A Potpourri of Idiocy
In recent weeks, I have come across some news items that prove liberalism isn't just wrong, but to paraphrase the Munchkins of Oz, it's morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably, wrong. What's more, it's wrong in a great many more places than Washington, D.C. But it is also wrong there, as Rep. Henry Waxman, who has spent well over 30 years representing a predominantly Jewish district here in Los Angeles, proved when he dismissed Robert Turner's astonishing victory in New York's 9th congressional district as due solely to the fact that "Jews wanted to protect their wealth."
In recent weeks, I have come across some news items that prove liberalism isn’t just wrong, but to paraphrase the Munchkins of Oz, it’s morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably, wrong. What’s more, it’s wrong in a great many more places than Washington, D.C. But it is also wrong there, as Rep. Henry Waxman, who has spent well over 30 years representing a predominantly Jewish district here in Los Angeles, proved when he dismissed Robert Turner’s astonishing victory in New York’s 9th congressional district as due solely to the fact that “Jews wanted to protect their wealth.”
Well, for one thing, in Obama’s economy, nobody, Jew or Christian, should be insulted for trying to protect whatever money he still has left. For another, Waxman, who owes his political career to wealthy leftwing Jews who have been willing to overlook his appearance and his arrogance, shows himself to be an unmitigated ingrate. How dare he, who has benefitted so greatly from the loyalty of Jewish voters, join the anti-Semites who, throughout history, have spread the libel that Jews are motivated solely by their lust for money? He deserves to be taught a long-overdue lesson by the voters in his L.A. district, but the sad truth is that they, unlike the orthodox Jews of New York’s 9th, are, like Waxman, essentially secular. Their religion is liberalism. Their god is FDR. Their pope is Barack Obama.
That brings me to Dakoka Meyer, the 23-year-old Kentuckian who was recently awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. He received the medal because he risked his life to save the lives of 36 others, members of both the U.S. and Afghan military, who had been ambushed by the Taliban. What makes his actions all the more heroic is that he, along with Staff Sergeant Juan Rodriguez-Chavez and Capt. Ademola Fabayo, did it in defiance of direct orders from their commanding officers. At the time, Dakota Meyer was only 21. But the Marine, now a 23-year-old civilian, was already old enough to know that “Semper Fi” is more than a motto on a plaque.
As for his former superiors, it’s obvious that they were creatures of the new politically correct military. Therefore, they knew that it was safer not to take risks, because sometimes risks have consequences that can inhibit promotion. Two, they were raised in a political climate that insisted the primary aim of armed conflicts was not victory, but the avoidance of collateral damage, lest the treacherous leftwing press use them as scapegoats in the media’s endless war with the U.S. military.
Only an armed services that had been gutted by Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush and Barack Obama, would include nation-building as a wartime objective. For centuries, generals understood that first you crush the enemy, and only then do you offer a helping hand. It worked like a charm with Germany and Japan, but it’s never even been tried in the Middle East, although even a small child can understand that it makes no sense to re-build, at America’s expense, a building or a bridge that you have just blown up. But, then, this is a country that decided that even the benign policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was too politically insensitive. That also explains why Major Nidal Hasan was allowed to remain in the Army and murder 13 people at Fort Hood when there was ample evidence that he was a jihadist and belonged either in the brig or a loony bin.
Finally, it isn’t often that the name of a company tells you as much about itself as does Progressive Insurance. It seems that Peter Lewis, who inherited the business from his father, is dedicated to using his considerable profits by funding every leftwing enterprise that comes courting. While he has every right to donate millions of dollars to the ACLU, MoveOn.Org and America Coming Together (ACT), there’s no reason on earth why conservatives should remain with Progressive. ACT, by the way, was co-founded by Mr. Lewis and George Soros, and is basically a front group for the SEIU thugs who ran ACORN, as well as a major contributor to Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. Another cause to which pothead Peter Lewis has contributed millions of dollars is the legalization of marijuana.
For what it’s worth, the Federal Election Commission found ACT guilty of breaking various campaign finance laws during the 2004 presidential election, but settled the matter with a $750,000 fine. I suspect that Soros and Lewis took care of it with the loose change they found under their living room cushions.
Americans are free to do business with whomever they like, but I can’t imagine why conservatives would remain with Progressive any more than I can imagine why any Republican would stick with AARP when AMAC is available. It’s not as if America lacks for insurance companies.
Although, come to think of it, perhaps there should be one more insurance company; one that offers protection to those gullible folks who are unaware that their hard-earned dollars are going to support the pinheaded agendas of their mortal enemies.