How Liberalism Violates All 10 Commandments (Matt Barber)

How Liberalism Violates All 10 Commandments – Matt Barber

.

.
One of my readers, we’ll call him Moses, is the publisher of a mainstream newspaper in California. He wrote me the other day with an insightful observation. Since Moses works in one of the most liberal industries, in one of the most liberal states in the union, I won’t divulge his real name. We don’t want Moses tarred, feathered and banished to Oklahoma with a scarlet “C,” for Christian, emblazoned on his Harris Tweed sport coat. (Note: I have antipathy toward neither Oklahoma – I once lived there – nor Harris Tweed, though I do recommend against wearing Harris Tweed in Oklahoma. Especially in the summer.)

“Matt, think about this,” wrote Moses. “Every one of the Ten Commandments is explicitly violated by a principle of the left.”

So I thought about it.

And you know what? Slap me with a Red River catfish if Moses ain’t exactly right.

To be sure, as individuals, we’ve all violated many, if not most or all, of the 10 Commandments. In our fallen, sinful state we have an inherent propensity to rebel against God’s perfect and holy will for our lives. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Thank God for making available a path, narrow as it is, for eternal redemption and salvation through Christ Jesus.

Still, there is a difference between individual sins and a philosophical worldview that embraces those sins as a matter of course. Modern liberalism – “progressivism,” leftism, secularism, pick your poison – is built upon, by and for sin itself. Liberalism’s entire fabric is constructed by precept planks that are soaked through and stained by man’s arrogant rebellion against our Creator God.

In sum, liberalism is folly. It represents man’s futile attempt to disorder God’s natural order. It’s the unholy brainchild of God’s very first enemy, given by that enemy to God’s favored creation, us, with the sole purpose of destroying that creation.

Unfortunately, we’re all too happy to help. Liberalism just formalizes the process, making sin public policy.

Volumes could be penned on the myriad ways in which the central tenets of liberalism violate each of the Ten Commandments. The following is a much truncated analysis:

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17):

1. Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me.

At worst, liberalism denies the very existence of God in the forms of atheism and secularism, while, at best, it adopts that wonderfully “inclusive” blasphemy called religious pluralism. Pluralism presumes to give the false gods of false religions equal footing and denies Christ as He defined Himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Liberal “Christianity” falls under this category. It’s pluralism with a Christian stamp.

Secular humanism, liberalism’s prevailing false religion, denies God altogether and crowns man as king over himself and the measure of all things. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

2. Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images.

We’re talking idolatry here. Liberalism is built on it. First, there’s literal idolatry (the worship of man-made idols, animals or inanimate objects) enjoyed by our New Age friends. And then there’s everything else: pantheistic environmentalism, the idols of “reproductive freedom,” “sexual liberation and equality,” etc.

Essentially, liberalism worships the created over the Creator. Liberalism also worships the sins of the flesh (see Commandments No. 1, 6 and 7).

3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Lord’s Name in Vain.

To deny God is to take the Lord’s name in vain. To deny God as He defines Himself is to take the Lord’s name in vain. To misrepresent God, to call other gods God or to deny the deity of Christ is to take the Lord’s name in vain. Liberalism does this and much more. Many liberals also mock Christ, Christianity and Christians. They revile the exclusive nature of Jesus, His commands and His faithful followers. They hate truth.

4. Remember to Keep Holy the Sabbath.

This one is a bit tricky as it is widely understood to fall under the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law – the old covenant, not the new. Christ Himself healed (worked) on the Sabbath. That said, many Christians still view Sunday as the Sabbath and do, indeed, keep it holy. Not all liberals (there are certainly liberal Jews), but liberalism at large denies the Sabbath any significance whatsoever, much less a holy significance.

5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother.

Liberalism seeks to supplant parents with “progressive” government. It diminishes parental rights and encourages children to rebel against the antiquated conventions held by mom and dad. It denies that children even need a mother and father and bristles at the “heteronormative” lack of “gender neutrality” inherent within the very words “mother and father.” The sin-centered, counter-biblical notion of “gay marriage” desecrates God’s design for true marriage and family and is intended to undermine these cornerstone institutions.

6. Thou Shalt Not Murder.

Abortion, euthanasia, “pro-choice,” “reproductive rights,” “death with dignity.” Need I say more? Sacrosanct is the liberal rite of passage for a feminist mother to slaughter her own child in the womb. Fifty-five million dead babies later, liberals continue to worship at the pagan altar of “choice” (see Commandments No. 1 and 2).

7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

This means all sexual immorality as identified in the scriptures, to include marital infidelity, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, et al. Liberalism, it seems, embraces all perversions of God’s design for human sexuality. Central to liberalism is moral relativism. When it comes to sex, you can do no wrong because there is no wrong.

8. Thou Shalt Not Steal.

With class warfare as its fuel, liberalism embraces the redistributionist philosophies of Marx and Engels. Liberalism thrives on theft. Like some completely incompetent and inefficient Robin Hood, liberal government steals from the middle class to give to the poor, thereby ensuring that liberal politicians remain in power and everyone else remains miserable.

9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

I give you Saul Alinsky from his Rules for Radicals: “The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.” As we’ve learned from Barack “you can keep your insurance” Obama, that includes lying. Liberals lie. That’s what they do. The ends justify the means. Bearing false witness about detractors of liberalism is par for the course.

10. Thou Shalt Not Covet.

Again, liberalism uses man’s inherent covetousness as the driving force behind all liberal economic policies. Creating a political climate of economic envy and class warfare gives liberal government the cover needed to take wealth from those who produce and redistribute it to those who don’t. Not only does liberalism violate this commandment, liberalism commands its adherents to do the exact opposite. “Thou shalt covet.”

As Satan “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), so, too, does liberalism masquerade as good. It’s deceptively packaged in flowery euphemisms and feel-good sound bites that promise “equality,” “tolerance” and libertine notions of “social justice.”

Yet, in reality, liberalism, in both philosophical and practical terms, simply signifies man’s predisposition to “call evil good and good evil.” It’s sin, all dolled up and doled out.

Ronald Reagan once quipped, “I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.”

If the Gipper had lived another couple decades, he might’ve found out.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Harvard Crimson Columnist: Free Speech Should Be Abolished On Campus Because It Threatens Liberalism

Harvard Writer: Free Speech Threatens Liberalism And Must Be Destroyed – Daily Caller

If this Harvard University student got her way, free speech on campus would be abolished and professors with dissenting views fired, because radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy and the First Amendment is a barrier preventing modern colleges from fulfilling their proper role as indoctrination camps.

.

.
Her name is Sandra Korn. She is a senior at Harvard and columnist for the Harvard Crimson.

In a recent column, Korn unambiguously insisted that the university should stop guaranteeing professors and students the right to hold controversial views and pursue research that challenges liberalism.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” asked Korn in her column.

The column’s subtitle was even more direct: “Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice.”

Korn cited several instances of perspectives that clashed with her own being banned from campus as triumphant examples of the way Harvard should be run. The firing of Subramanian Swamy, a Harvard summer school instructor who was dismissed for his anti-Islamic views, was one such triumph.

She also invoked the academic boycott of Israel – something condemned by Harvard President Drew Faust and numerous other university presidents – as an example of the kind of tactics leftists should defend and use in order to get their way on campus.

Korn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Her sharp rejection of intellectual freedom – a value enshrined by U.S. law and central to the success of American institutions of higher learning – is common among left-wing activists at elite colleges. Last week, Erin Ching, a sophomore at Swarthmore College, took a similar view when she criticized her university for committing the unforgivable crime of allowing a conservative – Christian thinker Robert George – to speak on campus.

“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,” she said, according to the Daily Gazette. “I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”

George, a Swarthmore alumnus, came to campus to debate Cornell West.

Pro-life students at the University of Alabama were victims of a similar belief that conservative views should not be publicly espoused on campus.

And at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, merely emailing an inoffensive .gif of President Barack Obama kicking a door triggers an investigation. The perpetrator was forced to apologize for committing a racial insensitivity.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

What Liberals think vs Reality

What Liberals think- If we are really nice to Islamists, and show them we want peace, they will like us

Reality- They will still want to cut your head off or blow you up

What Liberals think- Rights come from big government

Reality-Rights come from God, they are Natural Rights

What Liberals think- Equality is the ultimate Utopia

Reality- Liberals prefer “equality” to liberty, even if that equality is an equality of suffering under Totalitarianism

What Liberals think- The States enforcement of the “common good” is more important than individual rights

Reality- Once the “common good” supersedes individual liberty, no liberty is safe, and ultimately, the “common good” will be decided by some for of dictatorship

What Liberals Think- Freedom of speech is sacrosanct, as long as that speech does not contradict Liberalism, then it is hate speech

Reality- Freedom of speech IS sacrosanct, no matter who it offends

What Liberals Think- Armed citizens rarely if ever use guns in self-defense, so strict gun control will reduce violent crime

Reality- Guns are used hundreds of thousands of times annually by Americans to defend themselves, so disarming the people will cause a dramatic increase in violent crime

 

No Leftists, a right to PURSUE happiness does not include a right NOT to be offended

 

I learned years ago, before I ever started writing op-eds, and long before I started blogging that Liberalism is an ideology of convenience. A Liberal can take a stand on any issue regardless of facts. How convenient that is. Liberalism is also an ideology for the selfish. Not only do liberals think themselves entitled to everyone else’s money, but they think they should be able to express their opinions without any disagreement. See, disagreeing with a Liberal might force them to think about their position on issues, and that would be highly inconvenient. It would also make them unhappy, of course, Liberalism is also an ideology for the pessimistic, but I will save that for another time. Back to the unhappiness that being challenged ideologically brings to a Liberal. This is where Liberals fail to grasp what Jefferson was talking about when he wrote  “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. 

 

Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. with exc...

 

Jefferson writes about the “pursuit” of happiness. No one has a right to be happy, just as they do not have a right not to be offended, or a right to other people’s money. What we do have a right to do is pursue happiness, to live our lives as we see fit, to pursue, and hopefully live our dreams. Jefferson understood, as did the rest of the founders, that the unalienable right we are created with come from God, or at least they are rights that are part of the natural condition of mankind. These rights do not come from government, as Liberals believe. This, of course, makes Liberals unhappy because Liberals love them some government, the bigger the better. Now would be a good time to add another steadfast rule about Liberalism. It is an ideology of government dependence. Liberals look at government as their parents, it is there to protect them, decide for them, run their lives etc.

 

All ,of this makes me laugh when a Liberal tries to call Jefferson THEIR founding father. Jefferson if he lived today, would be loathed by the Left. He would be ridiculed as a Tea Party extremist, and the IRS would likely have thrown him in prison already. Jefferson exemplified everything the Left hates, yet they think feel, because Liberalism is an ideology of emotionalism, that Jefferson would be a Liberal. Boy do they misunderstand Jefferson. And, again, it is all because they fail to grasp what Jefferson meant when he penned the Declaration of Independence. Sorry Liberals, but pursuing happiness is not the same as being happy, and, as Jefferson understood, the pursuit of happiness is greatly hampered by big, intrusive government, but, I suppose y’all will never get that straight either. If Liberals were really honest with themselves, they would admit that THEIR founding father, was not Jefferson, or Madison, of Franklin, or Mason, or Washington, instead it was this lunatic. 

 

A portrait of Karl Marx.

 

But, sadly, many Liberals are not even aware of how closely their ideals and his are connected. If they spent more time thinking, rather than emoting, they might just grasp why I refer to them as Marxists in training

 

H/T to The Other McCain, who is also trying to set Libs straight on what he calls the “Politics of Feeling”. Go read what he says, good stuff, here is a small sample

 

What did Jefferson mean by “happiness,” anyway? Considering that this phrase occurs where “property” would be found in the classic Lockean formulation of rights, Jefferson means “happiness” not as some mere sentimental feeling, but rather in the sense of “good fortune,” which to an 18th-century mind, would mean what we today mean when we say “success” or “prosperity” — the contented enjoyment of the accumulated fruits of one’s labor. Of course, the mind of an 18th-century colonial plantation owner is so remote from our own culture that we might as well try to understand the worldview of the Pharoahs.

Still, my point is exactly this: Our sentimental reverence for these phrases — “We hold these truths to be self-evident” and so forth — hinders our ability to think about what the Declaration was really all about, and unless we have the maturity to transcend our childish emotionalism, we aren’t really thinking, but merely feeling.

This is how we end up in situations where the discussion of public policy is warped by the claim that our arguments are wrong because we might make people feel bad about themselves.

You are a “hater” if you dispute the benefits of affirmative action — not because facts and logic contradict your argument, but because some people have convinced themselves that this policy is a reflection of their value as human beings. Thus, no matter how wrong-headed the policy or how harmful its results, your opposition is indicted as unfair because you’re making people feel bad — you hater!

Beyond that, however, is the point that Thomas Sowell hammers home inThe Vision of the Anointed, namely that liberalism is about making liberals feel good about themselves or, as the book’s subtitle explains,Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

 

 

 

When Leftists let the Truth Out

WE all know the left wants, badly, to disarm Americans, but getting them to admit that? Very tough, Liberals are skilled liars, they say all the right things to make us “feel better” and to gain our trust. Take the gun control debate currently being waged. How many Liberals have you heard say they want handguns banned? Few if any. Sometimes though, the Left allows their mask to slip. H/T Clash Daily

This is why our vigilance is required, the wolves are not going anywhere folks. the Left never “gave up” on gun bans, as some foolish Conservatives were saying a few years ago. The Left still hates your guns

Maybe the New Republic should change its name

The New Leftist maybe, or The New Statist? frankly they ought to do something because their Liberal mask has slipped off and the ugly face of unbridled Leftism is showing. But don’t take that from me, listen to the former publisher

The New Republic has abandoned its liberal but heterodox tradition and embraced a leftist outlook as predictable as that ofMother Jones or the Nation.”

– Marty Peretz, former publisher of The New Republic

After Facebook zillionaire Chris Hughes purchased The New Republic, he proclaimed that the magazine, which has long since lost the prestige it enjoyed in the 1980s and ’90s, would “strive to be free of party ideology or partisan bias.” This proclamation was instantly falsified by the magazine’s first print cover story under the new publisher, a smear of the Republican Party by Sam Tanenhaus.

Yes, they are non-partisan like MSNBS is. Stacy McCain has some fun at the expense of TNR

That inspired a memorable Twitter beatdown of Chris Hughes by Ace of Spades — if you haven’t seen it, you simply must — who pointed out that, despite its partisan heckling of Republicans as “The Party of White People,” The New Republic‘s editorial staff is a monochromatic swath of vanilla honkydom. What is true of The New Republic is, of course, true of liberalism in general. The folks who were most eager to brand the Tea Party movement “racist” were white liberals, and this tells you something about what Shelby Steele called the White Guilt mentality of liberals: “Vote Democrat, cracker, in order to signify your moral righteousness on race issues.”

Never mind, of course, whether the policies of the Democrat Party actually result in any genuine improvement in the quality of life for African-Americans: When all that matters is your bien pensant good intentions toward black people, the efficacy of policy can be ignored as a trivial concern. Skepticism toward liberal policies becomes evidence ofmala fides — for example, you’re a racist if you take seriously the “mismatch” critique of affirmative action – and intelligent examination of alternatives is thereby rendered impossible.

Essential to this way of thinking is the demonization of Republicans as representative of negative values: Racist, sexist, homophobic, greedy, redneck, theocratic, clueless, rich people. 

Rhetoric about ideological liberalism thus ignores the unthinking partisanship — the enthusiastic cheerleading mentality that views the success of the Democratic Party as necessary to the good of the American people — which is the genuine nature of “bias” in 21st-century political journalism. The press corps is nowadays overcrowded by propagandists who think of every story in terms of startling simplicity: How will this help Democrats or hurt Republicans?

That is about as honest a depiction as I can recall reading. Basically, the Left’s moral compass points one of two ways. What is good for Democrats, is moral, period. Just look at the Left’s soft-pedaling of Chris Dorner. Sue he killed innocent people in cold blood, but he decried racism, and supports gun control, AND he likes Michelle Obama’s new bangs so he can’t be all bad can he? The Left’s moral compass does the opposite for Republicans. The Tea Party? Why they are all RAAAAACIST, sexist, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, rednecks, bible thumpers, and they wear fur coats when they flush kittens down toilets!  Certainly the treatment they get on MSNBS, or any other Lefty blog or station will be far worse than the treatment given Dorner. But, again, that is the morality of the Left.

 

Ah yes, the Left’s dedication to “education”

The Left focuses so much of their rhetoric around the importance of education. Have you ever wondered why? Notice that every ideology, every religion, every group thinks education is important. For some groups, it is because they want to raise future generations to be both well versed in history, science, math skills, and to be taught to think. Conservatives desire this from education. As Conservatives, we believe that open-minded thinkers will embrace our ideals of free markets, individual liberty and responsibility, and a belief in other core Conservative values. Other groups, however, are not as confident in teaching children to think for themselves.

Liberals used to tend to believe in much the same manner of education as Conservatives, but time has changed that. As Liberals have slowly morphed into Progressives, and indeed, into full-blown Leftists, their focus on the importance of education has taken on a new focus. Rather than teaching children to think critically, the Left has increasingly pushed for children to be indoctrinated to think what they are supposed to. One very good example is the current debate on gun rights, and “gun control”. For several years now, there has been a very clear campaign by the Left to turn guns into evil objects which have no good use or purpose. We have seen  numerous examples of “zero-tolerance” in schools being used to not only indoctrinate children to hate and fear guns, but to punish children as young a five for violating these zero-tolerance policies.

Now, I am sure we can all agree that children ought not bring guns to schools, but bringing a gun to school is usually not the violation kids commit. Children have been suspended, or in some other way punished for the following “violent acts” Bringing a GI Joe doll to school because the doll had a tiny plastic pistol. Bringing a pink, clear water pistol to school. Using various objects, like chicken fingers, or the child’s fingers to point and say “bang”. Playing games like cops and robbers, or in a recent example, a child throwing a pretend hand grenade while playing a child’s game. Drawing a picture of a soldier, because the drawing included a rifle. Having a picture of a gun on a computer. One child  was even punished because when asked if armed teachers would help prevent school shootings he said yes. Another child punished for daring to talk about a hunting trip her had gone on.

There are hundreds of such examples to draw on, but I think the point has been made. What is going on in our schools is NOT about education, or safety, it it about indoctrination. And certainly guns are not the only targets. what we are seeing is the Left using “education” not to teach, but to reprogram young minds. Of course, the Left has to use such tactics don’t they? I mean their ideals are a pack of failures. So, to trust independent minds to look at Leftism, and its history of suffering, oppression, and slaughter and have those minds actually embrace such a set of ideals is unthinkable to a Leftist. So, the Left bangs the drums of more education spending, and a desire for everyone to go to college, and, as President Obama mentioned in his latest campaign speech, or was that supposed to be the State of the Union speech, a push for a “right” to K-3, and K-4. Just imagine what Leftists can do to kids if they actually can have them from ages 3-22? Why they can push out a generation after generation of mind-numbed Liberals.

Yes, there is a culture war going on, and that war is for the minds of our kids. I would impress upon every parent the importance of home-schooling, or private schools, if that school actually teaches and is not just a smaller indoctrination camp public school, and the importance of colleges like Hillsdale that takes no federal money. And the need for YOU as a parent to educate your kids as much as possible to counteract the Leftist mantra being pushed on them. The Left is trying to sow the seeds of America’s destruction in the minds of our children. We must fight like Hell against that evil venture.

 

A question someone should ask Liberals

Think Progress is out with another “we could end homelessness with the money Americans spend on…….” line of propaganda. In this case, they are saying that we could end poverty with the money we spend on Christmas decorations. This is a bogus claim, if throwing money at poverty, and homelessness were going to end it, it would have been over decades ago. Smitty nails it

Memeorandum features this headline from Think Progress:

We Could End Homelessness With The Money
Americans Spend On Christmas Decorations

This is false. It could only be true if the complex problem known by the misleading label ”homelessness” were just a matter of money, but it’s not.

Homelessness made headlines in the 1980s and was exploited for purposes of partisan propaganda by liberals who saw an opportunity to dramatize what they construed as consequences of “Reaganomics.” In fact, as researchers discovered, homelessness is primarily caused by non-economic factors: mental illness, substance abuse and family disruption.

All very true, but there is the question I would love to ask Liberals who always demonize Republicans for being greedy. If Liberals truly buy that line of thinking fine. But, I must ask this question. Why do Liberals NEVER say if President Obama donated all the campaign contributions he got, we could “end poverty”? Why do they never look at themselves? Why do Liberals always look at consumerism and blame it, as if consumer greed was allowing poverty, or homelessness to continue? Why do they never look in the mirror? I think we all know why? Liberals expect OTHER people to sacrifice. Liberals expect everyone else to get it done. And of course, Liberals want the government to fix homelessness, and other societal ills, by
“taxing the rich” and spreading the wealth around.

 

Wacky college students in Berkeley want Salvation Army banned from campus

Once again, the far Left exposes just how discriminatory, and ignorant they are

The student government at the University of California-Berkeley (CAL) passed a resolution last month that would ban Salvation Army bell ringers and their iconic red kettles from campus this Christmas because of the Christian organization’s alleged bias against homosexuality.

In other words, because the Salvation Army dares to be a Christian charity, that helps anyone who needs it by the way, thy must be prevented from raising funds to help the needy. Odd, as much as the Left throws around the charge of extremism against anyone they disagree with, it is the Left that is truly extreme.

The resolution, cleared on November 14, accuses the charity of openly discriminating against gay individuals.

“Salvation Army church services, including charity services, are available only to people ‘who accept and abide by the Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline,’ which excludes homosexuality,” reads the bill, SB 176.

This charge is patently false. it would seem that ignorance, gross ignorance in this case is part of the Left’s bigotry.

“Allowing the Salvation Army to collect donations on campus is a form of financial assistance that empowers the organization to spend the money it raises here in order to discriminate and advocate discrimination against queer people,” it adds.

In a statement to Campus Reform, the Salvation Army adamantly denied these charges, saying the allegations are based solely on “internet rumors.”

“The notion that we require those we help to ‘accept and abide by the Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline which excludes homosexuality’ to receive assistance is totally false,” wrote Kathy Lovin, a spokeswoman for the Salvation Army.

She added that “the only requirement for service from The Salvation Army is demonstrated need and our ability to meet it.”

So, in fact, the Salvation Army helps anyone regardless of who they do the Horizontal Bop with. Of course the willingness to believe the charges the student government of Cal make are part of the Left’s problem. Leftism, and Liberalism are ideologies of pessimism. Largely, Liberals and especially leftists are very pessimistic people. They seem to enjoy hearing that climate change will kill us all, Try telling one of them that the ice caps in the South pole are growing sometime. Not only will they not believe you, they will get angry at you. Of course, the Left also is addicted, or so it would seem, to being, or at least feeling like a victim. So, their pessimistic view of life is fed by internet rumors that anyone ought to see as bogus. It also explains why they are so easily fed the propaganda that the Democratic Party dishes out.

 

The Left’s childish obsession with “fairness”

If you follow politics at all you have noticed, no doubt, that Liberals are fixated on fairness. They argue for higher tax rates on higher income Americans because that satisfies their definition of fairness. Their fixation on racial “diversity” is also partly based on that word fairness. Their opposition to many, or sometimes all facets of Capitalism is also based on fairness. Their fixation on giving government the power to create “equality” is also largely based on fairness. For a Liberal, the idea that some have more money, or better housing, or are more successful is unfair, and therefore the government should do its best to eliminate that unfairness.

As I have watched Liberalism, and its more depraved ideological cousin Leftism over the years, I have noted the immaturity of many who buy into the folly of those twisted ideologies. I have said before that Liberalism is an ideology for the childish, and Liberals fixation on fairness is a great example of the truth of my position. Sometimes if you look closely at a Liberal arguing for the rich to pay higher taxes, you can see a small child, their tear-stained face contorted, as the they yell “that is not fair”. 

The past week or so, watching Israel defend itself against the terrorist barbarians of Hamas, I have noticed that “fairness” seems to be at the center of Liberal anger at Israel for defending itself. The argument from many Liberals goes like this. Israel is much stronger than Hamas militarily. Their weapons, their training, the fighting skills are so much better than those that Hamas’s are, so this fight is unfair. I have heard different versions of this idiotic mantra and they all are based on emotion rather than reason. I would love to talk to one of these fools, just once and ask this question. Have you, Mr. or Ms. Liberal, ever thought that maybe Hamas should stop picking a fight with Israel? I can only imagine what their response would be. But I would love to watch them actually have to think about that for a few seconds before they retreated back to the walls of their Liberal fantasy world where fairness is ordained by the United Nations and enforced by rainbow-colored unicorns that make everyone get along by passing out cotton candy.

 

Your Blog Post of the Day

 

Is from The Other McCain, and it is  a good one. Thought provoking, compelling, and best of all, educational. The Problem With Sexual Rights will make you think, and  if you are a Liberal that is a great thing. Go read it all, but, the opening, to me, perfectly describes the one reason we can not hold real debates with Liberals

“Seizing on the triumphant narrative of the black civil-rights movement, liberals adopted the habit of framing political debates in terms of minority ‘rights’ versus majority ‘discrimination.’ . . . To disagree with a liberal, to oppose his latest policy proposal, is to invite comparisons to Bull Connor and Orval Faubus, so long as the liberal can make ‘rights’ the basis of his argument.
” ‘Rights talk’ allowed liberals a means of preemptively delegitimizing their opponents and thereby to avoid arguing about policy in terms of necessity, utility and efficacy. If all legal and political conflicts are about ‘rights,’ there is no need to argue about the specific consequences of laws and policies. Merely determine which side of the controversy represents ‘rights’ and the debate ends there.”
– Robert Stacy McCain, “Gay Rights, Gay Rage,” The American Spectator, Oct. 17, 2008

YES! That is absolutely correct. Every Liberal cause, is transformed into a crusade for civil rights, rather than an issue to be openly debated. Thus, emotionalism is elevated above thinking, and we see where that leads. Stacy McCain also sums up another key problem with debating Liberals, their “Progressivism” has no limits

Liberalism has no fixed goal. We will never reach a point at which the liberal will say, “enough.” Grant all his demands today, and tomorrow the liberal will return to demand more.

Take for example the federal budget, which is $3,796,000,000,000 for the current year. Could we go to our liberal friends and get them to specify an amount — say, $5 trillion — at which the federal budget would be big enough? If we could ever get liberals to stipulate some final number, some ultimate limit to the remorseless expansion of Washington’s power over us, then we might be able to negotiate a settlement. But what liberals demand is always more, and so it’s like negotiating with a shark about how much of your leg he will eat.

How true, and I have come to believe that the “more” the Left always seems to want is because they want nothing short of absolute control of everyone and everything. There is no “nose of the camel under the tent” with the Left, the nose, is followed by a hump, followed by the entire camel, and behind that camel, are hundreds of other camels.

 

Leftism and Racism go hand in hand

 

Stacy McCain has a post up taking the very UNfunny Bill Maher to task for his racist statements

While gay-baiting Paul Ryan, Maher also engages in racial stereotyping of President Obama:

“In many ways — especially for progressives — [Obama] is too white for them. He plays golf, he’s too cozy with bankers. But when it comes to knowing how to fight, he’s black” — referring to the tough campaign Obama is running against the Republicans.

Twitchy points out that this isn’t the first time Maher has used the “thug” stereotype of blacks in talking about Obama. May 2010:

“I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt where you can see the gun in his pants. That’s — (in black man voice) we’ve got a ‘motherfu**ing problem here?’ Shoot somebody in the foot.”

Permit me to say that, as offensive as Maher’s invocation of the violent black thug stereotype might be, I am equally offended by the stereotype of whites as effete golf-players who are “cozy with bankers.” A very narrow and insular world exists inside Maher’s mind — not only is there no law-abiding black middle class, but there is no white working class. Black people are all inner-city ghetto thugs and whites are all overprivileged suburbanites.

Great point Stacy makes there. The Left suffers from what I call Racial Obsession Syndrome, and one symptom of the Liberal Malady causes Leftists to stereotype people. Black people, for instance MUST think and act a certain way, and they certainly MUST be Liberal. White people are all stuffy racists, unless they have been converted to Liberalism of course. Then they must be eternally apologetic for all the RAAAAACISM that is inherent in America. You see under Liberalism, everyone must know their place and stay there. Women, Homosexuals, Blacks, Hispanics must be Liberal, or they will be attacked by the Left for not “really” being a minority. Minority, of course, is another term the Left uses to divide, and ultimately demean people based on skin color, gender or sexual preference. It is all about making everyone a victim with the Left.

The Bill Maher’s and Toure’s of the world love to say that racism is still rampant in America. That is an absurd claim, and anyone who pays attention knows it to be absurd. Of course, it is odd that Maher, Toure, Joe Biden and the entire cast of loons at MSNBS are great examples that 99% of the racism they decry actually comes from, them.

 

The difference between Liberals and Conservatives?

Well, there are many. Here are just a few I thought of sitting here this evening

Conservatives believe abortion kills an unborn child, therefore they oppose it. Liberals believe abortion kills an unborn child as well, they just do not care.

Conservatives believe that self-defense is a fundamental human right, therefore they fully support the Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. Liberals believe self-defense, and gun ownership encourages self-reliance and individualism, therefore they are for disarming the citizenry.

Liberals believe that people who want everyone to get a tax cut are greedy. Conservatives believe that people who want to mooch of the success if others are greedy!

Conservatives believe that skin color, gender, and sexual orientation are unimportant, and that it is personal character that truly matters. Liberals are obsessed with labeling everyone, and hyphenating as many Americans as they can.

Conservatives and Liberals both cherish diversity, but in different ways. Conservatives view different ideals, ideologies, and opinions, and backgrounds as diversity. Conservatives also do not mind dissent, they welcome the chance to debate. Liberals, on the other hand see diversity as people having certain ideals based not on opinion, but on gender, skin color, or sexual orientation. Liberals also LOATHE any opinion except theirs of course.

Conservatives define freedom of speech as every American having a perfect right to voice their views. Liberals define freedom of speech as anyone toeing the Liberal line having the right to speak.

Both Conservatives and Liberals see the Constitution as a living document. Conservatives view the Constitution as a living document that actually means what it says, and that is the supreme law of the land. Liberals say the Constitution is living, meaning that it can mean anything a Liberal wants it to mean.

Conservatives believe that competition is a good thing. Liberals believe competition is bad because it might hurt someone’s feelings.

Conservatives believe history is important because it teaches us about where we have been, and that we can learn from knowledge of history. Liberals believe history is important because they can twist it to teach children that America is a racist, sexist, greedy nation that needs more Marxism.

Conservatives are more optimistic and Liberals are more pessimistic.

Conservatives are more charitable. They believe in giving THEIR money. Liberals are less charitable and tend to believe that real charity is the government taking other people’s money to spend on social programs Liberals favor.

There are more I might add later but I close with the BIGGEST difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

Conservatives are Individualists, meaning they believe that the rights defined in the Constitution are Natural, or God-give rights, that government cannot take away. Liberals are Collectivists, meaning that they see individualism as a dangerous thing. They also believe that all rights should come ONLY from government, and that individual rights are secondary to the “common good”.

Your vomit-inducing clip of Andrew Sullivan achieving mutual Obamagasm with Chris Crazy Legs Matthews

Good Freaking Grief! They act like two teenage girls at a Twilight movie

PATHETIC! This is what happens when anyone allows themselves to be so wrapped up in their “identity” that everything revolves around their gender, or ethnicity, or in this case their sexuality. Sullivan, whether or not you agree with his ideology, and I certainly do not, has achieved quite a bit in life. Yet, he needs to be told that he is “equal”? Someone pass me a vomit bag! When I say that Liberalism is an ideology for the child-like adults, THIS is what I mean!

Donald Douglas adds this nugget!

I don’t think you could find better progressive optics I mean, seriously, Sully’s emoting to Chris Matthews, who in 2008 confessed that, “I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election … the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg…”

Really.

Yes, really

You know, when I call Liberalism an ideology of convenience………

This cartoon at An Old Broad’s Ramblings got me thinking

When I say that Liberals suffer from Consistent Inconsistentitis I am referring to the Left’s inability to stick to certain core principles. The Left says one thing, then does another. The Left says they stand for one thing today, then next week, not so much.

The Left loves to say catchy phrases like “power to the people”, yet, everything the Left pushes for usurps power FROM the people, and gives it to the government.

The Left claims to be the fiercest defenders of freedom of speech, yet they are always calling for more government control of “hate speech” you know, speech which disagrees with Liberalism. Speech codes on college campuses? Shouting down Conservative speakers? Where IS the Left’s consistency?

Oh, and how about tolerance? Inclusiveness? Sensitivity? I could write for three weeks straight and not even begin to touch the many examples of how the Left is the exact opposite of what they claim to be. If you need proof, just look at how the Left treats women, Homosexuals, Hispanics, or Blacks that dare to be Conservative

The most glaring example of this is the Left’s stand on abortion. The Left says that a woman’s right to control her own body is sacred, unless of course, we are talking about universal health care. This is why the Left is so frustrating to us. Frankly, I love to debate political issues, it can be enlightening, but, debating with the Left is a beating of epic proportions. Conservatives do not mind debating, or even disagreeing, but it boggles our brains when someone cannot manage even a shred of consistency. If Liberals wish to be taken seriously then they must learn to pick an ideological position, and STICK TO IT!

Your Daley Douchebag is Bill Press

Actually, this award is way too good for the likes of Press, who spends half his life whining about “inflammatory rhetoric” and the other half engaging in the very same thing H/T Right Scoop

Now, Press feels free to call those who dare to have different views “terrorists”, yet, recall how this walking definition of intolerant bastard screeches about “violent rhetoric”

Press, perhaps more than any other Lib talker, illustrates the Liberal Malady I call Selective Outrage Syndrome

Selective Outrage Syndrome-SOS Ever take note of how “sensitive” Liberals are quick to become outraged over a certain things, like any criticism of a fellow Liberal? They rant about how insensitive and divisive it is. Yet, when a Conservative is attacked in the same way…. No outrage at all.

Thus it is with Press, who says the most incredibly vile things about the Right, but denounces the “rhetoric” of the Right. Much of the time the “rhetoric” he bemoans is benign and is simply dissent against Liberalism.

The saddest part about people like Press is that they are so closed-minded. Rather than being open to having their ideology challenged and debated, they bitterly attack not the ideas of their opponents, but their character. No wonder people like Press are always so pissed off and bitter . Imagine walking around every day, knowing that everything you believe in is wrong. Imagine being so addicted to feeling that your ideals should be correct, because they “feel” so right, that you cannot come to grips with the harsh reality that every last thing you claim to believe has never been true.

Maybe this is a new Liberal Malady? Maybe I should call it Perpetual Denial of Reality, or PDR? Anyway, I so, at times, feel badly for people like Press, they are pathetic in their addictive behavior, and like any other addict, they do deserve at least a bit of sympathy. The druggie has his crack pipe, Bill press has his own crack pipe, his addiction to the teachings of Marx.

When Liberals let their true feelings out………

Red hammer and sicle on transparent background.

Image via Wikipedia

Via Weasel Zippers! Any doubt that the Left are nothing but Marxists?

 

A good message to those who share my Libertarian ideals

I have some very strong attachments to many Libertarian ideals. To me, conservatism and libertarianism are very close indeed! Aleister provides, I think, a KEY message every serious Libertarian should heed. 

Let me to say that again. Libertarians who live in the real world vote Republican.

There are two reasons for this which are easy to explain:

1. If you’re a Libertarian who votes for Libertarian candidates, you’re wasting your vote. Period.

2. If you’re a Libertarian who votes for Democrats, you’re simply not a Libertarian. It’s impossible to support the ever-growing, gigantic government, nanny state, we-will-tell-you-what’s-good-for-you, agenda of Democrats.

More at the link, go read it all

Separation of church and state outrage from the ACLU in 3,2,1 NEVER!

Somehow my friends, it is just a different story when a Democrat urges pastors to, uh “spread the word” as Chris at Wyblog duly notes

Remember the inviolate Wall of Separation between Church and State?

If the Church and State are on the same page, who needs walls?

And if the Church does the State’s bidding? Then the fun really starts!

President Obama Calls Pastors To Preach Healthcare

Earlier this week on a conference call, President Obama and his top healthcare officials charged religious leaders across America with spreading a new kind of gospel — the good news of nationalized healthcare. Isn’t it convenient how the pulpit is barred from promoting political opinion, until it is the opinion of the President? According to Politico, “Obama instructed faith leaders to treat the new law as settled fact and use their perches of power to convey that message to congregants and friends.”

And, the State turns a blind eye!

Pastors plan to ‘bait’ IRS with pulpit politics

On Sunday, a group of 100 preachers nationwide will step into the pulpit and say the only words they’re forbidden by law from speaking in a church.

This is a perfect example of why I refer to Liberalism as a ideology of convenience. Liberalism demands no consistency does it? No, instead it demands only that certain feelings be re-enforced. A consistent Liberal would be outraged over this, but, sadly most will defend it, because they agree with the message.