Contra Fighter

You Aren’t Really Offended All The Time, So Please Stop Pretending


As you know, America is a nation obsessed with being offended. We really enjoy it. We just love the feeling. We relish any opportunity to take umbrage at something. We revel in the insult. The outrage. The indignation.

It’s invigorating. It’s stimulating.

And when you mix our enthusiasm for outrage with the constant saturation of news and information, it creates an environment where offense grows like mold in a dark basement. Factor in our boredom, our warped sense of perspective, and our perverted moral compass, and suddenly you find offendedness thriving to a degree never before witnessed by man.

There is so much National Outrage that we have to stay up later at night and wake up earlier just to make time for it all. We squeeze in three or four outrages in the morning before breakfast, snack on a stream of offendedness between breakfast and lunch, and by the time we finish dinner in the evening we can scarcely remember what we were outraged about in the morning.

This is our culture. This is our country.

This is what we’ve become.

I don’t think I need to provide examples, but here’s the most recent one anyway. I call it the most recent, but by the time you read this it will be an ancient relic in the annals of The American Hypersensitivity Hall of Fame.

Two actors, Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans, were forced to issue formal apologies for making a disparaging joke about a fictional comic book hero. For anyone not familiar with the Marvel comic book universe — perhaps because you don’t keep up on superhero news, or because you’re a grown up — Renner and Evans both play characters in the upcoming “Avengers: Age of Ultron” movie. Scarlett Johansson also stars in the film.

Apparently, there is speculation among people who speculate about fictional superhero romances that both Renner’s and Evans’ characters will be romantically involved with Johansson’s character, Black Widow, in the new movie. When asked about this at a recent press junket, Renner joked that Black Widow is a “slut.” Evans laughed and muttered “whore” under his breath. Both men were obviously having a little fun by pretending they’re jealous of the other person’s fictional character for having a fling with the fictional character their fictional characters are also involved with.

I have now spent a paragraph explaining a superhero love triangle, which makes me weep inside.

Anyway, feminists and emotionally invested comic book fans reacted swiftly, calling the men “idiot frat boys,” and proposing that an off the cuff joke about a female superhero reveals how “deeply ingrained sexist attitudes are in our culture.” (Side note: isn’t it sexist to call two successful grown men “idiot frat boys”?)

Scarlett Johansson, from left, Chris Hemsworth, Jeremy Renner, and Chris Evans present Robert Downey Jr. with the generation award at the MTV Movie Awards at the Nokia Theatre on Sunday, April 12, 2015, in Los Angeles. (Matt Sayles/Invision/AP)

Scarlett Johansson, from left, Chris Hemsworth, Jeremy Renner, and Chris Evans present Robert Downey Jr. with the generation award at the MTV Movie Awards at the Nokia Theatre on Sunday, April 12, 2015, in Los Angeles. (Matt Sayles/Invision/AP)

The blowback was severe enough to prompt written apologies from both guys, but will it be sufficient to assuage the anger and heal the emotional scars? Will our country every fully recover from this moment? Will make-believe characters played by beautiful rich blond women ever achieve equality in our society?

These are the questions that plague us in the aftermath.

Of course, none of this surprises anyone. The crybabies took over a long time ago, and their Outrage Radar is so finely tuned that no offense, no matter how microscopic, can escape their teary eyed gaze.

This, after all, is the country that invented “trigger warnings” to prevent people from encountering opinions that might be traumatic to their fragile psyches.

It’s a country where college campuses set up “safe zones” to shield students from ideas that might be challenging and scary.

It’s a country where a man dressed in women’s underwear cries “transphobia” if he’s asked to leave a restaurant and go put on some clothes.

This is a country where dozens of media outlets have reported for days about a “controversy” surrounding the fact that Ben Affleck’s relatives owned slaves two centuries ago.

This is a country where students at Johns Hopkins want to ban a fast food company from their campus because its owner expressed an opinion two years ago.

This is a country where even our military members are subjected to sensitivity training and “white privilege” seminars.

This is a country where some schools set up anonymous tip lines to report microaggressions, which could include being asked where you’re from and if you speak Spanish.

This is a country where feminists complain that men who spread their legs too far on the subway are sexist.

This is a country where screenings of “American Sniper” are canceled when people complain that the film is “nationalistic” and “Islamaphobic.”

This is the country where people were upset that the smiley face cartoons on their iPhones weren’t ethnically diverse, so Apple provided a more racially sensitive selection, only to make more people upset when other people used them in racially derogatory ways. Finally, a detergent company Tweeted about the emojis and people were upset that the comment seemed racist. So, if you followed that one all the way through, there was controversy over the lack of multi-colored smiley faces, and then controversy about their inclusion, and then controversy about a soap manufacturer making a joke about the controversy.

These are just a small selection, off the top of my head, from the past few days or so. I haven’t even provided examples from my own life, of which there is a never ending supply. Of course, I write about “controversial” subjects, so hurt feelings are inevitable. But anyone who has an audience of any size knows that any statement of opinion — no matter the subject, no matter how its worded — will stir up anger and acrimony.

In fact, it doesn’t have to be a statement at all.

I’ve been fielding hate mail this week because I posted a new Facebook profile photo. I happen to be holding a cigar in the picture, which one woman told me “drove her to tears” because smoking is “sinful.” And that feedback was downright reasonable compared to some of the rest of it. Some people were mad about the cigar, others were mad that there was a beer visible on the table next to me, and others were perturbed that I have a tattoo on my right forearm. Still others felt the need to express their feelings about my beard and my clothes.

Several people accused me of “intentionally trying to provoke controversy” with the picture. If I was (I wasn’t), it’s quite a sad statement that controversy can be intentionally provoked with a picture of a guy sitting in a chair in his backyard.

As it happens, I’ve been doing this long enough to know that literally anything I do or say will upset people, so to minimize the hubbub I intentionally waited until Sunday morning (the slowest time for Facebook traffic all week) to post the provocative image. I’m not afraid of the “controversy,” I just find it irritating.

You Aren’t Really Offended All The Time, So Please Stop Pretending |


I do not know if this factual as far as to the governor making this speech, but it is quite interesting- conelrad


Former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm (Democrat) gave a stunning speech on how to use mass immigration to destroy America at a conference on the subject. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'”

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said:
“First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country.” History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, “We could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’ Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high. school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. E. Pluribus Unum — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’. Instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book, Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America – take note of California and other states – to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book, 1984. In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that the future of our great nation is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped quickly, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.


Palestinian lives matter . . . ? | New York Post

So for all you Israel haters out there, suck on this!!

By Post Editorial Board

Palestinian lives matter . . . ?

Employees of the Palestinian interior ministry take part in a protest expressing solidarity with Palestinian’s in Syria’s Yarmouk camp. Photo: APA IMAGES/SIPA

Thousands of Palestinians face a humanitarian crisis that one official calls “beyond inhumane,” including rapes, beheadings and mass starvation.

Yet for once this suffering has brought no mass public outcry — no angry rallies in the streets or on college campuses, no calls for economic sanctions.

Not even a Twitter hashtag campaign.

Why? Because Israel has nothing to do with this nightmare.

Not until Monday did the UN Security Council convene to discuss the ongoing tragedy at Yarmouk, a Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus, Syria, just a few miles from President Bashar al-Assad’s palace.

Set up decades ago, Yarmouk is now home to 18,000 Palestinians. They’ve been besieged throughout the long Syrian civil war — but now they’ve become virtual prisoners since ISIS entered the camp last week.

In that brief time, reports say, more than 1,000 have been killed.

Those who remain are shut off without water and medical supplies, forced to live on a “bare survival” 400 calories a day.

One UN relief official calls the situation “beyond inhumane” and “completely catastrophic.”

But the Security Council — which routinely convenes in a matter of hours to harangue Israel over what it perceives as the slightest infraction — has done little more than receive a video briefing.

The situation in Yarmouk, according to a spokesman for the UN’s refugee agency, is “a test of the entire international system.”

If so, it’s a test the world community is failing — thanks to its own hypocrisy.

That’s especially true of the left, and the officials, celebrities and political activists who are so quick to condemn Israel but can’t be bothered to even peep over the crisis in Yarmouk.

So much for the rallying cry — heard at deafening volume during last summer’s war in Gaza — that “Palestinian lives matter.”

They do — but only, apparently, when Israel can be blamed.

Congressmen Taking Money From Radical Muslims – Guess Who?

A group called Islamist Watch keeps track of how much money radical Muslim groups contribute to political candidates, and the candidates to which they donate.

Here are the donors, and they are a Who’s Who of radical Muslims.

1. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. CAIR was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.

2. Muslim American Society (MAS), a group that federal prosecutors confirmed was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

3. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), led by the radical preacher Siraj Wahhaj and included an anti-American militant named Luqman Ameen Abdullah who was killed in a shootout with the FBI.

4. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. ISNA was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.

5. Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group founded by Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, but has taken a stance critical of the Brotherhood and Islamism in recent years.

These groups are up to their eyeballs in funding terrorism through “Muslim charities.”

The Members of Congress with whom they are working to curry favor includes:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) who is also a Muslim.  Ellison has received over $130,000 from the above terrorist loving organizations.

Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) has picked up $34,000.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) received about $5,500.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) received $1,450.  This donation is quite revealing, given that Sinema is a declared bi-sexual.  An offense that would get her stoned to death in most Muslim countries.

There’s a long list of candidates and elected officials who’ve taken money from the assembled supporters of terrorism.  Most of those donations are small, with the exception of one particular politician.

That official received almost $64,000 in donations and is none other than Barack Obama.  There’s no question that he’s bought and paid for, and he was a bargain at $64,000.  He’s been worth billions to Iran.

These donors and donor organizations are fronts for Muslim terrorists.  They clearly represent foreign interests from the Middle East but don’t expect the major media to call their political allies on this.  In fact, don’t even expect them to mention it.

The Middle East Today Looks Like Europe Right Before World War I


(Photo: Ron T. Ennis/KRT/Newscom)

For years, the great nations of Europe spent huge sums of money to build their military might. They assembled themselves into blocs, all the better to play a dangerous game of power politics. Slowly, surely, they were stumbling toward war.

In June 1914, an assassin shot the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the powder keg was lit. The results were disastrous.

The Middle East today looks frighteningly similar to the Europe of the early 20th Century.

For years, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have competed—Iran, as the champion of the Shia Islamic world, the House of Saud as the de facto leader of the Sunni world.

Iran has a massive military, as well as major capabilities in unconventional warfare and espionage. It influences or outright controls Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria, and the powerful Shia militias in Iraq. Now, Tehran is encouraging—and most likely aiding—the Al Houthis rebelling in Yemen.

The Saudis, powerful in their own right, have allied with al-Sisi in Egypt, King Abdullah in Jordan, and most of the other Gulf Arab states. They are also allied with the Pakistanis, who have one of the largest militaries in the world, and nuclear weapons to boot. Additionally, there is a growing possibility that the Turks may throw in with the Sunni side.

It’s a huge amount of fire power, rivalry and armed conflict concentrated in a comparatively small region. And this tinderbox could blow up into a major conflagration, with destructive consequences unparalleled since World War II.

But, some might say, these opposing blocs have been in place for decades, why the worry now? Quite simply, because America is no longer playing the role it has played in the region for a long, long time.

For decades, the U.S. served as security guarantor and diplomatic trouble-shooter for our friends in the region. The Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, and other friendlies didn’t have to worry that Iran would gain regional hegemony. They knew a strong, assertive America would keep Iran’s ambitions in check. Meanwhile, Iran and its proxies knew they could go only so far before being slowed and stopped by the judicious use of America power. The credible threat of American hard power was enough to keep our friends calm and our enemies quiet.

That has changed. Our enemies have seen the U.S. “lead from behind” in Libya, then turn its back on our consulate in Benghazi.  They’ve seen us draw a “red line” in Syria, then walk away when Assad called our bluff. They’ve seen Russia annex Crimea and bolster the separatists in eastern Ukraine while America refuses to provide military aid to Kyiv. They’ve seen us flinch at the thought of putting American boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS.

Put it all together, and it’s a picture of an America that is timid, or confused, or flaccid—a nation that still talks a good hard-power game, but lacks the will to follow through.

Moreover, they see an administration so hungry for a “legacy” deal with Iran, that the Iranians’ considerable negotiating skills are not even being taxed. In the G5+1 talks in Lausanne Secretary of State John Kerry has made concession after concession with no quid pro quo from Iran—to the point that France is now emerging as the hardliner on our side of the negotiating table.

Our enemies aren’t the only ones who notice these developments. Our friends do, too. What must the Saudis and the others think when they see the administration cast aside regional ally No. 1—Israel? Can their “push out the door” be far off if they get in the way of the administration’s single-minded drive to appease the Iranian regime?

Those friends now have reason to fear that the nuclear negotiations with Iran will accelerate the U.S. withdrawal from the region or—even worse—produce an Iranian-American rapprochement at their expense. It is this fear that has led our friends to band together to defend themselves against what they know to be a growing threat: Iran. While the Obama administration may be willing to turn a blind eye to this threat in its pursuit of a nuclear deal, Iran’s neighbors do not have that luxury.

Since the U.S. has cut back on dispensing its usual antibiotics, our jittery friends in the Middle East now feel that they must counter—strongly and immediately—the local infections promoted and exploited by Iran. And they are sometimes doing so without consulting the U.S.

The result is a Middle East more explosive and unpredictable than ever. The conditions are now ripe for a major Middle Eastern war—one that could spill across the globe, wherever Sunni and Shia Muslims interact. All that remains missing is a spark.

Impossible you say? That June day in Sarajevo, no experts predicted the horrifying consequences of Garo Princip’s actions.

Today, the Saudis are massing 150,000 troops on the border with Yemen. The Pakistanis and the Egyptians have promised ground troops. These Sunnis governments view their alliance as one of self-defense. But it’s a huge threat to Iran’s desires for hegemony, and Tehran may even view it as a threat to the survival of the mullahs’ regime.

No one wants war, big or little. But among the power blocs of the Middle East, Washington’s misbegotten policies have fueled uncertainty on one side and perceived opportunity on the other.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Americans have always dreaded a clash of the superpowers. But the lesson of the First World War is that when large regional powers—especially those driven by sectarian and apocalyptic forces—are poised to fight, any miscalculation can be equally cataclysmic.

That situation exists today in the Middle East. And the administration, far from easing the tensions, is actively destabilizing the region through its dealings with Iran.

Originally published in Real Clear Defense

Commentary By

Portrait of Steven Bucci

Steven Bucci/ @SBucci

Steven P. Bucci, who served America for three decades as an Army Special Forces officer and top Pentagon official, is director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

Why Only The Christians?

Look I know the title question is easily answered, but I just want to put it out there anyway.  This will not be a long post.

I am really tired of hearing the Democrats, Liberals, and those that want to live the Gay lifestyle hammer away at Christians for their beliefs.  While it is true the LBGT community has the main stream media in their collective hip pocket, and the MSM will do whatever it takes to push the Leftist, Progressive agenda upon the American public as if it is a majority opinion, which it is not.  I have to draw this comparison, the media attack dogs will go after whoever the Leftist order it to do so.  It is kind of like the bullies in the class going after anyone who is not part of the “in” crowd.  You know, whoever is the most popular or whatever is popular at the moment crowd.  So it would appear with this whole Gay Mafia thing.  The Gay Mafia decides who is getting out of line and immediately the media attack dogs jump off the lap of the “Outraged” and “Offended” and the smear starts.

Most people know that Christians are being maligned for being racist, bigots, or whatever you have as the smear line for the week.  The ginned up protest of the Outraged, and perpetually Offended are dutifully reported by the lapdog media, and once again Christians are labeled as the intolerant, etc. I would suggest this idea. If the truly Outraged and Offended are just that, then why are they not protesting against Islam?  After all just last month, the Muslims were tossing Gay people off the roofs of high rise buildings for the crime of being Gay.

You and I, both, know the reason why they will not protest the tenants of Islam that make being Gay a crime.  The Outraged, and the Offended are COWARDS.  They will go after Christian people because they know there will be very little pushback from Christians, and the Lapdog media will cover the story just as they are told to cover it.

So I wonder why it is that people of Faith are having their First Amendment rights trampled on by the government through economic coercion, being convicted in kangaroo commission hearings?  Why are Christians having to compromise their beliefs and convictions to satisfy someone else’s choice or lifestyle?  What about the rights of Christians?

When was the last time the media reported that the Gay Mafia was protesting at a mosque, or a Muslim politician?  You know why you won’t see it or hear it?  Because they fear the reaction of the Muslims, that it might be a violent retort to their perpetually Outraged and Offended feelings.  They fear that some Muslims will go after them and hurt them physically, maybe even kill them.  They should not be afraid of Islam.  After all, it is the Religion of Peace, just ask them.  The Cowards know there will be no such reaction from the Christian community, hence they are an easy target.

So in the end, it is the Outraged and the Offended who are the real bullies.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: