My Freedom to Beat You Over the Head Ends - At Your Head

Never have so many people enjoyed so many freedoms. Can you imagine what’s next?

 By MICHAEL SHERMER


I’m afraid I can, all too well. Are you going to warn me of even worse than I can imagine? I imagine so.

“This trend is what Dr. King meant by describing the rights revolution he helped to lead a “moral arc” that bends toward justice, and why I chose to title my latest book The Moral Arc, because history really has progressed since the invention of rights during the Enlightenment in the late 18th century.”

Packed a lot of wrongness in one long sentence. 1. Misappropriating MLK’s term ‘moral arc’ 2. “invention of rights” Mr Shermer must be unfamiliar with the sentiments expressed by the Founders in the Declaration that rights are ‘endowed by our Creator” 3. I don’t have time right now to google for the development of rights throughout history, including those damned priests I’m sure Shermer thinks are ignorant superstitious clods – Aquinas, etc, you know.

Wait, his understanding of the source and meaning of ‘rights’ gets better.

“Same-sex marriage and gay rights in general are themselves the legacy of the rights revolutions that took off in the late 1700s when the idea of rights was invented and then demanded, first in the American Revolution (starting with the Declaration of Independence) and then in the French Revolution (with the Rights of Man).”

Several thousand people had their rights violated at the collarbone by the French Revolution. If he wants to associate himself with that, God help him.

“Never in history have so many people enjoyed so many freedoms.”

Freedom to express an opinion different from Mr Shermer’s in public on SSM or homosexual acts or adoption by single people or homosexual couples?
Uh, no.

Freedom to equip oneself with protection against violent assault?
Uh, no.

Freedom from government mandate that one pay for health care procedures that violate one’s moral standards
Uh, no.

Freedom for small businessmen to participate in rites that seek to solemnize acts that are recognized as highly immoral and an affront to their religious faith?
Uh, no.

Freedom from having ones children told by the state government that the beliefs and moral standards their parents taught them were bigoted, wrong, superstitious and ought not to be believed?
Uh, no.

Freedom from representatives of the state providing prophylactics, pharmaceuticals and perhaps even abetting in surgical procedures without parental knowledge or consent?
Uh, no.

“Can you imagine what’s next?”

I shudder to even think.

“Illinois took a first bold step in decriminalizing sodomy in 1961, but at the time homosexuality was considered to be a perversion—even a mental illness—and if police caught a man engaged in “lewd” behavior his name, age and even home address could be published in the local newspaper (like pedophiles today).”

From which we may infer that pedophiles of the not too distant future will be treated like homosexuals of today? Wait; when conservatives have warned of that, they are pilloried and the idea laughed at. Now we are supposed to look forward to it as the next big leap in the expansion of rights along the arch of history?

“Mark my words: Now that the highest court in the country has made same-sex marriage the law of the land, I predict that within a few years Christians will come around to treating gay men and lesbians no differently from how they now treat other groups whom they previously persecuted—women, Jews and blacks.”

Setting aside the question begging about Christians persecuting this and that identity group (as we are now supposed to call them), please do hold your breath, Mr Shermer.

“The gay rights revolution will continue to fine-tune laws related to inheritance, taxes, job discrimination, family rights (that of surrogate parents vs. same-sex parents) and—now—divorce and custody issues.

Most of which had been already addressed in civil union laws in the states. So, that really isn’t it, is it? Oh, except for “job discrimination.” Following his anti-Christian screed, can you doubt that Shermer is salivating for the next court case challenging a church or school’s right to hire employees who do not openly condemn its faith?

“And then there’s atheists, agnostics and secular humanists—who have been following the strategy of the LGBT community in “coming out” campaigns to show that we are just as moral, just as worthy and just as good citizens as believers.”

He isn’t hiding his anti-Christian hopes and prayers – wait…

In whom does he hope? The USSC, apparently.

After a meandering consideration of animal rights, the death penalty and human trafficking around the world, Oh, and climate change, of course, Shermer ends: “And, of course, there is the defense of the rights our ancestors left us, if (pace Benjamin Franklin) we can keep them. As Franklin’s friend and colleague Thomas Jefferson cautioned, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Which is why freedom loving people have to keep a sharp eye on people like Shermer.

Dave Brat, Watergate Conspirator? Politico would like you to think so

This partisan piece in Politico is unsurprising. Sometimes for what it says, sometimes for what it doesn't say. It doesn't say anything about Democrats possibly taking the House. Politico presumes Republicans will retain the majority there. A really cute line attempts to subliminally link Brat with Watergate,

“It’s perhaps no accident that Cantor was defeated by an insurgent named Brat, an upstart conservative Roman Catholic who received a master’s degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, the alma mater of Watergate conspirator Jeb Stuart Magruder. Brat’s platform: Washington is awash in corrupting cash, and it’s time for a change.”

1. Let’s make fun of his name, mature.
2. “insurgent,” “Brat,” “upstart,” “conservative Roman Catholic,” “Watergate conspirator.” Loaded language much?
3. “conservative Roman Catholic” Didn’t that sort of anti-Catholic bias die with JFK? No, only if you are an ‘enlightened Catholic’ like Mario Cuomo, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, etc. But a ‘conservative Roman Catholic’ can only mean that Brat hates women and is in favor of pedophile priests, right?
4. And since Brat attended the same college as Jeb Stuart Magruder (wait, don’t they only use all 3 names for serial killers? Unless I missed the subliminal between Brat and the Civil War general – of course! Brat also wants to sent African Americans back to the plantation!), of Watergate fame, Brat is also as tricky as one of Nixon’s henchman.
5. It mentions Dave Brat, the man who soundly defeated Eric Cantor only once. It gives his last name once. Seems to me that the first person to defeat the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives  in a primary since the Nineteenth Century deserves to at least have his name mentioned in a Politico hit piece.

It should be noted that Politico is one of the few places where readers might possibly know who Magruder and Stuart were or what Watergate was about. I’d wager that the majority of people who vote for Brat’s opponent in November will not know at least 2 out of 3 of those facts.

Do people really believe this s#!+?

I mistook a link to an article by Roger Simon of Politico for Roger L. Simon of PJ Media. My mistake. It turned out to be a stream of Liberal talking points and out right lies, but I repeat myself. 

No escaping the MiniTru

The piling-on of the media on Paul Ryan has spread further than I expected.

An on-line news site serving the US Military, DoD Buzz has gone all CNN, using biased sources in a 'news' article that reads like an Obama campaign talking point paper:

The lede almost seems relatively innocuous: "The military is so far off the radar for this presidential election that Republican nominee Mitt Romney and his vice presidential pick, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, didn’t mention Afghanistan once during their 60 Minutes interview Sunday night."

Of course, the subtle impression the article plants is that Romney and Ryan are hiding their views on the war against Islamist terror organizations. What are they hiding, we are led to wonder. Also, the two aren't thinking about National Security, the readiness of our Armed Forces or the welfare of our veterans.

Although there is nothing in the article - or in anything I've ever heard either of them say - that would support those sorts of inferences.

The most likely reason they didn't address Afghanistan?

"CBS Face the Nation anchor Bob Schieffer never even asked the Republican running mates a direct question about their thoughts on Afghanistan."

Oh. That might be it...

And the Democrat talking points continue, unquestioned and without nuance:

"Pundits have leaped over their desks talking about Ryan’s plans to cut Medicare and what it means to independent elderly voters."

Pundits have lept over their desks, screaming in unison the lyrics handed to them about the Obama's campaign false allegation that Ryan plans to cut Medicare and hurt independent elderly voters (read retired military).

So, what do Veterans groups think of Mr. Ryan? the reporter tells us:

"What veteran groups have noticed is a noticeable lack of the word “veteran” throughout Paul’s lengthy document."

Which Veterans groups?

" Jon Soltz, head of VoteVets​.org was not impressed with Romney’s selection, according to a Politico report.

“In his first presidential-level decision, Mitt Romney picks a guy who would slash veterans care by tens of billions and whose budget didn’t even use the word ‘veteran?’ Paul Ryan sees veterans as numbers, not as people,” Soltz told Politico."

Well, DoD Buzz went to a secondary source for their selected Veterans group. That's investigative journalism!

So, you ask, which one is it? VFW, American Legion? VVA? Nah, too obvious. Maybe they're just passing on Politico's biased sources, but the way they wrote the story leads to the conclusion that 'Veterans groups" including those major ones, have problems with Ryan.

And they have the quote to prove it!

So, is VoteVets and Jon Soltz a good representation of Military personnel and Veterans?

No. And it isn't any secret to the readers of DoD Buzz, judging from the comment thread:

"DoDBuzz should commit an act of journalism here instead of serving as a conduit for Jon Solz's White-House issued talking points and rehashing the old Ryan-Dempsey joust (which I'd chalk up to Ryan, incidentally). VFW Exec Director Bob Wallace's quote provides the requisite fig leaf for balance. Veteran voters can see right through this cheap "Chickenhawk" smear job. "

"Equating VoteVets with the VFW is a canard. Vote Vets is a liberal hack job. 90% of their board of advisors are left leaning registered democrats. Rep Gary Peters MI-D called VoteVets, "The largest progressive group of veterans in America, VoteVets.org PAC, with over 220,000 supporters" http://votevets.org/news/releases?id=0501 The VFW is apolitical and has 2.1 MILLION members. Why even mention VoteVets? "

And they said it better than I ever could.

And they are right. Here is a bit from Jon Solz' wiki page: Soltz volunteered for the John Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. ...He has been a frequent contributor to numerous shows, including Countdown with Keith Olbermann[1] and the Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC. He has been interviewed by the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Time magazine, Newsweek.[1] He has appeared on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, ABC News, Nightline, Air America Radio, The Ed Schultz Show, and The Bill Press Show.[1]


And here are the top recipients of votevets PAC money according to OpenSecrets.org:
•VoteVets.org to Chris Carney (D) in 2010


•VoteVets.org to John A. Boccieri (D) in 2010

•VoteVets.org to Joseph A. Sestak, Jr (D) in 2010

•VoteVets.org to Patrick J. Murphy (D) in 2010

•VoteVets.org to Timothy J. Walz (D) in 2010

Open Secrets' profile of VoteVet is only surprising, apparently, to DoD Buzz:
"VoteVets.org is a liberal-leaning PAC which contains several affiliated VoteVet.org organzations. The group has raised money primarily in support of Democratic candidates and against Republican candidates."