Have you ever felt like the so-called "progressives" speak out of both sides of their mouths?
Let me give you an example.
The Big Media pummel us every day with what an astonishing and significant breakthrough it will be for America to elect its "first woman president." How many times have you heard it this year?
Of course, we heard a different message in 2008.
Back then it was going to be an astonishing and significant breakthrough if and when America elected its "first black president." How many times did you hear that back then?
Do you remember?
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have several things in common:
- They were both people of little actual accomplishment at the time they secured the Democratic presidential nomination.
- They were both Democrats.
- And they were both regarded as so-called "progressives" – even by the standards of the Communist Party USA, which supported both of them wholeheartedly.
Would you agree that's not much of a claim to the presidency of the United States?
After eight years of Barack Obama, perhaps we should ask ourselves how the decision to elect the "first black president" worked out for us. Yes, Obama made history as such, but, after eight years in office, should we not ask ourselves about his other achievements?
- Obamacare: An unmitigated disaster that has cost Americans a health-care system that, though flawed as any man-made plan would be, represented the best achievement the world had ever known.
- Peace and stability in the world: Today, the world is on fire. Refugees flood out of the Middle East and Africa. Islamic terrorism is an everyday occurrence. The Cold War with Russia is back. North Korea is building nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to launch them anywhere, as is Iran. Europe is collapsing under the strain of the Western leadership vacuum created by the U.S.
- The U.S. economy is in tatters with the federal government propping it up with more than double the debt it faced when Obama entered the office.
- America is less cohesive as a culture than ever before, as Obama set citizens against each other on the basis of race, religion and, now, "gender identity."
And on that subject of "gender identity," the latest political creation of the so-called progressives to divide the people and empower government, we're told that our sex is just a state of mind. Whatever sex we feel like, that's who we are. If a man feels like a woman, then he's a woman. If a girl feels like a boy, that's who she is.
As a result of this insanity, Obama has ordered public school bathrooms and locker rooms to be essentially "desegregated."
So the question I pose, in light of this, is: "If sex is merely just a state of mind, then 'what difference does it make at this point' (to quote Hillary Clinton) that we might elect the first woman president?"
If there is no difference between the sexes and gender is just a state of mind, what's the big deal about electing the first woman president?
To make the point even more bluntly, Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan is: "I'm with her."
"I'm with her"?
I thought we're supposed to get beyond looking at the sex of people? I thought that's just a phony cultural construct? I thought we were supposed to be creating a new genderless society? I thought we were behind that kind of archaic labeling – even to the point of dropping gender labels such as "chairman" and going androgynous and "gender neutral"?
Should we, instead, be looking for some accomplishments and vision from our next president rather than another identity "breakthrough" that simply makes people feel better about themselves?
Isn't it contradictory to suggest that we should be, at once, blind to inconsequential culturally imposed "identities" like man or woman and black or white and then base a decision to elect a president principally, or even partially, on that basis?
How has this worked out for us so far?
If we should, indeed, be trying to achieve a government that serves the all people more efficiently and justly, and there's no difference between black and white or man and woman, shouldn't voters be focused like a laser beam on qualifications and records of achievement that do make a difference?
And – here's the bottom line – if so-called "progressives" are really interested in "progress," why do we want to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results?
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].
|