The Bookworm Beat 3/27/17 — the living in a world of lies edition and open thread

In a world in which Leftism and Islam have joined in battle for ascendancy, lies are the coin of the realm and truth is a rare and precious commodity.

Pinocchio Lies Lying LiarThe posts to which I’ve linked today, for the most part, illustrate the lies that permeate modern Western culture.

Law written in stone versus law written on sand. The Gorsuch nomination process revealed more clearly than usual how devoted the Left is to a “living” Constitution — that is, they dream of a Constitution the meaning of which is determined, not by its actual words and principles, but by whatever their current needs are. You can call it a Narcissists’ Constitution.

Jonah Goldberg has points out with exceptional clarity something point I should have seen a long time ago, which is that the Left does have its own immutable founding document. It’s just not the Constitution:

Consider Dianne Feinstein’s performance during the Gorsuch hearings in the Senate. “I firmly believe that our American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves,” Feinstein said. “So, I am concerned when I hear that Judge Gorsuch is an ‘originalist’ and ‘strict constructionist.’”

Yeah, okay. But at the same time, Feinstein prattled on about how Roe v. Wade is a “super-precedent,” which I assume is a version of what Senator Arlen Specter (D., R. & I., Republic of Jackassistan) called a “super-duper precedent” — which actually sounds more intelligent when sung by Young Frankenstein.

After noting a bunch of court cases that reaffirmed Roe, Feinstein went on to make an additional point: “Importantly, the dozens of cases affirming Roe are not only about precedent, they are also about a woman’s fundamental and constitutional rights.”

I’m a bit fuzzy about what she sees as the distinction between fundamental and constitutional rights, but that doesn’t matter. Clearly her bedrock belief is that the process of constitutional evolution stopped with Roe v. Wade. One might say that instead of being a 1789 originalist, she’s an originalist of 1973.

Lies from the British police. The Metropolitan Police in London sent out this typically Leftist, entirely disingenuous tweet:

Why? Really? Why?

The Left cannot acknowledge the straight-line connection between Islam and death. Bruce Bawer can and does:

Continue reading

On immigration, the Left has two dishonest arguments that need clarifying

To disguise that they’re opening our country to people who should not be here, Progressives conflate distinct doctrines and hide behind the confusion.

Muslim ImmigrationThe problem with Progressives is that they tend to combine entirely different things in a single argument and then, having intentionally muddled distinct issues, thereby perverting the data, they reach an erroneous conclusion that has a logical gloss but is, in fact, quite wrong. The two big arguments as to which they use this deceitful practice are illegal border crossers from Latin America and Middle Eastern Muslim refugees.

With regard to the Southern border wall, they conflate a fence meant to keep people out with a fence meant to keep people in. The former is a legitimate way to protect people in their rightful place from dangers lurking outside.

Hollywood stars, former Progressive politicians, and Silicon Valley bazillionaires are all really big on using fences to keep “the wrong kind” of people away from them. It’s okay when they do it because they’re rich and famous. It’s not okay when you do it, because you’re a racist pig.

The other kind of fence, the fence that keeps people locked in, is the one we associate with toddlers (got to keep them safe); prisoners (got to keep us safe from them); and nations that are so horrible that, if people are not trapped within them, they will leave (e.g., the Berlin Wall and both the DMZ separating North Korea from South Korea and the border between North Korea and China). For the last mentioned reason, border fences can get a bad rap if someone is dumb enough or deceitful enough to claim that a fence manifestly meant to keep people out is, instead, a fence meant to trap people inside a bad place.

Progressives treat Trump’s proposed Southern border fence (the fence that a bipartisan vote in Congress already passed into law back in 2006) as if it’s the second type of fence, the evil prison fence, meant to imprison people, rather than protect them. If you ask a Progress which people are being imprisoned where, you will not get a straight answer. Instead, you will be told that you’re a racist.

Whenever a Leftist tells you that you’re a racist, you know you’ve won the argument. Of course, winning the argument is scant consolation if they keep winning the larger wars.

The really big conflation scam, though, is pretending that what’s happening in Syria is the same as what happened in Germany in the 1930s. That’s the argument used to try to shame conservatives and Trump supporters into opening America’s gates to Muslim “refugees.” I put the word “refugees” in quotations because another dishonest conflating thing the Progressives do is jumbling those who’ve left Syria, who have a legitimate claim to being war refugees, with those who are leaving the Middle East and North Africa because, thanks in large part to Islam, outside of Israel those are really sh*tty places in which to live.

Progressives essentially contend that every Syrian refugee is a Anne Frank. That’s false on so many levels.

Continue reading

George Faught: When celebrating life is hate speech

Oklahoma state representative George Faught believes each human life is precious, an idea that sees the Left castigating him as “dumb” and “vile.”

beautiful life black baby George FaughtThe Lefties on my Facebook page have been reduced to stuttering incoherence by a statement from Oklahoma State Representative George Faught about pregnancies resulting from rape or incest: “Life, no matter how it is conceived, is valuable and something to be protected. Let me be clear, God never approves of rape or incest. However, even in the worst circumstances, God can bring beauty from ashes.”

Having been a pro-abortion person for half my adult life and a pro-Life person for the other half, I have a fairly good insight into both points of view. But before I go into that, let me back up and flesh out the story a bit.

George Faught introduced a bill in the Oklahoma State House that would ban abortions due to fetal genetic abnormalities or Down syndrome. When Democrats in the House challenged him about the fact that he made no exceptions for rape or incest, with one asking him whether rape was God’s will, Faught responded by saying that rape appears in the Bible so God must see it in some way as part of life: “If you read the Bible, there’s actually a couple circumstances where that happened, and the Lord uses all circumstances. I mean, you can go down that path, but it’s a reality, unfortunately.” He said the same held true for incest.

The fight went on, with Democrats hollering “rape” and “incest” and Faught responding that God’s ways are mysterious. They were arguing from two different universes.

Broadly, the hard-Left VICE news publication, doesn’t hide its position on this issue (emphasis mine):

Republican politicians frequently have to say dumb and vile things to justify abortion bans that don’t allow exceptions under any circumstances—including pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, or if the woman’s life is in danger. The latest example comes from an Oklahoma state representative, George Faught, who introduced a bill that would ban abortions due to fetal genetic abnormalities or Down syndrome.


Indeed, there are many reasons women choose to terminate their pregnancies when they learn the fetus they are carrying has a genetic abnormality. In some instances, the abnormality may be so severe that it will be incompatible with life. It’s also often the case that severe conditions are detected late in pregnancy, so many late-term abortion restrictions already pose hurdles to women in these situations. But no matter the circumstance, bills like the one proposed in Oklahoma tell women that they don’t have the right to decide what’s best for their families and their own bodies—only God and old white men do.

Faught’s bill passed the House, although I doubt it will become law in Oklahoma. Still, I found the debate edifying.

If one removes God from the discussion, the issue boils down to this: Does a person’s life have worth if (a) the person has a genetic defect or (b) was conceived due to an act of violence or perversion against a woman?

Continue reading

Time to talk about mean men daring to give women orgasms

It’s no laughing matter when Leftists insist that men are cruel for giving women orgasms; this is just another way to advance state control over individuals.

Men women happy orgasms

If they look compatible, the man must be a chauvinist pig.

I haven’t yet processed the longer term implications of the House Republicans’ Obamacare debacle, so I’d much rather talk about Cosmopolitan Magazine’s insistence that it’s sexist for men to enjoy giving their female partners orgasms. I’m not the first one to address this ridiculousness. Ace and Robert Tracinski already wrote excellent posts on the subject. However, I believe I’m the only person who’s written a long American Thinker article entitled Sex and State Power, which intersects with this latest example of Leftist craziness.

If you don’t have the stomach to reach Cosmo’s article, something I fully understand, let me summarize for you the pertinent points in the article. According to a study in the Journal of Sex Research, men who successfully bring their female partners to orgasm are proud of themselves. It is, say that study’s authors, a “masculinity achievement.”

Before I go any further, do keep in mind that one of feminism’s chief complaints starting in the 1960s was that too many men had a “wham, bam, thank you, ma’am” approach to sex. Women, said the feminists, were complicated and therefore needed delicacy and attention in order to get sexual pleasure. Meanwhile, men were single celled amoebas would could pop out their own orgasms and then just walk away.

For the last forty or fifty years, the message to American men has been that, to be a good partner in bed, it’s not enough to say, “This is great, wasn’t it?” Instead, men need to be attentive, skilled, caring, compassionate, empathetic and, above all, patient so that their partner can get as much pleasure from sex as men routinely do. No wonder that men, most of whom really can orgasm through very simple stimulation, feel proud when they delay their own pleasure, and make the extra effort and take the extra time to see to their partner’s pleasure. I applaud those men.

Modern feminists, though, do not applaud those men. The problem, you see, is that, to the extent that men get pleasure from pleasuring women, those evil men are robbing women of control over their own orgasms. And no, that is not bad writing on my part. That is utterly appalling thinking on the part of Sara Chadwick and Sari van Anders, the *ahem* researchers behind the study:

Continue reading