It’s been a while since Bernie Sanders — the ‘ole socialist curmudgeon from Vermont — was trending in the news. I admit that I was kind of hoping he had decided to retreat back to his home world where he could never again pester the people of Earth with his psychotic speeches and communistic proposals. Unfortunately, it appears he’s gone and done precisely the opposite. Sanders delivered a speech on Wednesday in which he openly and proudly declared himself to be what he describes as a “democratic socialist.” We should pause here to note that this is really just code for “socialist-socialist.” In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on the same day, he also went so far as to defend the notion that “Americans will be delighted to pay more in taxes” when they realize they will [allegedly] receive free healthcare and education. I can almost hear Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Benito Mussolini, and Vladimir Lenin applauding wildly from beyond their graves as I type this very sentence.
Now, to understand Bernie, you have to understand his perspectives on reality and society. In the past, he's tended to dodge questions about his adherence to socialistic beliefs. This time, he didn’t hold back. Sanders made it clear in his speech that — as far as he sees things — there are essentially two abhorrent evils at work within American society: 1) income inequality and 2) a tyrannical “oligarchy” of power-hungry, wealthy, old, white men who want to control, dominate and oppress everything and everyone in American culture. Apparently the irony has been lost on Bernie that he happens to be a tyrannical, power-hungry, wealthy, old, white man himself and — were he elected president — he would surely control, dominate, and oppress everything in sight. Socialism tends to do that, you know. If you need proof, just take a look at the histories of the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, or East Germany.
Sanders can claim his form of socialism is “different” than the strains of socialism that have devoured and destroyed countless other nations throughout history like a carnivorous flesh-eating bacteria, but the dear senator isn’t fooling anyone, perhaps other than himself. And that’s ultimately the point: He’s so terribly self-deceived and so utterly blinded by his own distorted ideological views that he’s completely lost touch with reality — including the reality that the vast majority of Americans, and many in his own party, would never vote for him in a Democratic presidential nomination.
He also isn’t hoodwinking anyone when he claims that President Trump’s policies have led us into a new Great Depression, particularly considering that women and minorities are currently experiencing record-low unemployment. Even Americans without a college degree are doing exceptionally well in the job market. You might not like Donald Trump as a person — and that’s perfectly fine — but numbers don’t lie. So this means Sanders is either an oblivious dotard, or he’s intentionally attempting to mislead the American people in order to achieve a depraved ideological and political outcome. If I was a betting man, my money would be on the latter.
This is reflective of how the political game is played, especially by a professing socialist. Emperor Sanders even argued that “economic rights are human rights,” conveniently failing to mention that granting government-approved economic rights would mean stripping Americans of their inherent liberties and natural individual rights. After all, if the government starts doling out free healthcare, housing, and jobs, then citizens will no longer have personal rights in their doctors’ offices, property ownership rights at their homes, or freedoms in their workplace. If everything is owned and run by the government, no citizen has any rights or freedoms unless otherwise granted him by the government. And therein lies one of the many problems with socialism, er, excuse me — “democratic socialism.”
Sadly, Bernie couldn’t care less about the fact that this ideology has failed in every country in which it has been implemented throughout world history for over a century. He couldn’t care less that socialism is nothing more than a hideous, monstrous, and mutated form of Big Government that wrecks the lives of ordinary citizens. And why should he care? He’s not an ordinary citizen. He’s an elite Washington-based Congressional millionaire with a comfy book deal and three houses. He’s got nothing better to do than sit around and dream up radical extremist policy ideas that would turn the United States into his idea of a utopia.
Tragically, he would only wind up creating a Marxist hellhole. And after the dust settles, and we're all standing in breadlines waiting for our daily portion of food, he'll be left wondering what went wrong all over again.
NOTE: If you're reading this post in your e-mail inbox and would like to comment, please feel free to reply via e-mail or click on the post title above and leave a comment on my site. Also, be sure to follow me on Facebook and on Twitter.
Yesterday, Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger threatened to yank filming and production from Georgia over the state’s new “heartbeat” legislation, which, if passed, would effectively ban abortion after the unborn baby’s heartbeat is detected (six-week gestation.) Speaking with Reuters about whether or not his company will shoot there in the future, he said, “I rather doubt we will.”
Marvel Studios, which happens to be owned and operated by Disney, recently brought millions of dollars to Georgia’s economy when it shot scenes for both “Avengers: Endgame” and “Black Panther” throughout The Peach State.
Iger also added, “I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard. Right now we are watching it very carefully…I don’t see how it’s practical for us to shoot there [if the law goes into effect.]”
I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the blatantly hypocritical and laughable irony in these statements, which is three-fold:
First, that a private company as large, powerful, and as wealthy as Disney actually “has” to do anything or “has to heed” anyone’s wishes is just plain ridiculous (yes, including, and especially, the wishes of their own employees.) This is Disney for God’s sake. They answer to no one but themselves.
Second, that a company which prides itself on cranking out so-called “family friendly” content — from Winnie the Pooh to The Avengers — and being “family friendly” in its very nature as a business, would actually stand against pro-family legislation, is itself overwhelmingly paradoxical and self-contradictory.
Third, that a company which creates entertainment specifically for children won’t do any businesses with states that are defending the lives of its own audience.
Let’s address the first point. Disney has a net worth more bloated than Thor’s beer belly from “Avengers: End Game.” Based on statistical analysis of profit and revenue from the last three years, the company currently boasts a total equity of about $130 billion. We’re talking Tony Stark-level money. As one of the most recognized and prosperous brands in the world, they wield tremendous influence and authority, both on a cultural level and in the business world. People know who they are. People respect what they do. People listen to what they say. Everyone from their fans to their employees has a loyalty that would not be easily broken.
And speaking of authority and employees, when did it suddenly become wrong for a CEO to say, “This is the decision I’m making because I believe it is morally or otherwise right. If you don’t like it or agree with it, you’re free to put in your two-week’s notice or walk now”?
The argument that such a decision would destroy their business or obliterate their ability to maintain a workforce is simply ludicrous and unprovable. Chick-fil-A took a moral stand when they decided to close on Sundays and they don’t seem to be hurting financially or lacking in employees. In fact, they continue to demolish the competition by a wide margin, with one day tied behind their back — even as their own CEO has been outspoken about his beliefs in traditional marriage and conservative Christian values.
So, assuming that Iger is correct, and that hundreds of Disney employees would supposedly jump ship if he chose to keep film production elements in Georgia, I doubt that it would damage this multi-billion dollar company beyond repair. Moreover, I doubt that he would even lose as many workers as he thinks. The pro-choice abortion enthusiast demographic in America is actually much smaller than we’ve all been led to believe. They just happen to have the loudest voices and most of the mainstream media venues at their disposal. The vast majority of Americans, however, are pro-life and even those who aren't still favor restrictions on abortion. Besides, folks tend to appreciate it when a company is willing to stand up for what’s right or at least not get muddied down in political spats. (Not that I’m holding my breath on Disney.)
On that note, let’s address the second point. Disney has long prided itself on churning out “family friendly” content and being a company that reflects and embodies so-called “family values.” If there were ever a time when this was true, it was when Walt was still alive. Sadly, I believe the poor man is now rolling in his grave, wondering why in the blazes his company is producing pro-LGBT kids TV shows, hosting Gay Pride days at their national theme parks, and refusing to denounce the slaughter of the unborn. The question that I would pose here is: How are any of these actions, particularly the latter, considered to be “family friendly?”
If indeed it requires a set of heterosexual parents to create a baby — in order to procreate the human species for further existence — and if you claim to be a pro-family and family friendly company, wouldn’t it then follow that you would naturally stand against anything that would harm or destroy this process or contradict this viewpoint? At the very least, wouldn’t you be as accepting of the pro-life perspective as the pro-choice? Or would you be so blinded by and immersed in political agendas and a childish fear of offending a relatively small minority of people that you would make a decision which contradicts the values ingrained in your company’s own public image, thereby causing yourself to appear utterly ridiculous and hypocritical? Apparently, Disney has chosen the latter.
On the third note, a company whose primary audience is little kids has chosen to openly support the bloody and gruesome extermination of the very babies who would grow up to become said children; some of the very children who would be in their theme parks, who would be enjoying their toys, who would be watching their movies. If you can find anything “family friendly” — or even remotely coherent, rational, moral, logical, or psychologically sane — about this sort of business decision, please let me know.
I certainly can’t.
In the wake of all the hubbub surrounding Alabama’s “extreme” (and wonderful) abortion law, there was another controversy that made its way to the surface in the state without garnering nearly as much attention, although it truly should have. I’m referring, of course, to the fact that Alabama Public Television refused to air a recent episode of the popular children’s program “Arthur.” In the episode titled “Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone,” Arthur’s elementary school teacher, Mr. Ratburn, — a familiar and longtime recurring character on the show — gets married to another “male” character named Patrick. (I place “male” in quotation marks because, after all, we are talking about animated rodents here.) I took to Facebook a few days ago and briefly mentioned the episode.
Alabama Public Television ultimately declined to air it. And to be clear, that’s exactly what it was: A decline to air a specific episode of a specific program. It’s not a ban of the entire program, despite what the progressives and LGBTQ trolls across social media are spewing.
Anyway, APT Programming Director Mike McKenzie released an official statement to local news site AL.com, explaining his decision by arguing that “parents trust that their children can watch APT without their supervision.” In other words, most parents prefer to be able to step out of the room to wash the dishes or fold the laundry without having to wonder whether or not little Billy and Susie will be learning about gay marriage or sexual topics from a random government-funded cartoon. I’m sure this comes as quite a shock to leftwing extremists and LGBTQ advocates.
Sadly though, this isn’t the first time the “Arthur” franchise has pushed the limits. In the 2005 spinoff series “Postcards From Buster,” viewers were treated to an episode in which a traveling character visited some families from Vermont, two of which included lesbians. Although PBS didn’t send it out for national airtime, the episode did make its way to WGBH in Boston, where it was then aired independently. Alabama Public Television also yanked that episode and once again cited parental trust as their reason for doing so.
While I certainly respect and agree with APT’s reasoning, I tend to believe that “parental trust” is only a small issue within the larger context of what is actually taking place. It doesn’t require a doctorate in Child Psychology to see that the “Arthur” scriptwriters and producers have taken it upon themselves to intentionally indoctrinate impressionable children into believing homosexual marriage is not only culturally acceptable, but completely normal. That is the bigger picture here — the more pressing perspective — and I fear that it is being overlooked even by many conservatives and Christians in the name of “education.”
You see, those on the Left and within the LGBTQ community have spent the last several days claiming that “Arthur” is just “educating kids on an alternative form of marriage that they will encounter in the real world one day.” As far as they see it, there’s no harm in this, particularly since the cartoon isn’t visually graphic or explicit. Many alleged conservatives even echoed this sentiment on social media, firing off comments like, “It’s just a freaking cartoon, people.” and “Kids will eventually learn what gay marriage is anyway.”
But that’s not the point.
The whole problem with this line of thinking is that it completely ignores the reality that a government-funded television program is not supposed to be utilizing subliminal messaging to convince your child to think a certain way about topics reserved for adult conversation and parent-child discussions. For example: To think that two men marrying each other is normal or that it’s even an acceptable form of marriage. It isn’t normal and it doesn’t meet the definition of marriage. So to attempt to sway naive and innocent children into believing that it is, in fact, normal and acceptable, is a blatant transition from harmless education to harmful indoctrination.
And anyone with a shred of honesty knows it.
My state is currently in the news for passing a piece of legislation that declares something every person in the nation already knows whether they’re willing to admit it or not: Unborn babies are human beings and are therefore entitled to equal protection under the law. On Wednesday night, Governor Kay Ivey (who happens to be a woman) signed the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, making nearly all abortions throughout the state illegal and making the mere act of performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to 99 years in prison unless the mother’s life is in jeopardy. There are no exception clauses in the bill for cases of rape or incest, something which predictably sent the Left into unhinged pandemonium (although, to be fair, any limitations on abortion cause the Left to erupt into unhinged pandemonium.) If you don’t believe me, here are a few tweets from prominent liberal celebrities:
Of course, the Left was already in a tizzy as similar anti-abortion bills recently passed in states like Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Ohio. Missouri is also on a similar path. This was just the last straw needed to send them over the edge.
Indeed the pro-life movement has been gaining ground, making incredible strides, and winning victories across the country like never before. Alabama’s law, however, is undoubtedly the strictest one to date or, to use the Left’s own terminology, the most “extreme.” In fact, it is “too extreme” we are told. It is “so extreme” that it is “harmful to women’s health” and “a threat to women’s rights” and — as feminist actress, novelist, and scriptwriter Amber Tamblyn noted above —it’s enough to start a “war.”
To that, I have only one thing to say: So be it. If you want to start a war, we’re right here. We’ve been here all along. We’re the pro-life movement and we’ve had enough. We’ve had enough of the senseless slaughter and bloodshed. We’ve had enough of the 60 million dead bodies since Roe v. Wade. We’ve had enough of the soulless acceptance of infanticide. This war you’re talking about started 46 years ago. It started in 1973 when the Supreme Court found some magic pixie dust in the Constitution granting women the right to murder their unborn children in the name of “women’s rights” or “reproductive healthcare,” both of which are nonsensical and unconstitutional. The only casualties in this so-called “war” have been the 630,000 defenseless children butchered every year in our culture’s endless cycle of death. That is the real war, and we have been fighting it all along.
Now, as for the Alabama law being “extreme,” I personally, I couldn’t be more thrilled — both as a pro-life conservative and as a Christian — to see the Left using this word. For once we have finally made enough of a difference in this arena to cause abortion enthusiasts to label us radical fanatics (which is somewhat ironic coming from folks who openly endorse and support the genocidal massacre of babies.) Nevertheless, we’ve not only gotten their attention and ruffled some feathers, but we’ve simultaneously maintained the fundamental integrity of the pro-life belief: That unborn babies are people, that life is precious at every stage of pregnancy, and that every child has a right to life no matter the circumstances of said pregnancy (rape, incest, etc.) There is nothing outrageous or revolutionary about this viewpoint. The law here in Alabama was only “extreme” in as much that it shaped the pro-life position into a piece of tangible legislation.
If that position is “extreme,” then I am more than happy to wear that label and to wear it proudly. If it is “extreme” to want to end the decades-long bloodbath of children, then yes, I will be an extremist. The mere fact that the Left is this enraged over Alabama’s law and similar anti-abortion rulings tells you everything that you need to know about their platform and their ideology. It also tells you who the true extremists are in our society — the true supporters and arbitrators of child murder. And personally, I want to be at the other end of that extremist spectrum. I want to be at the end of the spectrum where science, morality, and Absolute Truth are on our side. After all, those are the things that not only make us right, but make us unstoppable.
In the coming days, pro-aborts and the leftwing media will undoubtedly use every play in the book to fight against the progress being made on the pro-life front. In many ways, this has already begun. A quick glance at Twitter will serve as proof. Mark my words: We will see everything from childish scare tactics to harassment to false statistics to leftist legislative pushback at the state level or even in Washington.
Mrs. Tamblyn is right about one thing: This is a war. And, as pro-lifers, we’re finally fighting it like soldiers who believe in our cause. Now is not the time for halfheartedness, dispassion, or indifference. We are finally effecting real change and making a lasting impact. If you’re unsure about where you stand on this issue, if you’re worried about losing a few Facebook friends, if you’re terrified of offending someone, or afraid of being labeled “extreme,” perhaps it would be best for you to get out of the way and remove yourself from the discussion altogether. Those of us who remain will continue to stand our ground as anti-abortion “extremists.” And we will do it for as long as it takes.
Last Thursday, video surfaced of Pennsylvania Democratic State Representative Brian Sims harassing an elderly pro-life woman outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic. The lady was merely praying for the lives of unborn babies and handing out information cards to any passerby who might want one, an action perfectly acceptable within the confines of free speech and the First Amendment. If you’ve been following the story — or know anything about Sims — then you know this isn’t the first time he’s engaged in such pathetic and disgusting behavior. In recent weeks, he’s also accosted a group of teenage girls who were praying peacefully outside of an abortion clinic, and even went so far as to offer 100 dollars to whoever was willing to come forward and identify them.
It may surprise you to learn that, despite what we’ve seen in these clips and despite his behavior, Brian Sims is not some mentally-disturbed drug addict screaming at random people on street corners or a psychotic bum too drunk on convenience store liquor to understand what he’s doing. He’s actually an elected state official and a college-educated lawmaker. But, watch the footage for yourself and you’ll clearly see that Brian Sims is also a nefarious bully and an immature coward who has no business whatsoever engaging in public discourse, much less holding public office.
In the first video, the former college football defensive tackle turned state legislator approaches the old woman and mocks her gender, race, and age: “An old white lady telling people what to do with their bodies. Shame on you. Shame.”
Never mind that Sims is a 40-year-old adult man with a postgraduate degree who apparently spends his spare time heckling senior citizens and old ladies and picking on little girls, yet doesn’t seem to be embarrassed by or ashamed of his own absurd and utterly childish behavior. Indeed, the irony is rich here.
Anyway, he then goes on to berate the old lady for another eight minutes or so. Here’s a brief sample: “How many children have you clothed today? How about how many children have you put shoes on their feet today? … Instead you’re out here shaming people for something they have a constitutional right to do. Who would have thought than an old white lady would be out in front of a Planned Parenthood telling people what is right for their bodies?”
Sims has naturally been hailed as a courageous hero by many on the progressive Left for confronting pro-life ideology and for railing against the supposed contradictions in Christianity, the latter of which you can hear him do in the video. Let’s temporarily ignore the fact that he didn’t even seem certain whether he should condemn Christianity as a religion or criticize this particular woman as a bad adherent to Christianity. (Obviously the man is clueless about a great many things.)
Now, in a sane world, any rational human being — on the Left or the Right, conservative or liberal — would view Sims’ behavior as nothing short of morally reprehensible. At the very least, he acted like an arrogant and unhinged jerk, and his behavior is worthy of condemnation in the strongest terms possible. So, why has the leftwing media remained silent (CNN and MSNBC didn’t even touch the story) and why are progressives applauding him? Well, for starters, Sims happens to be gay, which places him in a protected class and exalts him to a plane where he cannot be criticized for anything at all. Moreover, not only are his actions protected from criticism, they are automatically deemed acceptable and even legitimate because of his progressive sexual orientation and leftist political ideologies. As far as liberals are concerned, he can’t be denounced and, not only that, he must be right in acting how he did. After all, he's one of their own.
The unborn child in the clinic who’s about to be injected with poison, stabbed, and ripped apart with forceps is of no consequence or concern to the Left when pitted against a self-centered 40-year-old gay man screaming in the face of an elderly Christian woman whose only desire is to pray for the life of said child.
I think that in this story, it’s perfectly clear who’s the courageous hero. And it’s certainly not Brian Sims.