Author Archives: Vaughan Starr

The Walking Dead Turns Left

“How are we any better than those people who we are so afraid of?” A question asked by the character Dale on the television show The Walking Dead.

The Walking Dead, for those uninitiated, is a popular television series based loosely upon a long running comic book of the same name.

Described as a character driven study set against the backdrop of a zombie apocalypse. The show gives more rest than most in this genre to the special effects/makeup guys. And it does this by focusing upon the interactions of a small collection of survivors from a variety of backgrounds. It is their struggles, both as individual’s, and as a group, which carries the show.

But back to Dale and his question.

Dale is a gentleman in his mid-sixties who joined the group after losing his wife to the undead part way through their camper van holiday. More than any other, in the minds of the writers, his is a character which has assumed the mantle of the voice for humanity in a world gone mad.

But just because this is the writers intention for him, does not mean that this translates to reality. For instead of representing these qualities, what the character of Dale actually typifies, is the moral self-aggrandizement that so dominates the Left today.

“How are we any better than those people who we are so afraid of?”

Dale asks this question of the whole group in reference to the proposed cold blooded killing of man in his twenties whom they have taken prisoner. A man, who, when injured in the attempted murder of some of Dale’s group (his accomplices in this action either killed or fled), was brought back to Dales camp in order to spare him the fate of being eaten alive. His wound treated, the plan was that he would be blindfolded and driven a good distance from their location and released.

Of course, it turns out to be not so easy as that. Upon fearing he is about to be shot, the young man confesses to knowing of one of the young women whose family owns the barn that holds Dale’s group. (Having known of her, while not being known to her, from their high school days.)

This presents the group with a problem. Clearly, no matter where they release him, the young man would be able direct his more heavily armed/manned group back to the property. A place which, in the name of revenge, they would more than likely be interested in finding. Too, the leader of Dale’s group, having had a chance to witness the character of this young man while under undead attack, is not inclined to trust him at all.

So what are the choices?

1. Release this young man and gamble the lives of your group, which include women and a child, that he will be true to his word and not reveal their location.

2. Try and keep him prisoner, and see if with time he can prove himself trustworthy. Of course, being a barn and not a super max, the young man would sooner rather than later have his captors back to him. A position from which he could inflict terminal harm and/or escape.

3. Kill him.

All in Dale’s group are made aware of these options. The leader of the group, who determines that he will be the one to pull the trigger should that be the majority decision, agonizes over his prospective action.

Oh, and one more tidbit, under the torture of a beating, the young man recounts how his group came upon a man and his two young teenage daughters. And how the men of his group then made that father watch as they all repeatedly raped his girls. Of course, the young man avows that he himself did not partake in the activities.

And so Dale’s question, “How are we any better than those people who we are so afraid of?” It is a question that is imbued with such moral gravitas by the writers.

And in response, not one character in the show gives the patently obvious reply. “We kill, so as to potentially save our own lives, and prevent our women from being turned into rape slaves. Whereas they would kill to achieve the very opposite of this end!”

This is a statement of facts which no one is in dispute of. Not even the character of Dale. But for him, all that is irrelevant when held before his moral equivalence.

And so, obscenely fanning his moral plumage, Dale condemns them all. Not once crediting that any of his group might be shattered at the thought of their prospective action. Instead, all he sees, is his own virtue.

Dale cries out that there must be a better way. Even though practically he can add nothing to the three options already before the group. But that inconvenient fact matters not one whit to him.

That there are times when a man might be forced to walk through shadow to prevent an even greater darkness. And that he might have to undertake this action without ever knowing the peace that would accompany the certainty that he was right. Are facts of life which Dale completely expels from the self-serving reality he has constructed.

That the behavior of the character Dale parallels the Left on so many issues is easy to see. Of course there are the easily identifiable ones, such as the torture of Islamic terrorists, and the targeted assassination of such. But too, this behavior is also recognizable on other issues such as the complete unsustainability of the entitlement system, and the wholesale unworkability of ‘green’ energy.

On none of these issues is there any common ground to be found, because any attempt at dialogue is doomed from the start to run head first into the brick wall of, “You do not care as much as I!”

Such people, by the very nature of their psychological makeup, standing wholly impervious to any argument made from a grounding in objective reality. For they recognize that to accept such, would necessitate an abandonment of the power that comes with being the fundamentally better person, to which they have laid claim.

The character of Dale in The Walking Dead in all his self-serving moral umbrage, is today’s Left. But lest he put you off a series which at times can be quite good, do not fear. For in the last episode to air as of the writing of this, he had his stomach ripped open by a Zombie. So don’t ever say that there is not a ravenous undead killing machine to be found when you truly need one!

Vaughan Starr is a freelance writer. Professional inquiries may be directed to [email protected]

It’s Only Controversial If America’s Involved

Another Koran controversy. That it somehow involves the U.S. and its military should go without saying. How would it possibly be controversial otherwise?

All across the Muslim world at the hands of their own, Mosques are desecrated with fire and bullets. Muslim individuals are butchered in all manner of barbaric ways. And Koran’s? Well, you’ll find pay phone yellow pages in red light districts that are treated with more reverence. But none of that raises the merest whiff of ire from Islamists or the Left.

Now though, with the involvement of the United States, the usual suspects threaten once more to trample one another in their stampede to proclaim themselves sensitive to yet another Western outrage.

That Islamic Fascists engage in such behavior is wholly understandable, if no less repugnant. After all, an ideology that desires nothing less than the complete subjugation of the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, before a Caliphate lead Theocracy, is hardly going to blush at employing hypocrisy of even the most whorish kind.

But what of the Left? What is it that they get by legitimizing the manufactured outrage of those who would quite happily see them dead or enslaved?

Is it simple opportunism? A belief that by delegitimizing Conservative identification of the Islamist threat, they will direct power back to themselves at the ballot box? That may be a part of it. But if it is, then it stands purely as an ancillary benefit of a driving psychosis that demands reality be distorted in the most self-serving way imaginable.

Of course, this a sin to which those on the Conservative side of the political spectrum are not immune. Indeed we all fall prey at times to painting ourselves in an overly flattering light. Even if deep down we suspect we may have acted a bit of a twerp. But the psychologically mature individual draws the line at fabricating a reality that stands dangerously opposed to the world at large, and those individuals within it who wish them ill.

Down through history, civilization after civilization has fallen before aggressors whose hearts beat with rapacious greed for the treasure of land, lives and gold.

Always, such lusts have been painted less base through the use of injustices, whether exaggerated or wholly concocted.

And always, of those who were faced with this aggression, a certain number could be relied upon to employ the same moral and intellectual self-aggrandizement that is the province of the Left today.

In the minds of such people, the threat, if indeed there was such a threat at all, was an entirely manageable and oft times, wholly understandable one.

For such people, appeasement, was not seen as a fundamental capitulation that would only embolden an enemy. Rather, such an act was the exclusive privilege of the civilized man. For only he could extend his hand in benevolent condescension to the savages unable to control themselves.

In this fatal conceit, the question was never asked: Do those whose aggression I patronize and indulge, view me as I view myself, or do they see me as weak, and easy prey?

It is a question which is still not asked by the Left today when it comes to their dealings with Islamic Fascism.

The fundamental difference now of course is, the stakes are so much higher. Technological advancements have given mankind much that is of benefit, but also, they enable just one man to personally inflict truly nightmarish levels of death and destruction.

A forgiving heart might be tempted to ascribe simple ignorance to the Left’s penchant for minimizing or excusing behavior wholly antithetical of the individual freedom necessary for the existence of Western democracy.

Certainly it is impossible to imagine any of today’s Liberal talking heads facing a situation in which they were forced to deal personally, even physically, with another who wished them unjust harm.

Could not this inexperience then explain their ignorance as to the ramifications of their actions?

No. It could not.

There are examples such as Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, two American hikers imprisoned in Iran for two years on trumped up espionage charges. Who upon their release proceeded to trash America, whilst talking with forgiving moral equivalency of the regime that had just demonstrated to them forcibly that the freedoms they were raised in are by no means a universal human condition.

But really, are such needed? A child confronted by a bully in the playground understands in that moment when violence is immediately before them, that to condescend or legitimize such, is to ensure being beaten bloody. And that the only thing likely to stay the bully’s hand, is a fear of the consequences they will face. Especially if those consequences are sure to be even bloodier in turn.

The idea then that an adult would not recognize these dynamics is purely preposterous. What drives this patently suicidal behavior of the Left then, is not ignorance. But rather, a very conscious decision that self-veneration trumps all. Even when it comes to dealing with those who would take not only our freedom from us, but our very lives.

Remember that the next time you hear such an individual talk with abhorrence of your right to bear arms.

Vaughan Starr is a freelance writer. Professional inquiries may be directed to [email protected]

So Obama’s A Christian Now?

For an outfit that never misses a beat when comes to denigrating Conservative Christian values, the mainstream media was certainly holier than thou recently over a perceived attack by Rick Santorum on Obama’s Christianity. And while Santorum, his staff, and conservative commentators were quick to point out that the snippet of video that had so many of the left outraged, was actually taken completely out of context, and quite deliberately so. No one asked the most basic, most pertinent question: How is Obama a Christian?

While this omission is understandable from Santorum and his camp, who are clearly smarter than to fall into the Christian fanatic narrative the left is already desperately trying to spin. It is unforgivable from the Conservative Commentariat, who passed up on a golden opportunity to force the media into a corner of their own creating.

The umbrage was all the main stream media’s over the perceived (read: manufactured) question to their messiah’s Christianity. That being the case, the following simple questions would not have been out of place in a rebuttal:

1. Obama is on the record for opposing a ban on partial birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate he opposed a bill which would have prevented the killing of infants who survived the abortion procedure. And he has stated openly of his daughter’s “if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” Explain to me how these are the actions of a Christian?

2. The Obama Administration has recently tried to strong-arm the Catholic Church into providing medical services through its clinical satellites to which it is manifestly spiritually opposed. How is this Christian?

3. Obama has denounced the Defense of Marriage Act as Unconstitutional. His refusal to defend a law which was brought into being with overwhelming support from both sides of politics, undeniably paints the leader of this nation as weak on the issue of the exclusive sacredness of the marital union between one man and one woman. How is this Christian?

4. Obama’s guiding philosophy of collectivism, in which men and women become subordinate to a state which centrally controls their lives from cradle to grave, stands in manifest opposition to the self-evident liberty and individual responsibility we have been endowed with by a Creator. What is Christian about this?

5. Obama has embraced black liberation theology. This doctrine condones the use of force to abrogate any individual rights which stand in the way of perceived racial justice. For the indoctrination of many that in the name of inherited injustices, they are entitled to use force against those who have broken no law themselves, how can this theology be called Christian?

6. Racial vilification has been used to bludgeon the President’s critics. What is Christian about ascribing the vilest of motivations to those who have gathered peaceably to protest the ever increasing growth of Government in their lives?

There are many more questions besides these six. For the simple reason that Obama is about as far from a Christian as it is possible to get. This is in no way revelatory. And it is long past time for those who have not already been pigeon holed by the tag of Christian to challenge the left media when they raise the topic of the President’s Christian credentials. After all, they have been the ones to produce the rope. So why don’t we allow them to hang themselves with it?

Vaughan Starr is a freelance writer. Professional inquiries may be directed to [email protected]