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: Paramedics Staying at Hotel Hear Mother's Screams, Jump Fence to Rescue Unresponsive Boy in Pool

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

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism? (1)

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • 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

 

 

News

Businesses Should Require Vax Proof from Customers, Says NIH Director

This is simply unconscionable.

Published

on

There have long been fears that this sort of discrimination was on the horizon, as the willingly unvaccinated become second-class citizens right here in the United States. With only about half of the US population fully vaccinated, (and largely by their own accord), herd immunity looks to be some time away yet.  Nearly 20% more of the population will need to wind up with COVID antibodies in order for public health officials to consider the pandemic to be waning, and a maximum pressure campaign is taking shape throughout a number of levels of government. During an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Dr. Frances Collins used his position as the Director of the National Institutes of Health to pressure businesses around the nation to enact strict vaccine-proof restrictions. Anchor Jake Tapper said, “Some businesses are going a step further and requiring proof of vaccinations not just for employees, but even for customers in some cases. Audience members for broadway plays and musicals need to be vaccinated. Some bars in San Francisco and D.C. are requiring proof of vaccinations. Do you think as a public health measure it would be good for more businesses to require vaccine credentials in order to have vaccinated customers?” His answer was astonishing. Collins said, “As a public health person who wants to see this pandemic end, yes. I think anything we can do to encourage reluctant folks to get vaccinated because they’ll want to be part of these public events, that’s a good thing. I’m delighted to see employers like Disney and Walmart coming out and asking their staff to be vaccinated. I’m glad to see the president has said all federal employees. I oversee NIH. With 40,000 people need to get vaccinated or if they’re not to get regular testing which is inconvenient. All of…

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Unrepentant YouTube Decides to Suspend Mainstream News Channel Over ‘Misinformation’

The barons of the Information Revolution are no less corrupt than those of the Industrial Revolution before them.

Published

on

There are concerns that the barons of the Information Revolution, much like the barons of the Industrial Revolution, are exploiting their content producers at an unsustainable clip, and creating a very dangerous bottleneck in the world of free speech. Given just how much of the internet’s traffic flows through just a few sites, it is imperative that we keep a keen eye on what platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are doing.  They are the new gatekeepers of nearly the entire breadth of current information, and if they were to choose to keep us in the dark on any particular issue, it would be quite easy for them to do so. That’s why the latest news from YouTube is so terrifying. YouTube said Sunday it had barred Sky News Australia from uploading new content for one week, citing concerns about Covid-19 misinformation. The move comes after a review of posts uploaded by the Rupert Murdoch-owned TV channel, which has a substantial online presence. “We have clear and established Covid-19 medical misinformation policies… to prevent the spread of Covid-19 misinformation that could cause real-world harm,” a YouTube statement said. With 1.86 million YouTube subscribers, the channel — which is owned by a subsidiary of Murdoch’s News Corp — has a conservative following well beyond Australia. The mainstream media and the mainstream social networks haven’t always gotten their COVD info right, either, which makes their declarations regarding “misinformation” all the more laughable. Early on in the pandemic, these platforms pushed back against the possibility that the virus itself may have been a part of some sort of lab leak, even going so far as to censor any such discussion.  Over a year later, and as health experts began to suggest this yes, this was truly a possibility, the premature nature of…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week