Proof that “compassionate” government Progressives sometimes sterilize “unfit” Black teenage women

Brannon Howse interviewing Mark Crutcher, founder of LIFE DYNAMICS

More of the inhumane, anti-freedom, politically correct Progressive worldview:

Psychology and the Shrinking of America

January 05, 2011

By Robin of Berkeley
Reader Advisory: Sexual Content

When I first snapped out of my leftist bubble three years ago, I was shocked to find out how many professions had been infiltrated by the far left. The mainstream media, Hollywood moguls, and the universities were willing tools of progressivism.

But there is an occupation just as culpable in ushering in cultural Marxism, though its contributions are far less well-known. For this profession, I don’t have to look further than my own backyard — that is, psychotherapy.

What I have discovered after researching the history of psychology is that the originators were not simply interested in fixing people. Many were hard-bent on revolutionizing the West.

In this article, I will shed some light on the intricate web linking together a cast of unsavory characters from Europe to the U.S. The result of their efforts has been nothing less than the undermining and corruption of this nation.

The motivation of some of the players has been to replace Judeo-Christian values with secular humanism. Others unleashed the sexual revolution to feed their own prurience. And the more nefarious characters were intent on force-feeding cultural Marxism to an unknowing public.

Let’s begin with Sigmund Freud’s development of the “talking cure,” psychoanalysis, in the early 20th century. Freud attempted to heal his patients, many of whom were depressed and anxious. However, he had a hidden agenda as well.

Freud’s theories reflected his personal worldview, which was fiercely secular in nature. An atheist, he rejected religion of all kinds, including the Judaism of his forefathers. Freud labeled religious believers as infantile and delusional [i].

Freud dreamed of a new science of psychology, where man would be positioned front and center. He believed that human suffering was caused by sexual repression and societal conventions. According to Freud, “[s]exual morality — as society, in its extreme form, the American, defines it — seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life” [ii].

Freud may have foreseen that his theories would unravel the moral fabric of our nation. When visiting the United States for the first and only time, he purportedly said to Jung, “They don’t realize that we are bringing them the plague.”

Through his humanistic views, Freud helped to dislodge the West from its God-based axis. Freud also helped usher in the age of blaming the victim.

Freud dismissed the suffering of his female patients who had been molested by their fathers [iii]. Rather than take their complaints seriously, he labeled them as hysterical women who suffered from penis envy. He wrote, “The hysterical symptoms are derived from phantasies and not real occurrences” and blamed the unresolved Oedipal complex [iv].

But Freud was a veritable saint compared to his star student, Wilhelm Reich. A Marxist, Reich was obsessed with sex, having several mistresses and adulterous affairs. [v] He believed that bourgeois morality was at the root of human neurosis. Therefore, he set out, like a man on a mission, to free citizens.

Violating Freud’s norms of therapeutic boundaries, Reich had his patients disrobe during session. He touched them in various parts of their bodies to induce orgiastic pleasure.* Reich was so obsessed with this orgasmic energy, which he called, “orgones,” that he invented a machine to capture it. Eventually Reich was arrested and imprisoned. [v]
Like Reich, biologist Alfred Kinsey exploited the clarion call for sexual permissiveness to legitimize his degeneracy. The intrepid psychologist Judith Reismann has made it her life’s work to expose Kinsey’s lies and his personal demons.

Kinsey’s twisted personal behavior is too abhorrent to recount. But what is even more disturbing is that his so-called scientific research was falsified.

Kinsey’s studies purportedly proved that young children had sexual feelings and weren’t necessarily traumatized by molestation. What Kinsey failed to disclose, according to Reisman, is that he based his findings on interviews with pedophiles and rapists.

Tragically, Kinsey’s subterfuge has fostered decades of predatory behavior. U.N. proclamations about children’s “right” to sexuality, man/boy organizations, and even the Girl Scouts promoting sex all have Kinsey’s fingerprints on them.

The Frankfurt School

But the manipulation of the new psychology transcends people like Reich and Kinsey fueling their predatory tastes. More alarmingly, Germany’s Frankfurt School borrowed heavily from the new field of psychology for their fiendish scheme to degrade the West. Created in the 1920s, the school consisted of Marxists from various disciplines, including psychology.

The members realized that they couldn’t induce working-class Americans to overthrow the government. Instead, they plotted a nonviolent revolution by corrupting Judeo-Christian values. Their ploys included establishing sex education in the public schools, as well as undermining religion and the nuclear family.

Once Hitler seized Germany, the Frankfurt School members were forced to flee. Many took up residence in U.S. universities, including Columbia and Berkeley. For instance, Frankfurt School member Theodor Adorno joined a team of psychologists at Berkeley to write their seminal book, The Authoritarian Personality.

A 1950s blockbuster, the book investigated why people become enamored with fascism. This notorious book has been used to indict conservatives as pathologically disturbed. Although the tyranny of Europe (Nazism, Communism) was rooted in leftist ideology, the book created the enduring and seemingly intractable public impression that conservatives are the fascists.

The effects of this book can be felt even now, sixty years later. John Dean cited its influence in his book Conservatives Without Conscience. Robert Altemeyer has recently refashioned the original term, “the Authoritarian Personality,” to the even more incendiary “Right Wing Authoritarianism.”

The Sixties

It was in the ’60s that the machinations of the Frankfurt Group started bearing fruit. As is well-known, the times were a sexual free-for-all. Many enterprising therapists mined the hedonism for personal and professional profit. Encounter groups sprang up, and nude bathing at Esalen was all the rage. Without the strict ethical rules in place today, countless therapists sexually preyed on their patients.

All sorts of alternative therapies burgeoned, many of which were, I’m sure, a Marxist’s dream come true. Feminist therapy, gender studies, queer studies, and critical theory emerged and were enthusiastically embraced.

In the ’60s, psychotherapy continued its relentless attack on the dominant culture. For instance, influential psychiatrist R.D. Laing labeled families, schools, and churches “the slaughterhouses of our children.”

Like Reich before him, Laing railed against society in order to justify his abominable behavior. Laing deserted his first five children to live in abject poverty. He went on to have five more, with four different women. A violent alcoholic, Laing terrorized his children.

It was in the sixties and seventies that psychology established a foothold in the culture, impacting citizens who had never set foot in a therapist’s office. For instance, psychologist Dr. Carl Rogers began subtly indoctrinating the nation in moral relativism.

Rogers was the originator of the wildly popular therapy of “unconditional positive regard.” He cloaked his theory in the language of compassion; in reality, however, Rogersian therapy brainwashed the public to accept the unacceptable.

Here’s a disturbing example of Rogers in action: one day, he was leading a therapy group for adolescents hospitalized in a psychiatric ward. When a boy disclosed that he had raped his sister, a teenage girl expressed revulsion. Rogers turned on the girl, chastising her for being judgmental [vi].

When colleagues balked about Rogers’ unconventional methods, he became enraged. He called anyone who didn’t accept his demand for “radical empathy” a “right-winger.”

By this country’s becoming awash in therapy, the personality of average Americans was being indelibly altered. From a fiercely independent citizenry, we began morphing into a nation of grudge-holders, forever angry at mother or brother. By remaining perpetually frozen in the past, innumerable Americans have never developed beyond the angry and entitled state of an adolescent.

Psychology in the Age of Obama

While the field of psychology has always been liberal, now the radicals have virtually hijacked the profession. With Obama in office, the militants are emboldened.

For instance, psychology students are indoctrinated from day one in the triumvirate of multiculturalism, social justice, and white privilege. Students are strong-armed into accepting all alternative lifestyles, even ones that diverge from their moral principles. Naysayers are oftentimes persecuted, if not outright expelled.

Psych grad students have been run out of the profession for not marching in lockstep with the radicals’ drummer. In a couple of recent cases, Christian women have been kicked out of their programs for not supporting homosexuality.

In a situation closer to home, militants have pressured CAMFT, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, to expel reparative therapists. (Reparative therapists offer services to homosexuals who are unhappy with their lifestyle and want to go straight.)

At first, the long-term Executive Director of CAMFT refused to yield to the radicals’ demands. But, obviously caving in to the press-ganging, the director recently announced her “retirement.”

Many psychology publications have become de facto arms of the Obama administration. Here’s a blog from the online edition of Psychology Today by psychotherapist Michael Bader:

Those tea-party folks seem to most liberals — well, to most of us who live in the “reality community,” or, as I like to call it, “reality” __ like crazy f__kers. … I hate these folks but I also understand them. … They share the same psychology as the paranoid patients I treat every day. The only difference is that the paranoid beliefs of the tea-party movement are political. …

Or behold this article from NCSPP, a psychoanalytic organization. It was published in their electronic newsletter Impulse this past December. Fortunately, the article has since been removed, perhaps due to complaints.

While the piece is written in psychobabble, the message is clear: Obama is “supremely nuanced and integrative,” and those who oppose him are “malevolent” and “paranoid-schizoid” (translation: creepy, paranoid loner).

The (Splitting) American Psyche and the Mid-Term Elections

For many, the election of Barack Obama signaled a return to sanity. Yet here we are just two years later in a topsy-turvy political landscape. How did things get so crazy? […]

Liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better, whereas conservatives dislike nuance, and tend to be more loyal and decisive. […]

But currently there is neither real nor felt security with the country in the grip of trauma. Primitive anxieties lead to splitting, presenting fertile ground for demagoguery. The Republican Party, whose stated priority is to ensure Obama’s failure, has exploited these fault lines through obstructionism, right-wing media, and the Tea Party. […]

It is as if the supremely nuanced and integrative Obama is trying to govern a paranoid-schizoid nation. … Meanwhile, Republicans march in loyal lockstep espousing a clear-cut, emotional message, and disillusioned Democrats, if they can even overcome their paralysis, fall into their usual formation of the circular firing squad. […]

If [Obama] is restored to himself, the better angels of our nature might have a fighting chance over the more malevolent forces of these dangerous times.

Even the DSM, the therapist’s diagnostic “bible,” has become a politically correct shell of its former self. Over the 25 or so years that I’ve been in the profession, I’ve seen the DSM increasingly watered down lest it offend anyone.

Character disorders have morphed into the kinder and gentler “personality disorders.” The Passive Aggressive Personality was eliminated a while back. (Wouldn’t that come in handy these days?) And, astonishingly, the upcoming DSM V will omit the Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

I predict that we’ll see many more omissions in the DSM V. The current DSM includes diagnoses for various sexual abnormalities, including exhibitionism, transvestism, sadism, and masochism. There is even a Gender Identity Disorder for guys who think they are gals (and vice-versa). I imagine that most, if not all, of these disorders will be conspicuously absent from the upcoming DSM V.

Final Thoughts

This article has exposed psychology’s dark underbelly, especially its role in unleashing cultural Marxism. However, I must balance out the picture by adding that psychotherapy has its benefits as well.

Many people have rebuilt broken lives, even found the will to live, with the help of a competent, caring therapist. Further, the last few decades have seen the flourishing of more practical and brief forms of therapy, such as cognitive behavioral therapy.

The abuses in psychotherapy are similar to other professions in which the practitioners are bestowed with too much power. Tenured university professors may abuse their power by indoctrinating students into socialism. Public school teachers have become purveyors of social engineering.

Why have psychotherapists been given so much power, anyway? Why are shrinks anointed societal experts on everything from child-raising to personal happiness?

Because, in my opinion, millions of people have been left alone, spiritually in the dark, inhabiting a secular world shorn of Absolute Truth. It is within this backdrop of existential confusion and despair that people may turn to psychotherapists.

With religion shunned, shrinks are stand-ins for the holy men and women of days gone by. Confessing one’s “sins” and moral failures to a therapist may replace the weekly confessional with a priest. But when superhuman powers are attributed to a charismatic therapist, abuses can take place.

Lord Acton said it well: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. When we untether ourselves from the only real source of Power in the universe, we look for it in mere mortals. And as history has revealed to us again and again, there is great danger in worshiping false idols.

A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a licensed psychotherapist in Berkeley. Robin’s articles are intended for entertainment and informational purposes. They are not intended to provide treatment or diagnosis. Should you need psychological help, please contact a local therapist for assistance. You can reach Robin through her blog: Robin asks that comments for this article be posted here.

*Reich’s defenders claim he did not have sex with his patients, as this article originally stated. I leave it to the reader to determine if this constitutes sex.


[i] Freud, Sigmund, Future of an Illusion

[ii] Gay, Peter, Freud: A Life For Our Time

[iii] Masson, Jeffrey, Against Therapy

[iv] Clancy, Susan, The Trauma Myth

[v] Flynn, Daniel, A Conservative History of the American Left

[vi] Sommers, Christina and Satel, Sally, One Nation Under Therapy

Page Printed from: at January 27, 2011 – 07:13:02 PM CST

Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s Dumbest Decision

January 22, 2011

By Michael Filozof

Imagine for a moment that you were ticketed for speeding by the state police. Suppose that you lied to the cop about why you were driving so fast. Then imagine that a group of special-interest lawyers contacted you and told you they wanted to appeal your ticket to the Supreme Court, and they gave you a legal pseudonym to hide your identity. Now imagine that the Court ruled that the ancient Romans had no speed limit on the Appian Way, that the Germans have no speed limits on the autobahn, and that speed limits are a violation of the Constitution and must be struck down.

Sound crazy? Well, the hypothetical scenario above pretty much describes the logic used by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Actually, “logic” is much too strong a word. The Court’s opinion in Roe is pure sophistry — and very bad sophistry at that.

Both opponents and supporters of Roe typically evaluate the decision in moral terms. Opponents of abortion speak in hushed tones about how Roe legalized the murder of millions of babies. Supporters of Roe stridently champion it as a “landmark” case for “women’s rights.” But as we observe the thirty-eighth anniversary of Roe today, we ought to remember it as the Supreme Court’s dumbest decision.

From a constitutional perspective, moral arguments are irrelevant. Properly understood, the abortion question is a matter of federalism. Our Constitution lays out a governmental framework that is really quite simple. The powers of the national government are enumerated in Article 1, Sec. 8. The Tenth Amendment then tells us that any power not enumerated as a federal power (or prohibited by the Bill of Rights) is reserved for the states. This includes a wide range of state regulatory powers (known as “police powers”) which include authority over many moral and social issues. For example, the Constitution does not mention prostitution; therefore, it is a question for the states to decide according to their own local morals. The state of Nevada has chosen to legalize prostitution; forty-nine other states have chosen to outlaw it.

The same logic should be applicable to abortion — and it was, prior to Roe. By 1973, four states had legalized abortion, and forty-six others had restricted it. But the Supreme Court decided that it was going to ram abortion down the nation’s throat, whether it had constitutional justification to do so or not. The end result was a train wreck of an opinion. Conservatives who oppose Roe ought not speak about it in hushed moral tones, but rather with derisive hoots, jeers, and catcalls. The decision is intellectually fraudulent, and anyone who takes it seriously reveals his own intellectual insolvency.

The plaintiff in the case, Norma McCorvey, was given the legal pseudonym “Jane Roe” to “protect her privacy.” Why? The Court’s other “privacy” cases — Griswold v. Connecticut, Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas — do not have anonymous plaintiffs. McCorvey — an alcoholic, bisexual carnival worker who later became a born-again Christian and pro-life activist — initially lied about the circumstances of her pregnancy, claiming she’d been raped, but then recanted.

The way to most grievously undermine Roe’s status as a precedent is to actually read it. The opinion, written by the late Justice Blackmun, is little more than page after page of obiter dicta — which, loosely translated, means “extraneous B.S.”

We forthwith acknowledge … the emotional nature of the abortion controversy … one’s philosophy, one’s experiences, and one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence … are likely to influence and color one’s thinking … about abortion. [Emphasis mine.]

Do tell! Sounds more like the “Oprah Winfrey Show” than a Supreme Court decision.

In addition … pollution, poverty and racial overtones [emphasis mine] tend to complicate and not simplify the problem. …

Racial overtones? What in hell is that supposed to mean?

James Hubert Halford … [alleged that the Texas law prohibiting abortions] violated … his own right to practice medicine … guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth[,] and Fourteenth Amendments.

Really? I’ll give $500 cash to the first person who can find the phrase “right to practice medicine” in any of those amendments, or anywhere else in the Constitution. State governments have complete authority over the licensing and professional standards of physicians, nurses, clinics and, hospitals.

Ancient attitudes [toward abortion]. These are not capable of precise determination …

OK, so why mention them?

We are told that at the time of the Persian Empire … criminal abortions were severely punished. We are also told … that abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as the Roman Era, and that “it was resorted to without scruple.”

Precisely what does any of this have to do with the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1789?

The Ephesian, Soranos, often described as the greatest of the ancient gynecologists, appears to have been generally opposed to Rome’s prevailing free-abortion practices …

This clearly takes the cake as the most ridiculous statement in the entire decision. It’s not as offensive as citing the laws of the British Parliament, though. British Parliament? Yep, you read that right:

The English statutory law. England’s first criminal abortion statute … came in 1803 … Recently, Parliament enacted a new abortion law. This is the Abortion Act of 1967 … [which] permits a licensed physician to perform an abortion …

Wait a minute! Didn’t we fight a revolution against these people? It’s been over two centuries since the laws of Parliament mattered on this side of the pond!

It has been argued … that [antiabortion laws] were the product of Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct. Texas [the defendant], however, does not advance this justification in the present case …

This is insane. Why did Blackmun mention an argument the defendant did not even make?

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy …

Aha! The truth is revealed! The mask slips!

[But] this right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty … as we feel [emphasis mine] it is, or … in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass [abortion].

There you have it. The Constitution does not mention any right of “privacy,” but it’s in there — somewhere. Doesn’t even matter where — it’s “broad enough” to include abortion. (Justice Rehnquist dissented, observing that paying a physician for a medical procedure is hardly “private” — it’s a commercial transaction that normally falls under the regulatory power of the state.)

Roe is so bad it makes other controversial decisions — like Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott — look like models of Solomonic wisdom by comparison. In those cases, the Court was clearly biased, but it at least made an attempt to pay lip service to the Constitution.

What Roe revealed about our modern political elites is this: they simply do not give a damn what the Constitution does or does not say, and they know they can get away with ignoring it. The specious type of “reasoning” in Roe ultimately leads to Nancy Pelosi snarling incredulously, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” when asked by a reporter how the Constitution justifies ObamaCare; it leads to Justice Kennedy citing the European Court of Human Rights when declaring that the Constitution guarantees the right to anal sex; and it leads to Justice Breyer quoting the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe.

When our courts fail to heed the actual text of the Constitution they are supposedly applying and replace it with inane drivel about “the Ephesian, Soranos” and with foreign law, one is forced to conclude that we no longer live in a constitutional republic, but in a dictatorship of the judiciary — where reading the “supreme Law of the Land” on the floor of the House is a controversial event.

James Madison must be rolling in his grave.

Page Printed from: at January 22, 2011 – 11:20:42 AM CST

Economic results of Obama’s First Two Years

January 20, 2011

Report Card on Obama’s First Two Years

By K.E. Campbell

Two years ago today, Barack Obama was inaugurated as president of the United States. Are you better off today than you were two years ago?

Numbers don’t lie, and here are the data on the impact he has had on the lives of Americans:

January 2009
% chg
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. (regular conventional)
Selected commodities:
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)
Natural gas, Henry Hub, $ per MMbtu
Gold: London (per troy oz.)
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob
Consumer Price Index (for all urban consumers)
Producer Price Index:  finished goods
Producer Price Index:  all commodities
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall
Unemployment rate, blacks
Number of unemployed
Number of fed. employees, ex. uniformed military (curr = 12/10 prelim)
Real median household income (2008 vs 2009)
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10)
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10)
Number of long-term unemployed, in millions
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 vs 2009)
People in poverty in U.S., in millions (2008 vs 2009)
House price index (current = Q3 2010)
S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index: 20 city composite (curr = 10/10)
Number of properties subject of foreclosure filings, in millions
DJIA (12,403 on 6/3/08, date BHO clinched Dem. nomination)
NASDAQ (2,480 on 6/3/08)
S&P 500 (1,378 on 6/3/08)
Global Dow
U.S. rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings
Consumer Confidence Index (curr = 12/10)
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10)
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date)
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate
U.S. money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 preliminary)
U.S. money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 preliminary)
National debt, in trillions
1 – U.S. Energy Information Admin.
2 – Wall Street Journal
3 – Bureau of Labor Statistics
4 – Census Bureau
5 – USDA
6 – U.S. Dept. of Labor
7 – FHFA
8 – Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller
9 – RealtyTrac
10 – Heritage Foundation and WSJ
11 – The Conference Board
12 – FDIC
13 – Federal Reserve
14 – U.S. Treasury

Page Printed from: at January 21, 2011 – 08:54:07 AM CST

Preserving States’ Rights and the Constitution

January 19, 2011

By Bruce Walker
The Republican House of Representative read the Constitution, including all its amendments, aloud. I wonder how many listeners grasped the salient virtue of our Constitution: the document is maddeningly vague about personal liberty. Article I, Section 9 provides a few prohibitions: Congress cannot pass certain types of laws like a Bill of Attainder or an ex post facto law, both of which circumvent the natural process of justice by law and trial. Article IV provides that the privileges and immunities of citizens of one state apply to other states as well. That is about all.

The first ten amendments, our Bill of Rights, are conspicuous for what they do not prohibit. Nothing in the Bill of Rights, for example, prohibits states from establishing an official religion or limiting freedom of speech. Long after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court adopted the “Incorporation Doctrine,” which applied the federal Bill of Rights to states, but that was unnecessary to protect liberty unless Americans had come to view the United States Constitution, rather than the constitutions of their own states, as the guarantors of liberty.

What, then, is the Constitution? It is an effort to have a federal government while limiting the power of that government so that states can remain truly sovereign. States, not the federal government, gave us our liberties. Federal power is fractured into a bicameral legislature, a presidency, and a federal court system. The powers of the federal government are spelled out in plain language, and the Tenth Amendment declares that powers not given to the federal government in the Constitution are kept by the states. The first amendment adopted after the Bill of Rights, the Eleventh Amendment, was specifically to limit the power of federal courts over state governments.

Why were Americans so concerned with states’ rights? States made the American Republic a marketplace of governments. If states are preeminent in the governance of the nation, then when one state slides towards tyranny, people can leave and move to another state. When groups want to find a place to live in peace, like Mormons in Utah or Jews in New York, strong states ensure that they can do so.

It is a grim fact of history that strong central governments have gone hand in hand with horror. Nazis, very quickly, essentially ended the system of strong state governments in Germany. The Soviet Union was also ruled with an iron hand from Moscow, and the destruction of whole peoples followed its central policies. The closer people are to the elected officials governing them, the more freedom flourishes. The more remote the government, the less citizens feel like equals and the more they seem like cattle. That is why the Founding Fathers considered states’ rights as absolutely indispensable to the purposes of our nation.

The Founders also grasped that simple declarations of state sovereignty were empty without political mechanisms to ensure that states remained strong. They provided that state legislatures would choose United States senators, that state legislatures would choose how presidential electors were picked, and that state legislatures adopted proposed amendments to the Constitution.

United States senators are chosen today by the “people,” which means they are unaccountable to state governments. Presidential electors are also chosen by the “people,” although this is merely by state law. In practice, the Constitution is no longer amended by the provisions of Article V. The Supreme Court, instead, amends the Constitution through its auguries of the entrails of the Constitution revealed in precedents.

The disintegration of states is the gravest problem we face. The omnipresent federal government means that Americans can no longer run from tyranny by leaving one state and moving to another. The transfer of power from state government to some nebulous “people” means that we have democracy, a very unhappy form of government.

What can be done? Well, states can propose constitutional amendments without going through Congress. Two-thirds of state legislatures may call a constitutional convention. Although many conservatives fear this approach to amendment, if the terms of the resolution provided that members of the various legislatures themselves were the members of any constitutional convention and limited the action of that convention to approval or disapproval of a single amendment, then the chances of true restoration of states’ rights would be solid.

What short and clear amendment would restore states’ rights? Perhaps something like this: “When a majority of the legislatures of the several states resolve that any officer of Executive or Judiciary of the United States has acted in denigration of the sovereign rights of the several states, then said officer shall be removed from office. When the legislature of any state determines that a member of Congress from that state has voted in denigration of the sovereign rights of the several states, then that member shall be removed and an election held as soon as practicable to replace that member.” This would place the power of interpreting the constitutional prerogatives of the states back where it belongs: with the sovereign states themselves. No member of Congress, no federal judge, no member of the executive branch, including even the president, could ignore the rights of the states.

Every politician wants more power, and this would give state legislators much more power. The effects of investing such power in state legislatures would be these: (1) government would become much closer to the governed, (2) experiments in freedom would be possible throughout the republic, and (3) voters would know whom to blame when things go wrong. When the Ninth Circuit Panel orders San Diego to take down the cross at its military cemetery, ordinary folk could go to their state legislators and demand that the federal judges on that panel be removed. These state legislators could actually cast a vote to do just that. And every federal official would face real consequences for a reckless reading of the Constitution, the document intended to preserve the rights of states.

Bruce Walker is the author of a new book: Poor Lenin’s Almanac: Perverse Leftists Proverbs for Modern Life.

Page Printed from: at January 19, 2011 – 07:14:19 PM CST

Death by Liberalism

January 18, 2011

By J.R. Dunn

Many AT readers are aware that I have been working on a book project for the past several years. I have mentioned it occasionally on this site, more often in the past few weeks as publication drew nearer. Now zero hour has arrived: Death by Liberalism. The Fatal Outcome of Well-Meaning Liberal Policies is available as of today. (Buy it here.) It’s the first publication from Broadside Books, renowned editor Adam Bellow’s new conservative imprint.

Simply put, DbL deals with the appalling and overlooked fact that liberalism kills. This is no metaphor, no exaggeration, and no mistake. Liberal policies put in place by liberal politicians to achieve liberal goals kill thousands of Americans each year. In the past half-century, liberalism may have killed up to 500,000 American citizens (and this is not even counting DDT or ethanol, which are responsible for a death rate orders of magnitude larger in the international sphere). We have known for years that liberalism is corrupt, wasteful, and futile. Now we know that it is even worse. Liberalism is lethal.

How does this work? Is it some sort of grand Sorosian conspiracy to assure limitless political power? An environmentalist Green scheme to cut the population on behalf of Mother Gaia? Not at all. The soft lethality of liberalism is a result of that saddest of English phrases: “unintended consequences.” Liberal politicians, academics, and operatives want to do good. They want to benefit Americans and the country as a whole. They want to do it their way, through large-scale governmental policy. They know exactly how it is to be done, and they will brook no interference. So they set out on their grand schemes, and it ends, always and without exception, in disaster. Some of those disasters go over the line into something resembling mass negligent homicide: the legal procedural revolution, the DDT ban, CAFE fuel standards, federalized child protection, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, and gun-free zones, to mention only a few.

Let’s take federal child protection as an example. Shortly before becoming vice president under Jimmy Carter, Senator Walter Mondale sponsored a bill aimed at the reform of child protection services. Established to assist and rescue children from abusive and neglectful adults, these services had been operating for a century with good results, many of them privately run and associated with churches and other charities. Mondale wished to transform them all into state agencies, funded by government, staffed by trained professionals, with operating standards set by federal bureaucrats.

The result was exactly what any student of Hayek, Parkinson, or Sowell could have predicted. The government-run agencies became typical bureaucracies, marked by incompetence, callousness, and endless paperwork. Across the country, children under the care of such agencies began dying. For thirty years and more, scarcely a week has gone by without yet another newspaper report of a child murdered while under the “protection” of one of these agencies. The numbers may well mount into the thousands. We can’t be sure, since the bureaucrats in charge often hide behind privacy laws to stifle investigations and outside oversight. (This doesn’t always work — in Philadelphia last year, no fewer than nine social service social workers were found guilty of complicity in the starvation death of Danieal Kelly).

Did Walter Mondale intend any such thing? Not at all — he meant well. He went for the customary big-government solution; he was intent on fixing something that wasn’t broken. The result was suffering on a massive scale. To his credit, Mondale is on record as regarding the bill as an action he regrets. Most liberal politicians responsible for similar policies would admit to no such thing.

They would remain silent because liberals do not look upon their ideology as a political doctrine to be judged by the same standards as all others. No — liberalism is viewed as a religion — a religion of the purely millennial type, promising its believers a new, pure, utterly transformed world. Its leaders are the saints and heroes — Oldsmobile Teddy Kennedy, Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd, and Charlie “what taxes?” Rangel — who will lead us into this new world. But with DbL, this illusion has come to an end. No longer can liberals shield themselves from their actions. No longer can they present themselves as messianic figures magically and unerringly healing a fallen world.

They are not happy about this. The first reviews of DbL have been marked by a sense of shock coupled with outrage. The common response is that the book is “illogical”— it’s like being criticized by an army of Mr. Spocks. None have actually critiqued that logic — which consists of simple empiricism, the contention that effects must have a cause — in any detail. Several reviewers have outright lied about the book, one claiming that I’m referring to people “dying of heart attacks from working too hard to pay taxes.” Another states that I claim that liberals will soon be hunting us down “with their guns.” (What kind of liberals does she know, I wonder?) And this is only the beginning. I’m scheduled to appear on Lawrence O’Donnell’s “Last Word” this Thursday, and I doubt that he intends to congratulate me on the excellence of my research.

Such a reaction is understandable. All that liberalism has left is its patina of virtue — the claim that liberals are always right, that they know all the answers, that they alone embody the good in the political sphere. This is fading fast, as liberalism becomes the ideology that abuses Down infants, that supports and excuses terrorists, that attempts to exploit mass murders. I hope that DbL represents yet another step in this process.

I’ve been writing for AT for a little over five years now. In that time, I’ve gotten much in the way of encouragement and useful criticism. It was an AT reader who inspired DbL in the first place, with a question as to whether “there was anything like a black book of liberalism.” I know I’ve come a long way as a writer, a thinker, and a conservative in that time. I’m sure we all have. We have a long road ahead, and we are now moving into a new phase, a new level of activity and influence. I hope you are all looking forward to it as much as I am.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and will edit the forthcoming Military Thinker.

Page Printed from: at January 19, 2011 – 07:13:20 PM CST

Pennsylvania abortionist, in addition to years of killing pre-born babies, killed a mother and 7 post-born babies with scissors in a squalid abortuary


Inhumane Political Correctness strikes again:

● The Pennsylvania Department of Health knew of clinic violations dating back decades, but did nothing.

● The Pennsylvania Department of State was “repeatedly confronted with evidence about Gosnell” — including the clinic’s unclean, unsterile conditions, unlicensed workers, unsupervised sedation, underage abortion patients, and over-prescribing of pain pills with high resale value on the street — “and repeatedly chose to do nothing.”

● Philadelphia Department of Public Health officials who regularly visited Gosnell’s human-waste-clogged offices did nothing.

● Nearby hospital officials who treated some of the pregnant mothers who suffered grave complications from Gosnell’s butchery did nothing.

● An unnamed evaluator with the National Abortion Federation, the leading association of abortion providers that is supposed to uphold strict health and legal standards, determined that Gosnell’s chamber of horrors was “the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected” — but did nothing.

My Name is Betsy. I’m a Killer.

January 13, 2011

By Betsy M. Galliher

My name is Betsy. I’m a wife and proud soccer mom, a writer, and a small business owner. I’m also a killer.

On the morning of January 8, 2011, I intentionally entered a gathering held by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and shot her at near-point-blank range. I injured fourteen others, killing six — among them a beautiful, curious, doe-eyed, nine-year-old girl. I didn’t actually pull the trigger, but I’m as guilty as the psychopath who did.

Here are just a few of the charges against me:

I am a conservative.

On occasion, I listen to Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox News.

I’ve been known to pick up a book or two by conservative authors: Thomas Sowell, Andrew McCarthy, or the Founding Fathers, for example!

I believe that the federal government is too large, far too intrusive, and dangerously powerful.

I believe in personal responsibility and the amazing generosity of Americans to aid those in need rather than permanent entitlements.

I believe that the private, not the public, sector is the backbone of our economy.

I believe that our progressive tax system is punitive. We are over-taxed, over-regulated, and over-lectured.

I believe in the power of the free market to correct itself, without government (taxpayer) intervention.

I believe that the Constitution is intended to limit government and empower the individual.

I believe in holding our elected officials’ feet to the fire, be they Republican or Democrat (incendiary pun intended).

I believe that our sovereignty is at risk via unsecured borders, out-of-control spending, our crippling deficit, reckless abuses of the Constitution, and the moral decay of Washington.

In short, I’m a madman. Guilty as charged, and armed with the belief in my 1st-Amendment right to peaceably question those we elect to serve.

The only person who actually pulled the trigger on that terrible, fateful day was Jared Loughner — by every account, a deeply troubled young man. But the real guilty walk among us: senior citizens in red, white, and blue, armed with signs saying “Taxed Enough Already”; flag-wavers clinging to guns and religion; doctors; the wealthy; business owners; talk radio; and any citizen — particularly a conservative — who dares exercise his or her right to free speech.

We’re called greedy, stupid, and racist. We’re ridiculed with snide “slurpee” innuendos and called lewd and malicious names, such as “teabaggers.” Ordinary citizens are maligned by their own government while the pious, liberal elite get a free pass on reason and truth, while Islamists invoke their religious cloak, while the ideologue professes his moral superiority, while the media uses the power of spin, and while leftists, including Robert Gibbs and Barack Obama, employ their bully pulpit.

We defend conservatism by our very way of life: as self-reliant, taxpaying, moral citizens, and as faithful defenders of limited government and the power of the individual. We are violent inciters only insomuch as we threaten the current leftist, agenda-driven stranglehold on government. So alarming is our threat that the real inciters wasted no time in politicizing the tragic deaths of six innocent citizens, not to mention one revered congresswoman still fighting for her life. And they will waste no time in shamelessly exploiting a “crisis” at the hand of a lone psychopath to further enact gun control and squelch freedom of speech under cries of “civility.”

Does the left really believe that the “rhetoric” of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox is incendiary? Do they fail to understand that the language of conservative “talk” is the echo of ordinary citizens calling for limited government and individual freedoms? Or do they silence us because we know our current leaders don’t actually believe in their own limited power? Truth be told, even Jared Loughner undermines their agenda. And they know it. They know that their “transformation” of America is failing and that people like me are not afraid to say so.

My name is Betsy, and I’m a killer. They are determined to stop me before I kill again.

We Need More Political Rhetoric, Not Less

January 12, 2011

By Geoffrey P. Hunt

The Rodeo Clown Posse was led out of Tucson in a cloud of dust with a hay-burning frenzy by Arizona’s Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.  Close in tow were hyper-boiling politicians and the usual lefty print and TV media cowboys such as Rep. James Clyburn, columnist Paul Krugman, TV antagonista Chris Matthews, and even our own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  These tin-star constables couldn’t get on their donkeys fast enough  to round up the usual outlaws.  The leading perennial villain, of course,  is overheated political rhetoric, the euphemism for any strongly held opinion that differs from the liberal narrative.

The arrest warrant, hastily drawn up by the shallow yet influential chatterers, derives from a persistent liberal theme that political adversaries should be disarmed and neutralized by eliminating their ability to speak freely in any forum in any style.  Thus, any pretext, no matter how reprehensible or disingenuous, to wrap duct tape around the mouths of their enemies is justifiable to this herd of dubious deputies.  Moreover, they would have us believe that their brand of gag rule makes for a more perfect utopian democratic ideal.

John Steele Gordon in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal documents the long history of political discourse  — overheated, boiling, or even incendiary — as a trademark of American politics.  Speechmaking and opinion-mongering have always been athletic pursuits, punctuated by the well-timed sarcastic jab or sweeping insult.  Otherwise, what would be the point?  Protecting political speech, by no accident, is found in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  If political speech were not poignant, direct, explicit, colorful, indeed overheated and frequently uncomfortable and unwelcome — short of libelous and directly life-threatening — it wouldn’t need to be protected, would it?

Political speech has content and a wrapper.  Content is the idea; the wrapper is the means by which and from whom the idea is expressed.  Often, competing ideas carry the identity of the speaker and with it, the good, bad and ugly.  Personal attacks in print and speech, while generally unattractive if gratuitous, are often intertwined with retorts and rejoinders that can be both persuasive and amusing.

At least in the Anglo tradition, debaters have fun at others’ expense.  As noted by Bernard Bailyn in his seminal work The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, there is actually a far lengthier history of astringent polemics in 18th-century Britain, where  dissuading one’s political opponent wasn’t satisfaction enough — annihilation was the goal.  The subtle dig and explicit name-calling have their place — one accepted as sophisticated repartee, the other denounced as unimaginative and immature ad hominem.  Yet the latter is just as likely accompanied by laughing out loud, if only in private.

Speech of all types — political or otherwise — is protected because it forms the fundamental platform for sustaining the marketplace of ideas without which a democratic republic cannot survive.  That’s not to say that all ideas are equally elegant or elegantly expressed, or even that they deserve to be heard.  But most ideas, even if clumsily expressed or devoid of merit, whether asserted gently or forcefully, deferentially or in your face, form the nutrient-rich red blood cells of our great nation’s discourse.

Freedom of speech guarantees the formation of government by the people.  The ballot box is where American political action happens.  One of the more enduring but amazing features of America’s exceptional nature has been the orderly governance transition for well over two centuries from one political leaning to a different one in succeeding administrations without violence or dysfunctional discord.  Even throughout the antebellum and Civil War period, despite significant numbers of Southern sympathizers in the North, the federal government and its foundational principles remained intact.

It is also noteworthy that assassins and would-be gunmen targeting the political governing class, from John Hinckley, Jr to Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth, while having a profound and tragic impact on the course of U.S. and indeed human history, have been infrequent.  And these were not calculated eliminations by a political class or engineered  by multiple co-conspirators.  These were the acts of isolated psychopaths with whatever grievances provoking them derived from neurological demons instead of mainstream political sloganeering making them crazy.

Free speech is the currency for a marketplace of liberty, private pursuits, and economic choices; in America, it has been remarkably free from anarchy and violence.  If speech is proscribed or in any way curtailed or restricted, the ballot box will no longer be the perfection of opinion.

Imagine instead an America where speech is stifled, controlled, circumscribed, or diminished, and the right to say whatever by whomever is curtailed.  That would render the ballot box incomplete, untrustworthy, unperfected, and doubtful.  With the promise of the accessible ballot box, knowing that speech preceding it is free and unencumbered, hopes and frustrations can be ventilated by the peaceful act of voting.  Without the safety valve of free and unencumbered speech, how would the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances happen peacefully and non-violently?

The Rodeo Clown Posse, having neither a persuasive idea nor an attractive wrapper to express it, would like to whip up an indiscriminate and symbolic hanging instead of recognizing that more speech, however expressed, is better than speech suppressed.  The rest of us must be vigilant to keep this pernicious posse from finding a rope.

A Hopeful Prognosis for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ Recovery and a Dismal One for Political Correctness

America is jubilant about Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s’ miraculous medical prognosis as described by these four news reports: 1,23 and 4. President Obama uplifted our spirits by honoring the victims at the memorial service in Tucson. Millions are praying Gabrielle’s recovery can continue to exceed all expectations and boost our country’s unity and optimism.

But some pundits in the media and politics could not respect a season to mourn the tragedies and wait for contributing factors to be discovered.  They issued mendacious calumnies against the right’s vociferous opposition to the policies, values and tactics of statist ruling class progressives and their media allies — utterly ironic in light of Rep Gifford’s having participated in the House’s reading of the Constitution on January 6, by reciting the 1st Amendment.

On the left we have generalized calumnies.  On the right we have “targeted” vociferous opposition.

What an opportunity for America to awaken to the world view that dominates education and the media, heavily influences public policy and prevents the kind of intense and intelligent debate that should be a trademark of democratic societies.

Political Correctness is a masking term to hide the post-modern collectivist world view of moral relativism, secular humanism, tolerance, progressivism and multiculturalism. Those imbued with this outlook couldn’t let this “crisis go to waste” without issuing inhumane, ludicrous and unconscionable accusations against outspokenness on the right.

The post-election wounds from hundreds of Democrats across the country having been extricated from office last November (Republicans now control more state legislative seats than any time since 1928 due to a genuine reform movement), the massively popular Tea Party and the widespread efforts to repeal Obamacare have inflamed the lefts’ desperation.

Even Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik abdicated his objective legal duty, prejudicing the upcoming trial by absurdly linking the shooting to “the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government.” Time will tell if he’s scapegoating a sense of guilt, his political correctness having prevented him from being more proactive about the years of mental illness warning signs by Jared Loughner, in what may mirror the lethal political correctness that prevented Nidal Hasan from being held accountable for his jihadist telegraphing long before he murdered 13 people at Fort Hood, including a pregnant woman.  Why was no police record found a few hours before the shootings when Loughner was pulled over for speeding, even though he had been arrested more than once on drug possession and the Pima County campus police had requested that he receive a mental examination as a threat to society?  The Phoenix Arizona Republic newspaper has been blocked from accessing Loughner’s police and community college records.

Untethered to fixed standards for truth and morality, the politically correct are immune to specific facts and precedents.  Political fantasy (even if it contains lies) is truth to the Progressive mind and harsh reality is untruth.  Are these the kind of people who should be entrusted with leadership and influence?

This world view should not hold disproportionate sway in our culture. The dark truth about political correctness is painful and difficult for the normal person to fathom, and even more challenging to counteract. It’s time that virtuous Americans and Conservative pundits understand and expose it, instead of being ignorant, mystified, superficial or intimidated by it.

Only two hours after the Tucson tragedy Paul Krugman delivered the first Kamikaze attack, a libelous and shameful article in the New York Times. (Read more Alinsky type screed here, and here.)  The Times recently published defeated Democrat Representative Paul Kanjorski’s hypocritical admonition: “it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.”  That’s the same Paul Kanjorski who, speaking of Florida’s Republican Governor Rick Scott, suggested back in October that, “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him.  Put him against the wall and shoot him.”  Democrat Senator John Kerry joked in 2006 that he, “could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania (then President Bush’s address) and killed the real bird with one stone.”

The post-Tucson explosion of mendacity parallels one of the many low points in Bill Clinton’s debased presidency when he insulted all of America asserting that the Oklahoma City bombing was the result of Conservatives’ speaking negatively against government. An unnamed amoral Democrat told Politico on January 11: “They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers. … Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.” Democrat operative Mark Penn said just last November that President Obama needed an event similar to Oklahoma City to reconnect to the voters.

In Hillary Clinton’s world view our society harbors terrorism that’s morally equivalent to that of global Islamist radicals. Referring to 9/11, Secretary Clinton told a town hall meeting in the United Arab Emirates, “We have extremists in my country.” She added that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, among 19 other innocents, “was just shot by an extremist in our country.”

Progressives cannot be rational about Loughner’s irresponsibility and pure evil because they view sinfulness in collective terms, not individual, except when an individual “deserves” the smearing, ridicule and isolation prescribed in Rules for Radicals by their un-American guru Saul Alinsky, in which he credited Lucifer as the original example for radicals to follow!

See a dramatic expose of the hypocrisy of Krugman and the Palin/Tea Party-blamers here and here.

Remind them of their movie that depicted President Bush’s assassination.

Their post-modern world view is emotionally driven.  They even share some of the nihilism of Jared Loughner concerning truth and reality.  Their political advantage is not gained by intelligent debate but by demonizing the right and authoritarian manipulation of the legal and legislative process (e.g. Obamacare and Roe vs Wade).  The architects of hate continue to frantically reinforce the teetering image of compassionate liberalism and paint Conservatives as the hateful extremists.  So who is being hung on the extremist petard?  Who are the masters of vitriol, deception, demonization, discontent, demagoguery, pandering, class warfare, coercion, division and perpetual grievance?

May the truth about the world view of the politically correct be exposed and may there be a reversal of the damage caused by their cultural Marxist campaign to eradicate Biblical values, Constitutionalism, capitalism and free speech.