Anyone who seriously studies American history quickly comes to the realization that the conventional wisdom about the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay colony as being sexually repressed and completely dour people is a skewered rendition of our early history.
One wag erroneously described them as the kind of people who feared that somewhere, somehow, people were enjoying themselves.
I think there is a more modern version of the term Puritan that has arisen from the secular idea of many liberals that somewhere, some how, someone in this country has something that someone else doesn’t have.
I term these leftists the New Puritans. (Not to be confused with any rock group)
No one personifies this spirit of jealousy and envy better than our current president.
Mr. Obama’s main theme through his spoiled and destructive three years has been dominated by this twisted notion of class envy.
Obama’s chief defense mechanism has been to just blame Bush.
It has been his chief mean is in parrying away the thrusts of complaints about his lack of transparency and his near total lack of professional competence.
I will not disagree with him but trump his Bush by taking the blame all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt
Like his ideological mentor, Obama has created the most anti-buisness and anti-private sector since the 1930s.
For generations people have falsely attributed FDR’s leadership as responsible for ending the Great Depression, when in essence, many of his policies turned a recession into a 10 year Depression.
At one point FDR want to raise the personal income tax on anything over $25,000 to a 100%. Why stop there? How about a 110%?
Of course this excessive taxation, right out of the Marxist Communist Manifesto, had a political purpose.
Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s closet communist advisor (See the Verona Dispatches) summarized Democratic philosophy as Tax and tax! Spend and spend! Elect and elect!
It worked then and Obama hopes it will work for him again.
The New Puritans don’t really want to be fair and balanced.
They want to get even. They want payback or better still, take away.
That’s what all his bombast about eating our peas has been about.
Obama doesn’t want us to eat our peas.
He wants government to eat our breakfast, lunch and dinner and if we are good, he will let us have a Twinkie as a snack.
Opps, Michelle might not like that!
What entrepreneur would want to launch a new business or hire any worker with this kind of attitude?
We have a high unemployment economy precisely because of the atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and greed that Obama has created.
The president thinks that government can create jobs–work maybe but not jobs.
They can build roads or bridges but will the public want to buy them?
These are mere facilitators that may or may not speed your time to work but they do not create markets.
One of FDR’s great ideas for the Civilian Conservation Corps was to have one man dig a hole and another man fill that hole.
That was work but not a job.
Most government paper-pushers are just a more refined notion of the same idea.
So any time you hear him say investment or infra-structure run as fast as you can because he’s getting ready to send the IRS after you.
To further this new puritanical vision, Obama has relied the twin principles of equality and fairness.
His notion of equality is loosely dependent on the revolutionary rhetoric of the nation’s Declaration of Independence that has had great propaganda value for both Republicans and Democrats but philosophically does not hold much water.
It is the feminine side of our national persona.
What really makes us tic as a country is our masculine side–the Constitution, which merits as much respect as a valet at a demolition derby.
All men created equal only in the most basic of spiritual dimensions.
They are first born with a soul–which many liberals deny today in our strict materialistic culture.
They are also made in the image and likeness of God, another theological idea that the left categorically dismisses, most likely under their twisted notion of the 1st Amendment.
This twisted sister so permeates our society that I spent 20 minutes this morning listening to the president’s CBS Propaganda Bureau bemoan the fact that few pay to see women play basketball or soccer in this country.
They prefer the men’s games because they play it better.
It is part of the competitive spirit that fortunately still lives in the public sporting arena.
But that’s not fair?
Life is not fair and the president has become the avenging angel who will write history as he rights all the wrongs of unfairness.
This simply means that he will steal from the rich and give to the poor, who will not know what to do with it, which is a good explanation for why they are poor.
And to do this president seems determined to bring down the economy so that we are all poor except of course for him and his friends like Jeffery Immelt of GE, who advised the business owners to stop whining.
The president does not help himself or the country with his I am the only adult in the room swagger that has come to characterize his administration.
He is not our Great White Father or maybe I should say our Great Half-White Father who is allowing us to move on to a government reservation if we just give him our wampum and many ponies.
What peas is he willing to eat…only the spoiled ones of unconditional Republican surrender.
If he holds to his guns,or keeps his guns to the American people’s heads, I fear we may enjoy the fun and frolic of Obamageddon.
When I was young there was something about French actors that literally repelled me.
I really don’t know what it was but the dulcet tones of Charles Boyer, who seemed top have a ubiquitous presence on evening TV would make me squirm.
Maurice Chevalier was very old when I first saw him. For elderly actors I much more preferred Walter Brennan or even Gabby Hayes.
Chevalier did have one memorable performance in the touching film Gigi that I saw in the theater.
I really did like his enigmatic rendition of his signature song, Thank Heaven for Little Girls…
The key refrain was because they get bigger every day.
Ah, leave it to those romantic Frenchman!
They couldn’t fight or work hard but they knew how to appreciate women.
How times have changed with the women’s movement.
The whole relationship between men and women is so drastically different from when I was young.
So different that I am not surprised that the gay population has increased greatly these past 40 years.
I just saw a production of Chorus Line and the prettiest woman in it, the one with the best figure, and the most seductive charm was in a 17-year relationship with her partner, a female doctor in Colorado.
What’s Frenchman to do?
The woman’s movement has also brought with it some very unintended consequences for women.
One thing their leaders cannot combat is that most cultures prefer boys.
It is literally a boys world when it comes to being born.
It’s just the way things have always been.
From my one real psychology course at Fordham University I learned that there was a ratio of 105 males conceptions to 100 female.
This modest imbalance was nature’s way of leveling the playing field because at that time at least—1963–men were much more likely to die earlier than their female counterparts due to wars, highly competitive business and just the natural recklessness that having gallons of testosterone pumped through veins causes.
All women had to worry about them was dying in childbirth and marrying a brute of a husband.
Now women fight wars, die from heart attacks in the board room, engage in reckless behavior–who knows I’ll bet many get regular testosterone shots— and others still marry brutes…when they do get married.
Now a brutish boyfriend or live-in is more a threat than most of the other dangers.
Mara Hvistendahl has published a new book that details another worry women have–gender selection.
The full title is Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls. and the Consequences of a World Full of Men.
Now a woman’s choice has resulted in, not only the loss of a human life, but the abnormal decrease in the supply of women.
The first statistics I saw related to gender selection was from the Peoples Republic of China that now has an approximate 120-100 ratio of males to female.
That’s got to be a lot of sex-starved Chinese soldier running around.
The Chinese culture favors males as does most Asian countries.
Was this the fault of Confucius?
I remember a study from many years ago where of a particular 100 abortions in India, 99 of them were unborn females.
In this country the male has always been the more preferred because of what it means to the father and to the culture.
When most people lived on farms, it was mostly a labor thing. men worked the fields and women didn’t.
There was only so much milking and housework, sewing and cooking that had to be done.
I didn’t own a farm but I was so glad that my first child was a boy.
Is that fair?
No but it is the reality of the past and that attitude still prevails.
I have met two tour guides on the several trips I have taken, named Kendra and Tommi.
They were obviously named for their dads.
I have yet to met a male tour guide named Annie or Barb.
But these are all free choices are they not? Isn’t that what choice is all about?
Choosing what one wants or is popular?
Isn’t that what choice is all about?
That means that choice, which to most leftists is a sacrament that every women should receive or exercise, now has two dark sides.
Hvistendahl says that worldwide there are over 160 million missing girls.
No they are not missing.
They are dead, just like the millions of males that have been butchered since Roe v. Wade made a woman’s womb a battleground.
Is this of importance to Hvistendahl or is she more worried that those nasty anti-choice people will use this as an excuse to outlaw all abortions?
I find that being stuck on a horny dilemma.
Of course in China there is no choice.
They have a coerced abortion policy because of an over-supply of people.
Unfortunately for little Chinese girls, they don’t have a great feminist movement that theoretically slaughters its unborn on an equal basis.
This is another wrong for President Obama to right–abort all babies?
The green in this country would fully support this while the feminists have remained almost totally silent.
I am certain the gays will support selective abortion because fewer women mean more men without sexual satisfaction.
The sad fact is that the only people who would really sympathize with the author are the same ones that want gender equality, such as that promoted by Pope John Paul II in his historic Theology of the Body.
Abortion is just not a threat to missing girls but there are millions of missing boys as well.
Abortion is not evil because most people prefer to have a son.
It is evil because it takes a human life and while snuffing out hope and a chance at doing something.
Perhaps the criticism Ms. Hvistendahl is getting will make her consider the illogic of her feminist affiliation.
On this my 100th posting, let me share an aside about missing children with you. Millions watched the Casey Anthony saga unfold.
It was OJ II but without the poetry.
Peter Singer a distinguished professor at Princeton has long advocated that parents should have the right to dispose of any child up to the age of two.
Let me see, Kaylee was just a few months north of that arbitrary mark. Makes you wonder.