Here We Go Again…

I was considering ignoring this pathetic piece of drivel from the Atlantic‘s Elizabeth Wurtzel, but–why not?–I haven’t ranted in a while, so here goes:

The piece is the usual feminazi crap, full of passive aggressive attacks on those who’ve made choices that are different from her own and pseudo-intellectual navel-gazing that substitutes for real introspection among her type.  This particular passage stood out, though, because it highlights just what is wrong with postmodern feminism, and the Fellowship of the Perpetually Aggrieved at large (emphasis mine):

I have to admit that when I meet a woman who I know is a graduate of, say, Princeton — one who has read The Second Sex and therefore ought to know better — but is still a full-time wife, I feel betrayed. I‘m not much of a moralist — I have absolutely no right to be — but in the interest of doing what’s right both for me personally and for women generally, I have been strict with myself about earning my keep. For the longest time I would not date anyone who would now be called a one-percenter because money and power are such a potent combination, and if I am going to be bossed around, I don’t want that to be the reason. When it’s come up, I have chosen not to get married. Over and over again, I have opted for my integrity and independence over what was easy or obvious. And I am happy. I don’t want everyone to live like me, but I do expect educated and able-bodied women to be holding their own in the world of work.

For those keeping score, that’s twenty times she referred to herself in that paragraph.  Twenty. Times.  See, this is what separates the FPA from the rest of us normal people: it’s all about them.  Everything is viewed through their narcissistic lens.  If they don’t understand it, then it must be wrong.  If they don’t like it, then it must be immoral.  If they themselves would not make a particular choice, then no one else should make that choice, either.

Let’s take a look at the other gems hidden in this paragraph alone:

I have to admit that when I meet a woman who I know is a graduate of, say, Princeton — one who has read The Second Sex and therefore ought to know better…

That, my friends, is pure, unadulterated, intellectual snobbery.  In her world, intelligence is determined by whether or not one has gone to the ‘correct’ school (since only Ivy Leagues produce smart people apparently; I guess we who attended state school and community college just don’t know any better).  Enlightenment is determined by whether or not one has read the ‘right’ books (I read Feminine Mystique and found it a colossal pile of excrement–does that count?).  Anyway, onward:

I’m not much of a moralist — I have absolutely no right to be — but in the interest of doing what’s right both for me personally and for women generally, I have been strict with myself about earning my keep.

Hear that, comrades?  Never mind the needs of your children or your own proclivities!  Comrade Wurtzel has spoken! We must all take the time to consider what spoiled, myopic little girls may think of our life choices before we make them!  Because, feminism!!! Grrrl power!!! Mädchen über alles!!!  It is the moral* choice, comrades!

When it’s come up, I have chosen not to get married. Over and over again, I have opted for my integrity and independence over what was easy or obvious.

Got that, fellow married women?  According to Ms. Wurtzel, we have no integrity!  All of that delayed gratification, putting the interests of the marriage and family above the interests of the individual–completely worthless!  We’re just dependents, like helpless children!  It’s not like we’re actually participating in anything important, like social justice or gender equality or publishing our narcissistic screeds in the Atlantic!  And marriage is sooooo easy, too!  Ms. Wurtzel’s never been married herself, but I’m sure she knows all about it, better than we poor saps who are actually experiencing it, anyway!

I don’t want everyone to live like me, but I do expect educated and able-bodied women to be holding their own in the world of work.

So, to summarize: if a woman stays home, she’s either an uneducated rube or a traitor to her sex.  If a woman stays home, she’s either incapacitated or a traitor to her sex.  Nannies and housekeepers earn money, and therefore are in the world of work and are worthy of respect.  Women who keep their own house and raise their own children without bringing in an outside paycheck are not worthy of respect, because they are either feeble morons or traitors.  Got it.

What’s particularly rich is the first part of that last sentence–“I don’t want everyone to live like me.”  I wonder if she wrote that sentence with a straight face, oblivious to the complete hypocrisy of writing such a thing when she spends the entire article patiently explaining to us proles in flyover country exactly why we ought to live like her.  If she had an ounce of real introspection, if she made the slightest attempt to see herself in a clear, objective light, then perhaps she would have realized what her column says about her: namely, that she’s a self-absorbed, totalitarian bitch.

*Even though Comrade Wurtzel would never debase herself by identifying herself as <gasp> a moralist, because that would be going against the All-Holy Matriarchy, or something.  So her expressed morals (i.e. “doing what’s right”) regarding whether or not to earn a paycheck were she married?–it’s totally not an expression of morals.**

**Yeah, I don’t get it either.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Did I call it or what?

I predicted about a week ago that the media will get increasingly nasty, petulant, and downright stupid in their coverage of Romney as the campaign continues and the poll numbers get more favorable.  Now, in the aftermath of Wisconsin Governor Walker’s triumph over Barrett and the unions,  on the heels of the news that Romney is ahead of Obama in true-blue Michigan, of all places, the New York Times has published a real beauty of partisan hackery.

You see, there’s a perfectly good reason why they’re ignoring their former golden boy Brett Kimberlin’s assault on the First Amendment: all of their crack reporters are busy digging up the really important news, those valiant efforts from whence comes this breathless story about the Romneys as seen through the eyes of their also (but perhaps not quite as) rich neighbors in San Diego.

This story is worth reading for the sheer comedic value; it’s not long and has all of the “right” messages.  Note how “diverse” Romney’s poor, beleaguered neighbors are:

ON Dunemere Drive, it seems as if just about everyone has a gripe against the owners of No. 311.

The elderly woman next door complains that her car is constantly boxed into her driveway. A few houses over, a gay couple grumbles that their beloved ocean views are in jeopardy. And down the street, a widow grouses that her children’s favorite dog-walking route has been disrupted.

For the love of all that is holy, fetch the smelling salts!  Romney represses the elderly!  Romney endangers gays!  Romney inconveniences widowed mothers and their children!  Romney hates dogs!

Does anyone like Romney’s presence?  We must find someone to preserve the facade of balance in this ridiculous article!  Oh, look!  Here’s someone:

There are those who seem pleased by Mr. Romney’s presence here, which real estate agents have whispered could raise home values by 10 percent. “Personally, I’m glad it’s people who have a little bit of money and taste living there,” said Susan Coll, who lives three houses away.

Got that?  Only distasteful, snooty people like Romney, because of <gasp, shudder> monetary benefits!  And note also that Ms. Coll isn’t identified as being elderly, or a widow, or a mother, or gay–nothing to possibly incite any feelings of camaraderie among the “protected” classes identified at the beginning of the article.

Of course, money’s perfectly okay when the “right” people have it and use it to “educate” Mr. Romney on the error of his thinking:

Mr. Clark, an accountant, is trying to organize a campaign fund-raiser at his home for President Obama and hopes to bump into Mr. Romney on the street, so he can explain, “in a neighborly way,” why he thinks his relationship with Mr. Maddox deserves the same rights and status as the marriage between Mr. Romney and his wife, Ann.

A few houses up on Dunemere are Michael Duddy and his partner, James Geiger, who make no secret of their discomfort with some of Mr. Romney’s politics. Chatting with Mr. Maddox and Mr. Clark a few weekends ago, Mr. Geiger playfully proposed hanging a gay-pride flag from the Italian stone pine tree in his yard “so that Romney’s motorcade has to drive under it.”

And we mustn’t forget the youth, no we mustn’t, precious:

A young man in town recalled that Mr. Romney confronted him as he smoked marijuana and drank on the beach last summer, demanding that he stop.

The issue appears to be a recurring nuisance for the Romneys. Mr. Quint, who lives on the waterfront near Mr. Romney, said that a police officer had asked him, on a weekend when the candidate was in town, to report any pot smoking on the beach. The officer explained to him that “your neighbors have complained,” Mr. Quint recalled. “He was pretty clear that it was the Romneys.”

Oh, man!  That Romney’s such a square, man!  Not hip and cool like Barack “Choom Gang” Obama, man!  How dare he expect such an inconvenient, uncool thing like the law to be upheld, man!

And, break out the violins, because those poor, unfortunate neighbors have no recourse from Romney’s fellow Republicans….at the federal level…..but they’re from the general area so they must be able to do something, right?  Right???

Local lawmakers are largely unmoved by the neighbors’ complaints, especially those with long memories. Darrell Issa, the Republican congressman who represents parts of San Diego County, can still recall when President Nixon, during his first year in office, purchased a waterfront mansion in nearby San Clemente, Calif. La Casa Pacifica, as Nixon called it, was quickly rechristened the Western White House.

Aaaah!  They invoked the name of Nixon!  And there’s Issa, who’s persecuting that poor, black Attorney General Holder!  Romney’s Republicans are sooooo mean and heartless!!!  Ah, swoon….

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pop Quiz

When you have a disagreement with someone via the Internet do you:
A. Agree to disagree and then drop the matter?
B. Argue until you drop from sheer exhaustion?
C. Get your hacking buddies to extract as much personal data about your opponent as possible, including photographs and maps to his/her family’s private residences, and then post it online to your friends with violent, psychopathic tendencies?
D. Use said personal information to place a phone call to the police, give them your opponent’s name, and then tell them that you just murdered someone, in the hopes that a SWAT team will descend on your opponent’s house and–“Oopsie!”–accidentally kill your opponent and/or one of his/her family members.

If you chose “C” or “D” congratulations, you are in the company of super-crazy terrorist Brett Kimberlin and his SWAT-ers in crime, Neal Rauhauser and Ron Brynaert, all of whom enjoy monetary benefits courtesy of George Soros, Barbra Streisand, and Theresa Heinz-Kerry.

Kimberlin is a monster who truly deserves his place in the Hall of Fame of Leftist Terrorists.  And it sounds like Rauhauser and Brynaert are doing their best to join him there.

Update: When one is allowed to commit crimes with impunity, it is of no surprise that he feels emboldened to continue doing it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Before There Was Brett Kimberlin, There Was William Ayers

Go here and read about what drives William Ayers, terrorist and close associate of our President, now living the good life as a tenured professor in Chicago.  He is NO DIFFERENT from the Nazis who created the Holocaust, NO DIFFERENT from the Jacobins who created the Reign of Terror.  Note also that little matters like actual governance of the people meant nothing to him following his “glorious revolution”–power was and is his goal, self aggrandizement above all others.  IF nothing else, read the following excerpt from the site, and see if it doesn’t chill your blood as it did mine:

Undercover agent Larry Grathwohl, who had infiltrated and joined the Weather Underground, described their post-revolution governing plans for the United States in this video taken from the 1982 documentary “No Place to Hide.” The Weather Underground openly discussed exterminating 25 million Americans who refused to be “re-educated” into communism.

Here’s a transcript of his interview:

I bought up the subject of what’s going to happen after we take over the government. We, we become responsible, then, for administrating, you know, 250 million people.

And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics; how are you going to clothe and feed these people.

The only thing that I could get, was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them… how things were going to be.

I asked, well, what’s going to happen to those people that we can’t re-educate; that are die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.”

— Larry Grathwohl, former member of the Weather Underground

The media didn’t think that this information was too important back in 2008, and they don’t think it’s important now.  William Ayers helped begin Obama’s political career, and he still has the ear of the President.  Remember that in November.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Elizabeth Warren: Perma-Victim

Cornell professor William A. Jacobson has been covering and analyzing the Warren kerfluffle ever since she claimed credit for inspiring Occupy Wall Street.  I highly recommend his blog, Legal Insurrection, but here’s a quick summary for time’s sake:

  1. Warren claimed to be part Native American, descended from a Cherokee g-g-great-grandmother.  Her proof for her claim was a single marriage record, family tradition, and her own assertions, including her own submissions to a “Native American”
    cookbook, “Pow Wow Chow“–more on those in a moment.
  2. Warren used her supposed Native American heritage for personal gain.  Her employers, first the University of Pennsylvania and then Harvard University, the latter of whom pointed to her ethnicity as “proof” of their commitment to diversity (no word about their commitment to diversity of thought, considering 80 – 90% of their political donations go to the Democrats).
  3. When Warren first began her campaign against incumbent Senator Scott Brown, she didn’t speak of her ancestry, but had to address it when the Boston Herald reported on it this past April.  She claimed that she publicized her heritage merely for social reasons, to meet others like her, but Shelly Lowe, executive director of Harvard University’s Native American Program responded that Warren had never participated in her program’s events, beyond possibly being an audience member.
  4. Two main sources of Warren’s claim, the marriage record and the cookbook submission, have been debunked–rather humorously in the latter case.
  • The marriage record was referenced in a 2006 family newsletter, according to NEHGS (New England Historical and Genealogical Society) genealogist Chris Child, but the record itself apparently doesn’t exist.  As a genealogist myself (not professionally, but I have been researching my family history and studying the field for the past 10 years), let me explain why this distinction is important: a family newsletter is, at best, a secondary source.  It was probably oral history published for the family’s benefit.  For a claim to be established beyond reasonable doubt, primary sources are necessary, as many as can be found.  For a Native American, they can be vital records certificates (i.e. birth, marriage, death), census records, official lists kept by the federal government–anything official that references the race of the individual in question.  Family stories provide a good starting point for research, but they by themselves are not enough to constitute proof.
  • The 1984 cookbook, “Pow Wow Chow,” contains recipes submitted by Elizabeth Warren herself.  In other words, this “proof” was nothing more than her own assertions.  Furthermore, the editor of this book was none other than Warren’s own cousin.  Comically, it turned out that the recipes she submitted not only were not authentically Cherokee in any way, but were actually plagiarized from a French chef:

At least two (and maybe three) of the five Warren recipes appear to have been flat-out plagiarized from Pierre Franey, the chef at Le Pavillon restaurant in Manhattan. The New York Times News Service published Franey’s “Cold Omelets with Crab Meat” and “Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing” in 1979. Warren’s recipes are virtually the same, word for word. So, either Warren’s recipes were lifted from Chef Franey, or he stole them from some old Cherokee woman somewhere and served them up as his own at Le Pavillon.

Now, a reasonable person would, at this point, just give up and admit that the only proof they had for their ethnic claim was family tradition, acknowledging that, perhaps, someone in her past was mistaken.  Such things happen all the time.  For example, one of my family stories has been that my g-g-great grandfather perished in the Johnstown Flood of 1889, a story I debunked when I found his death certificate and obituary, both dated 1903.  Perhaps it had been a relative, or even a close friend, who had died–oral histories have the tendency to become muddled over time due to fading memories, minor mistakes that go uncorrected and eventually are taken as truth, etc.  It is for this reason that family tradition is not enough if one wishes to establish an official claim (for another example, read about the entrance requirements for the Daughters of the American Revolution, a society for the descendants of participants in the Revolutionary War).

Like I said, a reasonable person–not Elizabeth Warren.  No, she has responded to repeated queries about her background in the typical FPA manner: by getting offended.  As her heritage, it is sacrosanct, and not to be questioned, not even by her Cherokee brethren.

The big question is, why is this even important?  Some of her supporters claim that this is nothing more than a distraction, a means to bring down a woman who had been leading Scott Brown in the polls shortly before this story erupted (note the polls for April).  However, it’s the bigger picture that should be troubling to Massachusetts voters, a now-established pattern of lies and exaggerations and obfuscation designed to avoid personal responsibility while campaigning for a greater share of public responsibility.  And it’s not just Warren, there are others culpable for such such behavior, as well.  As Alana Goodman of Commentary Magazine puts it:

Politicians are politicians because they self-promote and puff up their accomplishments shamelessly. Al Gore’s infamous claim that he created the Internet is one extreme example, and the same goes for most of the assertions that come out of Joe Biden’s mouth. The problem is when they cross the line into downright lies, like Richard Blumenthal’s false claim that he served in Vietnam. Was Warren’s assertion a lie, an exaggeration, or was she simply mistaken? We don’t know, and the issue is so minor and obscure that it’s probably not even worth investigating.

If the Cherokee controversy didn’t hurt Warren in the polls, it’s possible the nursing mother story won’t have an impact either. In fact, the nursing mother story probably wouldn’t even be an issue if not for the ancestry claims. On its face, Warren’s comments seem to be silly but harmless self-congratulation, and that’s how a lot of voters will probably see it. But it does speak to a pattern of exaggerating and stretching biographical details. It’s not just the substance of Warren’s claims that’s troubling, but the habit.

UPDATE: Lies, Lies, and More Lies.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Tale of Two Tales

First, an update about the collaboration between terrorist Brett Kimberlin and far-left agitator Neal Rauhauser, who are using the courts to attack the First Amendment rights of bloggers.  If you think because you are a liberal that you’re safe, think again–Kimberlin proved last year that anyone who is critical of him will be targeted.  This is no different than the waning years of the French Revolution: first the blood-thirsty mob went after their “enemies”: the monarchy and nobility.  Then they went after the clergy and other “privileged” classes.  Finally, they turned on each other in a fit of political infighting.

Second, when one is no longer forced to give their money to an organization, is it no surprise that that group’s membership drops dramatically?  This is the real reason the teachers’ unions fought so hard against Wisconsin Governor Walker’s reforms: for all their lamenting about the ensuing plight of the hard-working teachers and their students (a plight that has been avoided, by the way, precisely BECAUSE of Walker’s reforms), what they really cared about was their bottom line.  It’s as if they knew that teachers would prefer to keep their own money rather than having it garnished by the state to benefit union leadership (and the political personages/causes that the leadership chooses to support, despite what the teachers themselves would have wanted).

UPDATE: Robert Stacy McCain notes the connection to the French Revolution as well and expounds upon it, drawing from Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France.”

This is the ambition of the Total State – to control every word, action and belief of its subjects — and the proclamations of altruistic purpose by which the Left justifies that ambition must be recognized as excuses and pretexts. The ostensible and publicly declared goals of radicals vary, but never their methods.

The tendencies that Burke observed in the French Revolution might easily be discerned in events nearer and more recent. The “artifices, frauds, and violences” of the contemporary Left in America are tediously familiar, and the “loose theories” to which they would “abandon the dearest interests of the public” have not gained any additional credibility by the passage of more than two centuries.

Understanding the logic of radicalism, and examining at close range the tactical application of this logic, we know the Left’s opponents cannot win by playing according to the Left’s rules.

The way it happens is this: the “progressive rebels” discard the prevailing philosophies of their “conservative oppressors,” discarding prevalent moralities as well.  This creates an existential vacuum, which the rebels believe that their “more enlightened” views will fill more perfectly than those of their now-vanquished oppressors.  But the transition never, ever happens as seamlessly as they expect, because, more often than not, the theorists who develop this “new and improved” ideology fail to take into account that pesky thing called human nature.

Take communism: sure, it may sound nice to share-and-share-alike, but it never, ever turns out that way on a macro scale because the idealists don’t consider the force of basic human greed.  Those at the top of the proverbial food-chain, unbound by the traditional morals and ethics that were cast off in the revolution, ALWAYS reward themselves first, leaving the remnants for those who are lower to squabble over.  Don’t believe me?  Compare how much a public school superintendent makes compared to a teacher, including bonuses.  When a school district undergoes renovations, see whose facilities are updated first.

So, eventually (maybe) realizing that their “perfect brand new” philosophies are anything but, they end up forcing their ideology to fit in the vacant hole, twisting it and turning it and tearing it to shreds, so that it little resembles in practice what it was in theory.  The new laws, such as they are, are enforced with brutality and extreme prejudice.  This is why EVERY Communist government quickly devolves into a privileged oligarchy lording their excesses over an increasingly impoverished and repressed majority.  This is why the French Revolution, a response to a very legitimate problem, became a bloody free-for-all that claimed the lives of those who began it, along with scores of innocent people.

The people who died–and exploited/abused/murdered countless along the way–did so in the pursuit of an egalitarian ideal that cannot be achieved by fundamentally flawed human beings.  It’s suicide, plain and simple.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Now that Mitt Romney is the de facto GOP Nominee…

…We can expect a whole lot more nastiness and stupidity from the Fellowship of the Perpetually Aggrieved and their mouthpieces in the MSM, eager to protect their man.  Here are my predictions:

  1. We will continue to see media hit-jobs about the Mormon religion, making sure that Romney’s name is featured prominently in the headline and/or the top paragraph.  Discussion of Obama’s tenure in Rev. Wright’s church and his Islamist sympathies will continue to be verboten.
  2. Someone, somewhere, will dig up something less-than-flattering about one or more of  Romney’s adult children, and the MSM will run multiple segments about how that reflects poorly on the Romneys as parents.  Meanwhile, parentless excursions (but under the supervision of the Secret Service, make of that what you will) by the Obama daughters like the 13-year-old’s Spring Break trip to Oaxaca will be buried the moment that they’re reported, no probing questions about the Obamas parenting asked.
  3. The media will continue to feature “prominent Romney supporters” like Donald Trump, portraying them in the most ridiculous light, all the while ignoring Obama supporters like, oh I don’t know, domestic terrorist benefactors Barbara Streisand and George Soros.
  4. If one of Romney’s supporters/donors/aides/mailmen makes a potentially inflammatory or downright stupid statement (taking otherwise innocuous statements out of context and/or selectively editing them totally counts), the media will ask Romney politely-loaded questions about them.  The purpose, of course, is to get him to waste his time apologizing for said statements instead of focusing on “less important” subjects, like the economy.
  5. Romney’s running mate, whomever it may be, will have his/her life run through with a fine-toothed comb, along with the lives of his/her family, friends, business associates, employees, etc.  Any skeletons, real or feigned, will be magnified and paraded around to the self-righteous tut-tutting of liberal pundits (“Today on Hardball, a gay man whom Romney’s running mate’s dog may have barked at back in 1997!  Does this prove that Romney’s running mate is training his dogs to be homophobic?”).  Meanwhile, Joe Biden will continue to be free to say asinine, insulting things with impunity.
  6. If there are any sealed records left in Romney’s past, official business or otherwise, they will magically be leaked to the press–as has been done before to other Republicans–if it can be used for Democrat political gain (“He got a ‘Needs Improvement’ in finger painting?  Oh noes!  He must be stupid !”).  Furthermore, unless it can be used against Romney, the media will continue to be unconcerned with the content of Obama’s past.
  7. There will continue to be petty, malicious snark about Ann Romney, while Michelle Obama’s foibles will continue to go unnoticed by the MSM.
  8. The media will continue to hold a virtual embargo on: Fast and Furious, the real unemployment numbers (or, if you prefer, the “funemployment” numbers), the increasing gas prices, the failure of Solyndra and other pseudo-green-energy-stimulus-recipients, the missing $1.2 billion by Obama bundler and former NJ governor Jon Corzine, the clear benefits that Walker’s anti-union reforms have had for Wisconsin’s economy, the continued plight of women in the Middle East (because unsubsidized contraception/abortion in the U.S. = it’s a GOP War on Women!1!11!!), and so forth.  However, if a Massachusetts liberal lost his/her job during Romney’s governance, cue the spotlights and “heart-breaking” exposés.
  9. As Romney’s poll numbers against Obama continue to improve (despite the use of samples that are weighted in favor of Democrats, sometimes to a ridiculous degree), the Obama campaign and the MSM (but I repeat myself) will get increasingly desperate and incoherent.  They will trot out somber-faced conservatives who will try to dispirit the base by saying the Romney isn’t conservative enough.  They will bring out moderates who will try to scare independents by saying Romney is a right-wing-extremist.  They will focus relentlessly on Romney, Romney, Romney, with nary a peep that is critical of Obama.

Maybe you think I’m over-reacting.  Maybe you think I’m being unfair.  All I can really say is this:  I watched the coverage in 2004, when the media resorted to fabricating stories to smear President Bush’s record as an aviator in the National Guard, all the while pronouncing Kerry’s dubious war record as sacrosanct.  I watched the coverage in 2008, when former-media-darling-maverick McCain became all things ignoble and craven and outdated compared to the Light of the One.  I watched as Sarah Palin’s life was taken apart under the microscope and filthy, horrendous comments about her and her family, even her baby, were shouted from the rooftops.  Nowadays, Palin’s e-mails are still being scrutinized, but the media has suddenly remembered just how honorable McCain’s campaign was in 2008, and only now has seen fit to give him the credit he was due for being the gentleman that Obama was not, indeed has never been.

Why do they do this?  Because it all comes down to what the Fellowship of the Perpetually Aggrieved wants: they want Romney to lose, which means they don’t want him to remind voters just how bad the economy has become under Obama’s pseudo-leadership; they don’t want him to remind voters just how badly Obama has bungled our foreign policy; they don’t want him to appear as a viable candidate who just might calm some of the divisions that Obama has worked so hard to agitate.

For the FPA, power and survival are of utmost importance, for one cannot continue to benefit from class/gender/racial warfare if that war ceases to exist.  Would President Romney end it?  Probably not, but I am willing to bet that a President Romney will not be as adept at perpetuating (or as willing to perpetuate) that warfare as President Obama has been.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment