But of course American college students have been bamboozled. Just look at the classes and textbooks we're subjected to. Peace studies, offered on hundreds of campuses, is one big political think tank for leftist foreign policy. For example, a widely used text in such courses is a book called Peace and Conflict Studies, written by Professor David Barash of the University of Washington and Professor Charles Webel of the University of California-Berkeley. The preface reads, "The field [of peace studies] differs from most other human sciences in that it is value-oriented, and unabashedly so. Accordingly we wish to be up front about our own values, which are frankly anti-war, anti- violence, anti-nuclear, anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, pro-environment, pro-human rights, pro-social justice, pro-peace and politically progressive."38
Liberal bias in academia? What liberal bias in academia?
As Islamic radicals are determined to perpetrate more terrorist attacks against America, the authors of Peace and Conflict Studies analyze the events of September 11, 2001, through the prism of moral relativism. First off, say the authors, "Any actual or threatened attack against civilian noncombatants may be considered an act of 'terrorism.' In this sense, terrorism is as old as human history."39
Befogged in such moral equivocation, Professors Barash and Webel conclude that the American Revolutionary War was actually launched by terrorists, not patriots: terrorism is "a contemporary variant of what has been described as guerrilla warfare, dating back at least to the anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist struggles for national liberation conducted in North America and Western Europe during the late 18th and early 19th centuries against the British and French empires."
The professors acknowledge that placing terrorist in quotation marks "may be jarring for some readers who consider the designation self-evident." But, as they argue, "one person's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter.' "
Translation: The murderous bastards who took the lives of three thousand Americans on 9/11 died for the cause of liberty.
Peace and Conflict Studies offers further reflection:
After the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., many Americans evidently agreed with pronouncements by many senior politicians that the United States was "at war" with "terrorism." Yet, to many disemboweled people in other regions, "Americans are the worst terrorist in the world." . . . Following the attacks, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would "make no distinction between terrorists and the countries that harbor them." For many frustrated, impoverished, infuriated people--who view the United States as a terrorist country--attacks on American civilians were justified in precisely this way: making no distinction between a "terrorist state" and the citizens who aid and abet the state.40
Second translation: Here's hoping the authors of Peace and Conflict Studies get captured by al-Qaeda so they can see just how similar the Islamists are to our troops.
DESPITE JOHN MCCAIN'S military credentials, the liberal machine had no shame in falsely painting him as a warmonger. Sadly, it's gotten to the point in America that those who are honest about the serious threats to national security are slimed as just wanting to stir up conflict. Here on planet earth, Islamic terrorism cannot be wished away.
During the campaign, Barack's military adviser, retired general Wesley Clark, bad-mouthed John McCain's war record, noting that "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," and falsely adding that McCain hadn't held any executive responsibility.41
But the McCain trashing didn't stop there. Senators Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin got in on the action. In an interview with a West Virginia paper, Rockefeller all but accused McCain of cold-blooded murder: "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues." In reality, McCain's plane was shot down because of military orders to fly combat missions at lower altitudes to avoid collateral damage.42
Senator Harkin of Iowa actually argued that the military tradition of McCain's family was "dangerous" for the country. He told reporters, "Everything is looked at from [McCain's] life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous. It's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."43
Liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz, a wannabe Rush Limbaugh on the left, was even more direct, calling John McCain a "warmonger" at a fund-raiser for Barack Obama. On CNN, Schultz continued to be inflammatory, repeating the feckless charge. "John, fit the description [warmonger]. There's no question about that. . . . He's saber rattling with Iran. He wants to throw the Russians out of the G-8. And yesterday, on your network, he said he wants to increase the military. Now I ask Americans this morning, what kind of message does it send to the world when we're occupying Iraq and we've got a candidate calling for more of a military buildup. This is outrageous. The man is a warmonger."44
John McCain understood that there are deadly terrorists and he would do everything possible to deter them.
The narrative that McCain was an out-of-control, bellicose warmonger was so prevalent that even the liberal Washington Post called out the left, claiming their charge a "caricature" and stating that "McCain is no warmonger."45
It's no wonder liberals make up a small percentage of the armed services. And boy, is it pathetic. According to a Military Times poll, the largest ideological bloc in the active-duty military are those who describe themselves as conservative: 46 percent!46 Now the embarrassing part for liberals: only 8 percent call themselves liberal. That's dismal. Among the National Guard and Army Reserve, the number of conservatives climbs to 54 percent, while liberals continue at 8 percent.47
Better leave the fighting to conservatives.
In any event, why would Obama encourage young people to sign up for the military, an institution he's been taught to believe is evil and oppressive?
The false leftist view of America as an evil dictatorship has gotten to such a hysterical level that two goofballs writing for the left-wing website CampusProgress.org were actually debating whether supporting the home team in soccer reinforces Ameri- can "hegemony." Asheesh Siddique argued that our "dominance of international soccer [would] only reinforce detrimental anti-American sentiments from the world, since our pursuit of global political hegemony has done precisely" that.48
The madness continued: "By reaching out and supporting great soccer teams even if they aren't our own, especially given our team's general badness, we demonstrate that we favor cooperative co-existence over chauvinistic and backlash-inducing dominance. That could have positive repercussions for international diplomacy and our standing in the eyes of other countries."
CampusProgress.org is heavily funded by the liberal sugar daddy George Soros. Where does he find such "winners" like Asheesh?
With such a barrage against the military coming from the left, it's no mystery why 53 percent of young people polled distrust the U.S. military to do the right thing.49 A majority! But when their elders are polled on whom they trust more, the military always receives a percentage of support north of 80. In fact, priests and judges are usually the only categories considered more trustworthy than the military. But young Obama Zombies?
It's disgusting that every time you hear a liberal define or say they are for "freedom," they don't take a stand against tyrannies around the world, even if only for moral support. They don't even talk about freedom when it comes to protecting America from Islamic nutjobs. That's "arrogant" and "unilateral," they tell us. Freedom, to them, is the freedom to kill third-term babies in the womb.
The fact is that young people benefit by American power. They benefit from America's strong military and constitutional form of governm
ent, even if liberals despise both. The closest most young people come to a foreign country is either a study-abroad program in a safe place, on a safe campus, or in meeting foreigners who have work visas in the United States or are studying here. The disconnect of terrorism for young people is typified with silly Facebook groups such as "No, I don't care if I die at 12 a.m., I refuse to pass on your chain letter," which has nearly a million members, or other groups such as "Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!" which has similar large numbers. Young people in Iran don't bother with such stupidity. After all, when you're getting hacked to death with an ax, shot at from rooftops by government officials, and clubbed mercilessly for peacefully protesting in the streets, well, Facebook and Twitter are utilized, but it's for spreading the word about your government's atrocities, not about who you butt-smacked the night before. Similarly, we see legendary man-on-the-street interviews where young people can easily identify Jordan Sparks, Derek Jeter, or Britney Spears, yet have no clue who the secretary of state, vice president, or similar important official is. Ironically, such ignorance is a testament to our military greatness. We're able to enjoy clueless lives precisely because we don't have to worry that some government death squad might round us up. Unfortunately, though, this complacency breeds lazy logic, the hallmark of the Obama Zombie.
It's easy for Obama to say he will usher in a new form of diplomacy; it's easy for him to say he will talk to Iran and North Korea. It's easy to promise peace. Liberalism is easy. It requires no thought, just feel-good messages. What's hard is to acknowledge the ubiquity of evil--and that the military might be needed to defend against it.
5
Global-Warming Ghouls
Why We Long for No Flush Toilets, Yearn to Adopt Glaciers, and Desire Camels Over Cars
John F. Kennedy dreamed of putting a man on the moon.
Ronald Reagan dreamed of a world without the Berlin Wall.
Barack Obama and his minions dream of . . . a world built with straw homes?
You think I'm kidding? I wish I were. But I'm not.
Alas, I present to you The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook, which is the official companion guide to the Live Earth concerts. The concerts were a prime magnet for Obama Zombies if ever there was one: they attracted mostly teens and young adults wanting to sneak a peek at their favorite celebrity icon. But, as is emblematic with this generation, while the Zombies were smitten with Hollywood fanfare and hype, they overlooked the radicalism professed by Live Earth organizers. On page 142 of the guide, that's where we first meet the idea of starting your own zoo to save the planet from intergalactic collapse. The guide is a perfect example of all that is wrong (and insane) about liberalism, wherein logic and reason are jettisoned in favor of emotional paroxysms parading as serious policy.
How else do you explain a movement that urges college kids to create their own zoos? Indeed, in a rare moment of clear thinking, the guide acknowledges that it will, in fact, be difficult for you to stock your personal zoo with every animal on the planet, even "with a dedicated team of roving naturalists" at your disposal.1 The species the guide implores us to stash include polar bears, penguins, tigers, and pandas. "Tigers?" you say. "Liberals want us to have pet tigers?" Yep, argues David de Rothschild, the book's author.
In July 2007, Al Gore assembled the largest rock concert ever, stretching seven continents, filling stadiums, and reaching hundreds of millions more on television. He called it Live Earth. The goal was to bring awareness to the idea that man, in all his finiteness, is responsible for scorching the planet. Live Earth showcased popular entertainers including Madonna, Kanye West, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bon Jovi, Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, Raven-Symone, Sting, and many others to echo the liberal line on all things environmental. Barack Obama said that Live Earth would go down as one of "the most significant days of action in the campaign against global climate change,"2 and a major plank of his presidential campaign was a pledge to curb the release of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One online paper even noted that "Obama is the only presidential candidate to launch the 'Live Earth' concert on his official website," and that the symbol for Live Earth resembles Obama's official campaign logo.3 Oddly, the pre-event advertising made little mention that concertgoers would be urged to start their own zoos or shovel tiger dung.
But here again, the world of the Obama Zombie is not one of logic and reason. No, instead Obama Zombies march to the beat of emotion. The herdlike youth cult that helped propel the Messiah to the White House was more akin to a Madison Avenue ad blitz than a serious policy debate. If not, please explain the Live Earth guide's advice that one additional way to save the planet would be for you to take a trip to Costa Rica so you could add to your animal kingdom zoo. Besides sanctimonious liberals, who has the time and money to hop a plane to South America to haul back Costa Rican frogs?4
Never mind the carbon footprint you'd leave behind as you hopscotched across the globe. But once you've traversed the earth and assembled your animal habitat, be warned, says Rothschild: "It's not an easy venture--a menagerie of this scale will require you to spend countless hours shoveling dung--but it is a rewarding one."
But it gets even worse. In all, The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook lists "77 Essential Skills to Stop Climate Change--or Live Through It." If shoveling animal excrement isn't your thing, perhaps you and your band of merry Obama Zombies might enjoy trading in your cars for camels. Yes, "Your dog, cat, parrot, or even boa constrictor might seem like an ideal companion for today's world. But in the not-too-distant future, the camel may become the perfect pet for the environmental challenges of the 21st century."5
The wackiness has just begun. The eco-manifesto tells us that camels require easy maintenance (just the darn poop shov- eling again), are a good source of protein, can be milked (yes, you read that correctly), and have long life spans. But don't let camel-racing your neighbor take up all your free time, dear Obama Zombies. You've also got some adopting to do. And I don't mean adopting the starving Ethiopian kid for thirty dollars a month. No, liberals have something better for us. It's time to adopt . . . a glacier!
It's no joke. The twenty-sixth essential tool for combating global warming is to support financially a sheet of ice. From the Obama Zombie eco-bible: "Cherish your adopted ice floe by posting its picture in a prominent place and by checking on it each year."6 Come on, people! Do your part! There's nothing like a random trip to Antarctica to become friends with . . . ice.
When tax season arrives, and while you're not romanticizing glaciers, or cleaning up tiger crap, or milking your camel, how about you audit your garbage! The Live Earth official handbook explains that "one of the best ways to understand your environmental balance sheet is with a little personal Dumpster diving."7
If diving into Dumpsters doesn't get you hot and bothered, fear not. Obama Zombies have even more ways for you to get involved. Like, say, building a house made out of straw. As the book notes, "Ditch the steel and glass, forget the neo-60s geodesic dome, and get past the Cinderella castle you once drew in your notebook. Instead, think simple. Think organic. Think straw."8
If the ferocious tornadoes and hurricanes that Barack Obama tells us are on our way due to global warming actually do land, well, no worries. Your straw house may not withstand the impact a steel-framed home would have, but, hey, you would've halved your CO2 emissions. Just take shelter under your camel or the massive pile of crap amassing in the backyard. It's following a liberal's fragile heart, not safety, that counts.
The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook has tons more other gems in the name of combating climate change: building a bat house outside your (straw) house,9 giving worms a home in your home,10 and partnering up on bubble baths ("scrub-a-dub with an organically grown loofah or sensual cotton sponge").11 I wish this were all a joke. But it's real. It's how the left imagines running your life, and they are doing so on the fallacious premise of global warming.
What's so alarming is ho
w many members of my generation have bought into the eco-hoax. It's not hard to understand why. We can't escape the propaganda. It attacks us from all sides: academia, MTV, Hollywood, musicians, the media. We don't stand a chance against the Obama-worshipping army that seeks to manipulate and control our lives.
That's why I'm here. I don't dig straw homes, camels, animal crap. I want to befriend people, not glaciers. I'm not looking to waste my time auditing the Dumpster outside my apartment. And most of all, I'm not idly standing by as the left bamboozles young Americans into believing that they are saving the planet when what the leftists really seek to do is erode the personal freedoms and liberties our founding fathers fought and died for.
Regardless of what Al Gore tells you, Antarctica is not melting, but has actually cooled over the past fifty years and ice on the continent has even expanded to record levels.12 The polar bears are safe, increasing in numbers in some parts.13 And if you change your lightbulb and build a straw home, you will have done nothing to "save the planet."
Liberals are duping you to satisfy their own big-government schemes.
What the minds of Obama Zombies fail to grasp is that regulating CO2 emissions is a regulation of what you do: our choice of transportation, the temperature of our homes, the length of our showers, our choice of food (cows release more CO2 emissions than other animals while belching, we're told), the Internet, washing machines, dryers, the fact that we drive instead of walk our children to school, buying food that's not locally grown, and the countless electronic appliances that make life more en- joyable.