takes Baghdad?

Posted by tmg110 at 10:00 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

So there was Michelle Obama, giving the commencement address at Tuskegee University last weekend, complaining about the travails she’s endured as a black woman in America. This from someone who in fact has led a life of privilege—check her resume!—leading straight to the White House. But even that turned out to be a downer, exacting an “emotional toll” on our long-suffering First Lady.

Now let me be fair. I don’t doubt for a moment that life in the White House can be stressful for a president’s spouse. No doubt Laura Bush would agree. It must have been hard for her to see her husband excoriated as a fascist, a war criminal, a moron, a chimpanzee. But there’s this difference between Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Obama: the former didn’t air her discontents in public.

We must make allowances for Michelle Obama, however. She grew up in a milieu that celebrates one status above all: that of victim. If you can present yourself as a victim of racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, AIDS, cancer, etc. and so on and so forth, you’re golden. For with victim’s status comes virtue: racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, AIDS, cancer, etc. and so on and so forth compensate for the pain they cause by bestowing a saintly halo on their targets and victims. Speaking at Tuskegee, Mrs. Obama was clearly seeking canonization, telling the graduates that she had experienced the pain of racism and sexism. And just in case the Class of 2015 was feeling smug, she added that the same horrors awaited them.

Yes, sure, probably Michelle Obama has encountered racism and sexism at some point in her life. So perhaps I’m being callous by observing that there was something small and unseemly about her performance at Tuskegee. “No class,” John F. Kennedy remarked of Richard M. Nixon. And “no class” I thought as I read the transcript of her commencement address. It ill behooves a person in her privileged position to strike a victim’s pose with sobs like this: “But, as potentially the first African-American First Lady, I was also the focus of another set of questions and speculations; conversations sometimes rooted in the fears and misperceptions of others. Was I too loud, or too angry, or too emasculating? Or was I too soft, too much of a mom, not enough of a career woman?”

None of the above, Michelle. You merely turned out to be too much of a whiner.

Posted by tmg110 at 12:02 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 14 May 2015 12:04 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

One of the choicest morsels of conventional wisdom in the area of US politics is that Republicans are fractious, disunited, consumed in fratricidal war while on the other side Democrats are cheerily united. This, indeed, is the template into which the 2016 election has already been fitted. 

As is so often the case, however, the CW fails to reflect reality. While it’s true that there are bones of contention among Republicans, the situation is if anything worse on the other side, as the current dispute over free trade demonstrates. From a conservative perspective it’s sweet to see President B.H. Obama and Senator E. Warren flinging brickbats at one another. The former has characterized as “baseless” the latter’s claim that the impending agreement on presidential fast-track trade promotion authority (TPA) is a bad deal for American workers—a considerable zinger. But while I might be enjoying this, Hillary Clinton certainly isn’t. Free trade—the whole notion of globalization—is anathema to key factions of the Democratic base. Unions loathe free trade because it introduces competition into labor markets. Progressives hate it because, you know, it’s all about wicked, greedy corporations, big banks, etc.

Big Labor’s objection, if parochial and selfish, is at least logical. The objections of progressives, however, are driven by ideology, which is to say that they’re emotional. It may seem odd that people who pride themselves on thinking globally abhor the concept of an interconnected global economy.  But free trade strikes at the root of the progressive project: control. The progressive power fantasy, a large and activist bureaucratic/administrative/welfare state lording it over a tightly regulated economy and a mass of citizen-clients, demands both stability and autarky. Simply put, the dynamism and interconnectedness of free markets and free trade give progressives a headache. They’ll tell you, of course, that they’re all for free trade as long as it’s “fair trade.” But wouldn’t you know it? Fair trade just happens to demand rules, regulations, limitations, bureaucratic supervision…

So far HRC had gotten by as a presidential candidate by saying absolutely nothing of substance about anything. (Her pledge to “topple the one percent” had all the substance of Marshmallow Fluff.) But as the TPA debate heats up, with the Community Organizer-in-Chief lambasting his own party for a change, her position will become more and more…delicate. Progressives (who already distrust her) and Big Labor will press HRC to take a stand against free trade. i.e. they’ll be pressing her to waltz over to the left. As we know the Pants-Suited One isn’t exactly light on her feet so that should be fun to watch! Oh, and speaking of fratricidal war perhaps the Democratic crackup over free trade will tempt Senator Warren to throw her Native American headdress into the ring for 2016. If Obama goes on disrespecting the Princess Pocahontas of Progressivism she just might do it out of spite!

Posted by tmg110 at 9:02 AM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 9:04 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The 2015 General Election stood the conventional wisdom on its head. The polls pointed to a stalemate, with neither major party commanding a majority and prospects for a coalition government uncertain at best. There was much chatter about the possibility of a deal between the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and this, ironically, may have played a role in the ultimate outcome (see below). Instead, the Tories swept to victory with an outright majority, winning 329 seats. Prime Minister David Cameron can now discard his erstwhile coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats—who, incidentally, suffered a debacle of their own, losing 48 of their 56 seats.

But the big loser was the Labour Party which was wiped out in Scotland, losing all but one of its seats there to the SNP. And this disaster will echo down the years, for it represents a fundamental revision of the calculus of British politics. Every Labour majority since 1945 has been built on a foundation of some 40-50 Scottish seats and without them a Labour majority is hard to envision. England has always been more conservative than Scotland, i.e. more congenial to the Tories, and to make matters worse for Labour in England the SNP and Scottish nationalism are widely detested. The prospect of a Labour-SNP coalition government was exceedingly odious to many voters south of the Border and this undoubtedly hurt Labour in England. However that may be, with the loss of its position in Scotland the Labour Party faces a long stretch in the political wilderness.

After the triumphant Tories the SNP is the election’s second big winner—supposedly. Yesterday’s electoral outcome is said to have revived both the party and the cause of Scottish nationalism after the disappointment of last year’s referendum on independence. Well, maybe so, but it’s hard to see what leverage the SNP now possesses in Whitehall, with a Conservative government in power that has no need of the SNP’s support. The party may agitate for another independence referendum but David Cameron is unlikely to bow to any such demand. It would cause outrage in England and one must ask why the Tories would risk alienating their base to please Scottish nationalists. So the Cross of St. Andrew may wave on high and the bagpipes may wail but Scotland won’t be leaving the Union any time soon.

Finally there’s the populist, anti-immigration, anti-EU United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). It actually came in third behind the Tories and Labour in terms of the popular vote but thanks to the peculiarities of the British electoral system this translated into only one parliamentary seat. Still, David Cameron will not be free to ignore the current of public opinion that the UKIP represents. He has promised to hold a national referendum on British membership in the European Union and is no doubt well aware of the political perils of breaking that promise.

So there you have it: Tories 1, Conventional Wisdom 0. American political pundits and prognosticators—take note!

Posted by tmg110 at 10:15 AM EDT

Updated: Friday, 8 May 2015 10:18 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

One of the lamer laments of the Left is its claim that poor Barack Obama has been subjected to a level of criticism, opposition and hatred unprecedented in the annals of American politics.

Really?

When one recalls the respect—reverence, even!—with which Obama’s candidacy was received, the hosannas that greeted his election, the heady predictions of greatness that garlanded his inauguration, the eager excuse-making with which every gaffe, goof and failure has been minimized or dismissed, well, this particular complaint suffers from a lack of credibility.

Nor does history bear it out. Even before he became the quasi-fascist Chimpy McBushitler, George W. Bush was bitterly reviled in the crudest terms by liberals, progressives and lefties. So was his father and so was Ronald Reagan. Indeed, the scorn and hatred directed against Reagan was relentless, vicious and vile. (No doubt the fact that it never seemed to bother RWR in the slightest increased his enemies’ fury.) Compared with them—compared, even with Bill Clinton—Barack Obama has had it easy.

If he appears that he comes in for a lot of criticism, that’s only because the President has provided his opponents with plenty to criticize. Nor has he helped himself by the ill-mannered petulance with which he receives even the mildest suggestion that maybe, just maybe, he might have made a mistake. Right from the beginning Obama treated his opponents with scorn. Now, finally, he’s being paid back in the same coin. And the increasingly pointed criticisms being voiced by Republicans and conservatives clearly get under Obama's thin skin.

As the chorus of criticism swells, the counterblasts of the presidential claque grow ever more hysterical. Sobs, wails and the sound of rending garments fill the air. Charges of racism fly from left to right—because you know, why else would anybody criticize He of the Perfect Trouser Creases? This would all be very amusing were it not accompanied by the demolition of US foreign policy, the US economy and the Constitution of the United States by one of the most irresponsible, feckless administrations in American political history.

When Barack Obama’s finally gone I won’t miss him much. But I will miss him a little, because his tenure in office has demonstrated with crystal clarity the depths of intellectual and moral squalor to which liberalism/progressivism/the Left have sunk.

Posted by tmg110 at 9:48 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink