Ronaldus Magnus' Past Words Nailed America's Future

Ronaldus Magnus' Past Words Nailed America's Future

 

Love him or hate him, America’s 40th president Ronald Wilson Reagan possessed an uncanny ability to unite a people in disarray at the same time he was capable of capturing the essence of the most dangerous threats to our nation’s future prosperity and very existence.

To be sure, those and Reagan’s other major achievements didn’t come easily since his many foes in the Democrat Party and their mainstream media marshaled all their considerable forces to ridicule and defeat him so that they could continue to foster the same policies that had driven America to the brink of economic, moral, and social collapse by 1980.

That scenario and its consequences are being replicated today mainly because we failed to really listen to and understand his common sense warnings.

For example, long before America’s streets devolved into violent cesspools, long before our national defenses became farcical excuses national security, long before our health systems care deteriorated into pale imitations of what health care used to be, long before our public schools and colleges turned into institutions of political-correctness, and even long before President Barack Hussein Obama began to rapidly accelerate our decline, Ronald Reagan foretold what lay ahead for us as a nation and as a unified people.
And, again, few people cared enough to pay attention.
Breitbart.com has listed some but far from all of the more significant views Reagan held and predicted about America: . . .  (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=39229.)

The Political Corruption of Roget's Thesaurus

The Political Corruption of Roget's Thesaurus

 

We all reasonably hope and expect that resources such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, and similar publications either on the Internet or in hard copy form are reliable fonts of objective, unbiased information, the purpose of which is to inform and clarify.

With the notable exception of the often left-wing slanted “Wikipedia,” most similar publications have long faithfully fulfilled that weighty responsibility, until recently, that is.

The venerable, two hundred nine year old “Roget’s Thesaurus,” one of the most widely used resources for English-language synonyms, word  connotations, and grammar, recently abandoned any semblance of unbiased objectivity in favor of distorted, liberal-leftist political correctness. . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38803.)  

Extremism in the Defense of Liberty Is an Anachronism

Extremism in the Defense of Liberty Is an Anachronism

 

When Sen. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP candidate for president, said in his acceptance speech at the 28th Republican Convention, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” he was referring to whole other meanings of extremism, liberty, vice, and justice than what we are witnessing in America fifty years later.

Attacked as an extremist warmonger by the warmongering Lyndon Baines Johnson, Goldwater was trounced in that election thanks to over 60% of voters who bought into LBJ’s lies and the rest is the sad history of 211,454 dead and wounded American troops in the Vietnam War.

As opposed to today’s brand of extremism, Goldwater was addressing unyielding conservative positions opposing the welfare state and the permissiveness of American culture, extremist stands only as contrasted with liberal attitudes favoring rights and ignoring reponsibilities.

Goldwater had the audacity to offer “a choice” rather an “echo” of liberalism’s advocacies, a choice which was overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate.

Since his defeat, Ronald Reagan campaigned and easily beat Jimmy Carter in 1980 on much the same platform as Goldwater’s, thereby proving you’re not an extremist when you win.

However, since Reagan, liberal extremists have exerted a virtual stranglehold on much of America and they have promoted an unprecedented menu of welfarism, permissiveness, and social degradation that would probably make both Goldwater and Reagan cry were they still alive.

For example, the Television Critics Association summer tour in Hollywood, MTV featured a panel discussion with the cast and creators of a new series titled “Happyland” at which the star Bianca Santos described the MTV motto as, “Incest is hot, and  we’re going to have fun!”

Targeting teenagers, “Happyland” has been characterized as “MTV digging ever deeper for their precious ‘edge’ until they’ve dulled the shock of every  perversion.” 

It could also be characterized as contemporary extremism in action, an extremism aimed at undermining the very fabric of decency and morality using vulnerable teens to further its perverted goals.

On a more significant cultural front than television, education, the ultra-liberal University of Wisconsin-Madison has adopted an extremist policy predicated on the proposition that students should be graded not by their achievement but according to their race.

The school’s “Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence” calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high-status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.”

Dissenting UWM professor W. Lee Hansen took issue with that insanity . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38571.)

Dinesh D'Souza Imagines a World Without America

Dinesh D'Souza Imagines a World Without America

 

The liberal-leftist reviews are in on Dinesh D’Souza’s political documentary, “America: Imagine a World Without Her” and, as expected, they’re not good.  TheWrap.com and John Rocchi were typical of the knee jerk reactions from the same people who got our great country into the sickening mess it is today.

Eager to pan D’Souza and his 103 minute film, The Wrap immediately got to its biased point in the title, “‘America’ Review: Another Dinesh D’Souza Doc That’s Easy to Mock” and reviewer Rocchi’s opening sentence, ”The deceptive evidence and straw-man arguments of this conservative ‘filmmaker’ would go down easier if the actual filmmaking wasn’t so inept,” only served to reinforce the venom in that malicious title.

Foolish me!  I thought film critics exercised at least a modicum of objectivity!

Reeking with sarcasm, Rocchi ripped not only D’Souza and “America” but also the writer-director-producer’s 2012 smash success, “2016: Obama’s America” which was widely acclaimed by audiences, if not by critics, and became the second most successful political documentary in American film history.

Rocchi writes, ”Author, filmmaker, and convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza returns to movies with ‘America,’ based on his best-seller of the same title, a follow-up to the screechy, slapdash “2016: Obama’s America.”  “America” is D’Sousa [sic] and co-director John Sullivan’s love letter to America–or rather, to their version of America, where superior conservative ideas and narratives America’s divinely-provided greatness are constantly under attack from what he calls a liberal ‘narrative of shame’ about this country.” 

Having just seen D’Souza’s new movie, I would have to agree with Rocchi that “America” is indeed tantamount to a “love letter” to D’Souza’s adopted nation and that it does display “superior conservative ideas and narratives” as well as the idea that our “divinely-provided greatness are constantly under attack” by a liberal ‘narrative of shame’ about this country.”

However, unlike Rocchi, I mean those comments sincerely and believe those who fail to concur are as guilty of ignorance as they are guilty of being traitorous ingrates who prefer Barack Hussein Obama’s shamefully negative and atheistic views of America to D’Souza’s hopeful and loving documentary. 

D’Souza sees our history through the prism of what America has accomplished and the immense benefits we have contributed to the world rather than focusing on the supposed shame and guilt we should feel for what we have accomplished and contributed.

That said, “America: Imagine a World Without Her” lacks the impact of “2016: Obama’s America” precisely because it is far too gentle toward the “liberal ‘narrative of shame” . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37974.)

Liberal-Leftist Hatred

Liberal-Leftist Hatred

 

Since they are often subjectively applied, the words “hate” and “hatred” have been deemed among the most volatile and combative terms in English language usage, exceeded in their volatility and hostility only by the newly popular “racist” and “racism” epithets.

Certain words can be almost as hateful as certain actions and a few select words such as “nigger” and, most recently, “retard” and ”retarded,” have been judged so offensive that the judges want them banned entirely and want those accused of violating the latest hot button issue, “bullying,”  persecuted and prosecuted as criminals.

There is certainly merit in voluntary restrictions on the use of objectively hateful terminology and actions.  However, unofficially proscribing and officially criminalizing them smacks of censorship, thought crime, which was condoned in George Orwell’s Airstrip One but is hardly acceptable in currently free America.

Ironically, the chief proponents of banning disturbing language, usually characterized as racist “hate speech,” and of prosecuting bulliers, commonly those who allegedly harass homosexuals, are precisely the same individuals and groups that, with relative impunity, practice the most egregious forms of hate speech and commit the worst hate crimes, namely liberal-leftists and the people they are supposedly protecting.

Also ironic is the lib-left’s successful propagandizing, a success attributable to the complicity of Barack Hussein Obama and his mainstream media.

They have convinced millions of Americans that they are benevolent sorts who only wish the best for people, that they love all mankind, that they merely want to change the world into a socialistic paradise where everyone is happy and content with their lots in life, that they are “liberal” in every way whereas in actuality their philosophy is an oft-proved social and economic failure which demeans and de-humanizes rather than benefits its hapless victims.

At the same time they push their benevolence, etc., liberal-leftists spew the least loving, most illiberal, and most hateful speech imaginable in civilized society–and they get away with it!

America’s lib-left must not have gotten Obama’s insincere 2011 message of national healing and peace and  civility in Tucson anymore than he got his own message.

Let Sarah Palin espouse family values. and they are all over her calling her a troll.  Let Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker balance the state’s budget, with a surplus, and he is denounced and his life and the lives of his family are threatened.  Let conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia support prayers at town meetings and “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, and the brilliant jurist is condemned as an ignorant reactionary.

And those are among the most civil observations.

Calling what they rant “free speech” instead of what it clearly is, hate speech, Obama’s acolytes on television and in the entertainment world tend to vomit the most vile invective, oftentimes involving the death of their conservative targets. 

A few examples . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37108.)