A Top 10 Of The Left’s Most Ridiculous Moments Last Year

2010. I remember when I was growing up how 2010 sounded so futuristic. And now it’s come and gone. As a kid, I used to think that by the year 2010 we’d have flying cars and that everything would be so space-age. What do we have to show for 2010? The iPad. The Chevy Volt. Those little gel toilet dots that supposedly keep you from having to clean the toilet as often. So much for a wide-open future of technological innovation.

At the same time, during my politically precocious childhood, I was captivated by the seemingly limitless optimism of the Reagan era. I thought there was nothing we couldn’t do as a nation, and I truly believed that we wouldn’t again see anything like the Carter years. I didn’t know how to define it at the time, but I was convinced that what I now know as the Left was defeated.

Little did I know that, all these years later, progressives would be more galvanized and stubborn than at any other era of history. And just when you think they couldn’t get more outrageous, the Left continues to surprise, amuse, and anger much of the American populace, often achieving all three at the same time.

Whether they’re turning a scandal into a circus, passing unpopular legislation, whitewashing their own or someone else’s history, living it up on the taxpayers’ dime, or revealing their own ignorance and insanity, Leftists engage in more ridiculous behavior than ever before. It’s hard to believe their constituents continue to let them get away with it, but they do.

This past year was a banner year for Leftist atrociousness, and before we consign 2010 to the dustbin of history, here’s a special year-end look at ten of the Left’s most ridiculous moments of the year. These moments are guaranteed to make you laugh uproariously or grumble in anger — or both. Regardless of your reaction, I’m certain you won’t soon forget these episodes.

Let’s start with a scandal that came to a bizarre and somewhat wacky head in November of this year.

Atrocious! Progressives In 2010

2010. I remember when I was growing up how 2010 sounded so futuristic. And now it’s come and gone. As a kid, I used to think that by the year 2010 we’d have flying cars and that everything would be so space-age. What do we have to show for 2010? The iPad. The Chevy Volt. Those little gel toilet dots that supposedly keep you from having to clean the toilet as often. So much for a wide-open future of technological innovation.

At the same time, during my politically precocious childhood, I was captivated by the seemingly limitless optimism of the Reagan era. I thought there was nothing we couldn’t do as a nation, and I truly believed that we wouldn’t again see anything like the Carter years. I didn’t know how to define it at the time, but I was convinced that what I now know as the Left was defeated.

Little did I know that, all these years later, progressives would be more galvanized and stubborn than at any other era of history. And just when you think they couldn’t get more outrageous, the Left continues to surprise, amuse, and anger much of the American populace, often achieving all three at the same time.

Whether they’re turning a scandal into a circus, passing unpopular legislation, whitewashing their own or someone else’s history, living it up on the taxpayers’ dime, or revealing their own ignorance and insanity, Leftists engage in more ridiculous behavior than ever before. It’s hard to believe their constituents continue to let them get away with it, but they do.

This past year was a banner year for Leftist atrociousness, and before we consign 2010 to the dustbin of history, here’s a special year-end look at ten of the Left’s most ridiculous moments of the year. These moments are guaranteed to make you laugh uproariously or grumble in anger — or both. Regardless of your reaction, I’m certain you won’t soon forget these episodes.

Let’s start with a scandal that came to a bizarre and somewhat wacky head in November of this year.

On the O’Reilly Factor yesterday, O’Reilly discussed how the liberal media continues to pound away at the “mental illness” angle in regards to Nidal Malik Hasan. Sally Quinn, of the Washington Post, joined him on the program and typically carried the torch for the Left on the issue.

While O’Reilly made the obvious case of Hasan being a jihadist, Quinn stumbled all over herself, emphasizing the “emotionally disturbed” angle and balking from associating Hasan with jihad. Alan Colmes did the same on O’Reilly the previous day, stressing how Hasan was disturbed and crazy and, of course, everything under the sun except a terrorist acting out of his Islamic faith. (Even though everything that came out of Hasan’s mouth was about jihad).

What I can’t get in all of this is where did we get this assumption that having emotional problems and being a jihadist are mutually exclusive?

Isn’t the whole issue that jihadists are jihadists precisely because they have emotional problems? Is there, for instance, a member of Hamas or Hezbollah, or of the Communist or Nazi Party for that matter, who has their head screwed on right? When a suicide bomber blows himself up in an Israeli café, does he do it because he doesn’t have emotional problems?

Anti-Semitism is, obviously, an emotional problem. Anti-Americanism is, obviously, an emotional problem — as sociologist Paul Hollander has profoundly documented in his scholarship.

These phenomena are depersonalized neuroses. If you want to cleanse the earth of Jews, for instance, and you work toward that goal, you are obviously a severely screwed up individual. If you consider female sexuality evil and, in allegiance to Islamic ideology, you force women into invisibility with burqas and you engage in honor killings and female genital mutilation and other monstrosities to stamp out female sexual identity, autonomy and self-determination, you are obviously a severely screwed up  individual. You definitely have emotional problems. How does that take away the evil of your acts and beliefs? How does it cancel out the pernicious danger and the reality of your ideology?

Hitler and Stalin were emotionally and psychologically screwed up. Does this fact make the threat they represented immaterial? Does it take the evil out of Communism and Nazism?

I wonder how many leftists and liberals think that George W.  Bush was simultaneously emotionally disturbed and conservatively evil? Why do I have a feeling that their insistence on these things being mutually exclusive would disappear out the window in this case?

This all doesn’t make any sense of course and it is not meant to make any sense. It’s just another one of those tactics the liberal-Left employs to throw dust into the eyes in order to distract society from the existence of an evil adversary. Because their goal is for us to focus on the supposed evil of our society — which they hate and wish to destroy.

*

[To get the whole story on the nature of the jihadi threat and why the liberal Left forbids the naming of it, read Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.]

On the O’Reilly Factor yesterday, O’Reilly discussed how the liberal media continues to pound away at the “mental illness” angle in regards to Nidal Malik Hasan. Sally Quinn, of the Washington Post, joined him on the program and typically carried the torch for the Left on the issue.

While O’Reilly made the obvious case of Hasan being a jihadist, Quinn stumbled all over herself, emphasizing the “emotionally disturbed” angle and balking from associating Hasan with jihad. Alan Colmes did the same on O’Reilly the previous day, stressing how Hasan was disturbed and crazy and, of course, everything under the sun except a terrorist acting out of his Islamic faith. (Even though everything that came out of Hasan’s mouth was about jihad).

What I can’t get in all of this is where did we get this assumption that having emotional problems and being a jihadist are mutually exclusive?

Isn’t the whole issue that jihadists are jihadists precisely because they have emotional problems? Is there, for instance, a member of Hamas or Hezbollah, or of the Communist or Nazi Party for that matter, who has their head screwed on right? When a suicide bomber blows himself up in an Israeli café, does he do it because he doesn’t have emotional problems?

Anti-Semitism is, obviously, an emotional problem. Anti-Americanism is, obviously, an emotional problem — as sociologist Paul Hollander has profoundly documented in his scholarship.

These phenomena are depersonalized neuroses. If you want to cleanse the earth of Jews, for instance, and you work toward that goal, you are obviously a severely screwed up individual. If you consider female sexuality evil and, in allegiance to Islamic ideology, you force women into invisibility with burqas and you engage in honor killings and female genital mutilation and other monstrosities to stamp out female sexual identity, autonomy and self-determination, you are obviously a severely screwed up  individual. You definitely have emotional problems. How does that take away the evil of your acts and beliefs? How does it cancel out the pernicious danger and the reality of your ideology?

Hitler and Stalin were emotionally and psychologically screwed up. Does this fact make the threat they represented immaterial? Does it take the evil out of Communism and Nazism?

I wonder how many leftists and liberals think that George W.  Bush was simultaneously emotionally disturbed and conservatively evil? Why do I have a feeling that their insistence on these things being mutually exclusive would disappear out the window in this case?

This all doesn’t make any sense of course and it is not meant to make any sense. It’s just another one of those tactics the liberal-Left employs to throw dust into the eyes in order to distract society from the existence of an evil adversary. Because their goal is for us to focus on the supposed evil of our society — which they hate and wish to destroy.

*

[To get the whole story on the nature of the jihadi threat and why the liberal Left forbids the naming of it, read Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.]