Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Who gets absolute moral authority?

original article: Malkin: Who gets absolute moral authority?
July 20, 2016 by Michelle Malkin

My 12-year-old son couldn’t remember the phrase “take a walk down memory lane” last week, instead describing a stroll through “nostalgia road.” I knew it would come in handy.

Put on your hiking boots and join me for an educational trip down good ol’ nostalgia road.

It seems like yesterday when Champion of Wimmin Maureen Dowd, bemoaning the lack of sympathy for anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan, declared in The New York Times that “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”

No ifs, ands or other hedging qualifiers. Absolutely absolute.

And it was just a blink of an eye ago that the same New York Times spilled barrels of adulatory ink on the 9/11 widows known as the Jersey Girls. Remember them? The quartet of Democratic women parlayed their post-terror attack plight into powerful roles as Bush-bashing citizen lobbyists.

Their story, the lib narrative-shaping paper of record reported, was a “tale of a political education, and a sisterhood born of grief.”

Moms and widows deserved special consideration in the public square, the argument went a decade ago. Their experience and their testimony warranted respect, deference and the national spotlight.

But then, as now, only a special class of victims is entitled to cash in the Absolute Moral Authority card. Not all parents and spouses who have lost loved ones can join the Club of the Unquestioned and Unassailable.

On Monday night at the Republican National Convention, Pat Smith shared her own tale of a political education born of grief after her diplomat son, Sean Smith, died in the Benghazi terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton, she passionately insisted, “deserves to be in stripes!”

GQ sports writer Nathaniel Friedman showed his compassion for Smith’s loss and pain by tweeting, “I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost I would like to beat her to death.”

MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who had helped make Cindy Sheehan a media star and urged her to run for Congress based on her status as a grieving war mom, fumed that Pat Smith had “ruined” the entire convention with her heartfelt testimony. The smug Democratic political operative turned TV bloviator, who had also elevated the Jersey Girls’ celebrity status with multiple bookings on his show, couldn’t bear to speak Smith’s name:

“I don’t care what that woman up there, the mother, has felt. Her emotions are her own, but for the country in choosing a leader, it’s wrong to have someone get up there and tell a lie about Hillary Clinton.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chimed in on the same network that he was disgusted with how the GOP convention was using Smith to “exploit a tragedy.”

GOP-bashers heaped similar derision on father Jamiel Shaw Sr. and mothers Sabine Durden and Mary Ann Mendoza, who all spoke at the convention about losing children to criminals who had slipped illegally through open borders and revolving deportation doors. “Progressives” sneered at Shaw as an “Uncle Tom” for pointing out that Latino gangbangers targeted his black son because of his race. The intolerant tolerance mob also accused Durden of being “fooled” and Durden and Mendoza of being “exploited for apocalyptic theater.”

Will these horrified hang-wringers be as outspokenly offended next week when the Democratic National Convention dedicates an entire evening to the so-called Mothers of the Movement?

Among the sainted moms of the Black Lives Matter movement who will speak on Hillary Clinton’s behalf are Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin; Maria Hamilton, mother of Dontre Hamilton; Lucia McBath, mother of Jordan Davis; Lesley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown; Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, mother of Hadiya Pendleton; and Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland.

Each of these cases lumped under supposedly unjustified gun violence and systemic racism is complicated and distinct. For starters, Bland hanged herself when her friends and family wouldn’t bail her out of jail after she had kicked a police officer. Two of the “children” involved in police shootings (Brown and Hamilton) had assaulted cops during their fatal encounters.

But drop all questions and doubts. “These mothers have worked tirelessly to raise awareness around the issues that surround their children’s deaths,” the liberal Huffington Post reports.

Because these women endorse race-baiting, gun-grabbing narratives and left-wing candidates, no one working in the mainstream media will ever challenge their parental prerogative to participate in politics on behalf of their loved ones.

Moms who have lost their children to Democratic incompetence, corruption and open-borders treachery are out of luck. The dealers of Absolute Moral Authority play with a loaded deck.

anti-war, bias, campaign, corruption, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, scandal, tragedy, troops, victimization

Filed under: anti-war, bias, campaign, corruption, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, scandal, tragedy, troops, victimization

In failing to stop the Islamic State, U.S. ignores the lessons of Auschwitz

August 18, 2014 by Marc A. Thiessen

The worst part is that all of this could have been prevented. Just a few years ago, the Islamic State (then al-Qaeda in Iraq) was a spent force, defeated both militarily and ideologically thanks to the 2007 U.S. surge, and the Sunni masses who rose up to join the United States in driving them out. Then President Obama’s complete withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011 took the boot off of the terrorists’ necks. And, as Hillary Clinton recently pointed out, Obama’s “failure” to act in Syria “left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”

Now, after standing by and allowing the Islamic State to established control in an area the size of Belgium, Obama has finally launched limited strikes — but only to prevent the Islamic State from overrunning U.S. diplomatic facilities in northern Iraq (for fear of another Benghazi), massacring Yazidis and controlling the Mosul Dam. Obama insists that “there’s no American military solution” to the rise of the Islamic State and that “it’s time to turn the page on more than a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Obama may be tired of war, as were Hitler’s enemies. But the Islamic State is not tired of war. It has been explicit about its intentions. The lessons of history are clear.

The free world ignores such barbarity at its peril.

full article: In failing to stop the Islamic State, U.S. ignores the lessons of Auschwitz

anti-war, crisis, diplomacy, extremism, foreign affairs, government, hate crime, hypocrisy, ideology, islam, military, opinion, philosophy, political correctness, politics, president, public policy, terrorism, war

Filed under: anti-war, crisis, diplomacy, extremism, foreign affairs, government, hate crime, hypocrisy, ideology, islam, military, opinion, philosophy, political correctness, politics, president, public policy, terrorism, war

Is the U.N. really interested in peace?

It’s easy to believe some people and difficult to believe others, even at their own words.

Some would have us believe Hamas is a humanitarian organization despite the fact their own charter strongly suggests otherwise. One might not realize ISIS is a similar organization to Hamas. Given the prevailing news coverage over the Gaza conflict and surprising lack of coverage about the atrocities of ISIS (did you know about this?) one may wonder what is really going on out there.

For those of you who abstain from the news (I know there are many of you) you may accidentally have heard some talk about the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. Given the controversial nature of the war (as propaganda is also a standard weapon of modern war) it’s only natural to seek a higher, reliable source of information apart from the parties directly involved (at least for those who aren’t abstaining from the news). For many, this means the United Nations.

But there are legitimate questions as to the credibility of the U.N.

If you read nothing else linked in this post, I highly recommend at least reading Charles Krauthammer’s Moral clarity in Gaza.

It is true that war can be irreconcilably complicated, both in its implementation and in its causes. However, there are also ways to prolong war rather than end it quickly. Concern for the asymmetrical nature of the Gaza conflict often leads to calls for “restraint” from Israel. These calls sound like a desire for the war capability on both sides to be “fair” so both sides can pummel each other more equally. This does not help end war more quickly, it prolongs war. Time and again, conflict after conflict, calls for peace often have the result of postponing hostilities, while the participants take time to regroup and set up for another onslaught. This is particularly true of ceasefires in Gaza, where Palestinian militant groups take advantage of ceasefires in this very way (often while ignoring or violating ceasefires).

So it’s healthy to ask questions about these things, if understanding is really a priority for us. For example, we might ask what sort of ideas does the U.N. promote for regions suffering the ravages of war?

Nations Silent as UN Presents Plan to Push Abortion in War-Torn Countries

New York, NY (CFAM/LifeNews) — A new UN directive to promote abortion in war-torn areas went unchallenged when it was presented to member states at UN headquarters last week.

The high level UN officials who presented a guidance note of the Secretary-General with the new directive in a packed meeting room at UN headquarters were visibly anxious. It is the first time the Secretary-General has openly instructed UN staff and officials to promote abortion. No one used the term “abortion” during the meeting, but it was clearly on everyone’s mind.

Officials and delegates looked around furtively, scouting the room as if to anticipate where the challenge might come from. In the end, the challenge never came.

So, for war-torn areas, the U.N. essentially promotes killing more people. Under the auspices of “sustainability” the U.N. also promotes abortion to help reduce poverty. Rather than looking at the productivity potential of population growth the U.N. overwhelmingly view issues from the perspective of a burden on resources. This has an unfortunate and remarkably uncompassionate result of viewing people merely as statistics rather than as people.

So what am I getting at? Well, the U.N. is publicly and unapologetically supportive of reducing population on the front end (the pre-born) to “help people” and help the world. And given the curious attitudes about current military conflicts one may begin to wonder if the U.N. also supports reducing population on the back end (the rest of us). Now if you’re thinking this is an outrageous suggestion, you might be right, or you might be wrong. If you think my suggestion is absurd because eugenics is such a horrid thing, you’d be right in thinking eugenics is a horrid thing. But you’d be wrong in thinking no one at the U.N. is seriously considering eugenics as a viable method of accomplishing anything.

So why not take the United Nations at their word? Because calling eugenics Eugenics stinks of Nazism, and yet the agenda is there none-the-less. So they avoid using politically charged words but promote the ideas behind those words. Pushing policies which intentionally reduce the world’s population is the modus operandi for the U.N. We should call it what it is: eugenics, elitism, evil.

The United Nations supports population reduction (for the greater good, of course), and abortion and war both accomplish this objective. So be careful when you hear people calling for peace but push ideas that don’t (and may not be meant to) actually end war. Saying “stop the killing” is naive and meaningless among those actually in the conflict. And there is no reason to believe Israel’s enemies are interested in stopping the killing, and why would they? They get tremendous political capital out of the carnage while Israel gets nothing but condemnation from the international community. Israel has every incentive to end the killing and yet the IDF goes out of its way to NOT totally obliterate the Palestinian people (which they have the capability of doing). The Palestinians want war, and the evidence suggests the United Nations might want war as well.

Claiming Hamas or Boko Haram or ISIS just want peace, that Israel is a force for evil, or that the U.N. wants what’s best for all sides doesn’t make it so. Policies and actions should speak louder than words on these issues and I suspect the U.N. may not be as beneficent as they claim.

abortion, anti-war, bias, elitism, eugenics, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, islam, israel, left wing, liberalism, marxism, military, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, public policy, relativism, terrorism, tragedy, victimization, war

Filed under: abortion, anti-war, bias, elitism, eugenics, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, islam, israel, left wing, liberalism, marxism, military, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, public policy, relativism, terrorism, tragedy, Uncategorized, victimization, war

Are some forms of hate acceptable?

So let’s see, is there any problem with these comments?

Kill those fucking Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives
Kill those fucking Yankees who ordered them to torture
Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers
Kill them all slowly and painfully

These hate filled and violence riddled remarks were uttered by the Korean music star Psy at a 2004 concert.

President Obama and his family attended another Psy performance at the 2012 Christmas in Washington concert in Washington, D.C. Did they leave during or after the event in protest of the hate he is now famous for promoting? No. In fact, the L.A. Times reported the president not only remained at the event, but even gave a speech afterward, without mentioning anything about Psy’s hate filled comments. ABC News reported the president even met Psy and shook his hand.

Now, fast forward just one month. And we find these comments:

Homosexuality “is sin in the eyes of God.”

“And the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle, the only way out of a relationship that has been engrained over years of time, is through the healing power of Jesus,”

These remarks were made in the mid 1990s by Pastor Louie Giglio, who is head of Passion City Church in Georgia. Did President Obama meet Pastor Giglio and shake his hand? Did the president attend an event featuring the pastor? Well, he could have, later this month during the president’s inauguration for his second term. But Pastor Giglio won’t be attending that event any longer.

The pastor was dis-invited to the event after it was brought to public light what he said about homosexuality in the mid 1990s.

Now it seems to me that an administration priding itself on its affinity for diversity and tolerance, and which had no problem with the likes of Psy, should also have no problem with the likes of Pastor Giglio. Apparently, even diversity and tolerance have their limits.

Filed under: anti-war, bias, bigotry, christian, Democrats, discrimination, diversity, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, politics, relativism, tolerance

Racism, anti-Americanism and idiocy at the OneNation rally

15 Photos From the #OneNation Rally You’ll Never See In Legacy Media
OCTOBER 02, 2010 by Doug Ross

We are supposed to believe the Tea Party is a bunch of racist, intolerant un-American idiots, and the leftists are supposed to be the opposite. It turns out the dominant narrative is backwards. But don’t bother looking for the truth on the matter in the main stream news media.

ABC Sanitizes Left Wing Rally, Excludes Communist and Socialist Signs
October 4, 2010 by Scott Whitlock

Good Morning America on Sunday recapped the liberal One Nation rally held on the nation’s capital, Saturday, but skipped any mention of the socialist and Communist themed signs seen during the march.

These are some of the signs that were featured during reporter Tahman Bradley’s segment: “”Peace, justice, equality, hope, change,” “Fair trade, not free trade,” “Educate every child,” “Full and fair employment” and “Silence GOP lies.” However, signs with the Communist Party USA logo, posters reading “Capitalism is failing, socialism is the alternative” and “Build a socialist alternative” were not.

Democrats, american, anti-war, bias, bigotry, communism, culture, diversity, ideology, left wing, liberalism, marxism, news media, patriotism, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, protests, relativism, socialism

Filed under: american, anti-war, bias, bigotry, communism, culture, Democrats, diversity, ideology, left wing, liberalism, marxism, news media, patriotism, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, protests, relativism, socialism

Media treatment of anti-war protesters vs. anti-Obamacare protesters

State-Run Media Reports on 1,000 Antiwar Nuts– Ignore 30,000 Anti-Obamacare Protesters in Washington DC
March 20, 2010 by Gateway Pundit

The state-run media today was all over the antiwar protest in Washington DC. At least 1,207 articles were published on the socialist’s march in DC.

The Marxists with International ANSWER organized the protest in the nation’s capital. (Reuters) …More photos here

Thousands(?) of antiwar protesters and Marxists marched in Washington DC against the War in Iraq that we won. The US Marines finished their mission in Iraq in January.

Meanwhile, 30,000 tea party protesters met in Washington DC today to protest the democratic take over of the health care industry.

Maybe 288 articles were published on the massive turnout in the nation’s capitol. It was mostly ignored by the liberal media.

100,000 RALLY IN WASHINGTON AGAINST OBAMACARE
March 20, 2010 by Gateway Pundit

anti-war, bias, discrimination, elitism, government, health care, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, legislation, liberalism, marxism, nanny state, news media, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, protests, socialism

Filed under: anti-war, bias, discrimination, elitism, government, health care, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, legislation, liberalism, marxism, nanny state, news media, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, protests, socialism

Code Pink harrasses children of military families

Obama Ally Code Pink Targets Children of Military Families for Psychological Abuse
November 9, 2009 by Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King (hat tip to Bob Parks)

Dressed as ‘zombie soldiers’ killed in combat, ‘ghosts of war victims,’ witches and healthcare fairies, members of Code Pink menacingly paraded in front of a captive audience of children one block from the White House, who waited along the sidewalk in front of Decatur House just off Lafayette Park for a Halloween party hosted by President Obama.

Last Saturday, the President hosted several hundred military families for trick or treating. Also invited were children of White House staff and about 2000 children from eleven D.C. area elementary schools.

In a press release published at their website, key Obama ally Code Pink – a group co-founded by one of Obama’s top funders Jodie Evans, announced they were targeting military families for what can only be called psychological abuse by conducting a macabre protest of the war in Afghanistan as the families waited in line to enter the White House grounds.

Democrats, abuse, anti-war, bullies, children, foreign affairs, free speech, hate speech, ideology, left wing, liberalism, military, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, protests, video

Filed under: abuse, anti-war, bullies, children, Democrats, foreign affairs, free speech, hate speech, ideology, left wing, liberalism, military, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, protests, video

The truth about Hanoi Jane

Hanoi’d With Jane
by Snopes.com

Assuming Snopes did an adequate job in their research, here is what they say Jane Fonda did and did not do regarding her protesting of the Vietnam war. A lot of stuff said about her is untrue, but a lot of stuff is true. She did some VERY despicable things, and those acts do not need to be clouded by fictional stories. Still, I have no problem calling her a traitor, not because of her anti-war activism, but because she betrayed her country.

Democrats, anti-war, foreign affairs, hate speech, history, ideology, left wing, liberalism, lies, military, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, protests, research, scandal, troops, war

Filed under: anti-war, Democrats, foreign affairs, hate speech, history, ideology, left wing, liberalism, lies, military, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, protests, research, scandal, troops, war

ABC’s Charles Gibson to Cindy Sheehan: Thanks for your sacrifice. Now get lost.
August 20, 2009 by Byron York

In an appearance August 18 on WLS radio in Chicago, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson was asked about anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan’s plans to travel to Martha’s Vineyard next week, where she will protest the Iraq and Afghanistan wars while President Obama is vacationing there. Gibson, whose newscast and network featured Sheehan when she led anti-war protests outside President Bush’s Texas ranch in 2005, answered, “Enough already.”

Flashback: When Gibson was Enthralled by Cindy Sheehan
August 20, 2009 by Brent Baker

politics, news media, bias, liberalism, left wing, protests, hypocrisy, anti-war

Filed under: anti-war, bias, hypocrisy, left wing, liberalism, news media, politics, protests

Crutsinger’s Crud, Part 2: AP Reporter Again Erroneously Cites Cost of Wars As ‘Major’ Deficit Factor
August 12, 2009 by Tom Blumer

Does the Associated Press’s Martin Crutsinger moonlight as a Code Pink operative?

There has to be something that explains what I’ll call his Iraqnaphobia.

Last month (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), the AP reporter erroneously cited the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a “major factor” explaining why “the deficit has widened.” In a quick review of the related June 2009 Monthly Treasury Statement, I cited three examples of higher spending in other areas of government that were larger than last year, both in dollar and percentage terms, than the $33 billion, 7% increase in total defense spending. NB commenter Arminius further pointed out that “Our military spending amounts to 5 percent of GDP. Iraq and Afghanistan amount to 15 percent of that 5 percent. Obviously, as Tom notes, larger culprits are responsible for the massive deficit.”

news media, bias, war, politics, government, spending, liberalism, left wing, anti-war, propaganda, pandering

Filed under: anti-war, bias, government, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, politics, propaganda, spending, war

Pages

Categories

August 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031