Posts Tagged ‘individual responsibility’

Because Child Molesters Love Socialism, Too: Can Anyone Sink So Low That Liberals Would Refuse Them Socialism Funded By Other People’s Money?

March 4, 2013

I found this as laughable as I found it illustrative:

Re “L.A. adds parks to oust sex offenders,” March 1
I am not a sex offender and to my knowledge don’t know any sex offenders. I certainly don’t condone the illegal actions they committed. And under other circumstances, I would think creating more parks is good.

But when I read The Times’ article about L.A. creating a park in order to force sex offenders from their apartments, I was horrified. Sex offenders need homes like everyone else. These people are human beings and need more support from the city, not less. I’m sure most are trying to put their lives back together and to fight their own urges.

If the city wants to help society, it should assist former sex offenders to have decent housing, provide them with social services and help them get jobs, rather than force them onto the streets.

Rebecca Rona Culver City

The Los Angeles Times print version had the title (written by the newspaper) the headline “They’re people, too.”  Which is of course a highly debatable assertion as far as most “people” are concerned – excluding liberals, of course.  It turns out that government liberalism is FAR more compassionate than God – as long as other people’s money is used to pay for their generosity.  God holds people accountable for their actions; God judges SIN.  Liberalism, by contrast, is only capable of wanting to expand bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger to beget more liberalism (and thus more wickedness).

Is there anything some low-life, cockroach, pile-of-slime, morally-diseased predator of innocence can do to be denied free “decent housing,” free “social services” and free government-created “jobs”?  No.  There is not.

Jesus, out of His compassion healed the lepers and forgave the sinners; but that aint NOTHIN’ compared to Obama’s supernatural compassion: he gave the child molesting scum a check paid for by “taxpayers” with only about half of his largesse coming from money we’re borrowing from China but of course promise our children and grandchildren will pay back with plenty of interest.

Because Obama loves those child molesters so much, so big and so loving is his heart, that he will give them the inheritance of our future generations.  Who – if they could vote today – would surely all choose to be aborted, according to liberal theology.

And because liberalism is all about growing the size of government which grows just as well when it’s doling out handouts to a degenerate pervert as it can when it’s doling them out to somebody who isn’t a piece of slime.  Bureaucracies are needed which are as eternal as the God of Heaven.  And the gates of Heaven shall not prevail against these bureaucracies.

The story being alluded to above – “Los Angeles adding parks to force out sex offenders living nearby” is funny because the uberliberal city of Los Angeles that so warmly invited all these pedophiles to come share their bread are now using the contrived government “service” of city parks to drive them out of the houses they gave them in the first place .  It wasn’t like these perverts went flocking to Texas, you know.  It’s also funny because apparently there’s nothing wrong with discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation, after all.  Which is exactly what religious conservatives have been arguing all along.

It’s kind of laugable in its own way that the liberals who run Los Angeles are now trying to force pedophiles out of their homes so they’ll go somewhere else; given the fact that child molesters are now ditching their GPS devices and slipping out of law enforcement’s ability to track with alarming regularity.  How many of these child molesting turds are going to be leaving their GPS bracelets behild when they’re forced out of their residences???

Liberalism is the constant governing by crisis: they create one crisis (incredibly lax treatment toward pedophiles) and then exploit the failure of their own policy to enact yet another immoral policy.  And then exploit that one to enact ANOTHER immoral policy, and so on ad infinitum.

There are idiot liberals who actually have to pay for their morally idiotic bullcrap out of actual budgets and there are the rest of the liberals who think that money can never be considered an object when a pervert is asking for a handout.  And the liberal with the budget who doesn’t have Obama’s Federal Reserve Money-Fabricating Machine has to choose reality no matter how repulsive reality is to him.

Another thing that’s funny is that the article occurred on the front page of the March 1, 2013 Los Angeles Times an article on the White House involving itself in the Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court on behalf of sodomy.

If I were an attorney for a child molester – another liberal profession whose status as “people” is highly debatable – here’s what I would do: I would argue that the City of Los Angeles is discriminating against my sexual orientation.  After all, if nobody would choose to be gay, just how many people do you think would choose to be child molesters?  Pedophilia isn’t a “choice” any more than homosexuality is a “choice”; these poor victims were born this way, every bit as much as those beloved homosexuals were.  And it is moralistic and anachronistic to judge “people” for their sexual preferences.

Liberalism cannot withstand the light of individual personal responsibility any more than vampires cannot withstand the light of God’s sun.  They simply must dispense with it all together.

That, for the record, was the original homosexual position.  Oh, yes: NAMBLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association – was a vibrant part of the Rainbow Coalition and even briefly enjoyed United Nations representation.

Pedophiles were just born “queer” in a slightly different way, is all.

And of course while homosexual marriage has NEVER been practiced by ANY nation until this last, most wicked generation, pederasty – a.k.a. pedophilia - sure has.

For the factual record, given that the Catholic Church was scandalized and demonized by the liberal mainstream media for “pedophile priest”, and given that in 81% of the cases, those acts of “pedophilia” involved post-puberescant, sexually-developed teenagers rather than tiny little toddlers, I am further warranted to connect homosexuality and pedophilia together just as the left connected it together to attack the Catholic Church.

We are a nation in decline amidst a culture that has already spilled right out into a toxic sewer.  And Obama is demanding more and more tax hikes to fund more and more of his perversion.

And thanks to liberals, we’re going to be forced to keep paying for it until our complete economic collapse.  And then a desperate, hungry people who have already proven how wicked they are will demand that government save them from the disaster that government created.  And therefore they will choose more socialism to save them from the disaster of socialism.

Listen To Liberals: Health Care Competition Will Not Work Because You Are Frankly Far Too Stupid To Be Trusted With More Than Buying A Tube Of Toothpaste

December 28, 2011

I can only say this: given that the American people were stupid enough to elect Barack Obama as their president, it would truly seem that liberals have been right all along: the American people ARE too stupid to be treated like anything other than stupid, helpless sheep, and we need to be led around by the government like the pathetic beasts that we truly are, and the party that assumes the lowest possible common denominator about the intelligence and virtue of the American people is most likely the party that will win:

Why health care competition won’t work
By Amitai Etzioni, Special to CNN
updated 2:08 PM EST, Tue December 27, 2011

Editor’s note: Amitai Etzioni is a sociologist and professor of international relations at George Washington University and the author of several books, including “The Limits of Privacy.” He was a senior adviser to the Carter administration and has taught at Columbia and Harvard universities and the University of California, Berkeley.

(CNN) – A proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden to allow those who retire in the future to chose [sic] between Medicare and private health care insurance for seniors is the latest addition to the drive to increase competition in health care.

Mitt Romney recently released a health care proposal that would introduce vouchers, which would allow consumers to choose where to take their business, although he did not include Medicare as an option. Newt Gingrich’s plan suggests a variety of ways to increase “price competition in the industry.”

And President Obama’s health care overhaul also includes competition, to take place in new statewide exchanges, in which individuals and businesses will be able to find and compare insurance plans in a centralized marketplace.

But research shows that competition in health care cannot be made to work effectively. As patients, we are just not equipped to absorb and process the information needed to make healthy choices on our own.

To highlight the issue at hand, it is best to start with the circumstances in which competition does work. It requires that the consumers purchase items that are relatively small in cost and consequences (a can of beans, a tube of toothpaste, a pizza), that they repeat the purchase often, and that the consumers are able to readily receive and absorb relevant information.

When these conditions are met, consumers can find out which products meet their needs by trying one, then trying some others, then casting away (or not purchasing again) those that fail — without undue costs or harm. And consumers must be able to obtain the information about what the products contain, which they cannot figure out by simply tasting them or trying them on (hence the standardized nutrition labels that describe what foods contain, such as the number of calories and amount of sodium).

[...]

Baaaaah I mean bullcrap.  Unless you vote Democrat, and then the hypothesis that the American people are way, waaaaaaaay too stupid to possibly be able to think for themselves fits better than Michael Jackson’s (or O.J. Simpson’s) glove.

Jimmy Carter is back, reincarnated as Barack Obama.  And I hate the Carter regime even more this time than I did last time.

But then I wasn’t one of those geniuses who thought Obama’s election meant I wouldn’t have to pay for my gasoline or paying my mortgage ever again either.

And yet, apparently I’m just as stupid as liberals think all we Americans are: I shouldn’t have started reading this intellectual ipecac with anything in my stomach…

Obama, The Anti-Kennedy, Anti-Reagan, Anti-Exceptionalism President

December 27, 2011

On the hope of our free nation rests the hope of all free nations.” — John F. Kennedy

Can we doubt that only a divine providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people on the world who yearn to breathe free?” — Ronald Wilson Reagan

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”  — Barack Hussein Obama

We’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades.” — Barack Hussein Obama

Kind of helps you understand why if you attend an Independence Parade on July Fourth or take a moment to contemplate your American flag, you are a Republican these days.

Mind you, the United States of America is an exceptional nation without peer; but it’s closes second is it’s magnificent historic ally, Great Britain.  Unless you talk to somebody associated with the Obama administration:

The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

Britain – the faithful ally and friend that alongside America prevailed over evil in two world wars - gets tossed into the same boat that Obama tosses America into.

But what else should you expect from these people?

SEPTEMBER 1, 2011
Obama and the Burden of Exceptionalism
Post-’60s liberals, with the president as their standard bearer, seek to make a virtue of decline.
By SHELBY STEELE

If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a hundred times: President Obama is destroying the country. Some say this destructiveness is intended; most say it is inadvertent, an outgrowth of inexperience, ideological wrong-headedness and an oddly undefined character. Indeed, on the matter of Mr. Obama’s character, today’s left now sounds like the right of three years ago. They have begun to see through the man and are surprised at how little is there.

Yet there is something more than inexperience or lack of character that defines this presidency: Mr. Obama came of age in a bubble of post-’60s liberalism that conditioned him to be an adversary of American exceptionalism. In this liberalism America’s exceptional status in the world follows from a bargain with the devil—an indulgence in militarism, racism, sexism, corporate greed, and environmental disregard as the means to a broad economic, military, and even cultural supremacy in the world. And therefore America’s greatness is as much the fruit of evil as of a devotion to freedom.

Mr. Obama did not explicitly run on an anti-exceptionalism platform. Yet once he was elected it became clear that his idea of how and where to apply presidential power was shaped precisely by this brand of liberalism. There was his devotion to big government, his passion for redistribution, and his scolding and scapegoating of Wall Street—as if his mandate was somehow to overcome, or at least subdue, American capitalism itself.

Anti-exceptionalism has clearly shaped his “leading from behind” profile abroad—an offer of self-effacement to offset the presumed American evil of swaggering cowboyism. Once in office his “hope and change” campaign slogan came to look like the “hope” of overcoming American exceptionalism and “change” away from it.

So, in Mr. Obama, America gained a president with ambivalence, if not some antipathy, toward the singular greatness of the nation he had been elected to lead.

 

steele

Chad Crowe

But then again, the American people did elect him. Clearly Americans were looking for a new kind of exceptionalism in him (a black president would show America to have achieved near perfect social mobility). But were they also looking for—in Mr. Obama—an assault on America’s bedrock exceptionalism of military, economic and cultural pre-eminence?

American exceptionalism is, among other things, the result of a difficult rigor: the use of individual initiative as the engine of development within a society that strives to ensure individual freedom through the rule of law. Over time a society like this will become great. This is how—despite all our flagrant shortcomings and self-betrayals—America evolved into an exceptional nation.

Yet today America is fighting in a number of Muslim countries, and that number is as likely to rise as to fall. Our exceptionalism saddles us with overwhelming burdens. The entire world comes to our door when there is real trouble, and every day we spill blood and treasure in foreign lands—even as anti-Americanism plays around the world like a hit record.

At home the values that made us exceptional have been smeared with derision. Individual initiative and individual responsibility—the very engines of our exceptionalism—now carry a stigma of hypocrisy. For centuries America made sure that no amount of initiative would lift minorities and women. So in liberal quarters today—where historical shames are made to define the present—these values are seen as little more than the cynical remnants of a bygone era. Talk of “merit” or “a competition of excellence” in the admissions office of any Ivy League university today, and then stand by for the howls of incredulous laughter.

Our national exceptionalism both burdens and defames us, yet it remains our fate. We make others anxious, envious, resentful, admiring and sometimes hate-driven. There’s a reason al Qaeda operatives targeted the U.S. on 9/11 and not, say, Buenos Aires. They wanted to enrich their act of evil with the gravitas of American exceptionalism. They wanted to steal our thunder.

So we Americans cannot help but feel some ambivalence toward our singularity in the world—with its draining entanglements abroad, the selfless demands it makes on both our military and our taxpayers, and all the false charges of imperial hubris it incurs. Therefore it is not surprising that America developed a liberalism—a political left—that took issue with our exceptionalism. It is a left that has no more fervent mission than to recast our greatness as the product of racism, imperialism and unbridled capitalism.

But this leaves the left mired in an absurdity: It seeks to trade the burdens of greatness for the relief of mediocrity. When greatness fades, when a nation contracts to a middling place in the world, then the world in fact no longer knocks on its door. (Think of England or France after empire.) To civilize America, to redeem the nation from its supposed avarice and hubris, the American left effectively makes a virtue of decline—as if we can redeem America only by making her indistinguishable from lesser nations.

Since the ’60s we have enfeebled our public education system even as our wealth has expanded. Moral and cultural relativism now obscure individual responsibility. We are uninspired in the wars we fight, calculating our withdrawal even before we begin—and then we fight with a self-conscious, almost bureaucratic minimalism that makes the wars interminable.

America seems to be facing a pivotal moment: Do we move ahead by advancing or by receding—by reaffirming the values that made us exceptional or by letting go of those values, so that a creeping mediocrity begins to spare us the burdens of greatness?

As a president, Barack Obama has been a force for mediocrity. He has banked more on the hopeless interventions of government than on the exceptionalism of the people. His greatest weakness as a president is a limp confidence in his countrymen. He is afraid to ask difficult things of them.

Like me, he is black, and it was the government that in part saved us from the ignorances of the people. So the concept of the exceptionalism—the genius for freedom—of the American people may still be a stretch for him. But in fact he was elected to make that stretch. It should be held against him that he has failed to do so.

Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Among his books is “White Guilt” (Harper/Collins, 2007).

Regarding the quote about Obama, that he seeks “the ‘hope’ of overcoming American exceptionalism and ‘change’ away from it,” I’m reminded of a comment by Jules Crittendon: “The Obama administration doesn’t study history. It reimagines it.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 535 other followers