Crossfire – Tonight’s “Outrage”

Image

Let’s start with Gingrich.  While I don’t care for his words “Liberal Fascism”, his main points are solid.  1.  There is a growing authoritarian leftism in this country that can certainly be seen on college campuses.  2.  Shame on the media for not holding these college campuses to the same standards as they do rightist groups.  3.  The problem is less the students and more the faculty (though I think this was Santorum’s point.)  I want to add to that last one.  As a young college adjunct, I see this too.  The older, established college professors are usually decisively leftist in their political slant and are not as open-minded as they likely were in their youth.  Lastly, before I move onto Van Jones, I want to explain why I disagree with Gingrich’s choice of words “Liberal Fascism”.  Fascism is a strong word, maybe not totally off here.  Liberalism, however, has nothing to do with this.  (I will post a link to an excellent article from a liberal magazine called “The Nation” that should clarify this).  But essentially, liberals are supposed to be open-minded and tolerant, and we certainly don’t see that from the mainstream left in America today.

Now, Van Jones.  First, I agree the right is becoming increasingly ludicrous in America today.  The recent votes in Wisconsin, well, I half agree with Wisconsin.  Do states have the right to secede from the union?  Certainly not.  In the US Constitution, Article 1 Sec. 10, it is stated that “No state shall enter any treaty, alliance, or confederation”.  However, on nullification, Van Jones quickly dismissed this claim and gave a rather weak and factually incorrect explanation.  He argued that the last time states threatened nullification, it was over segregation.  Way to play the race card and poison the well!  Aside from that fallacy, it’s simply wrong.  States use nullification now, and not over segregation.  Any state that legalizes marijuana is nullifying the federal laws against it.  Before a recent Supreme Court ruling, states that allowed same-sex marriage were nullifying DOMA.  Nullification is certainly debatable, but Van Jones dismisses it as though only a few kooks in a fortified trailer with assault rifles would say such a thing.  No, this is a serious debate for constitutional scholars!  Still, I like Van Jones all in all.  He’s “on the left” but often thinks outside the box.

Well, that’s just my two-cents on Crossfire.  If I find a vid of this episode, or this clip, I’ll add it here.

 

This is that “The Nation” article I mentioned above, using the example of Colbert to explain the difference between liberalism and this growing authoritarian leftism:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/179160/cancelcolbert-and-return-anti-liberal-left

 

Lindsey Graham’s Syria deception on Crossfire

Image

Either Lindsey Graham is deceiving the American people, or he is an idiot.  I don’t think Graham is an idiot.  Today on CNN’s Crossfire, as he spoke of the need to remove the Assad regime in Syria, he also warned about the growing number of Al Qaeda.  He said there are “26,000 Al Qaeda” combatants in Syria now, there were “500 three years ago”.  Then he added that “there will be 40,000 a year from now”*.

For those of you who don’t already see it, let me spell it out for you.  In Syria, the Assad regime IS NOT Al Qaeda, IS NOT supporting Al Qaeda, but is actually fighting Al Qaeda.  So if Al Qaeda’s growth in Syria is the problem, why should our solution be to take out Assad, who is an opponent of Al Qaeda?!  That would be like if we had tried to win WWII by attacking the Soviet Union!  Graham is not an idiot, but the people who vote for him?  You know the type.  “Why do you hate Uh’mer’ca?!”  Yeah, that type.  To them, all brown people look alike.  They can’t tell Al Qaeda from Assad, from a Hindu!  Graham is counting on that.  He knows that the average neoconned viewer from his constituency will hear this and think, “Well we gotta do somethin’!  We can’t let Al Qaeda keep growin’.  So let’s go blow us up some Moslems!”

Let me set the record straight.  If we take out Assad, we’re doing Al Qaeda a favor.  So my last question, and I’m going to leave this open, is why does Lindsey Graham want to take action that will help Al Qaeda?

*I was careful to only put in quotes what I am sure are Graham’s exact words.  Feel free to look up the Crossfire for 3/6/2014 if you want to double check and ensure that I didn’t quote him out of context.  I forgot the DVR it, so I wasn’t able to rewind and get the full quote.