Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

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.

take our poll - story continues below

Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?

  • Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?  

  • 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.

Trending: NEVER FORGET: Bernie Was Asked to Leave Hippie Commune for Refusing to Work

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.

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

 

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

REPORT: AOC’s Chief of Staff Was Hired After Funneling Money Through Her Boyfriend

Here we go…

John Salvatore

Published

on

This report is absolutely wild.

It is also entirely believable given the way Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attempts to skirt the truth.

Apparently, AOC’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, was given his position on Alexandria’s staff after funneling cash for her campaign through her boyfriend, Riley Roberts.

take our poll - story continues below

Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?

  • Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?  

  • 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.

Check it out…

“A rich guy used a PAC to pay @AOC’s boyfriend $6,000 when her campaign was running out of money. After AOC won, she gave that rich guy a job in her office. Follow me on a journey,” author Luke Thompson said.

“Last week, @AOC and her Chief of Staff @saikatc (the rich guy in question) freaked out on me when I pointed out it looked like she’d hired her boyfriend. I did some digging in the FEC. Turns out Saikat has “hired” her boyfriend, before…just not to do any actual work,” he said.

[email protected] paid Brand New Congress LLC, which @saikatc owns, for strategic consulting. @BrandNew535, the PAC Saikat ran in parallel to his LLC, turned around and paid Riley Roberts – the boyfriend – the same amount as its sole “marketing consultant”. How swampy,” he said.

“The payments to Roberts are the largest payments made by @BrandNew535 to any person or group other than Brand New Congress LLC. Oh, and Roberts doesn’t work in marketing,” Thompson said.

https://twitter.com/ltthompso/status/1098217840862220289/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1098217842477015043&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalistpapers.org%2Fopinion%2Focasio-cortez-caught-red-handed-helping-ton-money-get-funneled-boyfriend

More from Medium:

A quick tour through AOC’s campaign expenditures reveals the extent to which Brand New Congress midwifed her campaign into existence, precisely as the FAQ described above would have it. But AOC’s campaign was different from the others backed by Brand New Congress PAC, and not simply because she won. Like other candidates, AOC paid Brand New Congress LLC for strategic consulting, in her case totaling $18,880.14. Unlike in the other cases, Brand New Congress PAC turned around and paid her boyfriend as a “marketing consultant”.

Indeed, while Brand New Congress PAC’s ten largest expenditures were paid to Brand New Congress LLC for “strategic consulting,” a sum that totaled $261,165.20 over the course of the campaign, its eleventh and twelfth largest expenditures were paid to Riley Roberts.

Brand New Congress PAC paid Roberts $3,000 on August 9th:

Eighteen days later, AOC’s campaign paid Brand New Congress LLC $6,191.32:

A month later Brand New Congress PAC then turned around and paid Riley Roberts another $3,000.

Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff is a supporter of a man who was an “ally of Adolf Hitler.”

Check it out, per Liberty Nation:

-Bose was an ally of Adolf Hitler and met with him personally in 1942.

-Bose founded the Free India Legion (FIL) made up of troops captured by Nazi Field Marshal Rommel’s Afrika Korps.

-The FIL swore an oath to Hitler and was under SS command.

-Bose teamed up with the Japanese in 1943.

-Bose was an admirer of the USSR and sought to implement its authoritarian practices in India.

Stay tuned for more on this story…

Continue Reading

News

Chicago Police RUIN Jussie Smollett’s Day, Officially Charge Him With Felony [Details]

He’s toast!

John Salvatore

Published

on

Things just went from bad to worse for “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett.

After being caught orchestrating a hate crime against himself and lying about it on national TV during an interview with Robin Roberts, Jussie has now been declared a “suspect” by the Chicago Police Department.

From Daily Wire:

take our poll - story continues below

Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?

  • Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?  

  • 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.

Chicago law enforcement officials have officially declared actor Jussie Smollett to be a suspect in a criminal investigation on Wednesday for allegedly committing the felonious act of filing a false police report.

Chicago Police Chief Communications Officer Anthony Guglielmi tweeted: “Case Update: Jussie Smollett is now officially classified as a suspect in a criminal investigation by #ChicagoPolice for filing a false police report (Class 4 felony). Detectives are currently presenting evidence before a Cook County Grand Jury.”

Smollett has also officially been charged with a felony:

Check this out:

In 2007, Smollett “provided false information” to police after receiving a DUI.

From Daily Wire:

Jussie Smollett pleaded no contest to DUI, driving without a license, and providing false information to law enforcement officials in 2007, according to new reports released on Tuesday.

“Tuesday the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office confirmed that in August of 2007 Smollett pleaded no contest to DUI, driving without a license and providing false information to law enforcement,” CBS Chicago reported. “He was sentenced to two years probation and a choice of a fine or jail. Officials at the office could not confirm which Smollett chose. A spokesman for the Chicago Police Department said the department was already aware of the plea.”

This latest revelation follows several significant developments over the last few days, and could end up impacting how prosecutors handle potential false report charges.

Senators Kamala Harris (CA) and Cory Booker (NJ) are both running for president. The chances that either person secures the Democrat nomination are slim, at best.

After hearing that Empire actor Jussie Smollett was the “victim” of a “hate crime,” both Booker and Harris rushed to slam the “attack” as a “modern day lynching.”

Of course, the country now knows that Smollett faked the attack and paid two brothers to orchestrate the whole thing.

Now, Harris is at a loss for words when confronted by a reporter asking about Smollett:

WATCH:

Check out Booker:

Jussie said he was baffled that people didn’t believe him. Apparently, he’s just not that good of an actor, huh?

If Smollett was being written off the show prior to this insane “hate crime,” what will happen to him now?

Will social justice warriors voice their support? Will he maybe get his own spinoff?

How about Smollett pays for his crime and serves his time? That seems like the most appropriate response.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for lefties to say they were sorry for jumping on the Jussie bandwagon, though.

They’ll hold strong togetther and attempt to steer the conversation toward “racism in America.” They’ll make it seem as if Smollett is the true victim.

Count on it.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend