June 21, 2005 by s.z.

Carnival of the Wingnuts

There are many wingnuts who deserve a mention that I thought it was time to try this feature again.  Plus, it's cheap, easy, and makes a nutrious meal.

1.  The WSJ's Opinion Journal brings us John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge with "Cheer Up, Conservatives! You're still winning." 

Here's the evocative first paragraph:

The second-century physician Galen observed famously: "Triste est omne animal post coitum." So perhaps it was inevitable that such a lusty beast as American conservatism should fall prey to unhappiness sometime after its greatest electoral seduction.

Last November the lusty beast of conservatism had sex with America, and it's only natural that it's now experiencing post coital sadness.  Of course, it's also only natural that a hung over America is now experiencing a "I slept with THAT?!?" moment of morning-after revulsion. 

Anyway, Micklethwait & Wooldridge try to cheer up the depressed conservatives by telling them that even though the budget still isn't balanced, Social Security hasn't been privatized, and Ann Coulter isn't the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, they are still the champions, my friend, because they are, as Cynthia Janak would put it, the "gay" Americans.

The biggest advantage of all for conservatives is that they have a lock on the American dream. America is famously an idea more than a geographical expression, and that idea seems to be the province of the right. A recent Pew Research Center Survey, "Beyond Red Versus Blue," shows that the Republicans are more optimistic, convinced that the future will be better than the past and that they can determine their own futures. Democrats, on the other hand, have a European belief that "fate," or, in modern parlance, social circumstances, determines people's lot in life.

Yes, America is an idea, not a country, and since conservatives own all the best ideas, they therefore own the country.  On the other hand, liberals are gloomy, fake Europeans who don't believe in optimistic truisms, such as that any young man who is the son of an aristocratic former president can become president.  They also fail to subscribe to the happy notion that we could all become super-rich next week, and so we shouldn't impose substantial taxes on the very wealthy, because they might be us!

If the American dream means anything, it means finding a plot of land where you can shape your destiny and raise your children. Those pragmatic dreamers look ever more Republican. Mr. Bush walloped Mr. Kerry among people who were married with children. He also carried 25 of the top 26 cities in terms of white fertility. Mr. Kerry carried the bottom 16. San Francisco, the citadel of liberalism, has the lowest proportion of people under 18 in the country (14.5%).

So, if you don't have a whole passel of children, then you don't believe in the American dream, and you are a commie loser.  The fact that conservatives can breed proves that they are the macho stud winners in this country.

So cheer up conservatives. You have the country's most powerful political party on your side. You have control of the market for political ideas. You have the American dream. And, despite your bout of triste post coitum, you are still outbreeding your rivals. That counts for more than the odd setback in the Senate.

Yes, as long as you can keep your women popping out those babies, it proves that you da man, and that you are way superior to those smarty pants liberals.
2.  Thanks to Sean G. for suggesting that we look at this column by Bonnie Rogoff, which deals with the Terri Schiavo autopsy.

Now that Terri Schiavo's autopsy report results are in, the left-wing media death squad elitists are demanding apologies and retractions from those of us who criticized Michael Schiavo and the Florida system of "justice."

As Dave Berry might say, wouldn't "Left-Wing Media Death Squad Elitists" be a cool name for rock band?

Regarding one of my articles, "Michael Schiavo: Loving Husband or Monster?" it was inevitable that I would receive the obligatory hate mail from verifiable nutcases. 

Bonnie presumably verified that they were nutcases the same way that she verified the claim from her "Michael Schiavo: Monster" column that Mr. Schiavo was going to cremate Terri immediately following her death because "Michael has something to hide – like the cause of her numerous bone injuries, perhaps? – and he doesn’t want an autopsy to uncover any incriminating evidence."

But back to Bonnie and her obligatory hate mail: 

Here's one of my favorites:

"I do not like you & I do not think that Jesus does either. Du (sic) unto others as you would have done to you. Apologies should go to Michael Schiavo & the the FLA court system and you should get on your knees & beg JC for forgiveness."
Wow. Forget the bad grammar and spelling — didn't Jesus heal the sick? Didn't he defend the downtrodden? If he were alive today, I'll bet Jesus would have been at Terri's side to save her life from the corrupt Florida government officials that wanted her dead and helped her husband kill her.

Hey, Bonnie said "IF Jesus were alive today"!  (Bonnie is Jewish, so I guess she can't be excommunicated for suggesting that the whole resurrection thing was faked.)  Oh, and if Jesus isalive today, as Christians believe, He could have sent a legion of angels to force those Florida judges to re-insert that feeding tube, if He had wanted to.  And conversely, He could have inspired those judges to remove the feeding tube that kept Terri's spirit chained to her unresponsive body and her damaged brain, so that she could take her place in heaven as He intended.

You know, if Jesus were alive today.

Oh, and per Bonnie, Terri could see just fine three years ago, when that famous video footage was shot.  It was only the dehydration that resulted after the feeding tube was removed that caused the brain shrinkage, blindness, and all the other bad stuff that the medical examiner found! 

With an extensive brain injury and no therapy for 15 years it is not inconceivable that Terri's current blindness may have happened suddenly, or as a result of a gradual downward progression of her overall condition, or as a result of the dehydration.

Um, not to be crude, but Terri is currently dead, not currently blind.  Jesus, however, is reportedly alive and well, and living in Malad, Idaho.

3.  Now, here's Tony DiPasquale with "Why America will become a socialist nation":

Several years ago, while living in New York, a friend from church told me an interesting story from her childhood in Cuba. As her story goes, a grade school teacher told the class to put their heads down and pray to God for candy. As expected, the children immediately lowered their heads in hopes of the sweet treats that would follow. Of course, when they raised their head they did so in disappointment, seeing no candy lying before them. At this point the teacher told the students to again lower their heads, but this time to ask Fidel Castro for candy. Surprise, surprise, when the kids lifted their heads they found candy in front of each of them.
So what is the purpose of this story, to tell you that Fidel has a "sweet" spot in his heart for children? Certainly not!

No, the purpose of the story is to plagiarize James Clavell's 1963 short story "The Children's Story."  (Interestingly enough, in the "first person fiction" book for children, The Flight to Freedom by Ana Veciana-Suarez, the author says this candy/God/Fidel thing happened to her sister Ana Marie -- so maybe Tony's friend from church was Veciana-Suarez's fictional little sister.

But is this not similar to the action the Democrats are perpetrating upon the American people? Constantly we are told by Democrats to put our faith in them (by this they mean vote) and in return they will give us the "candy" of socialized medicine, security in retirement, and any other program that will leave us dependent upon government.

And that's why America will become a socialist nation: because of the sugar industry.

4.  Let's now turn our attention to the latest column by Rev. Mark Creech.  This one is about how living is sin, is, well, sinful -- and now that it's a common practice, our society is doomed, DOOMED!

Neil Clark Warren in The Cohabitation Epidemic notes the way sexual mores have changed in recent decades. He writes [...] "Make no mistake: We are witnessing a major societal shift before our very eyes."

That shift is especially being felt most recently in North Carolina.

And why is this shift especially being felt most recently in NC?  Well, because that's where a woman got fired from her job as a dispatcher for the sheriff's department because she was living with her boyfriend, which the sheriff said was techinically against the law.  And now people are making fun of that law, saying that it's like "an Ohio statute that makes it illegal to get a fish drunk or to fish for a whale on Sundays."

But that's just plain wrong, says Rev. Creech, because laws against cohabitation are what keep our society from falling into anarchy, despite the fact that they are never prosecuted.

But laws against cohabitation are really no laughing matter. [...] Laws against "shacking up," though in most cases un-enforced, still serve to undergird and protect marriage and the family.

And, of course, we must think of the children:

Moreover, research shows children of cohabiting parents who come from previously broken marriages get mixed signals that make it difficult for parents to establish moral guidelines for them.

Only children who are strong emotionally, spiritually, and of excellent moral character are prepared to protect and pass on the great values that keep us free as a nation.

Yeah!  We should probably put the kids of cohabitating parents into a sack and drown them, because they won't be prepared to carry on our great values, and we shouldn't let them live to screw up our free nation.

5.  It's too bad that Seb of Sadly, No! is so busy with his so-called "real life" that he doesn't have time to blog much any more, because his best friend Justin Darr has a great column this week: "Liberalism's ultimate goal: the destruction of Christianity through Social Security."

Would you let you child go fishing alone with a known child molester? Why not?

Um, because the child molester is a liberal who wants to destroy Christianity?

The answer is simple enough: because patterns of behavior are called "patterns of behavior" for a reason, and once someone does something once, they are likely to do it again. Evil people do evil things over and over.
Over the last 50 years, the radical left has established a pattern of winning minor precedents from an activist judiciary system then slowly building on those precedents to warp the interpretation of the law and erode the fundamental foundations of our society.

Anyway, Justin cites a number of "minor precedents" where liberals have eroded our society and made it illegal to be a Christian.  For instance, there was that time when teacher-led school prayer was banned.  Nobody said a word about it back then, because the law seemed so innocuous.  How stupid we were not to see what the liberals were up to!

How the times have changed. Today many teachers are forbidden to wear even a small cross as a piece of jewelry, kindergarten children are threatened with expulsion for praying over milk and cookies, the "Declaration of Independence" is banned because it mentions God, and in Knox County, Tennessee, 10 year olds have been banned from reading their Bibles at recess.

Of course, none of that stuff actually happened.  What did happen was that a kindergarten girl was told to stop leading the other kids in prayers, and distrupting class; a fifth-grade teacher was ordered to stop handing out non-approved reading material designed to teach children the "true history of America" [that America was founded as a Christian nation]; and the principal in Knox County merely told some three parents that they couldn't conduct organized Bible study on the school grounds during recess.

But that doesn't mean that kids aren't being prohibited from being Christians!

American children today must either be atheists or run the risk of being expelled from school and denied and education.

Yup, that's how it works.

Liberals have used the same pattern of behavior to achieve the same goals in the public sector. What started as a few precedents regarding prayer at public events has grown into endless court cases ordering depictions of the 10 Commandments to be chipped off the walls of court houses and, as in Denver last year, the expulsion of groups saying "Merry Christmas" from the town's Christmas parade.

I heard that in Denver gangs of roaming liberals would shoot anybody who said "Merry Christmas."  It was part of their gang initiation.  Oh, and in NYC, if you said "Merry Christmas" in a Macey's department store, you would be stuck with a needle infected with the AIDS virus, and then you'd wake up in a bathtub missing your kidney!  It's true -- I heard it on the Bill O'Reilly show!

So what is next for the left? They have succeeded in purging Christianity from the schools and public events, but they are surely not content with just that. How will the left continue their work of the last 50 years into the next? Who is their next innocent victim who may have to abandon their souls as the price of financial support? What is their next target? It is the granddaddy government spending program of them all: Social Security.

Yes, per Justin, they are going to require senior citizens to take vows of atheism before they will let the oldsters use their Social Security payments to live in nursing homes.

In the end, the left has removed Christianity from the lives of our children, they are attempting to remove it from the lives of adults in the public square, and soon they will seek to remove it from our retirement years. Christian persecution from cradle to grave is the means to their ultimate end of destroying Christianity in America.

That's the plan, all right.  But now that Justin has figured it out, he must be eliminated.  Quick, assemble the atheistic crusaders, and have them take care of Mr. Darr!

6.  And let's finish up with the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, who wants us to keep porn from expanding to the XXX part of the internets.

Unless we stop it, hardcore pornographers will soon be allowed to expand their evil empires on the Internet. They will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries and society with pornography. The Internet Corporation for Assigning Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet's governing body, has indicated that it will establish an ".XXX domain" for porn Web sites.

Sure, some may say that this is a good idea, in that porn sites will be relegated to one virtual red-light district. And others will say that it's a useless plan, because not all porn sites will relocate. But Tony says that it's a horrible idea, and we should all write to the Dept of Commerce expressing our disgust with it, since the only way to deal with pornographers is to smash them!

I just met with Attorney General Gonzales and right now he is launching a major effort to prosecute the porn industry. He intends to smash these criminal enterprises on the Internet and elsewhere with a special new obscenity strike force. That is the only way to handle hardcore pornographers!

You might feel that the FBI should be busy combating terrorism , catching child molesters, and finding missing white women, but per Tony (and apparently Alberto), they should let all that slide to focus on fighting porn.

And you know who would be the perfect head of the new Obscenity Strike Force? Yes, Ben Shaprio. After all, he's a porn expert, he's had a year of law school, and he has the moral outrage necessary to smash stuff.

7.  Bonus: A News News Daily review of Ben's latest book!

Here's part of libertarian Bernard Chapin's review of Porn Generation.  While Chapin can be pretty wingnutty, this time he makes some insightful comments about Ben's book.

Shapiro is so self-righteous that there is no question that over 90 percent of the population could not meet his rigid standards for the moral life. [I would guess that Ben consider 99% of the population immoral -- in fact, Ben himself may be the sole moral man in America, per Ben.]   I would be willing to wager that his denunciations extend to activities that he is simply uncomfortable with or merely dislikes. He is most disdainful of people “getting their rocks off.” This offends him more than a surprise visit by Ru Paul. He states that premarital sex is immoral, and then, through a discussion of the Lewinsky scandal, he contends that oral sex is immoral as well. From there it becomes rather murky. Would Shapiro regard premarital fondling and kissing as being beyond the pale? From his examination of the Clinton scandal I believe that he would. How many Americans would agree with him? Censorship by Ben would be far worse than the status quo.

Quite. And imagine what a prick Ben is going to be when he gets another year of law school (and virginity) under his belt. I say we secretly spike his glass of lemonade with knock-out drugs at the next College Republicans social, then have him wake up in bed with a transvestite who looks like Ann Coulter. It's the only way to save him from himself.
5:38:47 AM