Connect with us

News

Liberalism can no longer be treated as a serious ideology, nor can it be considered sane

Each and every day they push their extreme, un-American, even anti-human, ideas and every single day their ideas come closer to acceptance.

Published

on

By Warner Todd Hutson and Jeff Dunetz:

Liberalism can no longer be treated as a serious ideology, nor can it be considered sane. Unless of course, they are just monkeying around.

Cass Sunstein, One of Barack Obama’s czars believed that animals (or their representatives) should be able to sue humans. In other words, Fido could sue you for not buying the correct rawhide bone, and you’d have to take that T-bone of the grill because the cow hired the ACLU. Another Obama Czar, John P. Holdren thought that trees should have legal standing. In other words, the Oak in front of your neighbor’s house could sue you for allowing Fido to pee on its roots.  At least those are living things.  The left’s latest gambit is to force its way on the nation via the courts by giving “human rights” to lakes, rivers, and streams. That way liberals can force “the law” to their radical environmental agenda.

Trending: Protester Sucker Punches Trump Supporter, Then Winds Up Flat On His Back — WATCH

The latest idiocy was revealed in an article entitled, “Can Rivers Be People Too?,” published on May 9 by the risible left-wing rag, The New Republic.

take our poll - story continues below

Trump or Biden, who will win?

  • Why wait until November 3? Show all of America who you're voting for in 2020  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The long answer to that question is “no,” they can’t be people too.

This crazy idea started last year when a group of environazis filed a nuisance lawsuit claiming that the state of Colorado had violated the Colorado River’s “right to flourish and regenerate.”

Regenerate? River sex?

“Environmental law has failed to protect the natural environment because it accepts the status of nature and ecosystems as property,” said the suit filed by the deranged environmental group Deep Green Resistance. DGR added that current law is inadequate because it only “regulates the rate at which the natural environment is exploited.”

Their suit claims that the river should have human rights because its existence supports humans, animals, plants, and the very environment itself.

How did this insensible group come to imagine that this idea is viable? Because liberals have already succeeded in some cases in giving “rights” to animals.

And “why not?” As the absurd New Republic explained:

Humans aren’t the only ones with rights, after all. In recent years courts have heard cases arguing that chimps, elephants, and other highly intelligent animals should have legal personhood. In India, Ecuador, and New Zealand, courts and legislatures have recently recognized some special rivers as having their own legal rights—the time seemed ripe for DGR’s argument. In 2010, the Citizens United decision extended First Amendment rights to corporations. In 2014, the Hobby Lobby decision secured closely held corporations some measure of religious freedom. U.S. law has granted personhood to corporate entities, the suit argued. Why not ecological ones?

Fortunately, this particular case did not succeed. The nutcase that filed the suit eventually withdrew it: “‘Either American society and our law is ready for this expansion of rights or it isn’t,’ Flores-Williams said. ‘And it appears like right now, at this point, it’s not.’”

But, it hardly matters that this first try failed. After all, liberals don’t bother themselves too much about a little momentary failure. Each and every day they push their extreme, un-American, even anti-human, ideas and every single day their ideas come closer to acceptance.

Salon was right. Look at the push for animals to have rights. 20 years ago everyone but the most radical animal lunatics like PETA whackjob thought animals should have human rights. But during the ensuing years, the left kept filing one nuisance lawsuit after another, kept pushing the concept on children, and kept forcing their ideas on society despite one loss after another. Yet, they soon began having small successes. And those small successes built one upon another. Now, the idea of animals being afforded human rights is not seen and universally idiotic as it once was and as it should be.

In 2011  a professional wildlife photographer handed his camera to a crested macaques monkey to take some selfies. The photographer, David Slater loved the selfies and published them along with other animal pictures in a book called “Wildlife Personalities.” PETA was not happy.  The radical animal group named the monkey Naruto (a city in Japan and the name of one of my son’s favorite Japanese animes) and then sued Slater for copyright infringement (in the name of the monkey). The case made its way to the U.S. District Court for Northern California, where it was dismissed in 2015. But it was revived and eventually, a settlement was reached between PETA and the photographer, who agreed to donate 25 percent of any future revenue from Naruto photos to groups that protect crested macaques and their habitat in Indonesia.

Naruto’s Selfie

We are seeing such radical nonsense in other areas, too. This week we saw a new level of interference with parental rights. A leftist kook who calls herself a “sexual consent expert” is now saying that parents should not be allowed to change their baby’s diaper unless the child gives its consent to do so. Why? Because she claims changing diapers without consent is sexual assault. The truth is NOT changing diapers is nasal assault.

Liberals hate parental rights. They want the rights of a parent to raise their own children eliminated so that children will all belong to the state… the state THEY control.

Anyway, the same thing will happen with the idea of giving rights to environmental subjects. Now that this insane idea has been put into action, liberals won’t stop until they win their objective… despite loss after loss. It is in keeping with Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, after all.

This is all of a piece with the descent of liberalism into madness. Many conservative talk show hosts seem to be convinced that liberals and leftists are different things (Dennis Prager and Chris Plante come to mind). They constantly want to claim that liberals are not leftists. But they are wrong. Real “liberals” no longer exist. Yes, there are a dwindling number of Democrat voters who exhibit the traditional conservative ideals that used to define every day, Scoop Jackson-styled Democrats. But there aren’t any such people in places of power or among activist groups. None. Not. A. One.

The radicals have won the argument on the left and there is no longer a “center-left” milieu in the U.S. today. There are only radical liberals and extremely radical liberals.

But it is also evidence that neither logic nor common sense can form a part of liberal thinking.

They claim they love the Constitution and they fight to give it new meaning in federal court. They claim that the power of the federal government needs to be strengthened to get their way. But then when that doesn’t work, they fight against the federal rules over immigration because such laws get in their way, So, suddenly they claim to love local rule so that they can force local “sanctuary city” rules. And when those efforts start to fail, suddenly they are all about “international law” so that foreigners can come in and force America to bend to the left’s rules.

In other words, they really don’t have any principles nor do they have any legal ideals. Everything is fungible, everything can be bent to whatever they need at the moment.

Liberalism has neither logic nor morals.

Liberalism is constantly taking rights away from humans while trying to give them to animals an inanimate objects.

We will end this post here because my keyboard is complaining my fingers are hurting it.

Some of this post was originally seen at Constitution.com

 

 

Save conservative media!

News

New Video Posted By President Trump Proves He’s Denounced White Supremacy Over And Over Again

Published

on

President Trump released a video Tuesday that completely annihilates the left-wing narrative promoted in the mainstream media that he is a racist who supports and promotes white supremacy. Many folks in the MSM have made the accusation that the president has not condemned white supremacy, but this video showcases all of the times he’s done just that. Here’s more on the video from the Daily Wire: “The Trump campaign rolled out a nearly 5-minute-long video of the president, featuring video clips from as recently as this month, to his 2016 presidential campaign, and dating all the way back to an interview Trump gave to Matt Lauer in the early 2000s, where he denounced White supremacy and ‘disavowed’ White supremacist groups,” Fox News reported. “The video comes after Biden and Harris have criticized Trump, casting him as a racist and claiming he has not denounced White supremacy, and also comes as part of the Trump campaign’s final pitch to win over Black voters ahead of Election Day.” The video actually details 38 examples of when Trump denounced white supremacy. Here’s just a few of the ones covered in the clip.   From recent NBC News townhall: “I denounce white supremacy, okay?” From recent NBC News townhall: “Are you listening? I denounce white supremacy. What’s your next question?” From recent NBC News townhall: “I denounce white supremacy.” From recent NBC News townhall: “You start off with white supremacy, I denounce it.” https://youtu.be/Bd0cMmBvqWc Folks, the mainstream media is never going to ditch their anti-Trump racist narrative, regardless of how false it actually is. They believe this is one of their strongest strategies against the president and have worked hard, investing much time and energy, into covering this narrative and brainwashing their viewing audience with it. But it’s not true. Clearly, the president is…

Continue Reading

News

Tony Bobulinski Makes Explosive Claims On Tucker Carlson’s Show, Media Skips Story

Published

on

Critics are having a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that the mainstream media is choosing to ignore the Tucker Carlson interview with Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, who stated that the Biden family casually shrugged off any worries that Joe Biden’s ties to all of his son’s business deals might have a negative impact on future presidential campaigns. This, of course, raises questions as to whether or not the MSM is worthy of public trust. Given the kind of anti-Trump coverage we’ve seen over the last few years, and the total destruction of journalistic integrity and ethics, the answer to that question should easily be “no.” via Fox News: Bobulinski’s comments to Carlson were completely ignored by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and Washington Post as of 8 a.m. EST on Wednesday, exactly 12 hours after the start of the damning interview. “It is pretty much a 100 percent blackout of the Bobulinski story in the traditional media. Of course, there are lots of stories that need to be covered in the busy 2020 news agenda, but the total omission of Bobulinski’s accusations is curious, to say the least,” DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News. “Even if this story is not front and center on the news agenda, it does need to be approached somewhere along the way. Odds are that most mainstream media outlets are devoting very few reporting resources, if any, to the Bobulinski story,” McCall added. “It would seem those outlets could at least be investigating the accusations to try to prove them invalid.” “What little coverage has surfaced has basically just been running without challenge the boilerplate denials and indignation from the Biden camp. The manner in which this story has been covered…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week