Category Archives: Propaganda

‘Yes, Columbus Discovered America’

America, Colonialism, Education, History, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Propaganda

Indigenous Indians protesting Columbus Day are not nearly as ridiculous as native Americans teaching and imbibing a great deal of tripe about Christopher Columbus. And no one puts it quite like David Yeagley, the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle:

“…it is the greatness of Columbus that liberals cannot abide. Being the pathological protesters they are, no great achiever is allowed recognition. (Liberals laud only empty words of people like Barry Soetoro.) And that which the world has previously considered great and honorable must now be denigrated, demeaned, and condemned. Indeed, damned as evil and wrong.

That’s what Jeffrey Kolowith is teaching his kindergarten students in Tampa, Florida. They mustn’t like Columbus. He was bad. ‘He was very, very mean, very bossy,’ says Kolowith, poisoning the little children’s minds with disdain, aversion, and hatred for the very elements of character required to achieve anything grand. Self-discipline, group management, unrelenting dedication, these are not to be found in the weak and ‘loving’ liberal. The only thing they’re devoted to is undoing what achievers achieve.

An AP story, “A darker side of Columbus” emerges in US classrooms, indicates Kolowith is determined that children despise those who have accomplished the most significant feats in history.

Author of the article, Christine Amario, has assembled a sordid array of typical, boring anti-American brainwashers. The only one distinguished among them is in fact Mr. Kolowith—and only because he’s taken the anti-Western cause to the youngest children in the American public school system: the five-year olds.

The irony of an author with an Italian name, trying to discredit the greatest Italian since the time of Jesus! Self-purgation, is it? ‘Abbe pietá di me!’ (Have mercy on me!) This is the liberal’s idea of nobility: self-loathing.”

Read “Yes, Columbus Discovered America.” (As well as the the interview Dr. Yeagley conducted with me.)

'Yes, Columbus Discovered America'

America, Colonialism, Education, History, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Propaganda

Indigenous Indians protesting Columbus Day are not nearly as ridiculous as native Americans teaching and imbibing a great deal of tripe about Christopher Columbus. And no one puts it quite like David Yeagley, the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle:

“…it is the greatness of Columbus that liberals cannot abide. Being the pathological protesters they are, no great achiever is allowed recognition. (Liberals laud only empty words of people like Barry Soetoro.) And that which the world has previously considered great and honorable must now be denigrated, demeaned, and condemned. Indeed, damned as evil and wrong.

That’s what Jeffrey Kolowith is teaching his kindergarten students in Tampa, Florida. They mustn’t like Columbus. He was bad. ‘He was very, very mean, very bossy,’ says Kolowith, poisoning the little children’s minds with disdain, aversion, and hatred for the very elements of character required to achieve anything grand. Self-discipline, group management, unrelenting dedication, these are not to be found in the weak and ‘loving’ liberal. The only thing they’re devoted to is undoing what achievers achieve.

An AP story, “A darker side of Columbus” emerges in US classrooms, indicates Kolowith is determined that children despise those who have accomplished the most significant feats in history.

Author of the article, Christine Amario, has assembled a sordid array of typical, boring anti-American brainwashers. The only one distinguished among them is in fact Mr. Kolowith—and only because he’s taken the anti-Western cause to the youngest children in the American public school system: the five-year olds.

The irony of an author with an Italian name, trying to discredit the greatest Italian since the time of Jesus! Self-purgation, is it? ‘Abbe pietá di me!’ (Have mercy on me!) This is the liberal’s idea of nobility: self-loathing.”

Read “Yes, Columbus Discovered America.” (As well as the the interview Dr. Yeagley conducted with me.)

Update III: Tossed and Gored By Gore Vidal

Constitution, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Democrats, Homosexuality, Intellectualism, Liberty, Literature, Military, Propaganda, Reason, Terrorism, The State, The Zeitgeist, War

Despite his surprisingly mundane and misguided ideas on politics and economics, brilliant belletrist Gore Vidal, at 83, still manages to dazzle with his original insights. In a country in which homegrown retardation is more pressing a problem than homegrown terrorism, that’s quite something.

Vidal recently gave an interview to the British Times from which it was clear that he no longer sees signs of the divine in Obama. Nevertheless, absent from the dismal score card he gave the president was a realistic appraisal of the putative gifts of Obama, a charmer who was elected based on his ability to sweetly say nothing much at all.

To his credit, Vidal is scathing about Obama’s talismanic, “solve that [war] and you solve terrorism” treatment of the Afghanistan war. At the same time he wants to see Obama, Lincoln-like, lord it over the people (especially with respect to health care). But those kinds of images go with the homoerotic territory.

In any event, his weak protestations over Obama are the least interesting of Vidal’s comments, the ones about Timothy McVeigh and the love that dare not speak its name the most interesting.

Read the interview.

Update I (Oct. 1): Some respect for Gore Vidal, please. He belongs to a generation of intellectuals who SERVED. Bravely. As a matter of interest, “Some 450 out of 750 Princeton graduates in the class of 1956 served in the military.” Samuel Huntington, one of America’s greatest scholars, served in the army. “All four of the Kennedy brothers served in the military; not one of the thirty Kennedy cousins has.” [Excerpted from Are We Rome?The Fall of An Empire And The State of America by Cullen Murphy, 2007, p. 82.]

Most of the neocon-minded war mongers have not served.

Of course, “our freedoms,” such as they are, do not come courtesy of our armed forces leveling this or the other far-flung protectorate abroad. That’s yet more neocon nonsense on stilts. Cheap sloganeering.

Update II: The proverbial Orwellian Ministry of Truth decrees how the peons think about the issues of the day. When it comes to Timothy McVeigh they’ve had the same degree of success as in ensconcing Rosa Parks as the new Founding Mother of America.

Vidal is rare and courageous in recognizing the legitimate effrontery against life and liberty that motivated McVeigh to commit his crime. He is also unique in acknowledging that McVeigh was not a rube, but a thoughtful man who had fought for his country and was familiar with its foundational principles and documents. Here is McVeigh on the American experiment gone wrong (haven’t you read the interview?):

I think it all has to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the misconception that the government is obliged to provide those things or has the jurisdiction to deny them. We’ve gotten away from the principle that they were only created to secure those rights. And that’s where, I believe, much of the trouble has surfaced.

The characters involved in the Waco massacre—our “brave” law and order officers and their puppet masters—deserved to be put to death too, but were not. Vidal has my respect for recognizing what the decidedly mediocre mind of a Rich Lowry has been incapable of. If Vidal were of a younger generation (like myself), his iconoclasm would have consigned him in mindless America to obscurity.

Update III: MORAL/INTELLECTUAL EQUIVALENCE. Conflating the causes for which McVeigh committed his cruel crime against agents and family of an oppressive government is akin to conflating MY causes with those of, in Myron’s taxonomy of the evil, the “Unabomber, Hitler, Stalin,” and I would add Al Gore (to round off the profile, and to poke at the humorless).

What sort of moral relativism is this? What kind of messy thinking is this? The causes and theories of the Unabomber, Hitler, Stalin (and Al Gore) were wrong on their logic and facts; McVeigh’s causes and motivation, if not his deeds, were right. What’s so hard about that? Kudos to Vidal, however confused he is about all else, for recognizing this.

Updated: Big Daddy Dodges Questions About Healthcare Diktat

Barack Obama, Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Media, Propaganda, Rights, Socialism, Taxation

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos exposes BO’s thesaurus of excuses for what most media are euphemizing as “a mandate to buy health insurance,” also a tax.

Writes Stephanopoulos:

“…in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax.

Here it is:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax? …

[Observe the president’s slithering and sliming for yourself.]

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

[SNIP]

BO’s ignorance and evasion would pose no major obstacle given the dogged devotion among the dogs of the media to minimizing and covering up Da Man’s many mistakes.

However, even this master of manipulation might find it hard to slither away from his latest faux paux: The Baucus bill reads:

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800. [P. 29]

Of course, the Baucus-Obama coercion is simply a natural extension of the collectivization of choices. If the state is to become the custodian of every individual in this country, and assume the onus of their care—then said serfs cannot act as they please. Big Daddy puts it as follows:

[F]or us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

Being a freeman and receiving freebies from the State are mutually exclusive. A pact with the devil has consequences. These will be bearable for the parasites who demand some form of taxpayer-subsidized care. Not so for those of us who yearn to live free.

Update: Here are a few pertinent points (which, naturally, do not address rights) made by Philip Klein of the American Spectator:

“While it is true that some people end up showing up in emergency rooms without paying and that imposes costs on others, there’s two things that Obama isn’t taking into account. First, just because you mandate coverage it doesn’t mean you elimate [sic] the uncompensated care. Second, if you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on subsidies enabling people to purchase insurance, then that costs far more than whatever would be saved by reducing uncompensated care. … Many of those who are currently uninsured simply have very low health care costs, which they are willing to pay out of pocket when they get sick. The reason why Obama supports a mandate is that he wants to be able to force insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions, and the only way to do that is to bring uninsured healthy people into the system. So really, this isn’t about eliminating freeloaders, it’s about forcing healthy people to pay for more health care than they need to so that they can make premiums more affordable for the sick.” [My italics]