In the wake of the Mozilla controversy, the Duck Dynasty controversy, the Chick-fil-A boycott/buycott, and the countless examples of intolerance and intimidation against conservatives on campuses across the country, it seems rather clear that - as Michelle Goldberg notes in The Nation – there is a "growing left-wing tendency towards censoriousness and and hair-trigger offense."
But does this increasing intolerance work? In other words, does it help leftists impose their own social norms on society, or does it serve mainly to stiffen resistance and motivate opponents?
It does both, but where it works depends greatly on context. For years we've seen stigma defeat dogma (insults and mockery defeat beliefs) on college campuses, where relentless assaults on conservative values tend to leave students more liberal than when they arrived. It's not hard to understand why. These attacks can make students feel isolated - like there's something wrong with them - and the more casual adherents to any worldview find it relatively easy to shed impediments to social acceptance. This creates a vicious cycle, as shrinking minorities feel less and less empowered and the vocal majority feels increasingly vindicated in calling their opponents extremists or bigots. more >>
Today marks one year since the passing of the Iron Lady-Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher is best known for her strong conviction and influential international leadership.
Thatcher's legacy is one that should be passed down to every generation especially to young conservatives who wish to make a difference in America and see the advancement of a free society. She's a tremendous example because of her courage-she was never afraid to speak up for her principles or her beliefs, she never backed down. When she launched her revolution she constantly faced adversity from the media where she was mocked and ridiculed. Eventually her persistence paid off and it was clear to the British people that she had a deep understanding of the true heart of the British nation.
One of Thatcher's most admirable qualities was that she kept the interests of the British people at heart; she never acted out of personal interest. Today it is rare to find a leader who puts the interests of their constituents above their own interests. more >>
It's been over 30 years since the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's right to privacy includes the right to electively terminate the life of her unborn child. In that relatively short span of time, abortion has evolved from a highly controversial social taboo to a celebrated pillar of the progressive feminist agenda. Despite its current status as a sacrosanct symbol of female liberation, however, the debate over the morality of abortion rages on. Pro-life advocates approach the issue from multiple angles, in an attempt to find that one compelling argument that will convince the public of abortion's indisputable moral horror.
In Dostoevsky's epic novel, The Brothers Karamazov, brothers Ivan and Alyosha engage in a deep discussion about God – his existence and his goodness. Expressing frustration at his brother's rejection of faith, Aloysha declares that if there is no God, "everything is permitted." The truth of this observation may be seen in the ongoing debate over abortion and the seeming inability for the pro-choice side's greatest minds to come up with a winsome argument in defense of unborn human life. So long as human society continues its trend of rejecting belief in the divine and relying upon the self as the sole source of moral authority and conscience, there is little chance of popular opinion shifting decisively away from an embrace of legalized abortion.
One popular and rather obvious objection to abortion is that terminating the life of an unborn child is a violation of his or her First Amendment right to life. To deny this, one must get into the muddy question of when life truly begins and when a person acquires those natural rights articulated in our Declaration of Independence. The easy out, of course, is to claim that such matters are above one's pay grade, as our President did, and go along supporting abortion under the nebulous aegis of a woman's right to "make her own health care decisions." more >>
It has been interesting to watch Putin gain in popularity as he outwits Obama. Since he invaded Crimea, Putin's approval ratings in Russia have gone up 10 points. In another of his historic "firsts," Obama has done what no other president has done: make Putin look better.
As the Obama administration argues over which symbolic, empty gestures it plans to use next, Putin smiles (or sneers, I'm not sure which; with him, it's a creepy yet subtle distinction).
Russia caught Obama off guard. Prior to the invasion of Crimea, in Obama's view our nation's biggest threats were the Koch brothers, the Tea Party and health care providers. Now on that list is the Russian situation, but only to the degree that it makes Obama look politically weak. more >>
The Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare," was supposed to lower healthcare costs and reduce the national deficit without causing anyone to lose their insurance or their doctor. It was also not supposed to subsidize abortions. These promises have not been kept.
1. It will save you money.
The typical family will save about $2,500 per year in health insurance premiums due to the ACA, Obama claimed. more >>
Churches across the East African nation of Kenya have expressed opposition to a bill that if signed into law would legalize polygamous marriages.
As Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta considers signing the marriage bill into law, his administration faces the vocal opposition of multiple church groups. In late March, Christ is the Answer Ministries Bishop David Oginde read a joint statement from numerous church leaders denouncing the bill as a threat to the family unit.
"Let us give sober and informed decisions to family issues, and not attempt to weaken it … The state is as solid as its families and so all laws should be made to strengthen, not weaken the family," stated Oginde. more >>