These college graduates walk among us…
A report that claims that there is a crisis in civic education in the United States says that nearly 10% of all college graduates think that TV’s ‘Judge Judy’ is on the Supreme Court.
It was one of several alarming statistics from the report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
It commissioned a survey this past summer of recent college graduates. High school civics curricula was used to form the questions.
Among the findings:
• Only 28% of college graduates could identify James Madison as the Father of the Constitution.
• More than half of college graduates didn’t know how the Constitution is amended.
• Almost 40% of college graduates didn’t know that Congress has the power to declare war.
• Almost half could not recognize that senators are elected to six year terms and representatives are elected to two-year terms.
• Less than half of college graduates knew that presidential impeachments are tried before the U.S. Senate.
The group says it found that less than 20% of liberal arts colleges and universities require students to take an American history or government course to graduate.
This isn’t the first time the group has conducted a survey that shows a lack of knowledge of American history. A 2014 survey found that one-third of college graduates were unaware that FDR spearheaded the New Deal, and nearly half did not know that Teddy Roosevelt played a major role in constructing the Panama Canal.
The non-profit group is advocating required civics classes at U.S. colleges.
…and they not only are permitted to vote, <shudder> they are encouraged to do so! ◄Dave►
Or, perhaps more accurately, “Dole Dumps on Cruz.”
It would seem that Ted Cruz hurts Bob Dole’s feelings, when he rhetorically asks who remembers President Dole, President McCain, or President Romney in his stump speeches: “Bob Dole Warns of ‘Cataclysmic’ Losses With Ted Cruz, and Says Donald Trump Would Do Better“:
Bob Dole, the former Kansas senator and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, has never been fond of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. But in an interview Wednesday, Mr. Dole said that the party would suffer “cataclysmic” and “wholesale losses” if Mr. Cruz were the nominee, and that Donald J. Trump would fare better.
“I question his allegiance to the party,” Mr. Dole said of Mr. Cruz. “I don’t know how often you’ve heard him say the word ‘Republican’ — not very often.” Instead, Mr. Cruz uses the word “conservative,” Mr. Dole said, before offering up a different word for Mr. Cruz: “extremist.”
That was perhaps a revealing observation. Cruz is undoubtedly the more conservative; but Trump actually seems more like a Republican.
Wait! Don’t lose your lunch yet.
I have been having a delightful debate in the comment section of Robert Ringer’s blog post, “Discovering You’re Sane,” which participants here might appreciate. The exchange, which started as a civil debate on the relative merits of Trump v Cruz, soon evolved into an infinitely more thought-provoking analysis, of the irreversable present state of our nation’s political evolution.
Viewing our situation through the lens of history, particularly the timeline of Rome’s evolution from a republic, into an empire, and its final collapse in the Dark Ages, a poster calling himself “Reality Seeker” offered a perspective I had not heretofore considered:
I’m voting for Trump (despite the fact that I dislike him) because the American Empire needs a caesar. And Trump shall make a far better caesar than Cruz. Although, I must admit, that Cruz’s Goldman, Citi and other inside connections qualifies Cruz as the type of ruthless hypocrite necessary to be caesar; however, he still falls short of the task of running an empire juxtaposed to DT. By the way, the term president has become a euphemism for caesar— FYI— so try and get used to that fact, will ya?
In American history the Rubicon was crossed long ago ( Lincoln did that when he refused to allow state’s rights) and did they teach you that in public school? We’re not going back to an American republic anymore than Rome went back to being a Roman republic — FDR made sure of that. Americans would kill Jesus, again, before they gave up their welfare-warfare empire. So, at this point, in the cycle of empire, the question is not who can return America to a constitutional republic, but, rather, who can better maintain the AM ( American Empire) and keep us from FALLING into what I call The Great Dark Age. Just to be clear: anybody who believes we can actually return the AM to a republic (or even a country of classical liberalism) is living in a dream world. DREAMER! That’s who you are! FYI—there will be no Ron Paul as president or anybody like him— ever. There will be no Thomas Jefferson as president, again— ever. There will be no George Washington — ever. From now on it’s, drum roll and trumpets please, caesar………. Sorry, but that just the way the rise and fall of empires happens…..shit happens.
So pick your caesar, wisely.
I believe that Trump will be a better caesar, because he’ll tax foreign countries more and the domestic population less. DT said that’s what he intends to do, and I actually believe him. That’s just one reason he gets my vote. Trump understands how to make an empire great again. He said he’s going to make the empire great again, and I actually believe him. Ted Cruz —- along with his lovely wife who is in bed with Goldman— shall make Goldman great again— that much I’m sure— but Ted won’t be nearly as good of a caesar as Trump. Trump, trumps them all! He’s going to push — like any good caesar would— for more tribute from the outsiders.
Now, how is that for a dose of reality from its seeker? I find his logic to be sound and uncommonly persuasive.
This is ‘uuuuuuuuge! “Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Rallying Conservatives“:
Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee who became a Tea Party sensation and a favorite of grass-roots conservatives, will endorse Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday, officials with his campaign confirmed. The endorsement provides Mr. Trump with a potentially significant boost just 13 days before the state’s caucuses.
“I’m proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for president,” Ms. Palin said in a statement provided by his campaign.
Her support is the highest-profile backing for a Republican contender so far.
“I am greatly honored to receive Sarah’s endorsement,” Mr. Trump said in a statement trumpeting Mrs. Palin’s decision. “She is a friend, and a high-quality person whom I have great respect for. I am proud to have her support.”
I’ll bet he is.
This lately from Breitbart: EXCLUSIVE–Linda Tripp: ‘Bill Had Affairs with Thousands of Women’
You know, you really have to admire the guy despite him being a totally despicable criminal sleezeball. Even pretending to be governor then president is hard enough — but to be bedding women by the THOUSANDS in the process? Wow. My one woman wears me out.
I have said that my initial interest in Trump, was the hope that he could destroy the GOP wing of the Incumbrepublocrat Duopoly, by running as a third party candidate after they pissed him off. I lost any enthusiasm for the notion, once he signed the GOP loyalty pledge.
Perhaps I was a little hasty. He seems to be doing a fine job of destroying the GOPe from the inside. I imagine that there are already regrets among them that they talked him into staying in their tent. Robert Ringer’s latest post makes the point that we are experiencing no less than a revolution:
This is really what the Trump revolution is all about. DT is a symbol of sanity, so much so that even people who don’t like him are going to vote for him. In fact, when you dissect it more closely, the Trump revolution really isn’t even about Trump. It’s about things like truth … and courage … and straight talk. It’s about people getting confirmation that they really aren’t insane.
Anyone with a lot of money and a high profile could have elicited the same response that DT has been getting from millions of angry Americans, but no other billionaire chose to do what he’s doing. So Trump is the one who gets — and deserves — the credit for starting a revolution. The revolution may or may not succeed against the statist government structure that has been entrenched for decades, but, make no mistake about it, it is a revolution.
People have grown weary of having to deal with the nonstop B.S., lies, and political correctness that come at them from every direction day in and day out. An it’s not just Tea Party Republicans who are angry. A recent poll by Mercury Analytics, a research company with clients that include MSNBC and Fox News, shows that 20 percent of likely Democratic voters would vote for Trump in a general election. Repeat — 20 percent of Democratic voters.
There has been much discussion hereabouts of late, regarding the need for the SCOTUS to legally define the term ‘natural-born citizen’ (NBC), as used in the Constitution. Currently, there is a cloud of legal uncertainty surrounding the candidacies of both Ted Cruz and Marco Robio, because many believe they are Constitutionally ineligible for the office of POTUS. Ultimately, this could only be settled by a SCOTUS ruling, which heretofore they have deliberately avoided making. Multiple lawsuits have already been filed in multiple jurisdictions, and more are planned, challenging their eligibility, in hopes of forcing the SCOTUS to provide a definitive answer to the question.
After over 5 years of research and pontificating on the subject, I am among those convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that neither Cruz nor Rubio qualify as NBC. I have repeatedly stated that I could never vote for either, for that reason. Then, only yesterday, I averred that it was past time for the SCOTUS to do their job and make a definitive ruling on the issue, to lift the cloud of doubt dogging these and future candidates, one way or the other.
That seemed entirely reasonable to me, until Chris asked a very good and pointed question:
BTW I do need to ask. If the SCOTUS finds in favor of Cruz being a natural born citizen would someone that would disagree with the decision accept it and evaluate him on merit equally to others? If not what difference does it make?
Zing! Oh boy… hmmm… now where did I put my navel?
After a fair amount of cogitation, my answer is complicated and necessarily nuanced. Let me try to elucidate it.
Pat Condell is on the mark as usual; but pay close attention starting at about 1:30, when he equates current Muslim barbarism with that of Europeans 500 years ago:
… I found that insight profound. Then, I’m afraid his conclusion is inescapable. See also: “Dark Ages II“… ◄Dave►
Under Constitutional law, Marco Rubio is not a natural-born citizen, and thus is ineligible for the office of POTUS. He was born on US soil, to two Cuban nationals, who did not bother to become US citizens until four years later. Thus, Rubio became an American citizen one of two ways. Either he is an anchor baby, under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, or because he was a minor, he automatically became naturalized along with his parents.
Any interpretation of NBC that would include Rubio would have to rely on the former, and automatically would include every anchor baby ever birthed here. This would be the case, whether or not either parent was ever subject to the jurisdiction of the US, or the child was born a citizen of a parent’s home country and owed allegiance to it. This, of course, is the very opposite of the intention of our Founders, in establishing the NBC requirement for Commander in Chief.
So, while Cruz is relying on only 1/2 (mother only) of the “jus sanguinis” (right of blood) component of NBC to claim his eligibility, Rubio is relying on only the “jus soli” (right of soil) component to claim his. If one thinks about it, both can’t be right! I submit that neither are, because NBC requires both components (and both parents). Once again, the only way both could be considered NBC, is to interpret that term as simply meaning acquiring US citizenship at birth, by whatever naturalization process or legal interpretation Congress from time to time may approve.
It turns out that another lawsuit, now challenging Rubio’s eligibility, has been filed in Florida:
I was really surprised at the amount of time spent on the issue of Ted Cruz’ citizenship in the debate last night. It was taken seriously, and not laughed off as ridiculous by anyone, even Cruz. Yes, he was prepared for the question and had some good one-liners; but his actual defense seemed to be a continuation of his cavalier attitude. He regards it as virtually incontestable settled law, and only being brought up because his poll numbers were rising. I did not get that impression at all.
Trump repeatedly referenced his Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe. It happens that he recently penned a Boston Globe editorial, calling Cruz out for his hypocrisy, while declaring him Constitutionally ineligible for POTUS under his own ‘originalist’ position on Constitutional interpretation:
There’s more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” despite his 1970 Canadian birth. Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is “settled” by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago. But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled, as the most careful scholarship on the question has concluded. Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump’s advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty.
People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be. But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an “originalist,” one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.
Do read the whole thing, it is not very long. That was distressing enough to his legal position; but Ann Coulter has delivered a rather devastating legal analysis, which includes several points that, in all my study of the NBC question, I had not encountered before:
In addition to the drivel I post here, my aging mind rambles in many other directions – none of them in the least productive, but, at least it helps keep the old gray matter a bit more pliable.
For instance, I was just thinking about another great paradox (doesn’t most of human life seem to be exactly that?). In this instance, it occurred to me that (IMHO) the greatest tool for the enhancement of individual liberty occurred in the latter half of my own life. I refer, of course, to the Internet. Yet, this great tool for enhancement of liberty, via unfettered communication, occurred at the same time that so many people have been dumbed down to the point where they really have nothing worth saying (or hearing). Your typical combined miracle and tragedy. So, the Internet is used, primarily, for useless drivel. Just think of it. At no other time in human history would it be likely that a small group of people, like the participants in this blog – people who will probably never know each other as physical human beings, nevertheless can come together to discuss whatever amuses us.
Then I think – what if the Internet had been invented in the late 18th century? Imagine Tom Paine distributing his pamphlets to the world, not just to a handful of revolutionaries? Imagine that Jefferson could have participated, real time, in the drafting of our Constitution even though he was on another continent and on another mission at the time. Myriad similar examples abound.
Today I propose to you that all belief systems share a common fallacy when, instead, they should share a common truth.
Let us imagine that I am greatly troubled (as I sometimes have been in the past) about the origin of this universe. So, seeking a quiet place to ponder, I find myself in a place reserved for the practice of Judeo-Christian worship. As I sit there pondering, a priest/minister/rabbi of that particular sect approaches and asks me the nature of my obvious pondering. I explain and receive the apparently definite answer that this universe, and all it contains was created by a being they call God. Have I received the ultimate answer to the mystery of this universe? No. Only I now ponder about the origin of God.
Later, I find myself in the presence of a renown scientist. One who has truly delved deeply into the physics of this universe. I repeat my yearning to know the origin of this universe. The scientist treats me to a lengthy description, most of which is quite beyond my ability to comprehend, about how all the material that existed started to collapse upon itself due to an ever strengthening gravitational force. Finally, all that matter is condensed down to almost nothing – to a state where, rather than condense further, all it can do is explode in the greatest explosion this universe has ever seen. Then, as the detritus from that explosion started to cool, it started processes that ultimately produced this universe. Do I now know the ultimate answer to the mystery of this universe? No. Now I am even more confused because I have no idea where that matter came from to begin with much less how gravity came to be.
Many people earnestly believe that our universe (multiverse?) and all within it were the result of a conscious act by an intelligent being. I propose to describe, in this article, a possible method whereby that might really have happened, devoid of any and all acts by that dynamic duo Hocus and Pocus.
I begin with a fact that is self-evidently true… if there was/is a creator, that creator pre-existed that which it created – in this case, the present universe which we inhabit. That being true, it must be equally true that the creator of this universe is not OF this universe, therefore any attempt to “know” anything about said creator is doomed to failure. This is because all our ability to “know” or to “describe” anything is based on the known laws of this universe, leaving us helpless to “know” or “describe” anything outside this universe where whatever laws may exist are unknown to us.
Having established that basis, let us try to agree that there are two primary methods by which this universe might have been created. The first, which I will label the “Zap! – Zam! – Viola! method which, of course would depend on magic (the “creator” having magically “created” everything in this universe via supernatural methodology). Since it is impossible to have a rational discussion on any subject that necessarily includes superstition, the supernatural or mysticism, I reject this method.
As previously stated, I am essentially dropping out of political commentary because the political situation is beyond the ken of rational discussion. Yet, I still have the urge to amuse myself via diarrhea of the keyboard, hence a journey into new fields of discussion.
Today’s rant was inspired by a billboard I saw the other day while riding down the highway. Now, I had seen this and similar billboards for years but, for some reason, this particular sighting rather slapped me upside the face when the idiocy of its message actually got through. The message:
LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
Now anyone with ¼ of a brain knows that life, as we currently understand it, actually began several billions of years ago.
I am a longtime fan of the writings of the late Dr. Carl Sagan. Among other insights he offered us was that while the universe seems likely to spontaneously produce new life on a grand scale, by processes we do not yet fully understand, there remains the possibility that the universe got the process right ONLY A SINGLE TIME. And, in Dr. Sagan’s opinion, on the mere possibility that spontaneous life was a singular occurrence, we should treat it as a miracle beyond mere reverence. I find myself in total agreement with Dr. Sagan’s viewpoint.
Here is a good article by Mike Maharrey entitled, “America Embraces the Tyranny its Founders Fought to Reject.” After a good discussion of our founding, and the differences in our Constitution and that of Great Britain, it concludes:
Even a casual look at American governance today reveals a system having much more in common with the 18th century British model than the one the founding generation forged nearly 250 years ago. America operates under a “living breathing” constitution with the U.S. Supreme Court taking on the role of sovereign.
In 1776, the British Parliament acted with absolute sovereign authority. Today, the federal government rules with that same kind of unlimited power. The federal government determines the extent of its own authority through the Supreme Court. Any limits on Congress or the president are merely theoretical, constrained only by the whims of five out of nine politically connected lawyers. Every opinion of the Supreme Court becomes “part of the fabric of the Constitution.”
For all practical purposes, the federal government today operates without any limits at all. Everything the federal government does and approves is considered “constitutional.”
Even though the founders committed the U.S. Constitution to parchment, judges, politicians and academics have morphed the meaning of words and changed the character of the “supreme law of the land” into something that the framers and ratifiers would scarcely recognize.
Americans won the Revolution, but they squandered the fruits of victory in a quest for government solutions to every problem. Instead of a limited government committed to protecting basic rights – life liberty and property – we have an institution that attempts to control every aspect of our lives.
We have become what our forefathers sought to destroy.
“…politically connected lawyers.” What a deliciously derisive term for the Supreme Court! That goes into my bag of clever aphorisms for future use.
Otherwise, there is nothing amusing about this recurring theme that we have already lost our republic, and there is little we can do about it. ◄Dave►
As I have long predicted, the fact that Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) is not going to go away. I can’t be the only principled participant in the past heated debates over the meaning of NBC, to notice that Obama probably comes closer to being eligible for the office of POTUS than Cruz does. Overnight, it seems, it is now being openly discussed everywhere.
Five years ago, I wrote the essay, “Support and Defend,” calling for a halt to the rapid dismantling of our country, by the committed Marxist revolutionary, who had nefariously usurped the office of POTUS. In it, I took great pains to condense my research into the contemporaneous meaning of NBC, as succinctly as possible. For those not tuned into those debates at the time:
There are three ways one may acquire U.S. citizenship, one of which is the “naturalization” process, whereby a foreigner renounces previous allegiances to become an American. For “birthright” natives, we recognize both “jus soli” (right of soil) or “jus sanguinis” (right of blood) citizenship; but the only way to be considered a “Natural Born” citizen is to qualify as both. Please read the following paragraph carefully… at least twice:
We regard those born on our soil as “birthright” natives (jus soli), regardless of parentage; but they may also be regarded as citizens (jus sanguinis) of a foreign parent’s country. We also regard children born to American citizen parents as “birthright” natives (jus sanguinis), regardless of the place of their birth; but if born overseas, they may also be considered citizens (jus soli) by the country wherein they were born. (e.g. “anchor babies” are born citizens of both the U.S. and Mexico). By definition, “Natural Born” citizens are free of such potential divided loyalties, which means they must have been born on our sovereign territory (jus soli), to parents who were both already legal U.S. citizens (jus sanguinis). This legal term specifically means precisely that; it is not a synonym for “native born,” or “birthright,” or just the opposite of “naturalized.” It defines a citizen with no legal ties whatever to any foreign country, who thus could never be conflicted by divided loyalty.
While Cruz wasn’t on anybody’s radar at the time, I did caution:
In the comment section of Robert Ringer’s Post on Trump a couple days ago, one Charles Garret remarked:
You are right. This is going to be a wipe out with Trump. I am 85 and we understand Trump. We are fed up with what’s been going on in our government for the last 50 to 60 years.
This elicited a curious reply from an anonymous ‘Guest’:
Based on your name and age I think you will enjoy (or know) Garet Garrett, The People’s Pottage, available online to read for free.
Mildly intrigued, I did a search and found the book available as a free PDF download from one of my favorite sites, the Mises Institute. It was originally published back in 1953, and their blurb stated:
A time came when the only people who had ever been free began to ask: “What is freedom?”
Who wrote its articles — the strong or the weak? Was it an absolute good? Could there be such a thing as unconditional freedom, short of anarchy?
Given the answer to be “no,” then was freedom an eternal truth or a political formula?
The three essays brought together in this book, entitled respectively, The Revolution Was, Ex America, and Rise of Empire, were first published as separate monographs by The Caxton Printers. They were written in that order, but at different times, as the eventful film unrolled itself. They are mainly descriptive. They purport to tell what it was happened and how it happened, from a point of view in which there is no sickly pretense of neutralism. Why it happened is a further study and belongs to the philosophy of history, if there is such a thing; else to some meaning of experience, dire or saving, that has not yet been revealed.
“What is Freedom? … Could there be such a thing as unconditional freedom, short of anarchy?” Is this in my current mental wheelhouse, or what?
The Obama administration announced during a conference call with reporters Monday evening that the president’s upcoming executive order may require somebody selling even a single firearm to obtain a Federal Firearms License.
During the call White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch explained the details of the order, which will be announced publicly by President Obama Tuesday at 11:40 a.m. The action, officials explained, would include guidance on how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives will now determine who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms under federal law and, therefore, who is required to obtain a license to sell firearms.
Complete article here.
This is a good example of a “law” (dictate) that everyone should simply ignore. This kind of bullying only works when we willingly submit.
I already have a “Ringer on Trump” post; but here is an even better one. In fact it is a brilliant analysis of a Trump vs. Hillary match-up in November, if they both get their Party’s nominations. It is beautifully written, not too long, and I concur with it 100%. I highly recommend that you go read it in its entirety, so I will only excerpt a few teasers to entice you to do so:
…Bubba is a world class con man, to be sure, but Hilla the Hun is a rank amateur.
In fact, I would have to say that she has less credibility than any politician I can remember — and that’s saying a lot, considering the fact that most politicians hover near zero when it comes to that trait. Surely, Hillary’s handlers must wince every time she opens her mouth — especially when she talks about things like love, kindness, and the “war on women.”
That’s why it’s always puzzled me that so many people seem to believe Hillary is invincible. My take on her is that she is so inherently wicked, so corrupt, so vicious, such an outlandish liar, and such a transparent fraud that anyone short of Ronald McDonald, Mitt Romney, and Mush McCain could KO her with one verbal punch.
Or, how about this:
…Trump haters are placing their hopes on the belief that he’s alienated so many people that it would be impossible for him to get enough electoral votes to win a general election.
I’m not a Trump supporter (I don’t support any politician!), but I must take issue with the foregone conclusion of the Trump-hating crowd. In fact, I’m almost tempted to go so far as to say that the reason Trump might very well win it all is because he alienates so many people.
What media knotheads don’t get is that anti-establishment guys like me would love to see anyone take a wrecking ball to Washington’s Den of Thieves and break up the nonstop party that’s been going on for at least fifty years. That’s why I’m inclined to believe that the more Trump says nasty things, the more likely he is to win over fed-up Republicans, Democrats, and, above all, independents.
There is a very good article on the Misis Institute site, by Jeff Deist entitled, “PC is About Control, Not Etiquette,” which ties in with some of the thoughts expressed here lately, and is well worth reading:
To begin, we need to understand that political correctness is not about being nice. It’s not simply a social issue, or a subset of the culture wars.
It’s not about politeness, or inclusiveness, or good manners. It’s not about being respectful toward your fellow humans, and it’s not about being sensitive or caring or avoiding hurt feelings and unpleasant slurs.
But you’ve heard this argument, I’m sure. PC is about simple respect and inclusiveness, they tell us. As though we need progressives, the cultural enforcers, to help us understand that we shouldn’t call someone retarded, or use the “N” word, make hurtful comments about someone’s appearance, or tolerate bullies.
If PC truly was about kindness and respect, it wouldn’t need to be imposed on us. After all, we already have a mechanism for the social cohesion PC is said to represent: it’s called manners. And we already have specific individuals charged with insuring that good manners are instilled and upheld: they’re called parents.
Political Correctness Defined
But what exactly is PC? Let me take a stab at defining it: Political correctness is the conscious, designed manipulation of language intended to change the way people speak, write, think, feel, and act, in furtherance of an agenda. [emphasis mine]
PC is best understood as propaganda, which is how I suggest we approach it. But unlike propaganda, which historically has been used by governments to win favor for a particular campaign or effort, PC is all-encompassing. It seeks nothing less than to mold us into modern versions of Marx’s un-alienated society man, freed of all his bourgeois pretensions and humdrum social conventions.
Like all propaganda, PC fundamentally is a lie. It is about refusing to deal with the underlying nature of reality, in fact attempting to alter that reality by legislative and social fiat. A is no longer A.