Advertisements
Home

Don’t Argue With Liberals – It Only Encourages Them

3 Comments

This is from Town Hall.

Arguing with liberals is like feeding the internet trolls once you do either your screwed.

 

 

Non-lawyers often ask me, “What is the best way to argue with a liberal?” This is silly, because there is no best way to argue with a liberal. They’re beyond argument. You might as well argue with your terrier. Take it from someone who argues with his hideous terrier all the time.

But if you do choose to argue with a liberal, understand that your purpose should never be to change the liberal’s mind. You’re not going to change the liberal’s mind. Instead, if you choose to argue with a liberal, you should do it for one of two reasons – to either win over people who have not yet made up their minds, or to support people who already have begun to understand the truth.

The truth is that conservatism is an ideology that is in accord with natural law and basic human decency, while liberalism is merely the summit of a slippery slope leading down to the hellish depths of collectivist misery.

Liberals aren’t going to like to hear this manifest and demonstrable truth. So you’re going to get called “racist,” “sexist” and “homophobic,” even if you’re a conservative black lesbian.

What you are not going to get is an argument. An argument is a collected series of statements designed to establish a definite proposition. Arguments involve the presentation of facts and evidence from which one draws a conclusion. Implied within the concept of an argument is the potential that one might change his conclusion. But liberals start with the conclusion.

They don’t change their conclusions based on the facts and evidence; they change the facts and evidence based on the conclusion they want. This is why a 105 degree day is irrefutable proof of global warming, while a 60 degree day is irrefutable proof of global warming. As is a -20 degree day.

Liberals are only concerned with argument, or what superficially appears to be argument, as a rhetorical bludgeon designed to beat you into submission. They aren’t trying to change your mind. They don’t expect you to agree with them. They don’t even care whether or not you grow to love Big Brother.

They just want you to shut up and let them run rampant. If you understand that, you’ll be fine.

There are two basic tactics to choose from when responding to a liberal pseudo-argument, defense and counterattack. Without getting too detailed and infantry-nerdy on you, think of defense as simply preventing a loss. You’re holding your ground. The counterattack, however, lashes out to seize the initiative and defeat your enemy.

Both have their uses. When you defend, you are generally responding to the pseudo-argument the liberal is making. A liberal will start advocating some nonsense and you reply to what he says. You may choose to use examples of liberalism’s many failures to illustrate how collectivism is a prescription for disaster. For example, some pinko starts crowing about how eight million suckers signed up for Obamacare. A good defense might involve raising the question of how many of those eight million have actually paid for it.

But the problem with defense is that it treats a liberal “argument” with a respect it doesn’t deserve. You dignify liberal silliness with a response when all it deserves is mockery and contempt.

This is why I prefer to counterattack. When you counterattack, you ignore the proposition offered by the liberal and refuse to respond on the liberal’s preferred terms. In fact, you don’t even need to address the same subject the liberal is talking about. Your goal is not to undercut the liberal’s assertion. You’re going to counterattack to undercut the liberal himself.

There are many good reasons to choose the approach of treating the liberal like he is a terrible person with terrible ideas who seeks to impose a quasi-fascist police state upon America, including the fact that it’s all true.

Let’s try a counterattack battle drill. Some doofus with a “Capitalism Is a Patriarchal, Cisnormative Hate Crime” t-shirt starts babbling about “privilege.” The undecideds start listening, their jaws drooping slightly. Some of the more conservative ones are silent, not wanting to be labeled racist by some geek whose grandfather came from Oslo. You need to act. So you causally inject the question, “Hey, why are you an eager and active member of a political party that made a KKK kleagle a beloved Senate Majority Leader?”

Then you mention that you’re a member of the party that fought slavery and didn’t turn hoses on civil rights marchers. Then you finish by announcing, “Well, I’m going to stand with Dr. King and judge people by the content of their character.” It’s optional whether you then get up, scream that the liberal should have issued you a trigger warning about his racism, and leave.

But be careful – the liberal may totally spit in the next latte he sells you.

Some people might question whether this kind of Alinsky-esque tactic means we are stooping to the liberals’ level. Except the liberals’ level is six feet underground, where the victims of collectivism lie buried. Anyone not willing to take the fight to them simply empowers their liberal fascist fantasies.

If you’re trying to win an Oxford Union debate with a liberal, you’ve missed the point. This isn’t about the Marquess of Queensberry’s fussy little rules. This isn’t about some sort of extended-pinky exchange of ideas over a fine glass of port. This is about fighting for our way of life and our fundamental rights against the intellectual heirs of Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

Attack. This is about winning. First prize is freedom. Second prize is tyranny.

Advertisements

How Liberalism Violates All 10 Commandments

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

 

 

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, fortomorrow 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.


Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/05/liberalism-violates-10-commandments/#zDdXa6CQbOTvGkIq.99

The High Cost of Liberalism

1 Comment

This is by Thomas Sowell in Town Hall.

We all are paying for liberalism and will do so for decades.

 

Liberals advocate many wonderful things. In fact, I suspect that most conservatives would prefer to live in the kind of world envisioned by liberals, rather than in the kind of world envisioned by conservatives.

Unfortunately, the only kind of world that any of us can live in is the world that actually exists. Trying to live in the kind of world that liberals envision has costs that will not go away just because these costs are often ignored by liberals.

One of those costs appeared in an announcement of a house for sale in Palo Alto, the community adjacent to Stanford University, an institution that is as politically correct as they come.

The house is for sale at $1,498,000. It is a 1,010 square foot bungalow with two bedrooms, one bath and a garage. Although the announcement does not mention it, this bungalow is located near a commuter railroad line, with trains passing regularly throughout the day.

Lest you think this house must be some kind of designer’s dream, loaded with high-tech stuff, it was built in 1942 and, even if it was larger, no one would mistake it for the Taj Mahal or San Simeon.

This house is not an aberration, and its price is not out of line with other housing prices in Palo Alto. One couple who had lived in their 1,200 square foot home in Palo Alto for 20 years decided to sell it, and posted an asking price just under $1.3 million.

Competition for that house forced the selling price up to $1.7 million.

Another Palo Alto house, this one with 1,292 square feet of space, is on the market for $2,285,000. It was built in 1895.

Even a vacant lot in Palo Alto costs more than a spacious middle-class home costs in most of the rest of the country.

How does this tie in with liberalism?

In this part of California, liberalism reigns supreme and “open space” is virtually a religion. What that lovely phrase means is that there are vast amounts of empty land where the law forbids anybody from building anything.

Anyone who has taken Economics 1 knows that preventing the supply from rising to meet the demand means that prices are going to rise. Housing is no exception.

Yet when my wife wrote in a local Palo Alto newspaper, many years ago, that preventing the building of housing would cause existing housing to become far too expensive for most people to afford it, she was deluged with more outraged letters than I get from readers of a nationally syndicated column.

What she said was treated as blasphemy against the religion of “open space” — and open space is just one of the wonderful things about the world envisioned by liberals that is ruinously expensive in the mundane world where the rest of us live.

Much as many liberals like to put guilt trips on other people, they seldom seek out, much less acknowledge and take responsibility for, the bad consequences of their own actions.

There are people who claim that astronomical housing prices in places like Palo Alto and San Francisco are due to a scarcity of land. But there is enough vacant land (“open space”) on the other side of the 280 Freeway that goes past Palo Alto to build another Palo Alto or two — except for laws and policies that make that impossible.

As in San Francisco and other parts of the country where housing prices skyrocketed after building homes was prohibited or severely restricted, this began in Palo Alto in the 1970s.

Housing prices in Palo Alto nearly quadrupled during that decade. This was not due to expensive new houses being built, because not a single new house was built in Palo Alto in the 1970s. The same old houses simply shot up in price.

It was very much the same story in San Francisco, which was a bastion of liberalism then as now. There too, incredibly high prices are charged for small houses, often jammed close together. A local newspaper described a graduate student looking for a place to rent who was “visiting one exorbitantly priced hovel after another.”

That is part of the unacknowledged cost of “open space,” and just part of the high cost of liberalism.

5 Ways Socialism Destroys Societies

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.

You can see our government growing more and more  tyrannical every day.

We can look at Cuba and see a society destroyed by Communism  Liberalism,Progressivism.

Now I think about it Communism,Liberalism and Progressivism are the same thing. 

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” —Winston Churchill

There are a lot of arguments about whether communism, socialism, and liberalism are the same thing. What shouldn’t be arguable is that they’re all closely related branches of the same tree. If you don’t want to live in a house made out of Aleppo Pine, you probably won’t like a Coulter Pine or Eastern White Pine house either. However, since socialism has failed so often, socialists of every stripe bend over backwards to disassociate themselves from the many other disasters created by their ideology. Still, a pine by any other name is still a pine.

Socialism is particularly dangerous because it’s so perfectly suited for the modern era. It’s the ultimate “miracle” product: it’s “nice,” it’s “fair,” it’ll make you feel good about yourself, it’ll “help” people who “deserve it” by taking things away from people who “have so much” they’ll barely miss it. It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? But, like most products with sleazy salesmen and hidden track records, the promises socialism makes are all a mirage. Since our schools do a terrible job of teaching history and economics these days, it’s our job to explain how socialism slowly, insidiously eats away at the core of a society.

1) It kills economic growth: Strong economic growth is what produces jobs, tax revenue and a better standard of living for everyone, including the poor and middle class. That’s what John F. Kennedy was driving at when he said, “A rising tide (in the economy) lifts all boats.” Socialism strangles economic growth in the crib by penalizing success and rewarding failure. When you loot the successful people in a society to give it to the less successful, you quite naturally reduce the number of successful people and encourage more people to fail. This leads to a never-ending cycle. The more people in need there are, the more the successful must be penalized to pay for them. The more the successful are penalized, the fewer successful people there are. This causes wealth to concentrate in fewer hands, the economy slows down, and even more people need help. It goes on and on until you get a slow economy that can’t produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself. That’s exactly what killed the Soviet Union, it’s killing Greece right now and sadly, the United States and most of Western Europe is on exactly the same path.

2) It stifles free speech: Why is there ridiculous government propaganda in nations like North Korea? Why are most schools, papers, and colleges run by liberals in the United States? Why do liberals often try to disrupt conservative speakers on college campuses? Why are there such extreme speech codes in Canada that it practically makes some conservative arguments illegal? Why does speaking out against the government risk imprisonment in China and the old Soviet Union? Because socialism requires protection, propaganda, intimidation, and darkness to survive. Socialism can’t survive honest, informed debate about its merits among people who are free to choose or reject it because it would not survive the conversation. As Reagan said, “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

3) It leads to an increasingly tyrannical government: Freedom and socialism go together like oil and water. The more socialism you have, the less freedom you will have because socialism can’t survive if people are free to choose whether they want socialism or not. People who are free to say what they want will criticize socialism’s many failures. Areas that aren’t tightly controlled will move towards the free exchange of ideas and goods, not socialism. So, socialism requires a massive bureaucracy that almost inevitably grows. As government grows, it inevitably becomes more centralized, more distant from the people and ultimately more menacing.

4) It creates strife and division: Socialism is all about turning people against each other. It has to be. After all, if you believe in controlling people’s lives, the people who don’t wish to be controlled need to be vilified. If you believe in confiscating the wealth of successful people who won’t give it up willingly, then others must be convinced they’re terrible human beings who deserve to be punished. “Victim” classes must be created for the socialists to defend because if everyone is responsible for himself, what need is there for the socialist? Eventually, those who depend on government for their livelihood and those that the government smears and loots to pay them off come to hate each other.

5) Socialists believe the ends justify the means: Like the pigs in Orwell’sAnimal Farm, socialists believe that, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” For a socialist, the overriding concern is always promoting socialism; so process, rules and regulation mean different things for different people. Fidel Castro may have been the leader of a Communist revolution against the evil “rich people” in Cuba, but he’s worth 900 million dollars today. A law broken by a Democrat and a Republican may be treated very differently by the papers, the courts, and even the Department of Justice under Eric Holder. As Margaret Thatcher explained,

“Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag.”

One of the reasons so many socialist nations are wracked with violent protests and revolutions is because when the rule of law is abandoned, only outlaws have any hope of receiving justice.

12 Unspoken Rules For Being A Liberal

2 Comments

This is from Town Hall.

 

There may be no official rule book for being a liberal, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t rules. There are actually quite a few rules liberals go by and the more politically active liberals become, the more rigidly they tend to stick to their own code of behavior. These rules, most of which are unspoken, are passed along culturally on the Left and viciously enforced. Ironically, many liberals could not explain these rules to you and don’t even consciously know they’re following them. So, by reading this article, not only will you gain a better understanding of liberals, you’ll know them better than they know themselves in some ways.

1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds. The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. This is because liberals define themselves as being compassionate, open minded, kind, pro-science and intelligent not based on their actions or achievements, but based on their ideology. This is one of the most psychologically appealing aspects of liberalism because it allows you to be an awful person while still thinking of yourself as better than everyone else.

2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America: Ever notice that liberals don’t include themselves in their attacks on America? When they say, “This is a racist country,” or “,This is a mean country,” they certainly aren’t referring to themselves or people who hold their views. Even though liberals supported the KKK, slaughtering the Indians, and putting the Japanese in internment camps, when they criticize those things, it’s meant as an attack on everyone else EXCEPT LIBERALS. The only thing a liberal believes he can truly do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal.

3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don’t like should be banned: There’s an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most liberals. It’s not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone must be forced to love gay marriage. It’s not enough for liberals to be afraid of guns; guns have to be banned. It’s not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs; incandescent light bulbs must be banned. It’s not enough for liberals to make sure most speakers on campuses are left-wing; conservative speakers must be shouted down or blocked from speaking.

4) The past is always inferior to the present: Liberals tend to view traditions, policies, and morals of past generations as arbitrary designs put in place by less enlightened people. Because of this, liberals don’t pay much attention to why traditions developed or wonder about possible ramifications of their social engineering. It’s like an architect ripping out the foundation of a house without questioning the consequences and if the living room falls in on itself as a result, he concludes that means he needs to make even more changes.

5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it: A liberal “Christian” or “Jew” is almost an oxymoron because liberalism trumps faith for liberals. Taking your religious beliefs seriously means drawing hard lines about right and wrong and that’s simply not allowed. Liberals demand that even God bow down on the altar of liberalism.

6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought: This one was so good that I stole it from my buddy, Evan Sayet: ” Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the victimization.”

7) Intentions are much more important than results: Liberals decide what programs to support based on whether they make them feel good or bad about themselves, not because they work or don’t work. A DDT ban that has killed millions is judged a success by liberals because it makes them feel as if they care about the environment. A government program that wastes billions and doesn’t work is a stunning triumph to the Left if it has a compassionate sounding name. It would be easier to convince a liberal to support a program by calling it the “Saving Women And Puppies Bill” than showing that it would save 100,000 lives.

8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism:Conservatives often marvel at the fact that liberals will happily elect every sort of pervert, deviant, and criminal you can imagine without a second thought. That’s because right and wrong don’t come into the picture for liberals. They have one standard: Does this politician help or hurt liberalism? If a politician helps liberalism, he has a free pass to do almost anything and many of them do just that.

9) All solutions must be government-oriented: Liberals may not be as down on government as conservatives are, but on some level, even they recognize that it doesn’t work very well. So, why are liberals so hell bent on centralizing as much power as possible in government? Simple, because they believe that they are better and smarter than everyone else by virtue of being liberals and centralized power gives them the opportunity to control more people’s lives. There’s nothing scarier to liberals than free people living their lives as they please without wanting or needing the government to nanny them.

10) You must be absolutely close minded: One of the key reasons liberals spend so much time vilifying people they don’t like and questioning their motivations is to protect themselves from having to consider their arguments. This helps create a completely closed system for liberals. Conservative arguments are considered wrong by default since they’re conservative and not worth hearing. On the other hand, liberals aren’t going to make conservative arguments. So, a liberal goes to a liberal school, watches liberal news, listens to liberal politicians, has liberal friends, and then convinces himself that conservatives are all hateful, evil, racist Nazis so that any stray conservatism he hears should be ignored. It makes liberal minds into perfectly closed loops that are impervious to anything other than liberal doctrine.

11) Feelings are more important than logic: Liberals base their positions on emotions, not facts and logic and then they work backwards to shore up their position. This is why it’s a waste of time to try to convince a liberal of anything based on logic. You don’t “logic” someone out of a position that he didn’t use “logic” to come up with in the first place.

12) Tribal affiliation is more important than individual action: There’s one set of rules for members of the tribe and one set of rules for everyone else. Lying, breaking the rules, or fomenting hatred against a liberal in good standing may be out of bounds, but there are no rules when dealing with outsiders, who are viewed either as potential recruits, dupes to be tricked, or foes to be defeated. This is the same backwards mentality you see in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, except it’s based on ideology, not religion.

 

LIBERAL LUNACY IN AMERICA—EXAMPLES ABOUND

Leave a comment

This is from Patriot Update.

This is offered without comment.

 

It would hard to find a more Alice-in-Wonderland-like phenomenon than liberal logic. A more apt description of liberal logic is liberal lunacy, and examples of this phenomenon abound.   For example, liberals like to call themselves “progressives.”  The Free dictionary defines progressivism as “Promoting progress toward better conditions…”  If Barack Obama and crowd are progressives, then the concept of “better conditions” means higher unemployment, more Americans on welfare, an insurmountable national debt, weakness in foreign relations, and domestic policies that hurt the very people they were enacted to help. These things are not progress.  They are lunacy—liberal lunacy.

Examples of liberal lunacy abound.  For example, liberals in Hollywood make gratuitously violent movies while decrying the amount of violence in American society.  They turn out a steady supply of shoot-‘em-up movies while supporting the anti-gun lobby and trying to overturn the Second Amendment.  What is even worse is that these vacuous Hollywood hypocrites don’t even see the irony in their say-one-thing-but-do-another approach to life.  This is liberal lunacy.

Only liberals would hold $25,000 a plate fund raisers where they listen to leftwing candidates who arrive in limos pontificate about poor Americans who don’t have enough to eat.  Only liberals would demand millions for making pointless, mindless movies that have the intellectual depth of a sheet of paper while speaking out at every opportunity on the evils of greed in America.  Only liberals would support candidates who denounce corporate greed and then, once elected, spend the rest of their careers pandering to people who greedily lust after every dime they can pilfer from the federal treasury.  What is even worse is that while complaining about the “greed” of hardworking taxpayers who question the forced redistribution of wealth, liberals give substantially less to charity than do conservatives and Christians.  Not only can liberals glibly take such contradictory stands, they can do so with a straight face and no sense of embarrassment, much less shame.  This is liberal lunacy.

Only a liberal would have the audacity to accuse America of being a racist nation that discriminates against blacks when we have a black president, black attorney general, and 18 percent of the federal workforce is black, while only 12 percent of the population is black.  While I am on the subject of race, only a white liberal would have the blatant audacity to tell a black conservative he isn’t “black enough.” Further, only a liberal would be so presumptuous as to tell a black conservative he is not really black because he does not toe the line of liberal orthodoxy.  This is liberal lunacy.

Only a liberal would call the murder of unarmed military personnel by a Muslim fanatic “workplace violence” instead of what it is: an act of terrorism.  Only a liberal would respond to terrorist bombings that kill and maim countless Americans by worrying that there might be a backlash against Muslims.  Only a liberal—Barack Obama for example—would make such an absurd statement as: “…Islam has always been a part of America’s history.”  Oh really Mr. President?  Which one of our Founders was a Muslim? Which signer of the Declaration was a Muslim?  Which author of the Constitution was a Muslim?  How many companies of soldiers under George Washington were made up of Muslims?  Where were the Muslims during World War II (Oops, Mr. President—they supported Adolph Hitler).  Where were the Muslims during the Civil Rights battles against Jim Crow (those were Jews walking with Dr. King at Selma, not Muslims)? This is liberal lunacy.

Only a liberal would chastise the people who pay 86 percent of all taxes in America for being unwilling to pay their “fair share” while coddling and pandering to people who pay no taxes.  Only a liberal would oppose requiring an ID to vote but support requiring an ID to buy cigarettes or alcohol.  Only a liberal politician—one like Barack Obama—would extol the virtues of public education while sending his children to private schools and see no contradiction in his actions.  This is liberal lunacy.

Liberal lunacy is a fact of life in America because those who are responsible for calling liberals on their hypocritical words and actions are liberals themselves.  The mainstream media—those entrusted with the responsibility for pointing out the hypocrisy, lies, and falsehoods of politicians—have not just abdicated, they have joined forces with those they should be guarding the public against. This is the ultimate in liberal lunacy.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/liberal-lunacy-america-examples-abound/#pcP5RZTWUhgxAulG.99

 

More Gun Lies From Gabby Giffords

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.

The Giffords and Bloomberg dog and pony show is back on the

 road lying to and trying to intimidate legal gun owners.

Lies and intimidation is all the anti gun loons have.

But guns owners will not buy the lies and we refuse to be

intimidated by these goons. 

 

Gabby Giffords and her still-weightless astronaut husband are like a gun-grabbing Foghat, eternally playing the state fair circuit of American politics. Now they are literally going on tour again, hoping that their audience will forgo the old favorites and welcome a track off their new album.

She’s really just a one-hit wonder hoping to match the airplay of her power ballad “I Suffered a Tragedy So I Have Special Moral Standing (To Advocate Stripping You of Your Fundamental Rights).” The sad truth is that she is the Psy of liberal advocacy, far past her 15 minutes yet valiantly trying to recapture the glory of her gun control Gangnam Style.

Her new tune is apparently entitled “Patriot” because her latest op-ed uses some form of that term four times in about 750 words. I guess it’s now “patriotic” to want to impinge on the constitutional rights of fellow Americans. She doesn’t explain why.

She also warbles about how gun rights come with “responsibilities,” using some version of that term eight times. Except the point of a “right” is that it isn’t contingent upon fulfilling “responsibilities.” It is a foundational element of our social contract and is not subject to infringement by leftists simply because they cloak their oppression with focus group-erriffic labels like “responsibilities.”

If you misuse a gun, the judicial system deals with you afterwards. But you have to misuse a gun before the government gets to limit your rights. Clichés about “responsibility” that sound like they were cribbed from Spiderman movie dialogue are not a meaningful statement of basic Constitutional principles.

Giffords is just the latest leftist trying to speak “Conservative” to us mindless yokels to sucker us into signing on to their petty fascism du jour. You remember the Soros-funded, simpering evangelist woman shilling for the immigration scam whose ad buy on conservative talk radio exceeded even LifeLock’s? They truly think if someone says “Jesus” and leaps off a cliff, we’re going to follow, lemming-like, along behind.

So now the magic words are “patriotic” and “responsibility.” But “patriotism” wasdéclassé to Giffords’s fellow liberals before President Obama got sworn in, and liberals embracing “responsibility?” Give me a break. Liberalism isn’t a coherent ideology; it’s a collection of lame excuses for the sloth, laziness and lifestyle chaos of Democrat voters.

It’s always amusing to hear a liberal like Giffords babbling about “responsibility.” Perhaps Alec Baldwin can lecture us on tolerance, patience, and fatherhood. Too bad the Democrats’ beloved icon, noted KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, can’t share his insights on racial harmony.

There’s more. Now Giffords and her husband are super-duper believers in the Second Amendment who even have guns themselves! Convenient, since the conservative media caught Astro-Giffords himself buying one of those evil, awful assault rifles he and his wife are trying so hard to keep out of the hands of lesser Americans like you and me.

Liberals really do think we’re stupid.

In fact, we’re apparently so dumb they don’t even need to acknowledge obvious facts. Gifford writes that, “in New Hampshire, 93% of Democrats, 79% of Republicans, 82% of gun owners and 60% of NRA households support background checks.” But of course, we already have background checks – the issue is the wisdom of mindlessly expanding them. That’s like saying 95% of Americans support generic drunk driving laws as a specific argument to drop the DUI limit to .01% (well, except for illegals).

Nor does she bother to address our actual concerns. The Toomey-Manchin bill, like every other jammed-down “bipartisan compromise,” was poorly drafted andfilled with loopholes that utterly failed to secure the promises of the sponsors. It purported to prevent a national gun registry but the actual language did not – for some wacky reason, people who take the Second Amendment seriously don’t trust bureaucrats. It also acted to, at best, inconvenience and, at worst, criminalize the innocent behavior of law-abiding citizens.

No, apparently we oppose all background checks because we hate children or something. Maybe we just aren’t “patriotic” or “responsible” enough.

Now, as her “We Love Guns Except When People Like You Have Them” tour begins, look for Giffords’s new tune to not even chart. We’re just not falling for it. And when she realizes she’s getting no traction, look for more whining about how people are being mean to her by actually assessing the form and content of her arguments instead of simply surrendering to her policy preferences because some creep shot her.

Your ideas about how to prevent a tragedy do not become better because you suffered a tragedy. Nor does the fact that you suffered a tragedy insulate you from harsh criticism of the bad ideas you choose to submit into the public debate.

Gabby Giffords has a right to pretend to change her tune on gun control. And we have a right not to listen.

 

5 Myths Liberals Have Created About Themselves

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

This is the best explanation of the liberal myth.

Conservatives need to shatter these myths.

Liberalism is like a restaurant with ugly decor, terrible food, overflowing toilets and roaches scurrying across the floor — that stays packed every night. Sure, liberals may be sanctimonious, mean spirited and advocate policies that don’t work, but you can’t help but admire the excellence of their public relations network. They can laud themselves for courage because they take a stand everyone they know agrees with, pat themselves on the back for their compassion as they maliciously insult someone that disagrees with them and congratulate themselves for their charitable behavior as they give other people’s money away. Liberal mythology is one thing, but what it actually looks like is a different beast entirely.

1) Liberals love science: As Ann Coulter says, “Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional. Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution.” The liberal commitment to science consists entirely of talking about how important science is when they believe they can use it to further the liberal agenda. On the other hand, when science shows that adult stem cells actually work better than embryonic stem cells, millions in Africa have died because liberals needlessly insisted on banning DDT or the evidence shows AIDS is never going to take off in non-drug-using heterosexuals, liberals have about as much interest in science as they do in supporting the troops.

2) Liberals care about education: If you define “education” as doing as much as humanly possible to toss plums to the teachers’ unions who help fund and elect Democrats, liberals love education. Alternately, if you define education as the rest of us do, making sure our kids learn as much as possible and are prepared for the working world, liberals don’t care about education at all. They fight merit pay, oppose firing bad teachers and try to kill even effective school choice programs. Any time there’s a divergence between what’s best for the teachers’ unions and what’s best for the kids, the kids ALWAYS lose with liberals.

3) Liberals are tolerant: In a very real sense, liberals don’t understand tolerance. To them, tolerance is promoting whatever position they happen to hold while excluding all competing views. So, if a conservative speaker shows up on a college campus, liberals try to shout him down. Liberals have tried to censor conservative talk show hosts with an Orwellian “Fairness Act.” They work tirelessly to try to silence Fox News, which is the one center right network up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They block professors for their conservative views, blacklist conservative actors and lock conservatives out of almost every major newspaper in America. That’s not open-minded; it’s a level of dogmatic intolerance that could rival the most radical cult.

4) Liberals don’t moralize: Liberals believe in allowing children to have abortions over the protests of their parents, they want to force churches to perform gay weddings that violate their Christian beliefs and they demand that the Catholic Church provide abortion and birth control over its strenuous moral objections, but then they turn around and deny that they’re moralizing. Getting beyond that, they couch their arguments about tax rates, government programs and economics in distinctly moral terms. After all, what is the term “fair share” if not an appeal to morals? If liberals are going to continue to pretend that they don’t moralize, at least they should admit that they’re morally inferior to conservatives.

5) Liberals love the poor: For both philosophical and practical reasons, conservatives believe in helping the poor escape poverty. We agree wholeheartedly with Ben Franklin’s words of wisdom,

 

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

On the other hand, liberals “love” the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who’re claiming the destitute can have better lives when any “compassionate” person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That’s not love; that’s a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.

%d bloggers like this: