The press…
…is finally alarmed.
When the WaPo and Glenn Greewald in the Guardian are leading the charge against him, you know (dare I hope?) that Obama may have finally overplayed his hand in the unlikely person of James Rosen.
This is the article. Read it. But here’s the last paragraph:
There is simply no defense for this behavior. Obama defenders such as Andrew Sullivan claim that this is all more complicated than media outrage suggests because of a necessary “trade-off” between press freedoms and security. So do Obama defenders believe that George Bush and Richard Nixon – who never prosecuted leakers like this or formally accused journalists of being criminals for reporting classified information – were excessively protective of press freedoms and insufficiently devoted to safeguarding secrecy? To ask that question is to mock it. Obama has gone so far beyond what every recent prior president has done in bolstering secrecy and criminalizing whistleblowing and leaks.
So this is what it takes to break the spell Obama has over the MSM. Sure hope they aren’t able to revert back to form after the shock wears off.
I imagine there are a lot of reporters wondering whether they have been scrutinized like Rosen. Sheryl Attkisson should be concerned. (Though Rush, Beck, and others like them have probably been on guard since he was sworn in – how many days into his first term did Obama lash out at Rush?)
I don’t know what these “journalists” are concerned about. They wanted their tyrant in power and that is exactly what they got. I am very upset and concerned for James Rosen, but the obama dog-washing press can go to hell.
They voted for this shit sandwich and they need to take a very large bite of it.
Amazing we’re getting this from the Guardian, of all places.
The reporters get the blame for whatever has been done to them, as most of them spent Obama’s first term carrying his water and taught him to expect that nothing he did would be criticized. Had they done their jobs, he might have held them — and therefore the First Amendment, and this country — in somewhat higher respect. The DOJ is just treating them like the waggy-tail dogs they willingly became.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for those “journolists”.
I blame the media more than anyone for Obama’s election. They have a lot to answer for.
The only thing they could do to redeem themselves would be to make a concerted effort to bring Obama down, as they did with Nixon. I’m not holding my breath for that.
The alarm is a sliver, hopefully a painful one that makes the sufferer stop all activity and address the issue until resolution.
But I doubt it.
Obama remains a popular President. The spin (see the Bloomburg link) is that Republicans are trying to ruin Obama’s legacy (Yeah!) and Obama himself hasn’t done anything wrong or criminal.
Obama will get a pass, but his policies and his leadership can still be defeated by letting him escape. He’s just a fart in the wind and the important thing is 2014 and recapturing education and taking the long view.
If we survive the financial holocaust that is coming from the paper money we’re all using.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-19/how-obama-can-rescue-his-presidency-from-faux-scandals.html
and note Ponnuru and Sunstein’s defenses.
Greenwald is a P.O.S. extreme lefty, but he’s a sincere one with actual principles beyond “whatever’s best for powerful lefties”. He’s been criticizing Obama pretty hard for quite a while now.
A lot of the old, hard-line lefties are anti-Obama on principle. They want Hugo Chavez NOW. They want massive government expropriation and a shattered economy NOW. They want violence in our streets NOW. They want the Constitution suspended NOW. They want the opposition in prison camps NOW, not just frustrated and harassed by the IRS. And they don’t want any jihadis getting hurt, either. Obama’s been a grave disappointment to those pigs.
They’re old and out of touch. They have no influence. Nobody gives a damn what they think.
James Rosen works for Fox. Nobody in media is anything but delighted. Nobody. They’re jerking off in glee.
This is nothing. This is like Obama’s approval rating hitting 43% for the ninetieth time before bouncing back.
What the press is going through its tactics, what the point is, is strategy.
Yes, the press has fed their “Audrey” too much.
they would well be reminded that there is no Pravda in the Izvestia, and no Izvestia in the Pravda!!
from townhall
These latest scandals have revealed a seam between two elements of the liberal coalition, the liberals who actually believe some of what they say and the cynical leftists who merely crave power.
at some point the leaders who benefit have to separate from the useful others who eventually become less and less aligned with things as the opposition is removed and the things they attributed (or misattributed) to the opposition or various scapegoats, have not stopped.
oh.. if you think that the newspaper people are waking up, its already covered. another group that is soon to wake up too, or maybe not, depending on how vapid… (they are in the catechism)
there is no room for everyone aboard the ark they are building. all those people saying there are too many people, all think they are gonna get a pass onto the ark. even the fabulous ones…
the people who are mostly complicit, loved the advertising copy, the stories of what will be and the land of milk and honey, never really thought of what it means to live in such a place. certainly they did not think that they would have to trade autonomy and person-hood to get there, did they?
such a rebound has always been planned to handle, so it will be interesting to see what they will do. the idea that a duped peoples would not wake up till years later is silly as is waking up before its too late
like the question of whether the military would shoot citizens… will the journalist play it safe or will they report? (and what about the defunct journolist blog?)
Maybe.
Principled leftists actually have been sounding warnings on Obama for a while, some since before the election. Greenwald has spoken up against Obama before, although he notably waited until *after* the election to do so. So far, the Democrats and their media enablers have been able to wave away the charges and run interference. They’ve relied on people to choose against the fear-mongered and vilified GOP.
The Dems basic strategy is to keep the critical spotlight on the GOP and the right, no matter how disingenuous the taped-on charge. The charge is not the important thing. The purpose is to fix the critical spotlight on their opponent at all times, even when the Dems are in the wrong. At minimum, their opponent will be slandered so no lasting political advantage will be gained by the GOP.
The Democrats and their media enablers will also misdirect and confuse the issues to disallow a narrative that the American people can hold onto for lasting damage.
Note that even when they criticize Obama, principled leftists will make sure to get their digs in on the GOP. They’ll make sure that when they criticize Obama they won’t elevate the GOP.
The GOP shouldn’t rely on principled leftists to do heavy lifting for the GOP, anyway. It behooves the GOP to use this opportunity to do more than criticize Obama. They should use an Obama v Bush frame to simultaneously criticize Obama and rehabilitate Bush’s legacy as righteous – the door’s been opened for it, but it won’t stay open. While the Dems are vulnerable, the GOP and the right (eg, Tea Party) should also present to the American people a distinctly superior alternative to the Dems.
Principled leftists will criticize Obama, but their intent is to purify and elevate the left. They would prefer to keep their boot heels on the neck of the right while doing so. It’s up to the GOP to use this opportunity to seize the initiative by affirmatively taking the political high ground and dropping the Dems onto the political low ground.
its interesting to see the attitude exhibited in comments
its akin to someone so peeved at another for putting a hole in the boat, that they would rather let everyone drown, including themselves, by not bailing once the another realized their mistake.
Ooooffff!
How about this brown cow?
. . . the Cincinnati office that reviewed the Tea Party applications was an “understaffed,” “unglamorous” “backwater.” Its ill-trained, “low-level” staffers “rarely discussed politics. . . it made sense for IRS staffers to look carefully at the politically oriented applicants. . . As the “review process slowed to a crawl” under the weight of all these new applications, IRS staffers in Cincinnati, few of whom were experts in tax law, began using keywords like “educating on the Constitution” and “social economic reform/movement” to screen applicants.
This from Peter Beinart, the same one who wrote “The Good Fight: Why Liberals–and Only Liberals–Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.” (2006) Didn’t take long to make that claim foolish!
And is the same Cincinnati office that is desperately seeking to keep its agents from talking and even resorting to police escort of journalist through its premises? Yeah that’s the one. Right Peter. Doing invaluable work. You’re one of the top 100 minds? Really? Shit. Good for you. And Zionism is in crisis. That too. So only liberals can save the world from terrorism, Zionism is in crisis, and the IRS is a regular little ole victim, poor thing.
Matthew Walker: Yes, I know Rosen works for Fox.
But they do not appear to be “jerking off in glee.” Remember that the WaPo broke the story, and that Greenwald’s hard-hitting article appeared in the leftist Guardian. And if you go to many blogs on the left, you’ll see they are also not happy about it, although their degree of consternation varies.
Here’s a quote from Greenwald’s article. Note the leftist sources of the criticisms (apparently Obama has gone after a reporter for the NY Times, as well):
.
sharpie,
If memory serves, Beinart wasn’t talking about modern liberals. He was talking about the liberals who were staunch anti-Communists, and that kind of liberal needs to be resurrected for the War on Terror. Beinart’s liberals became neo-conservatives.
Hell hath no fury like a journalist scorned.
I am very happy to see that powerful people in the WH share my assessment of James Rosen as being one hell of a reporter. I’ve admired him for years. Way to go James!!!
True enough, Eric! True enough.
Which makes Beinart’s book incoherent and dishonest.
The 21st century Democrat is not a Truman?JFK Democrat. He is a Wilson-Hoover-FDR liberal fascist totalitarian ideologist. Truman and JFK, outliers both of them, learned the horrors of fascism and responded to the challenge of the Soviet Union.
Would that such Democrats were alive today.
Seems to me his book was mostly about trying to justify his support for the Iraq war. His neo-conservatism resembles both Bushes approach to wage war on moral grounds. (This aggression will not stand.) He takes that and says it comes from the liberal history? Who? Not Truman or JFK, both of them realpolitikers (well, at least JFK wanted to be!)
The book was an attempt to show his support for the Iraq war was really logical, it just needed a different commander, a non-Bush commander.
And that awful contorted historical narrative was received as wisdom. Shit. He was desperate to remain a voice but had to square a circle. Can’t be done unless you’re dishonest at the core.
sharpie –
I can hardly stand to listen to Bloomberg radio – their hosts and guests love big government spending and especially love the Fed printing money. The market is off the charts, the fundamentals of the economy are lousy, and they are making money hand over fist. They have found a way to get rich with outrageous unemployment, record low workforce participation, steadily declining wages, and growth numbers so low it’s not certain there is any.
Things are bassackward, and nobody seems to agree on what is going on. they just agree the good times are rolling, and they want to keep it that way – And they know whose ass to kiss, and as long as Ben Bernanke keeps the party going, they’re going with it.
They couldn’t have done this without their bobo in the white house, who hasn’t any idea what is going on with the economy or monetary policy under his watch, and when it comes crashing down, they will support whoever or whatever short term measures cause them the least pain.
neo – look for the WaPo reporter who wrote the article to be indicted for interfering with federal investigation.
I’m not at all surprised at Obama doing this, but I am still not convinced the press has fully grasped how dangerous he is. Americans, and especially the press, don’t ever believe a totalitarian government could come to power here. The press think they can control a government who get too powerful by changing public opinion. They are wrong – they make the mistake that a president who has no regard for the law, such as Obama, will accept any law that protects them. Obama will break or bend any law to protect himself or his interests.
They still haven’t made the connection that the right to a free and independent press carries an implicit responsibility to hold every party accountable. It’s hardly ironic they’ve become victims of their own malfeasance. Quite honestly, I hope Obama rounds up a bunch of them, throws them in jail, and shows them what he’s really like. That would be a lesson they understand, where all the criticism for their lack of professional ethics has failed.
Am I hoping against hope that every sensable person in DC can see that what has happened with the Obama scandals is that a band of thugs from Chicago has taken over !!!!
How on earth can/could this be tolerated & risk becoming the norm ????
Just like Pelosi & other Dems chased Anthony Weiner the hell out of town even though he tried to stonewall I would *think* some established Dem would explain how unseemly this whole senario is. This is practically a *revolution* or a coup where the Bill of Rights is summarily trashed. There should be indictments !
Have they no insight, they cannot see the harm?
southpaw: I absolutely agree that they have not fully grasped it. But I think a few are beginning to partly grasp it.
southpaw….
I’m shocked at how many Democrats have not noticed the body count of fellow Democrats along Buraq’s highway.
Barry doesn’t respect the Black Caucus. You can take that to the bank.
Buraq is taking flight as a king not as a president.
He takes absolutist positions — at just about every turn.
Absolutism — despotism — ’tis BHO.
You need to put his psyche down on the couch.
Then, his reactive-dependent, Gonnabee, personality should give you the chills.
BTW, the typical end script for a Gonnabee is institutional destruction, entire.
======
The House has to find out about FEST, General Ham, and the whole evil brew which was, and is, the Wan at war.
He never went to Congress over Libyan operations.
He never disclosed to Congress that he’s been running a covert war — one drastically more subversive than any imagined — keeping it under the radar by using Libyan hardware and Salafist fanatics from all over.
This is why Moscow is in a snit.
As for the Benghazi specifics. There is every reason to believe that Iran was behind the assault. Since it would not do to have a visible presence, they duped AQ affiliates into carrying their water.
Iran’s involvement was in the open literature before 9-11-2012. Now that tidbit has fallen into the memory hole.
Cui bono? Now that Benghazi has blown up…
Assad is looking healthier; what a coincidence.
Why would bona fide AQ crew deliberately assault their own arms conduit which is feeding the anti-Assad fight?
It doesn’t pass the smell test.
As for FEST — tied up in Croatia — weird that it’s at the other supply node for the anti-Assad cause.
And the notion that the high officials no nothing of FEST capability? You’d have to be an idiot to believe such a lie.
It, FEST, exists primarily to stop repetitions of the Iranian fiasco of 1979.
The President is running his private war out of the State Department. It’s intended to be a small, private, affair; the exact opposite of Bush II.
In his doing, he’s acting extra-Constitutionally. He doesn’t need any stinking legislators poking around.
Not surprisingly, he needs leak-stoppers at every turn. Which leads us back to bugging the House and Senate; and neutering the fourth estate.
Jay Leno on the Tonight Show (and his all-lefty writers: like he said, “I would NEVER hire a Republican writer”) has “framed” the IRS/Brownshirt tactics thus: he goes after the Republicans, and whines that the Republicans said BO was incompetent, and NOW they’re saying he’s a tyrant — so the Problem, People, is that BO is an amiable fellow who’s in over his head on this!
They then ridiculed the Republicans asking questions of the Benghazi and IRS witnesses by dubbing the questions over footage of a bunch of kindergartners questioning their messiah. The studio audience dutifully laughed along.
So, you see, you all need to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the ‘Bomba.
These three scandals hit and continue to blossom. Who knows where each will go. But do you ever wonder why these three, and what all else they’re doing that they really don’t want you to know about? It’s unhealthy thinking, but you gotta wonder.
Inchoate Changer Kirsten Powers has a piece up at the Daily Beast that’s on point, here.
She’s taking heavy flak in the comments. No surprise there: For the most part the Left seems to wholeheartedly approve of tyranny, as long as its being applied to the enemy (the Right).
Pure, unadulterated tribalism.
carl in atlanta: “Pure, unadulterated tribalism.”
Yep. Remember how people used to suspect a Catholic American would be loyal to the Vatican above America? JFK put the fear to rest, but the fear has been realized with Democrats who are loyal to their party – and its leaders – above their nation.
It’s a deliberate outgrowth of the Dems’ identity politics and demagoguery. During the 2012 presidential race, it struck me that the Dems implied message boiled down to you should vote for the Dems if you agree only with 1 point related to your identity, even if you agree with the GOP on 9 points related to national governance, because the GOP will hurt what you value the most.
With their ‘othering’ of the GOP, adversarial, polarized indoctrination, and zero-sum conflict frame, the Dems have managed to assign the same value and need to their partisan affiliation as they have to ‘gender’, ‘race’, ‘sexual orientation’, etc – being with the Democrats and opposing Republicans is just as integral in their sharpened sense of identity.
As you said, tribal; moreover, theirs is a tribe at war. Neo has cited Alinsky’s rules for radicals to explain their methods. I also recommend Mao’s guidance on propaganda in his On Guerrilla Warfare, which is widely available on-line.
Good for Powers. I like that she doesn’t (strategically) smear the right in order to preserve the Democrats’ political advantage while also criticizing Obama’s camp. ‘Changers’ like Neo, Powers, and Horowitz are needed to lead the pushback.
The press will be put back in their place soon enough. Attempting to fight the Leftist alliance is a hard thing even if you have your own coalition of the willing. Attempting to betray your own side, however, with no actual external aid, does not result in much chances of victory.
Journalists that think they were born to change the world and upheld their nobility, will be put in their place by those who were Born to Rule.
“But do you ever wonder why these three, and what all else they’re doing that they really don’t want you to know about? It’s unhealthy thinking, but you gotta wonder.”
G Joubert, I estimate that even the most well informed political observers in the US don’t know more than 10% of what the Leftist alliance for human slavery has really been doing. It is not that in 2008 and 2001 they were ignorant and now are suddenly grasping the majority of the Left and its nature. They don’t even realize 10% of it. Not yet. More suffering, more emotions like hate, are needed for someone to understand. IQ and intellect is not enough.
Hate, however appropriate, does NOT increase understanding. Intellect open to but in control of emotion(s) appropriate to circumstance increases motivation.
Ymarsakar – to your point about intellect and Neo’s ongoing posts about a mind being a difficult thing to change — human beings seem to have an infinite capacity to blind themselves to logic or reason that is well within their intellect to understand, were it not for it relating to some emotional attachment they have formed. Maybe that’s not the actual thing that blinds them, but an example is a the media who firmly believe a person or government who has no allegiance to any law that opposes their objectives, would never dare challenge the one law they themselves value the most. There is no logic to that thinking, and if you framed that logical question in some other terms, the logical conclusion that no law is sacred if every other law is can be bent or twisted or ignored is intuitively obvious.
But when they embrace a person or idea with their feelings, the brain simply shuts down for a lot of people. It’s not that they don’t want to see or that they’re stupid, it’s like expecting a blind person to be able to play tennis. For some of the Obama cult of worshipers, they could watch him go on a shooting rampage on live TV, and would still vote for him in the next election. I guess it’s another inexplicable problem with human behavior.
sharpie: “[Peter Beinart’s] book was an attempt to show his support for the Iraq war was really logical, it just needed a different commander, a non-Bush commander.”
And that was an utterly craven position for a liberal.
In terms of foreign policy, Bush reacted to 9/11 as the most IR-liberal president since Truman, most of all with how he moved to resolve our festering Iraq problem. (The historical analogy to Bush’s Iraq is Truman’s Korea, with the difference that the case for the Iraq intervention was based on better law, policy, and precedent, as well as homeland security, than the case for the Korea intervention. Truman’s Korea policy was novel; Bush’s Iraq policy was the logical extension of Clinton’s Iraq policy.)
Our Iraq intervention, most of all in the peace operations of the post-war, was definitively liberal. Bush honored America’s standing as ‘leader of the free world’. Liberals like Beinart should have rallied around Bush on Iraq. I did. Joe Lieberman did. Clinton did, before Clinton caved to partisan pressure, his survival mode kicked in, and he flipped. That Beinart failed to support Bush on Iraq exposes him as a dilettante in his liberal opinions. I can’t call them convictions in his case.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was a litmus test. True liberals supported it. False liberals opposed it. Dilettantes made excuses and stepped away to preserve their social standing.
Politics is adversarial, not inquisitorial. Truth-seeking and politics are different in nature.
The ‘truth’ in the political game is defeating your opponent and winning office, or implementing policy, if you’re an activist rather than a politician.
Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few MSM reporters who covered Fast & Furious, thinks her computers were compromised: http://tinyurl.com/kj3c6aq
southpaw: “But when they embrace a person or idea with their feelings …”
I agree on the unreasoning, deep-seated emotional aspect. But being unreasoningly *for* Obama is just part of it, and I would argue not the greater part.
The greater part of their partisan indoctrination is being *against* the GOP, even when the Democrat is clearly in the wrong, and believing the GOP is against their identity. Even when they criticize their own, they include an obligatory smear on the GOP. In other words, if they won’t vote for a corrupt Democrat, they will always vote against the enemy Republican.
This is why that I hold that it’s insufficient to drag down Obama and Democrats to the political low ground. The Republicans must break out of the Democrats frame, advance their own narrative, and affirmatively take the political high ground.
There is so much going on right now it’s almost impossible to keep up. But we try!
I’ll note that about 60% of Dems in the Senate, and 40% in the House voted for the Iraq War. This includes Obama’s VP Biden and SoS Clinton.
The implication is that, even in Obamaland, the decision to go to war with Saddam’s Iraq was a reasonable decision. Oh, sure, it might not have been the right one, but it had to be reasonable at least from a “decision point” made in 2002 . . . else Clinton was not an acceptable choice for SoS.
And now comes Sharyl Attkinsson (Now there’s a hard name to spell. “Dear me! I am not certain quite/ that even now I’ve got it right.”) Spelling aside, she says she’s known for months that her personal and work computers were compromised but isn’t ready to say yet who she thinks is responsible because she’s being “patient and methodical” about the investigation. However, the fact that she’s choosing to come forward now suggests to me that she has a pretty darned good idea exactly who it was, and why.
This is beyond disturbing.
I’m afraid I have to bet on the media exhibiting a strong battered-wife syndrome.
Don,
Remember when Samantha Power was removed from Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 for daring to voice liberal/neo-con ideas about Iraq, and then was reinstated in the Obama administration?
It’s demonstrable that the Democrats understood as well as the Republicans the context, stakes, and aspirations for giving Saddam a last chance to comply under credible threat of regime change.
Bush’s case and procedure for resolving the Iraq problem were an extension of Clinton’s case and procedure, so of course, President Clinton’s wife understood the Iraq problem when she voted in favor of the Congressional authorization. The authorization itself was mainly based upon developments during the Clinton administration.
In fact, Bush’s counter-terror policy after 9/11 was built on Clinton’s counter-terror policy that Bush inherited, which Clinton developed in response to al Qaeda’s anti-US campaign throughout the 1990s.
9/11 radically changed our calculations, but there was a long path to 9/11 with a lot of continuity between Clinton and Bush across the 9/11 dividing line. Our 1990s Iraq mission was in fact a founding reason and chief rallying cry for al Qaeda.
Given that the Iraq intervention was, in effect, Bush concluding Clinton’s course with Iraq, the Democrats’ use of Iraq to attack Bush for parochial partisan gain is breathtaking in the naked elevation of partisan politics over truth, our national interest, and the humanitarian interest in Iraq.
The Democrats lied about Iraq and it worked for them.
Add: The circleback point on Iraq is that the Democrats willing and able to lie about Iraq are Democrats who are willing and able to do a lot of bad things.
southpaw, humanity has always hunted and survived based upon instincts first, emotions second, and logic third.
They felt the need for heat + food + shelter = survival in their guts and soul. Then sought to get it done, for their instincts said this was necessary. They would then feel the heat and feel safe in their hearts. Only later would they come up with a logical reason why all that was connected together.
Survival instincts are always truth for humans facing life and death. They don’t worry about emotions or social rules then. If they do, they’re kind of dead. But instincts are short sighted and often times based purely on ingrained behavior. It is not enough to navigate complicated human societies. Emotions allow us to become part of an organized herd, to compromise and work with each other. Yet emotions are very imaginative and can often times imagine all kinds of fantastical and unrealistic things. Which is why people who get into a fight on the streets for pride, may very well fall to the might of those who fight solely to survive in the jungle.
Logic and reason is the chief weapon of the Left, it is the exact reason why they think humanity no longer needs god and can create their own man made God (Deus Ex Machina).
All these things could be used by humans to fight and win their wars, but few if any know how to utilize them. It takes training to be able to survive purely on instinct. It takes training to control and use emotion in society, instead of being used by it. Logic can easily become a person’s excuse factor, all for the purpose of self deceiving themselves.
The Left believes that in order to create a perfect world, Republicans and those who are for freedom or individualism, must be destroyed for anything that rejects or resists Utopia is evil. This belief is enough for them to kill for, although perhaps not enough to die for. For their Islamic, a belief in the utopia of their God is enough to kill for or die for and thus makes a perfect complement to the Left’s alliance goals.
Until people understand what hate for evil means, they cannot fight evil. Until people accept that the Left is evil, they will not hate. Until people accept that the Left will destroy their loved ones, love will not serve to bolster their motivation to fight.
Aristotle once stated that the virtuous man or woman feels intense anger at injustices. There is no rational explanation for why and no need for it. Merely that those who love justice, will feel anger and even hate, against those who are unjust. If you do not feel the emotions, you either don’t comprehend what is at stake or you don’t care.
The Left says many bad things about the Right because that is what they believe, more or less. Their behavior is thus an indication of their belief, their emotions a proof of their will.
The Islamic Jihad hates Americans enough to kill and die in the cause. Yet many Americans think they can understand the root cause of terror without feeling the same kind of hatred. Empathy is what allows humans to understand each other. In common suffering, joy, and despair are people bonded together for a common goal. Yet, there are many who think that with enough IQ, intellect, and rationality, they don’t need emotions or rather that they can control emotions.
First you have to feel something before you can control it. First you have to feel hatred intense enough for evil before you will understand what evil is. Those who don’t feel these things, not even in part, yet believe their intellect is so great that they can rationalize out human behavior and motivations, will make a very inhumane world. They speak without wisdom required to live. That they can understand humans without feeling the joy, hate, love, and despair of those very humans.
Those who love something, the ultimate proof is being willing to die or kill to protect it. Those who have lost something to the hands of humans, the ultimate proof of what they valued is their hate and desire for revenge. For if you do not even desire that much, then you didn’t love as much either.
Christianity found a way to make things easier for a community by placing God as the ultimate arbiter, judge, and source of forgiveness, allowing those to forgive their enemies as they were forgiven.
In the Left’s world, there will be no such God in existence. They think it won’t be necessary. After all, even a person like Obama can bring down the Light and Open the way for the Seas. What need we for a white old guy in a beard.
America as it stands, where neighbors forgive each other’s transgressions, utilize a public arbiter to mutually resolve problems, it is unnatural. It is extremely unnatural. It is so very distanced. A society designed around a Golden Age that will only last so long as people are willing to die or kill to protect it. And when that last drop of will and fire flashes out of existence, there is the Left ready to take over. People have forgotten the emotions and will of their ancestors. They are perfect prey for a Left willing to do anything to achieve Utopia. They cannot understand the Left, because in essence, they have forgotten what it means to hate.