Wednesday, May 10, 2017

More Interesting Items 2

Of course this does not apply to all progressives.  Most are decent people who just want what in their minds is right and just.  But for the more vocal ones taking down people they do not like is sport.  They use their messages of vitriolic intolerance to destroy people who simply but openly oppose their point of view.   The left claims to be tolerant, and most likely many are, but such behavior suggests there is a fair amount of progressive who are quite intolerant and seemingly have little understanding of the meaning/intent of or have no/little respect for the First Amendment. 

This item provides us with an understanding of inalienable rights.  Quote: "Americans typically read the commitment to inalienable rights to mean that these are rights no government can take away. They’re right in that the government cannot take away these rights, but “inalienability” is irrelevant. After all, the government cannot just take way alienable rights either. “Alienate” is a term from property law. It means to transfer something. We alienate rights over property all the time by selling or given the property away. For example, the rights I have over the sofa I just bought are “alienable” rights. If I sell the sofa to someone else, then I have alienated my right to use and to dispose of that sofa; I have transferred those rights to the purchaser. But if someone breaks into my house and steals my sofa (it is a sweet sofa), the fact that my rights over the sofa are alienable does not in any way lessen the fact that the person who stole my sofa committed an injustice. So, too, with government action. Alienable rights cannot any more be taken away by someone than inalienable rights can be. Where the bite with a right being “inalienable” comes in is that inalienable rights cannot be given away. Inalienable rights constrain the holder of those rights in a way that alienable rights do not. Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be given away. Inalienable rights are, for example, the dramatic backdrop in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. In both books the family’s property is entailed along the male line, meaning that the heir who receives the property in one generation only has the right to use the land during his lifetime. That heir cannot sell or otherwise transfer the land permanently (say, by giving it to his wife or daughters). Ownership is inalienable in the stories.  The Declaration’s affirmation that the rights mentioned are inalienable is, in fact, a restriction on what individuals can do with those rights. They cannot transfer them to anyone else."

This item does a quick review of two book classics relevant to today.  Aldus Huxley's "Brave New World" and George Orwell's "1984".  Three Quotes: "Both books are widely considered classics and are included in the Modern Library’s top ten great novels of the twentieth century." And, "In both, Brave New World and 1984, common themes are addressed including government, orthodoxy, social hierarchy, economics, love, sex, and power.  Both books portray propaganda as a necessary tool of government to shape the collective minds of the citizenry within each respective society and towards the specific goals of the state; to wit, stability and continuity."  And, "Governments of both Brave New World and 1984 also filtered information and propaganda in accordance to the class ranking of their citizens. In Brave New World, the separate castes, except for the Epsilons who couldn’t read, received their own newspapers delivering specific propaganda for each class of society; whereas the INGSOC party members of 1984 were allowed newspapers and to view broadcasted reports of world news via their telescreens. Even though there is no actual organized religion described in either book, there were deities endorsed by the government, primarily for economic reasons, and complete with mandated rigorous orthodoxies."

Before the most recent Canadian elections that gave that country a second Trudeau in the Prime Minister's seat, I read a number of accounts and heard interviews that convinced me that if the younger Trudeau followed in his dad's footsteps Canada was headed for trouble.  The piece notes that he is disappointing his progressive supporters because he is having to come to terms with reality.  He is apparently learning that progressive solutions don't work, a lesson Obama never learned.  Read this item.  Quote: Overall, Trudeau has behaved very predictably. Progressive platforms never withstand the true tests of office because they are destructive at best. Trudeau is still far left of what would be best for Canada and their allies, but he is a far cry from the progressive darling he was supposed to be. When faced with the hard decisions of his position, he will continue to be pushed into rational choices, and that will forever peel him farther away from the progressive agenda."

Poor government top level decision making creates problems like this one created by Obama.  Quote: "As of August 2016, ICE was supervising about 2.2 million aliens released into communities throughout the nation. Officially they are known as appearing on the “non-detained docket.” About 368,574 are convicted criminals, the watchdog report states. To put things in perspective the inspector general reveals that in 2015 ICE removed 235,413 individuals of which 139,368 were convicted criminals. A surge in illegal immigrants under the Obama administration pushed matters into crisis mode. Deportation officers are so overworked that they often lose track of dangerous illegal aliens with serious criminal histories. This includes individuals who represent critical national security threats, according to the federal probe."

Its too soon to celebrate, but the trend seems to be there.  Time will tell.

The idiocy of so many leftist media types is really reaching unbelievable heights.  This ultra liberal MSNBC host has the audacity to blame Trump for Venezuela's socialist state collapse.  The country was in full free fall collapse long before Trump appeared on the scene yet this commentator makes this insane claim.  Seemingly leftism frequently causes otherwise intelligent people to lose control of their minds.
This is another Trump success story which corrected yet another Obama failure..   Yet the political left is so blinded to reality that their fake reality is to them the truth.  This item makes the point well.  Consider how the left would treat those responsible for a depiction like this one if their fallen angel Obama were the subject.   Their hypocrisy is palpable.

If anyone still believes that those on the political left whether they call themselves progressive, liberal, socialist or whatever are the tolerant ones in our society items like this one will prove the lie.  Evidence abounds that they are among if not the most intolerant of any who differs with their world view.  They shut down any attempt to engage in civil discourse with anyone who disagrees with them.  Tolerant they are not.  This is an example that has been on full display for several years now. Quote: "A law firm representing the groups sponsoring her planned event is filing the suit, after its deadline of 5:00 p.m. PT on Friday passed without the university agreeing to live up to its agreement to let Coulter give a speech on campus. The best-selling author is determined to give the home of the “free speech movement” a lesson in the First Amendment by making it live up to its self-proclaimed moniker. She has insisted to WND all week that she would show up to speak because it is her constitutional right."    Far too many of our nation's colleges and universities have been transformed into institutions who seem to have abandoned open and free pursuit of knowledge/truth and replaced it with the promotion of leftist, even socialist propaganda.

This item suggests that LBGT activists may well regret doing to him what they did.  Quote: "The charges against Moore, however, are part of a larger offensive by SPLC and JIC against conservative justices in Alabama, critics contend. WND had just reported that Justice Tom Parker also had sued because SPLC filed a complaint with the JIC in an attempt to restrict his free speech, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Parker’s case and others, suggested SPLC, which has been linked in a federal court case to domestic terrorism and earlier smeared GOP presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson by putting him on its “thoroughly disgusting list of ‘haters,'” is working with the JIC to injure conservatives. SPLC and the JIC are attempting “to intimidate, silence, and punish Justice Parker for his originalist judicial philosophy and protected speech,” Parker’s case claimed."  And, "SPLC has a long history of unrelenting attacks on anyone who fails to toe its line of support for homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” The organization, in pursuit of that agenda, last year had to backtrack when it labeled Dr. Ben Carson, former GOP presidential candidate and one of the most admired men in America, as a “hater” because of his views on marriage. All six of the charges against Moore stem from his administrative order that, Liberty Counsel said, “merely advised probate judges that the prior Alabama Supreme Court orders from 2015 remained in effect while the court was reviewing the matter.”  

No comments: