Sibby Online

Virginia Tech’s Cultural Marxism

My coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings included the idea that Cho’s hatred was fueled by the far-left’s rhetoric including Marxism as Cho referred to "rich kids". I also covered how Media Matters tried to attack Rush Limbaugh for tying Cho to liberalism. Now I have this piece by James Lewis that really nails down the premise that Cho’s hatred was driven by the far-left Cultural Marxists that have taken over America’s universities:

Still, I wonder --- was Cho taught to hate? Whatever he learned in his classes --- did it enable him to rage at his host country, to hate the students he envied so murderously? Was he subtly encouraged to aggrandize himself by destroying others? Was his pathology enabled by the PC university? Or to ask the question differently --- was Cho ever taught to respect others, to admire the good things about his host country, and to discipline himself to build a positive life?

And that answer is readily available on the websites of Cho's English Department at Virginia Tech. This is a wonder world of PC weirdness. English studies at VT are a post-modern Disney World in which nihilism, moral and sexual boundary breaking, and fantasies of Marxist revolutionary violence are celebrated. They show up in a lot of faculty writing. Not by all the faculty, but probably by more than half.

Just check out their websites.

I wonder if Cho took the senior seminar by Professor Knapp, on "The self-justifying criminal in literature." Because he certainly learned to be a self-justifying criminal. Or whether he sat in courses with Nikki Giovanni, using her famous self-glorifying book, "The Prosaic Soul of Nikki Giovanni (2003)". Maybe he read Professor Bernice Hausman's "Changing Sex: Transsexualism, technology, and the idea of gender" --- just the thing for a disoriented young male suffering from massive culture shock on the hypersexual American campus. And even more gender-bending from Professor Paul Heilker, who wrote "Textual Androgyny, the Rhetoric of the Essay, and the Politics of Identity in Composition (or The Struggle to Be a Girly-Man in a World of Gladiator Pumpitude)." Or the Lesbian love stories of Professor Matthew Vollmer. Yup, that's just what this student needs. These trophy "art works" are all advertised on the English Department faculty websites.

Or maybe Cho was assigned Professor Lisa Norris' prize-winning book, Toy Guns, featured on her web site. The book reviewers wrote

"All ten stories in this disturbing collection revolve around Americans' passionate devotion to guns, gun-toting, sexually-tinged violence, and the womanly pursuit of power and dignity." [....]

"In each wrenching story, we see an America out of control, in love with war...."

I don't know any Americans who are in love with war, but that is the picture Cho got from his teachers. Having spent the last 14 years as a resident alien in the school system, he could know nothing else.

Lewis also finds the Marxist influence:

And then there is the big Marxist website from Professor Brizee, all in fiery red against pitch black, showing old, mass-murder-inspiring Karl flanked by two raised fists. It celebrates revolutionary violence and hate for capitalist America (which is paying for Cho's education). "Critical Social Theory" --- the euphemism for PoMo (Post Modern) Marxism --- is a big part of English teaching at VT. The Marxist page links prominently to the British Socialist Worker's Party, which is currently leading the charge for Islamic fascism through such creatures as George Galloway.

And, talking about Islamist ideas, there is Professor Carter-Tod, who wrote a report about "Treatment of Arab American, Muslums and Seiks (sic) Post 911," for the US Civil Rights Commission. The racial grievance industry is alive and growing at VT.

So we may have a more clear reason why Ismail Axe was on Cho’s arm. And now Lewis goes after the Cultural Marxists diversity propaganda:

And of course there is the "diversity" crowd, diversity being a very well-funded program at ole' guilt-tripping VT. There's Professor Carlos Evia, who describes himself as "...soy director de la Comisión de Igualdad y Diversidad en Virginia Tech." Or in English, "I am also chair of the Virginia Tech Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity." There's "research" in "Feminist science fiction" and "The comic strip" from Professor Susan C. Allender-Hagedorn. Scratching racial and gender wounds until they bleed is a big preoccupation at VT. What's a kid from South Korea to think?

The question I have is: Are university faculty doing their jobs? At one time college teachers were understood to have a parental role. Take a look at the hiring and promotion criteria for English at VT, and you see what their current values are. Acting in loco parentis, with the care, protectiveness, and alertness for trouble among young people is the last thing on their minds. They are there to do "research," to act like fake revolutionaries, and to stir up young people to go out and revolt against society. Well, somebody just did.

I'm sorry but VT English doesn't look like a place that gives lost and angry adolescents the essential boundaries for civilized behavior. In fact, in this perversely disorienting PoMo world, the very words "civilized behavior" are ridiculed --- at least until somebody starts to shoot students, and then it's too late. A young culture-shocked adolescent can expect no firm guidance here. But we know that already.

And Lewis points out that these far-left radicals didn’t learn a thing from Cho’s shooting as they use it to advance more hatred toward traditional America:

What's the English Department's official frontpage reaction to the murder of thirty-two students just a few days ago? Here it is.

"We do not understand this tragedy 

We know we did nothing to deserve it

But neither does a child in Africa 

Dying of AIDS

Neither does the baby elephant watching his community 

Be devastated for ivory 

... Neither does the Mexican child looking 

For fresh water

... Neither does the Appalachian infant killed 

By a boulder 

Dislodged

Because the land was destabilized"

In other words: We didn't do nuthin.' It ain't our fault. It's greedy capitalism's fault. We don't teach civilized behavior, the value of reason, the cultural foundations of Western thought. We teach adolescent rage, because that's how we make a living. We do narcissistic "research" in Marxist analysis of American brutal capitalism. We're good people. See how much we care about AIDS in Africa. Don't blame us. We ain't responsible.

And here is more on one of Cho’s English professors:

For a playwrighting class, Cho penned Mr. Brownstone and Richard McBeef (which, despite the Macbethian title, is a Hamlet-knock off about a young hero's lethal conflict with the new stepfather who murdered his real father).

Richard McBeef includes such sterling dialogue as:

"I hate him. Must kill Dick. Must kill Dick. Dick must die. Kill Dick."

Many have asked: "How could the English Department not recognize the horrific implications of these works?"

No one who wonders that, however, is familiar with the poetic oeuvre of one of Cho's own teachers, Virginia Tech's Distinguished Professor of English and Black Studies, Nikki Giovanni (for her website, click here).

Among the most celebrated figures of the Black Arts Movement of the 1960s and recipient of 21 honorary degrees, Giovanni has published poems strikingly similar to Cho's plays in both vileness and incompetence. For example:

The True Import of Present Dialog, Black vs. Negro, by Nikki Giovanni

Ni**er
Can you kill
Can you kill
Can a ni**er kill
Can a ni**er kill a honkie
Can a ni**er kill the Man
Can you kill ni**er
Huh? Ni**er can you
kill
Do you know how to draw blood
Can you poison
Can you stab-a-Jew
Can you kill huh? Ni**er
Can you kill
Can you run a protestant down with your
‘68 El Dorado
(that’s all they’re good for anyway)
Can you kill
Can you piss on a blond head
Can you cut it off
Can you kill
A ni**er can die
We ain’t got to prove we can die
We got to prove we can kill
[More]

Ironically, the author of these lines was asked to deliver the closing remarks at Virginia Tech's convocation memorializing the 32 slaughtered by Cho. For some reason, Giovanni didn't read The True Import.

Perhaps Giovanni and the rest of her far-left Cultural Marxist comrades need to get a mirror and do a little self-assessment. And it is far past the time that America needs to look at what is going on with its schools. The far-left’s anti-American and anti-Christian agenda has been in place for far too long. What you see in all of these school shootings is the far-left created hatred coming to the surface.

Majority Accountability Project

Here are details on a new web site I have added to my side bar links:

Longtime congressional staffers Michael Brady and Michael Giuliani are fed up with reporters who cover Congress. Frustrated by their failure to investigate stories and tired of the liberal bias, Brady and Giuliani have vowed to make it right -- by becoming investigative journalists themselves.

The pair doesn’t have the resources -- not to mention the money -- of traditional Capitol Hill correspondents. But their desire to tell the untold truth about members of Congress fuels their new enterprise.

And something else drives Brady and Giuliani: a desire to see Democrats deal with the same scrutiny that faced Republicans in 2006.

Their week-old Web site, Majority Accountability Project, combines journalism and political activism -- a mixture that’s put many liberal blogs on the map. Brady and Giuliani said they saw a void in the center-right blogosphere. Many conservative bloggers consider themselves pundits, but shun the term "journalist" and don’t regard themselves as activists.

The Majority Accountability Project tries to emulate liberals’ success in using Internet messaging techniques to punish wrongdoing by their political opponents. Liberal Web sites have long aired damaging information about Republican office-holders. Eventually, the mainstream media picks up this information and uses it to bolster stories about GOP corruption. In 2006, this process so tarnished the Republican brand, it led to a GOP slaughter on Election Day.

"Last year," Brady said, "dozens of organizations, blogs and Internet-based groups were engaged in comprehensive research on the Republican House majority -- poring over legislation, travel vouchers, FEC statements, and financial disclosures -- disseminating that information and, quite often, driving a great deal of the mainstream media coverage."

Brady and Giuliani’s project will serve not only as an investigative channel for scoops on House Democrats, but also as a starting point for political activists in congressional districts across America. The Republican Party apparatus failed to engage many of those activists in 2006, leading to a huge disparity in online fundraising and a pathetically weak pushback on messaging.

With years of experience on Capitol Hill and the know-how to run a campaign, Brady and Giuliani are confident they can reverse this trend. Their credentials appear to justify the confidence. Both have served as chiefs of staff to members of Congress and have served stints at the GOP’s House and Senate campaign committees.

After only a week’s worth of work, Brady and Giuliani have already produced several solid stories that Washington’s established reporters never had interest in pursuing. For example, the Majority Accountability Projects has unearthed the scoop about soon-to-be ex-Rep. Marty Meehan’s exorbitant salary at the University of Massachusetts, freshmen Democrats’ embrace of an embattled lobbyist, Democrats’ financial support for defeated candidate Christine Jennings, and the National Democratic Club’s exception to D.C.’s smoking ban.

Their goal in breaking these stories isn’t just to generate bad publicity for congressional Democrats. Brady and Giuliani hope Capitol Hill reporters will begin to pay attention, leading to more stories. They also hope that state and local bloggers will circulate the information back home in their districts.

Welfare causes obesity

I am back from a short vacation. My email had some comments about my post regarding rape and poverty. I though this Mona Charen column adds on to the problems of government dependency:

Oregon’s governor, Theodore Kulongoski, called a gaggle of his closest friends to a photo op Tuesday that few could pass up. As part of his "Food Stamp Challenge" week, the governor is attempting to live on a food budget of $21 per week, which is about the average benefit for an Oregon food stamp recipient, according to the governor’s press release.

Associated Press photos showed the governor pushing a shopping cart and ostentatiously relinquishing a noodle cup and two bananas at the checkout counter when his total topped $21. "Could you feed yourself for $3 a day?" demanded headline in the next morning’s Oregonian.

Let us stipulate that in a country as wealthy as ours, the idea that anyone should go hungry is unacceptable.

But is that what’s really happening? Why is it that whenever you listen to a Democrat you feel that the year is 1966? They seem to live in a time warp in which no progress has been made on race relations, poverty, childhood malnutrition, and on and on.

Let’s start with some numbers. If you go the state of Oregon’s website and calculate your eligibility for food stamps, you will find that a family of four with no income (and 70 percent of food stamp recipients do not work at all) is entitled to $518 monthly or about $32 weekly for each person. This is a very rough estimate because all sorts of factors are taken into account in calculating eligibility, including number of dependents, housing costs, expenses, and other income. Perhaps the governor’s office is correct that the average food stamp allotment in the state is $21. But that means some get more and some less. Eligibility is based on need.

Now even $32 seems like a very small amount of money per person, but that is only a small part of the largesse provided by the U.S. government, which spent $522 billion on low-income assistance programs in 2002. It doesn’t count hot breakfasts and lunches at school (which push high-calorie, high-fat diets on kids). It doesn’t count the Earned Income Tax Credit by which the working poor get cash back from the federal government ($41.4 billion went to 22.2 million recipients last year, according to the Los Angeles Times). It doesn’t include housing subsidies, Medicaid, or the Supplemental Security Income program, which can free up funds for food. Nor does it count the WIC program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

The WIC program provides highly caloric packages of juice, cereal, eggs, and other food to pregnant women, nursing mothers and children up to the age of 4. WIC also provides baby formula, thus discouraging the poor from breast-feeding their babies. About 50 percent of the formula sold in the U.S. goes to families using WIC. Formula-fed babies are more likely to be overweight, suffer ear infections, have allergies, and, if you believe some of the data, have lower IQs than breast-fed infants.

Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute notes that while he can recall visiting rural Mississippi in the 1960s and seeing severe cases of malnutrition, the problem among the poor today is more likely to be obesity. Today, 70 percent of low-income Americans are overweight, compared with 60 percent of the non-poor. The mean intake of poor children aged 6-11 was 2,000 calories a day in 1994 compared with 1,969 calories for non-poor children of the same age. President Bill Clinton’s secretary of agriculture, Dan Glickman, acknowledged that "The simple fact is that more people die in the United States of too much food than of too little, and the habits that lead to this epidemic [obesity] become ingrained at an early age."

The left’s white lies

So says a must read from Andrew Klavan:

The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.

Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility. It’s not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are.

This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.

This is no small thing. To rewrite the rules of courteous behavior is to wield enormous power. I see it in Southern California, in the bleeding heart of leftism, where I live. I’ve been banned from my monthly poker game, lost tennis partners, lost friends—not because I’m belligerent but because I’ve wondered aloud if the people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own abortion laws, say, or if the world might not be a better place without the UN.

It’s a rotten feeling. I sometimes think that I’d rather be deemed evil than a boor. Wickedness has some flair to it, even a whiff of radicalism. If you molest a child, there’s always a chance that you can get the ACLU to defend you as a cultural innovator. But if you make a remark at table about the destructive social effects of broken homes and then discover that your dinner partner is a divorcée—trust me, you feel like a real louse. It’s manners, not morals, that lay the borderlines of our behavior.

This, I believe, is the reason conservative politicians so often lose their nerve, why they back down in debate even when they’re clearly right. No one wants to be condemned as a brute—especially not conservatives, who still retain some vague memory of how worthy it is to be a lady or gentleman.

And because we’ve allowed leftists to define the language of political good manners—don’t say women are less scientific; don’t remark that black people bear the same responsibility for their actions as whites; don’t point out that the gunman was a Muslim, it’s not nice—the sort of person willing to speak the truth isn’t always the sort of person you want to be seen with. It sometimes takes, I mean, a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity to withstand the obloquy attached to stating the facts of the matter. If these people in their public personae seem harsh to more genteel conservatives, it may be because it requires that extra dollop of aggression to shatter the silence created by the Left’s increasingly elaborate sensitivities.

Still, mannerly as we would rather be, truth-telling continues to be both compelling and ultimately satisfying. There is, after all, something greater than courtesy. "Firmness in the right," Lincoln called it, "as God gives us to see the right." We find ourselves at a precarious moment in an endeavor of great importance: namely, the preservation of Western rationalism and liberty. It does mankind no good to allow so magnificent an enterprise to slip away merely for fear of saying the wrong thing.

Rape of the Native American

The Argus Leader has a report on the high incident of rape regarding Native Americans. Excerpt:

One of every three Native American women will be raped in their lifetimes, a report released Tuesday by Amnesty International says.

It's in part a product of the entrenched poverty that plagues many Indian reservations, particularly in South Dakota, where economic depression breeds drug abuse and higher crime rates. But blame also goes to lingering racism, government bureaucracy and anemic tribal police forces that do not have the manpower to quickly and thoroughly investigate crimes.

Funny, you would think rape would be caused by "rapists"…criminals. Why is it that the far-left blames America by attacking capitalism plus the race card, while they ignore the real problem.

Of course, we should examine the source of the study, "Amnesty International USA" Here is their leader:

Dr. William F. Schulz was appointed Executive Director of Amnesty International (USA) in March, 1994. An ordained Unitarian Universalist minister, he came to Amnesty after serving for fifteen years with the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations (UUA), the last eight (1985-93) as President of the Association.

There you have it, "Humanism". Here is more on Schulz:

In 2000 he was named "Humanist of the Year" by the American Humanist Association.

Terry Woster did not disclose that. Clearly we have far-left bias with the study. Too bad most of the Argus Leader readers will read this report as gospel.

Another hint that this is part of the far-left Cultural Marixist movement is the word "justice". Here you have it:

The 113-page report, "Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA,'' also says its findings probably don't measure the full magnitude of the issue.

The solution should be simple…enforce the law against the rapists. But the report instead complains about money:

"Many women are too fearful of inaction to report their cases,'' a statement from Amnesty International said. "According to one Oklahoma support worker, of 77 sexual assault or domestic violence cases involving Native American women, only three victims reported their cases to the police.''

Part of the fault lies with what the report called "a complex maze'' of tribal, state and federal jurisdictions. Time is lost after an assault while investigators determine which agency has jurisdiction, it said.

That's what Georgia Little Shield sees every day as director of Pretty Bird Woman House, a shelter in McLaughlin on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

"The women just fall through the cracks,'' Little Shield said Tuesday.

"There's so much of it, just so much. So many barriers, not enough money, not enough police or hospital staff. People just give up and don't even report rapes or assaults.''

Perhaps we should focus on the real problem, socialism and the lack of taking responsibility. We can’t help those who refuse to help themselves. And during the abortion debate, the left argued that it is the women’s "right" not to report rape. That is why they need the "choice" of abortion. Perhaps these far-left secular humanists need to look into a mirror when they see problems, instead of solving problems with the same crap that caused the problem in the first place…government dependency. Instead of expecting more money for the taxpayers, how about the promotion of personal responsibility. But the far-left does not want people to think they are capable of standing up for themselves. The far-left want victims in order to advance their Cultural Marxism.

Drive-by media follow Media Matters

A couple of days again I posted an analysis of Media Matters and how it lies while it attacks conservatives and refuses to recognize the extreme postions of other liberals like Don Imus. Here is the Media Matters intro in regard to Rush Limbaugh pointing out the obvious far-left Marxist class warfare of the VT killer:

On the April 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh declared that the perpetrator of the April 16 Virginia Tech shootings "had to be a liberal," adding: "You start railing against the rich, and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act." Limbaugh then complained, in a possible reference to Media Matters for America, that "Now the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation." Limbaugh regularly describes mainstream media sources as "the drive-by media."

The above was posted on Meia Matters web site on 4/19/2007. Limbaugh was proven true in regard to the Drive-by media following the lead of Media Matters. On 4/23/2007 ABC News picks it up. Here is their introduction:

On the April 19 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show , the famous conservative talk radio host opined about the political views of Seung-hui Cho, the Virginia tech massacre madman.

"If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? " Limbaugh asked. "This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act. Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation; I'm just pointing it out. "

And ABC also followed Media Matter’s reference to Bill Clinton attacking talk radio for causing the Oklahoma City bombing. And now with the shoe on the left foot, the far-left propaganda machine refuses to accept responsibility for the impact their anti-American hate is having on those like Cho. And they are hard at work trying to get rid of Rush Limbaugh and other out spoken conservatives, because we use the truth to expose the far-left’s BS.

And in South Dakota, Chad Schuldt is paid by Steve Hildebrand to spread the same Media Matter lies. Here is a comment left on the CCK web site:

Bortz, Limbaugh, Hannaity, they all need to go. Where did we miss the boat on Imus. Was he a conservative talk host. I think not... He was a liberal who was taken off the air.... That was left out in all news coverage. Sometimes it is just about what is right, not which party you are in...

And Sculdt responds with this:

Imus was a liberal? That's news to me. I guess that explains why Media Matters worked to have him fired.

Even the Schuldt Kool-Aid drinkers know Imus is a proud member of the far-left. But Media Matters and Chad Schuldt doesn’t want to admit that, because then it is the far-left who promote racism. And using the race card against the truth and conservatives is one of their main MOs. And they also don’t want Cho’s reference to rich kids to be an example of their anti-American hatred. The last thing they want is to be exposed for creating hatred toward America. Instead they want to use the VT killer's actions to further attack America by going after our Second Amendment freedoms. They watn to lie about Cho being a proud memeber of the NRA instead of the a proud member of the anti-American far-left Marxists that have taken over the Democrat Party. And in South Dakota that demented movement is lead by the Hildebrand gang.

Intellectual and physical disarmament

Michelle Malkin begins a column regarding the Virginia Tech shooting with this:

There's no polite way or time to say it: American colleges and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregated dorms, politically correct academic departments and designated "safe spaces" to protect students selectively from hurtful (conservative) opinions -- while allowing mob rule for approved leftist positions (textbook case: Columbia University's anti-Minuteman Project protesters).

Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance.

And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense.

She then goes after Virginia Tech officials:

Late last summer, a shooting near campus prompted students to clamor again for loosening campus rules against armed self-defense. Virginia Tech officials turned up their noses. In response to student Bradford Wiles's campus newspaper op-ed piece in support of concealed carry on campus, Virginia Tech Associate Vice President Larry Hincker scoffed:

"[I]t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles. . . . The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, 'I can't believe he really wants to say that.' Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself . . ."

The nerve!

Hincker continued: "The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We've seen that fear here, and we don't want to see it again. . . . Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."

Who's scratching his head now, Mr. Hincker?

Malkin ends with this:

Enough is enough, indeed. Enough of intellectual disarmament. Enough of physical disarmament. You want a safer campus? It begins with renewing a culture of self-defense -- mind, spirit and body. It begins with two words: Fight back.

Yes, its time to stand up to the Cultural Marxists.

Abortion, guns, and medical privacy

Now we have it. The far-left’s medical privacy to grant the right to kill pre-born babies is another lie. Now they choose to ignore medical privacy after the Virginia Tech massacre:

But Virginia court officials insist that because the judge ordered only outpatient treatment—and did not commit Cho to a psychiatric hospital—they were not required to submit the information to be entered in the federal databases for background checks.

Lawmakers pushed Sunday to eliminate such breakdowns. They called for uniformity between state and federal reporting to make background checks more dependable.

"I think everybody would agree that somebody with a psychological problem should not be allowed to purchase a weapon," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Republican lawmakers appearing on the Sunday news programs agreed.

"There was a definite failure of communication, and that ought to be changed with federal legislation," said Sen. Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania.

Two New York Democrats, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, announced legislation Sunday that would require states to upgrade their reporting of mental health records to the federal database. The bill would provide new money to states to help them automate their records, but also apply financial penalties on states that do not comply.

So now we now what the left means by pro-choice, these elitists get to choose when to apply rights. Typical situational ethics by humanists. Funny how they choose to ignore medical privacy when it is regard to a true Constitutional right (the Second Amendment), and then choose to use medical privacy to create a Constitutional right that does not exist…abortion.

Media Matters, Democrats’ lying attack dogs

Melanie Morgan has a must read column regarding Media Matters. First she discloses a huge lie made by Media Matters:

While the story of the Virginia Tech shootings was by far the No. 1 story on news websites such as the Drudge Report and WorldNetDaily, for the liberals at Media Matters, the Don Imus controversy was still their featured topic. These liberals weren't done circling around the carcass of Don Imus' career, celebrating and howling like coyotes after a kill.

It was Media Matters after all who had launched the campaign against Imus, after the far-left organization's employee, 26-year-old Ryan Chiachiere, heard Imus' racist invective against the women's basketball team at Rutgers University.

Jamison Foser, the organization's managing director, bragged to liberal reporter/critic Brad Kava at the San Jose Mercury News about Media Matter's role in instigating the public uproar against Imus.

The bizarre reason Media Matters became so invested in the campaign against Imus was that the organization equated Imus' racist comments with conservative values.

Imus representing conservative values? What a lie, as Morgan points out:

To the contrary, Imus stood as one of the few progressive/populist broadcasters in the entire talk-radio industry who had managed to attract a decent-sized audience, estimated by Talkers Magazine to be around 2.25 million listeners each week. His show was listened to by an influential list of liberal reporters, commentators, analysts and political activists.

One after the other, liberal reporters and commentators have stepped forth to offer a mea culpa for appearing on the Imus program, saying that they felt their appearances on Imus' show helped legitimize their membership in the liberal media elite.

And here is more on just to what effort this attack dog will go against those who happen to mention the truth:

The famously vulgar and liberal Time magazine blogger Ana Marie Cox expressed similar thoughts on why an invitation to be on the Imus show was so appealing to her:

I had been invited inside the circle, and to be perfectly honest, I was thrilled to be there. … I did the show almost solely to earn my media-elite merit badge.

When the Los Angeles Times noted that the loss of Imus' radio program (and accompanying MSNBC simulcast) would hurt liberal causes and Democrat candidates for office, Media Matters launched an attack on the Times story because it showcased the non-conservative leanings of Imus.

And Media Matters seems to be upset at Rush Limbaugh for mentioning the idea that the VT Killer was liberal:

On the April 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh declared that the perpetrator of the April 16 Virginia Tech shootings "had to be a liberal," adding: "You start railing against the rich, and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act." Limbaugh then complained, in a possible reference to Media Matters for America, that "Now the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation." Limbaugh regularly describes mainstream media sources as "the drive-by media."

Then they turn to the this:

Five days after the Oklahoma City bombing, in an April 24, 1995, speech in Minneapolis, Clinton criticized "loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate.

And now Media Matters refuses to accept the far-left hate that fueled the VT killer. The hatred toward "rich kids" gives obvious proof that Cho was fueled by hatred arising our of the Democrats’ Marxist class warfare rhetoric. And in my previous post, we have Cho’s hatred being based on the left’s attack on God, country, and family:

It seems that none of the foundational structures of Western Civilization, Christianity, capitalism, family, are spared his rage. In other words, he really meant what he said in his last words: "you (that is us, America) made me do this."

And Melanie Morgan points out that Media Matters is part of the anti-American far-left movement by attacking our Constitutional Second Amendment freedom:

But make no mistake – the campaign by Media Matters for America against Don Imus is part of their way to send a message to conservatives on the airwaves and in print: "We're comin' to get you. We got Imus. And we'll get you, too." It is a chilling threat to our free speech rights in this country.

Now, with their current crusade in support of the gun control lobby, Media Matters is targeting our Second Amendment rights as well.

Like that mentally unbalanced and angry gunman at Virginia Tech, they'll methodically march through the domiciles of the conservative movement, targeting the movement's leaders for career elimination – until and unless we stand up and fight back against their campaign of mayhem against conservative leaders and causes.

And in South Dakota, the far-left Democrat attack dogs are Hildebrand Tewes Consulting. Their blog gives us a clear vision of the lying left and their hatred toward America, Christianity, and family.

Ismail Ax, Islam vs Christianity

From TCS Daily:

First it was Johnny Muhammad, now it was Cho Sueng Hui aka Ismail Ax. Precisely how many mass shooters have to turn out to have adopted Muslim names before we get it? Islam has become the tribe of choice of those who hate American society. I'm not talking about people who grew up as Muslims, confident and secure in their faith, good fathers, sons and neighbors. I'm talking about the angry, malignant, narcissist loners who want to reject their community utterly, to throw off their 'slave name' and represent the downtrodden of the earth by shooting their friends and neighbors.

This morning I read that the Virginia Tech shooter died with the name Ismail Ax written in red ink on his arm. The mainstream press doesn't seem to have a clue as to what this might mean. To quote Indiana Jones, "Didn't any of you guys go to Sunday School?"

The story starts with a man named Abraham. He is the father of the Jews, the Muslims and the Christians. He was born in Iraq, the son of a wealthy idol manufacturer. He came to believe that there was only one true God and, according to tradition, took up his ax and destroyed his father's idols.

Eventually he left Iraq and moved to what is now known as Israel. He had a son with his concubine whom she named Ishmael. The Muslim world prefers the Arabic spelling of the name: Ismail. Eventually Abraham had a son by his rightful wife and named the son Isaac. Ishmael and his mother were disinherited and sent out into what is now Saudi Arabia. Isaac became the heir.

Eventually, God decided to test Abraham by telling him to kill his son, Isaac. Abraham took up the knife, but God stopped him at the last moment. Isaac lived and eventually became a man of great wealth. Ishmael became a desert warrior chieftain.

The Jews are the descendants of Isaac, the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael.

In the 7^th Century, Muhammad, the founder of Islam, re-wrote the story, claiming that Ismail was the true faithful descendant of Abraham and that it was he, not Isaac, who God told Abraham to sacrifice. Ismail was the one saved. For Muslims, Ismail (not Isaac) was the true 'Son of Sacrifice.' In the original version of the story, Abraham used a knife, in some of the later Muslim versions, he used an Ax.

Flash forward 1,400 years: a sullen, angry young man who rages against rich people and apparently against Christians, writes a play in which a mother and son try to kill his step-father, but in the end the boy (age about 13, the age many think Ismail was when he was exiled) is murdered by the step-father with 'a deadly blow'. Father issues? Yeah, I think so.

Cho Sueng-hui cum Ismail Ax hated the American society to which he had been brought 15 years earlier. His play McBeef (a poor pun from an English Lit major on Macbeth) is one endless screed against the corruption of American culture. A cheesy re-telling of Shakespeare's Hamlet, it involves a young man abused by his step-father, a former NFL football player. The son, throws epithets at his father calling him a 'Catholic priest'. And makes derisive comments about McDonalds. It seems that none of the foundational structures of Western Civilization, Christianity, capitalism, family, are spared his rage. In other words, he really meant what he said in his last words: "you (that is us, America) made me do this."