Category Archives: Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

Like The Left, Left-Libertarians Weaponize The ‘Nativist’ Pejorative

Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Race, South-Africa, Welfare

Et tu John Stossel? Austin Petersen? On the latest John Stossel Show (whose website seldom carries any contents-driven updates or transcripts, too unhip), the pejorative “nativist” is being bandied about to malign the concept of borders in a welfare state, where welfare is a magnet. Due to open-borders immigration central planning, America, as I’ve warned in Into the Cannibal’s Pot, is headed to dominant-party status like my native South Africa. But left-libertarians wish to do away with borders before private property has been reinstated as the governing principle in American society.

Anathema, too, to left-libertarians is the idea that liberty has a cultural and historical context—it is not a proposition or a mere idea easily assimilated by all. Hell, look at Bernie Sanders’ platform and its many American supporters! Do we need to import more Bernie voters?!

Check out my homeland South Africa, RIP, where the minority had imagined the black majority would be bound by the same political abstractions—that fellow black South Africans would relinquish race as an organizing principle, in favor of a constitutional design, because hey, that just how people are. It’s second nature.

Didn’t happen. Won’t happen.

In the left-libertarian universe, the perspective of someone like myself is discounted by fast-talking youngsters who’ve yet to be mugged by reality and human nature.

READ:

“Apartheid South Africa: Reality Vs. Libertarian Fantasy.”

“The Sequel to ‘Suicide of A Superpower.’”

The Abortion-Rights Linguistic Trickery

English, Individual Rights, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Logic, Propaganda

When feminists and their media lickspittles speak of “abortion rights,” they mean federal funding for abortion. Nothing else.

Don’t conflate “abortion rights” with federal funding for abortion. A “right” to undergo an abortion is to be distinguished from a right to federal funding of your abortion.

Fact: In America, “women have the right de jure to screw and scrape out their insides to their heart’s content.” The only question is, should taxpayer rights, especially those of anti-abortion faithful, be compromised to fund the procedure.

So quit capitulating to leftist linguistic chicanery.

More about the distinction in “From Benghazi To The Abortion Killing Fields “:

Trojans, Trivora or a termination: An Americans woman has the right to purchase contraception, abortifacients and abortions, provided … she pays for them. For like herself, America is packed with many other sovereign individuals. Some of these individuals do not approve of the products and procedures mentioned. Americans who oppose contraception, abortifacients and abortion must be similarly respected in their rights of self-ownership.

Taxpayers who oppose these products and procedures have an equal right to dispense of what is theirs—their property—in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. America’s adult women may terminate their pregnancies (to the exclusion of late-term infanticide).

What America’s manifestly silly sex does not have the right to do is to rope other, presumably free Americans into supplying them with or paying for their reproductive choices. The rights of self-ownership and freedom of conscience apply to all Americans.

No Republican has ever come close to articulating the ethical elegance of a libertarian argument.

Megyn Kelly’s Leading, Invalid, Elephant-Not-In-The-Room Question

Elections, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Logic, Media, Propaganda, Reason, Republicans

Megyn Kelly gets away with a lot of antics, so why not this one at the debate in Des Moines, Iowa? There, Kelly referred to Donald Trump as “the elephant not in the room,” and asked Sen. Ted Cruz: “What message do you think Trump’s absence sends to the voters of Iowa?”

Kelly’s question is a leading question, not a probative question, because the question suggests the answer. Hers is a bad-faith question. I wish Donald Trump’s campaign had the analytical wherewithal to point out Kelly’s despicable antics.

And you know that when CNN approvingly describes (on “Outfront,” 1/29) a Fox News anchor as a consummate professional “staying above the fray”—said anchor is likely everything but. What the Left likes about the badly behaved and unprofessional Kelly, as chronicled in the more meaty version of “The Me Myself and I Megyn Kelly Production,” is that she reflects their side.

So Was It Good For You? Did BHO Make The Earth Move, The Oceans Recede?

Barack Obama, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

Did the State of Disunion, delivered by two chief dividers, excite in all its sub-intelligent bluffs and cliches? Was it good for you? Did the earth move?

How about Barack Obama’s presidency? It was to be, by BHO’s account, “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.”

Those were the words of the Messiah himself, excerpted from the nomination victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, Tuesday, June 3, 2008.