Camille Paglia teeters on the verge of a clue about Obama

by CynthiaYockey on August 12, 2009

First I saw Kathy Shaidle’s gleeful quotes of Camille Paglia’s post today at Salon, then Ed Morrissey’s at Hot Air. Even in that company, I have something important to add, which is the explanation for Obama’s contradictions and failings that is eluding Prof. Paglia. Here it is, short and sweet: Obama is a sociopath intent on destroying capitalism in the U.S. and very likely also intent on destroying democracy, too.

A sociopath has no conscience, and therefore no inhibitions about doing wrong or inflicting hurt. Often they are charming, although that usually has to do with their genius for telling you whatever it is that you want to hear in order to hand over your power and money to them willingly. They also have less pleasant behaviors for when you want them to deliver on their promises. They will get angry, denounce you, demand pity, or simply smile and befog and gaslight you and insist that you will get what you were promised in the ever-receding future and after you prove you deserve it by handing over more of your power and money. Gays and lesbians! Is this ringing any bells?

Obama is a sociopath who was raised by his mother and her parents and his mentor, Franklin Marshall Davis, to revere Communism and socialism. The more you know about how sociopaths function, the more everything he does makes sense — all his mutually exclusive positions and alliances, all his flip-flops, all his promises with their hidden expiration dates. And the more you know about his Communist/socialist upbringing and values, the more his totalitarian behavior makes sense.

Here are some of the things puzzling Prof. Paglia — I have boldfaced the points in her post that I address:

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises — or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

Reply: Everyone who realized Obama spoke only in vague platitudes and who observed the wide variations in his performance based on whether or not he was reading from a teleprompter or speaking extemporaneously. Everyone who realized that he has a genius for getting others to do his homework and claiming sole credit for their work. Everyone who realized that the presidency is only the second real full-time job he’s had in his life. It is Obama who should resign. Yes, Biden would be an improvement.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama’s aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

Reply: In a just world, Obama’s last press conference and his town halls would more than cancel out Sarah Palin’s bad interviews. But it is not Washington that seems crazy because Obama is aggressively advocating for healthcare reform legislation that he has hasn’t read and knows almost nothing about. The crazy starts and ends with Obama. However, Prof. Paglia is correct: Obama is engaging in a colossal and brazen bait-and-switch operation. But she insults Obama as a piker by comparing him to Bush. Obama’s bait-and-switch, if successful, will last forever and destroy the U.S. as a capitalistic country. The expense and number of lives lost by the war in Iraq will be puny in comparison to the cost of Obama’s deception. And Obama KNOWS what he is doing. Bush has the excuse that he mistook saber rattling aimed at neighborhood street cred for the real thing, and that Saddam Hussein had his own generals convinced he had nuclear weapons.

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

Reply: THANK YOU, Prof. Paglia, for figuring out some of the mechanics of the bait-and-switch!

I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

Reply: Prof. Paglia, Obama is in a big rush because the purpose of his healthcare reform legislation is to impose socialism and destroy capitalism. So long as it does that, there really is no need to see if it will deliver on the promises being made to get it passed.

As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn’t conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it’s the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan — it’s the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

Reply: Obama’s intention for the stimulus package was to saddle the U.S. with an economy-destroying level of debt that would lead to inflation and levels of taxation that would destroy capitalism. The pork was the bait. Destruction of capitalism was the hook. So, you see, Obama doesn’t always use bait-and-switch tactics. He uses bait-and-hook tactics, too.

Regarding the decision of members of Congress to keep their own healthcare plan while “it’s the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves”: congratulations, once again, you are beginning to see that you have voted for a regime where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. However, I assure you, the companies delivering their care will be driven out of business, too, so eventually, they’ll have to figure out another way of having their healthcare delivered by the same doctors and with the same amenities that Washington, D.C., hospitals reserve for billionaires and royalty.

But, I do have to quibble with the connotation of “guinea pig” that ObamaCare is an experiment in any way — the results of socialistic levels of taxation, economic stagnation, rationing and induced passivity toward government intrusion are well-established. THEY are the purpose of ObamaCare, not healthcare reform, or even healthcare at all.

What does either party stand for these days? Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.

Reply: Personally, I thank God for all the Republican sexual scandals because they may produce some much-needed humility and compassion.

However, it is true that we Republicans and conservatives have almost totally dropped the ball in opposing ObamaCare by failing to go to the trouble of producing our own solutions to problems with our healthcare system that would preserve capitalism, liberty and democracy. We have violated Rule 11 of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which is founded on the fact of human nature that people hate to give up something for nothing, no matter how much better nothing is when compared to a toxic something.

Alinsky’s Rule 11 is as follows: ” ‘The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.’ Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)”

And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the “mob” — a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

Reply: No, not any more it isn’t. The Democratic party is now passionately committed to suppressing opposing points of view and has virtually everyone in the mainstream media working toward that goal. Even for someone of your perspicacity, it is difficult to see a new paradigm. That is why it is so difficult for you to make sense of the overwhelmingly conclusive amount of evidence in front of you.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration’s outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable “casual conversations” to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

Reply: Yes, to the Left’s worship of government as the source of all good, instead of the creativity and ambition of the individual on a fair field of capitalism. Jonah Goldberg explained that in detail in his book, Liberal Fascism.

And, yes, the Left is in a state of complete ethical collapse. Eric Hoffer explained why and how in his books, starting with The True Believer. It’s high time someone over there noticed. We Republican fiscal conservatives have a LOVELY big tent and I would be delighted to be the first to welcome you in. Seriously, you do not live that far away from me and I know a great place for crabcakes. Let’s talk.

However, I’m surprised and disappointed that you are not also remarking on the utter lack of outrage by the Left over the beating administered by SEIU thugs on Thursday August 6, 2009, to black conservative Kenneth Gladney after a Russ Carnahan town hall meeting in St. Louis. Mr. Gladney was selling the “Don’t tread on me” Gadsden flags that are now a symbol of the Tea Party movement and the opponents of ObamaCare. Why was the Left outraged by Prof. Gates  being asked for his identification by a white police officer, but it is gleeful about the beating of Kenneth Gladney to silence him and make an example of him? As you say: the Left is in a state of complete ethical collapse. (For another example, see the coverage of Jesse Griffin here and here.)

As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a “death panel” under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin’s shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate’s unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished.

Reply: Prof. Paglia, in the words of Ronald Reagan, you have not left the Democratic party, the Democratic party has left you.

Surely, the basic rule in comprehensive legislation should be: First, do no harm. The present proposals are full of noble aims, but the biggest danger always comes from unforeseen and unintended consequences. Example: the American incursion into Iraq, which destabilized the region by neutralizing Iran’s rival and thus enormously enhancing Iran’s power and nuclear ambitions.

Reply: Yes, in a perfect world — or even just in the one pre-Obama — the first rule of comprehensive legislation is to do no harm. But Obama does have harmful intentions. He says the current proposals are full of noble aims. How would he know? Has he read the bill? I doubt it. The people who HAVE read the bill and are able to understand its thickets of perplexing legalese and industry-speak are horrified at what ObamaCare aims to do and how it aims to do it. The more they explain it, the faster support for ObamaCare plummets.

What was needed for reform was an in-depth analysis, buttressed by documentary evidence, of waste, fraud and profiteering in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Instead what we’ve gotten is a series of facile, vulgar innuendos about how doctors conduct their practice, as if their primary motive is money. Quite frankly, the president gives little sense of direct knowledge of medical protocols; it’s as if his views are a tissue of hearsay and scattershot worst-case scenarios.

Reply: Yes, but it’s not “as if” — Obama’s views on healthcare ARE a “tissue of hearsay and scattershot worst-case scenarios.”

Obama showed in his press conference that he has almost no knowledge of healthcare reform because the things he said his bill would do to cut costs were tried and discarded in the 1990’s. On top of that, he directly insulted the ethics of doctors with his tonsillectomy remark. The magnitude of Obama’s cluelessness in speaking on a topic on which he had so little knowledge certainly more than cancels out Sarah Palin’s bad interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson. Frankly, Obama demonstrated at the press conference and at his subsequent town halls that he is too stupid and too lazy to do his homework on healthcare reform. He also is demonstrating that he believes he has the game so well-rigged that he doesn’t have to.

Of course, it didn’t help matters that, just when he needed maximum momentum on healthcare, Obama made the terrible gaffe of declaring that, even without his knowing the full facts, Cambridge, Mass., police had acted “stupidly” in arresting a friend of his, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Obama’s automatic identification with the pampered Harvard elite (wildly unpopular with most sensible people), as well as his insulting condescension toward an officer doing his often dangerous duty, did serious and perhaps irreparable damage to the president’s standing. The strained, prissy beer summit in the White House garden afterward didn’t help. Is that the Obama notion of hospitality? Another staff breakdown.

Reply: Obama’s gaffe was revealing of the following things about his true nature:

  • He does not understand what it means to be president so he inserted himself into a problem that did not need presidential attention because he does not understand the scale of the world stage and his place on it as president
  • He does not remember he is a lawyer and should not have announced he didn’t know the facts and then offered a critical opinion
  • He revealed his own racial bigotry
  • He revealed his own elitism
  • He insulted people in one of the professions responsible for his safety.

And, for heaven’s sake, the fact that Obama’s political instincts about the “beer summit” were poor reflects entirely on him and no one else. Plus, it gave us the photo that epitomizes Obama’s sociopathy and narcissism as he ignores his disabled friend and heads for the news cameras:

Cambridge, Massachusetts, police Sgt. James Crowley assists Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, who is mobility impaired, while Obama ignores both of them after the "beer summit" at the White House on July 30.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, police Sgt. James Crowley assists Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, who is mobility impaired, while Obama ignores both of them after the "beer summit" at the White House on July 30.

Update: Thanks, to Stacy at The Other McCain, for the link. I should have been writing more this past week to extol the work he and Dan Riehl have done to investigate Jesse Griffin, the Left wing blogger who started the Palin divorce rumor. It seems Griffin has been able to afford a $300,000 mortgage on the salary of an assistant kindergarten school teacher.

Update, 8/13/2009: Dear Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection covers the Left’s misogynistic reaction to Prof. Paglia’s apostasies cited above. This reminds me that I intended to praise Prof. Paglia’s courage in reporting her perceptions. However, I have the sneaking suspicion that the real foundation of her willingness to speak her mind is her belief that her fellow travelers on the Left are true to their stated ideals, including the right to dissent and freedom-of-speech, so she was not being courageous because she didn’t believe she would ignite the firestorm now raging about her. So the reactions to her column from the Left may be a rude awakening that times have changed and the disconnect between what the Left says and what it does must shock the conscience of, well, people who have consciences.

Prof. Paglia, if it walks like a totalitarian and quacks like a totalitarian, it’s a totalitarian. Come to the Right, Prof. Paglia, this is where we reasonable people dissent with our fellows all the time and still find ways to work together on matters where we have common ground.

Moe Lane has an observation on Prof. Paglia’s lack of buyer’s remorse.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

CH August 12, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Nice post. I especially liked:

“Obama is in a big rush because the purpose of his healthcare reform legislation is to impose socialism and destroy capitalism. So long as it does that, there really is no need to see if it will deliver on the promises being made to get it passed.”

It’s so true, and it’s why all of his gigantic pieces of legislature (the stimulus, cap and tax, children’s health care) have been rammed through Congress in a matter of days. Somebody who gives a shit about the results takes time to get it right. Power for power’s sake doesn’t require a lot of time or effort. Even your average, dopey-eyed, run-of-the-mill “I voted for Obama because he’s so intelligent and articulate” voter is starting to figure that out, and that’s why you’re starting to see some pushback on his latest massive power-grab.

It turns out people don’t like it when Democrats start getting heavy-handed. I’m annoyed that it took electing Obama and his Democratic supermajority to get people to realize that they’re not the soft-spoken, compassionate foil to the evul! Republicans, but it’s a little comforting that it least it’s starting to sink in. I’m starting to have hope for 2010.

Rich August 12, 2009 at 7:26 pm

Wow!! This is one of the most accurate and honest analyses of President Obama and this whole health reform debacle that I have read yet. You have identified a characteristic or trait of the man that is so fundamental to his character that it will influence virtually everything he believes and thinks, and is/will be a central organizing principle in his world view. With most sociopaths of his “sophistication” and standing, it is usually most evident in the unscripted, less closely monitored moments: seldom obvious to the less observant, and almost always revealed in statements, attitudes and “looks” that appear trivial and far too minor to mean anything at all. It is just so easy to minimize and dismiss as a bad moment or some other minor human frailty. That his sociopathy is as evident as it has been, and still is denied and ignored by the majority of people, is perhaps the most frightening aspect of it all.

Unfortunately, it is just too difficult for many people to critically and honestly face and encounter this kind of pathology. Most of us are decent and good people, and it is all too unbelievable that a man who appears so much like a good and decent person like the rest of us might be so different, and so dangerous. I am reminded of Martha Stout’s “The Sociopath Next Door”.

That having been said, this is my first visit to your site and I am glad to have found you. There seems to be a severe shortage of pundits, thinkers and writers who have as their pursuit the furthering of truth and honesty. You appear to be one of them. Thank you.

Finally, and most important, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but thankful that enduring love and commitment still has a place in our world.

Cynthia Yockey August 12, 2009 at 7:53 pm


Thank you for your kind condolences and praise.

I forgot to link my other posts explaining that Obama is a sociopath — I quote Martha Stout’s book, The Sociopath Next Door, extensively and I highly recommend her book.

Prof. Paglia is an extraordinarily sharp observer, but even though clearly she is starting to sense that something very big is very wrong, she will be unable to make sense of her observations until she grasps the paradigm of how sociopaths function.

Obama is a sociopath, a man without a conscience, and the following is his pattern:

1. Figure out what people want to hear, then tell it to them. Bask in their admiration and respect for how wise you are for agreeing with them. Feel contempt for them as fools for trusting you.
2. Promise something in exchange for something you will do and get what you want in return. If needed, instill fear to assure fast action. People can’t think when they are frightened.
3. Do not do the thing promised, unless it would result in the destruction of capitalism, democracy, the United States or Israel.
4. When people get angry you didn’t keep your promise, then delay, denounce, befog and gaslight them. Make them come across with more of what you want in exchange for the original thing you promised, which you never intend to deliver.
5. Only if absolutely necessary to keep the mark on the hook, provide a few crumbs.
6. Once they are totally in your power, that’s their tough luck. You won, you can do whatever you want.

Did I miss any steps? The more we know about Obama and how he operates, the better we are prepared to defend ourselves from him.

Thank you, again, for your kind comment.


Peter August 12, 2009 at 7:28 pm

My oh my. You are on fire today. Can’t you at least have one tiny little point that I disagree with so I can have the fun of arguing with you? What fun is it to just say oooh-raw! and have nothing else to add?

theblackcommenter August 12, 2009 at 7:56 pm

Good post and excellent points. Mind if I add you to my roll?
.-= theblackcommenter´s last blog ..Servility and freedom =-.

Cynthia Yockey August 12, 2009 at 8:29 pm


Not at all. I will add a reciprocal link for you now.


Gary Ogletree August 12, 2009 at 8:52 pm

Well said, Cynthia, thanks.

Graumagus August 12, 2009 at 9:52 pm

Excellent breakdown, Cynthia.

I have liberal friends who are still supporting Obama pretty much out of simple inability to admit they were conned. Slowly I’m starting to get them to realize that I don’t CARE if they give me the satisfaction of saying I was right about Obama’s true nature as long as they open their eyes and cease letting actions slide from the left that they’d be organizing marches against had they been perpetrated by a conservative.

The real tipping point for several of them was the naked thuggery going on from union goons, and the media’s near silence about it. Silence=complicity.

I’m hoping that these awakenings are a trend…..
.-= Graumagus´s last blog ..Increased Chances =-.

Cynthia Yockey August 12, 2009 at 10:35 pm


Thank you. Yes, we can make it much easier for the centrists who went for Obama because he was making better promises to join us if we are kind and help them understand how the con was done. That’s why I keep explaining that Obama is a sociopath. And I notice this realization is starting to click with more and more people.


Conservative Pup August 12, 2009 at 10:27 pm


Amazing post! I’ve read it through twice, and read it aloud to my friend. Thank you for your courage to write the truth. We have thought “sociopath” for some time now, and you have explained brilliantly why we thought that. Couldn’t quite put our finger on it, other than the obvious–saying whatever it took to get elected, continuing to say whatever it takes to get what he wants.

I also too believe that “health care reform” has nothing whatsoever to do with health care, and everything to do with power. Power is required for socialism, and this gang in the WH has been working on this for a long time. This has been the agenda all along; as you say, to destroy capitalism and democracy. This is the reason for the rush; they’ve got to get it done before they lose their popularity. Before enough supporters start to wake up.

I hope the awakening happens fast and spreads like a virus.

Great post, great work!
.-= Conservative Pup´s last blog ..Barbara Boxer’s Dress Code For Townhall Attendees…. =-.

Daniel M. Ryan August 13, 2009 at 1:39 am

I have a suggestion of my own that speaks to this snippet:

“As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. ”

It’s the King’s Shilling effect. More and more Democrats are taking government coin.

Becky August 13, 2009 at 3:53 am

Paglia’s mind is at its best not when doing political or ideological theory per se–it is intellectual/cultural history. She has a good intuitive sense about the currents and undercurrents of society. For example, she is spot on when she puts Sarah Palin in the same category as the Madonna of the eighties–they define the third wave or post modern feminism.

Her instincts on Obama were, though she would not admit it, that he is what he thinks he is–the embodiment of change–chosen by fate to be president at this particular time in history and the energizing of America by finally healing and fusing the greatest American stain and shame–slavery.

What she doesn’t like is being on the popular side–to her that is a clue that something is wrong with her analysis (note all the references to the French Revolution in her Salon article). And now she is getting concerned that Obama is just a liberal apparatchik. In the Salon article she also said “somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills.”

What is happening with Paglia is the same thing that is happening with Naomi Wolf–they are becoming libertarians–but are just real reluctant to admit they no longer belong in the House of the Left.

Cynthia Yockey August 13, 2009 at 7:28 am


Thank you for your insights, especially since you clearly have been reading Prof. Paglia longer than I have. And Naomi Wolf is becoming libertarian? That is too funny! It couldn’t be happening to a nicer gal.

I am delighted that you are doing so well on Twitter with microblogging (follow @beckychr007, gentle readers), but I miss your essays. I am serious about my invitation that you are welcome to guest blog here until you have created a new place of your own. (Note: Becky’s successful blog, Just a Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Whatever, recently was flagged as having adult content, a bogus claim, and she stopped blogging there and turned to microblogging at Twitter. I would link her blog here but I see now that Blogger has blocked it altogether.) We do not have to agree on everything for me to want to see to it that your voice is heard.

I rejoice in your success and I’m always happy to see your comments here.


terri from Iowa August 13, 2009 at 6:10 am

[“…Obama is in a big rush because the purpose of his healthcare reform legislation is to impose socialism and destroy capitalism. So long as it does that, there really is no need to see if it will deliver on the promises being made to get it passed.”]
[“Obama’s intention for the stimulus package was to saddle the U.S. with an economy-destroying level of debt that would lead to inflation and levels of taxation that would destroy capitalism. The pork was the bait. Destruction of capitalism was the hook…”]

This is the crux of Obama’s whole plan, that and creating catastophe and chaos–Alinsky’s RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up .” Then take advantage of the chaos.

“One of the primary tools of communism, in destroying the existing governance structure of a nation, is to create and take advantage of chaos. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution … ”

” Another way of creating frustration among the mass of people is to create one crisis after another … to the point that people do not feel secure in their persons and are willing to give up rights for security.”

Of course, this can only be accomplished by a “sociopath”! I dearly wish that Prof. Paglia would read your refutations and examinations of her points, but sadly, I think that will not be the case…This was a truly excellent piece!

When people are willing to give up rights for security, they will, in the end, lose both. (Cicero, 42BC)

I R A Darth Aggie August 13, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Yes, Biden would be an improvement.

My head spun around, but it didn’t explodboom. Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark.

But given that Paglia has praise Rush Limbaugh in her columns from time to time, she should be be used to the unhinged left being full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Becky August 13, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Oh yes on Naomi Wolfe–over a year ago she wrote “Ten Steps to Fascism” and did a fascinating interview with Lew Rockwell followed by Wolf’s book “Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries” and “The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot”

Recently she wrote that “we are discovering the worst of Bush in Barack Obama”

apodoca August 15, 2009 at 8:38 am

By my reckoning, Obama should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors: treason, giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies by revealing U.S. national security information. And he did it O P E N L Y, and nobody squawked. That was his cover: to betray the U.S. using the power of the presidency while blubbering nonsense about America’s wrongs. That’s his other cover for his betrayals: the U.S. bad, so all her sins must be revealed. It’s not about destroying capitalism, Cynthia. It’s about destroying America. Destroy America and you destroy capitalism.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: