Liberals Lying To Liberals: More Than Half Of All Lawyers From Libturd Law Schools Can’t Find The Jobs They Were Promised They’d Be Able To Find

There was that funny joke: what do you call a million lawyers rotting on the bottom of the ocean?  A good start.

Millions of lawyers rotting in the bottom of their parents’ basements would be an even better joke – other than the fact that many of them took out federal school loans and will never pay them back.  That takes some of the haw-haw factor out of this story.

Liberals OWN the law schools.  The bar associations overwhelmingly lean to the left.  That, on top of the fact that liberals dominate the university system in general, kind of makes the issue facing these law school graduates liberals’ fault, doesn’t it?

Given the fact that lawyers give over 90 percent of their political contributions to Democrats, what this pretty much is is institutional liberals lying to young liberals.

Only when liberals get screwed, they do what most other liberals do and sue.

One of the things that surprised me is that the legal profession apparently JUST discovered that there was something called “computers” or “the internet.”  Most of us, of course, have been aware of this stuff for twenty years or so.  So either lawyers seriously need to update their understanding of the actual world, or the excuse you see below is a version of Obama’s “the bad economy isn’t my fault; it’s everybody and everything else’s fault.”

Class action: Law school grads claim misleading reports of success
By Maura Dolan
April 2, 2013, 11:16 a.m.

SAN FRANCISCO — Dozens of law graduates across the nation have joined class-action lawsuits alleging that law schools lured them in with misleading reports of their graduates’ success.

Instead of working in the law, some of the graduates were toiling at hourly jobs in department stores and restaurants and struggling to pay back more than $100,000 in loans used to finance their education. Others were in temporary or part-time legal positions.

Michael D. Lieberman decided to enroll at Southwestern Law School after reading that 97% of its graduates were employed within nine months. He graduated in 2009, passed the bar on his first try but could not find a job as a lawyer. He worked for a while as a software tester, then a technical writer, and now serves as a field representative for an elected official.

Lieberman, who earned his undergraduate degree at UC San Diego, believes his law degree may still be a “useful tool,” but he and other graduates said a suit they filed was intended to combat “systemic, ongoing fraud prevalent in the legal education industry” that could “leave a generation of law students in dire financial straits,” according to the complaint.

Nearly 20 lawsuits — five of them against California schools — are being litigated at a time of dim employment prospects for lawyers. Much of the work once done by lawyers can now be done more quickly by computers.

Online services have made law libraries largely unnecessary, allowing corporations to do more work in-house. Software has sped the hunt for information needed in discovery and other legal tasks, and Web-based companies offer litigants legal documents and help in filling them out. Even after the economy improves, some experts believe the supply of lawyers will outstrip jobs for years to come.

Although lawyer gluts come and go, “I don’t think any of them rival the situation we are seeing today,” said Joseph Dunn, chief executive of the State Bar of California, which regulates the state’s 230,000 attorneys. “The legal community in all 50 states is being dramatically impacted.”

New and inexperienced lawyers, unable to find jobs at law firms, are opening private practices, potentially putting clients at risk, according to a California bar report issued in February. To confront “serious issues of public protection,” a bar task force has recommended requiring practical experience as a condition of a license. The California Supreme Court would eventually have to approve the new rules.

Besides Southwestern, alumni have sued San Francisco’s Golden Gate University, the University of San Francisco and San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson and California Western schools of law. Each school charges about $40,000 a year in tuition.

But not everyone shares the dismal outlook. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine Law School, said his students are finding full-time jobs as lawyers even during this slow economy.  “It is not the same across all law schools when you look at employment prospects,” he said.

Rudy Hasl, dean of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, said the retirement of baby boomers also would open up jobs.

Both deans said there was huge unmet demand for legal services for the poor and middle class, and the next generation of practitioners might be able to fill that demand. The state bar agrees.

“Across the country, the need for legal services among those who cannot pay or have limited ability to pay has never been higher,” the bar report said.

We’re starting to find out what liberals truly think about education, aren’t we?  It’s called “How to exploit stupid people.”  And Democrats are masters in that art.

I submit that “the law” has degenerated into a system whereby cowards get to harass, intimidate and destroy people with virtually no risk to themselves.  Just as “higher education” has degenerated into a system whereby leftist professors get to harass, intimidate and bully students with propaganda in place of where the truth ought to be.  The “legal services for the poor and middle class,” of course, include cars filled with people working for trial lawyers who cut off helpless drivers and then slam on the brakes so they can sue, and disabled people who work for attorneys by going to business after business hoping to find one that isn’t fully enough complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act so they can sue.  It’s not a shame at all that these liberal cockroach predators upon society have overbred themselves.  The problem is that after eating their own, the surviving lawyers will keep feeding on the rest of us.

Obama And His Liberal Fascists Want To Ban Guns. Why Don’t We Ban Anti-Christian Worldviews Instead?

Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, Newtown.  Liberals love to bring up these massacres as “evidence” that we need to ban guns.

But the thing is that, apart from some bizarre Hollywood film, there has NEVER been a single documented case of a gun EVER rising up by itself and deciding to start shooting people.

Liberals are free to try to refute me by documenting cases of guns developing independent consciousness and choosing to go on murderous rampages.  Until then, my statement stands as fact.

But now let’s briefly consider the worldviews of the people who actually pulled the damn trigger of those guns.  Let’s look at the belief systems of the PEOPLE who committed those murders.  You know, rather than contemplating the worldviews of guns that non-liberals understand DO NOT HAVE WORLDVIEWS.

The Columbine killers were atheists who glorified in their atheism.  One of their quotes haunts me to this day.  They recorded themselves claiming, “We are no longer human, for we have evolved beyond human morality.”  In one of their notes they scribbled – and pardon the language – “Why give a fuck what Jesus would do?”  And, “I blew off his head with one shot.  I am god.  He died.”

I welcome atheists to explain in detail how it would be impossible for mankind to ever “evolve” into the kind of alien cultures that wickedly prey on the weak and kill every sentient being they can get their tentacles on that we watched in movies like Independence Day.  Remember that signature line from the film:

President Thomas Whitmore: I saw… its thoughts. I saw what they’re planning to do. They’re like locusts. They’re moving from planet to planet… their whole civilization. After they’ve consumed every natural resource they move on… and we’re next. Nuke ‘em. Let’s nuke the bastards.

Given that liberals love to demagogically and slanderously characterize conservatives in these terms, I demand that evolutionists explain to me how human beings could never so “evolve beyond human morality.”

I remember the exchange from the movie Alien:

Ash: You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.

Lambert: You admire it.

Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

I challenge the atheist with his implicit faith in evolution to demonstrate how it could never possibly happen that human beings could so “evolve beyond human morality” that we would likewise be “unclouded by conscience” and “delusions of morality.”  Especially given the sheer number of human beings who have clearly DONE so.

I submit that there is little question that we are in fact as a culture “evolving beyond human morality.”  Just take a look at the Supreme Court openly considering imposing sodomy in place of marriage while we re-elected the first openly pro-sodomite president.  Which openly flies in the face of the entirety of human civilization and all previous “human morality.”

Liberals WANT the morality that was based entirely on Judeo-Christianity and the Judeo-Christian worldview to “evolve.”  That is their most cherished goal.

Now, on my worldview of Judeo-Christianity, I have a very firm rebuttal to the Columbine killers.  You did NOT “evolve” beyond human morality.  Rather, you were created in the image of a holy God.  And you will be held accountable to the morality that God created you to live out.  What do you have in your moral arsenal to respond to this crisis, atheist?

Right now, according to Judeo-Christianity, the Columbine killers are screaming in hell.  In a trillion years, they will be screaming in hell as God imposes the justice upon them that they denied to their victims.  In a trillion times a trillion-trillion years, they will be viscerally screaming in hell in refutation of the vile atheist crap they believed that motivated their actions.  They were profoundly and wickedly wrong; and all eternity will attest to that FACT.  What punishment do YOU have to deter these moral monsters from committing these terrible crimes, atheist?

It is with this in mind that I recall the famous words of the liberal Supreme Court Justices expressed their opinion that the Ten Commandments – including the one about “Thou shalt not murder” – be forcibly taken down from shcools for the following reason:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all,  it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to  venerate and obey, the Commandments… [which] is not a permissible … objective.”

Was it worth it, liberals?  Was Columbine and all the other horrors that have followed worth your adventure into godlessness?  Are you glad that Eric Harris and Dyland Klebold were never allowed the opportunity to read, meditate upon, and yes, perhaps even to venerate and obey, the Ten Commandments?  Was it a good thing that disturbed people with an urge to mayhem were never exposed to the one reason NOT to indulge their murderous fantasies?  If you have a superior reason not to murder than the Judeo-Christian one that you purged from society, perhaps it is time to share your secret.

Let’s take Jared Lee Loughner and his massacre at Tucson, Arizona.

Jared Loughner was, according to those who knew him, an atheist and by consequent a nihilist:

As Loughner and Tierney grew closer, Tierney got used to spending the first ten minutes or so of every day together arguing with Loughner’s ”nihilist” view of the world. “By the time he was 19 or 20, he was really fascinated with semantics and how the world is really nothing—illusion,” Tierney says. Once, Tierney recalls, Loughner told him, “I’m pretty sure I’ve come to the conclusion that words mean nothing.” Loughner would also tell Tierney and his friends that life “means nothing,” and they’d reply, “If it means nothing, what you’re saying means nothing.”

And of course it DID mean nothing – expect to those famous secular humanist atheist thinkers who basically share in Loughner’s moral idiocy.

I’ve described precisely WHERE the belief system - that words mean nothing, that the world is really an illusion – of Jared Loughner originated from: it came from the philosophical systems and worldview of the left – from existentialism, from postmodernism, from secular humanism.  And I’ve pointed out that these leftist ideas have CONSEQUENCES.  These systems of thought don’t sit in the ivory towers of the secular humanist liberals who invent them.  They spread like the malignant thought cancers that they are.

I’ve similarly posted this refutation of this mindless atheist evolutionary nihilist crap by Dr. Gleason Archer many times, so it isn’t hard to find:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

Go ahead, secular humanist liberal.  Go ahead, atheist.  Show me how what Dr. Archer is saying doesn’t follow.  Show me how the more you scramble something with random and by definition arbitrary evolutionary “progress,” the more ORDER you’ll get.  Show me how you’re correct in asserting that mind necessarily comes from mindlessness rather than from Mind.  Show me how your drivel is anything other than pure degradation – as St. Paul so eloquently states in Romans chapter one (in which St. Paul also points out that some cultures can sink so low into the moral sewer that it will welcome sodomy just as we are doing RIGHT NOW).

Let us also, through the writing of Dinesh D’Souza, consider what would happen to two tribes if one was religious in worldview and the other was atheist:

The Reverend Randy Alcorn, founder of Eternal Perspective ministries in Oregon, sometimes presents his audience with two creation stories and asks them whether it matters which one is true.  In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell  of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago.  You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces.  You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance.  You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe.  You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba.  You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely.  In short, you came from nothing and are going nowhere.

In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God.  You are created in His image, with capacities to think, feel and worship that set you above all other life forms.  You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind.  Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind.  Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a perfect plan for your life.  In addition, God gave the life of His only Son that you might spend eternity with Him.  If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God.”

Now imagine the two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribe to these two worldviews.  Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply?  The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose.  The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all.  The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential.  The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. — Dinish D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity, pp. 15-16

We’ve actually seen this experiment played out in actual human history as we’ve seen the rise of an America founded upon the Judeo-Christian worldview versus the society of the godless French Revolution and its resulting Reign of Terror; versus the rise of godless Marxism and its degeneration into state atheist Stalinism with over forty million of its own people murdered during peacetime; versus the rise of state atheist Maoism and its murder of over sixty million of its own people during peacetime; versus the crushing of the human spirit in state atheist Cambodia where over a million were murdered in the Killing Fields; and versus the godless tyrant regime of state atheist North Korea and the fact that the entire nation is dark at night.

But since when did FACTS ever matter to the left?  Even when there have been more than 100 million “facts” murdered by their official state atheism.

“State atheism” equals “communism”:

State atheism has been defined as the official “promotion of atheism” by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice.^[1]

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Only communist states and socialist states have done so since.

Which is precisely why we are moving in the direction of socialism and communism today.  Because the Democrat Party consists of secular humanists, liberals, atheists who all have the same agenda: to reshape society by reshaping the economies of the world in their image.

You want to ban something?  I suggest we ban a godless left-wing State that has all the guns versus a disarmed and oppressed people who were promised Utopia but have nothing but misery and the very sort of propaganda that we are seeing right now in America to feed them the manure of self-serving lies.

I would suggest banning that instead of going the opposite direction as Democrats demand.

Let’s continue our tour to Aurora, Colorado and the warped worldview that perpetrated it.  He went from murderer to Muslim.  Which given the rabid tendency of Islam to produce terrorists isn’t that far of a stretch.

Let’s look our show to Newtown/Sandy Hook and consider the worldview of the ghostly little creep who murdered 26 people in a school that had no armed security of any kind:

The Sandy Hook gunman worshiped the devil and  had an online page dedicated to Satan, a former classmate revealed, as his  childhood barber recalls Adam Lanza never spoke and would stare at the floor  every time he had his hair cut.

Lanza’s worshiping page had the word ‘Devil’  written in red, Gothic-style letters against a black background, Trevor L. Todd  told The National Enquirer, something which he said was ‘weird’ and ‘gave him  the chills’.

The FBI are trying to piece together his  smashed up hard drive to see if his online footprint will reveal any motive for  the killing, but they strongly believe he made use of devil-worshiping and  suicide sites and boasted of his murder plans on message forums.

I actually saw claims by atheists that this turd was a “Christian” because his desperate, troubled mother took him to church a few times.

You moral idiots, I can not only walk into a garage, but even lie down on the concrete and start calling myself a “car.”  If Adam Lanza was a “Christian” because somebody else took him to a church and he sat in the pew, I guess that makes me a “car.”  Let’s see four of you moral imbeciles climb into me and start driving me down the road on my nonexistent wheels.  I hope I’ll get really crappy gas mileage, just to irritate you.

Let’s get one thing straight.  Rather than banning guns, let’s try banning all these idiotic and depraved worldviews instead.

Now, some of you are shouting that that would violate the Constitution.  But that never stopped you leftists before.  Just as it’s not stopping you now as you stomp all over the 2nd Amendment.

The day that you secular humanist liberals manage to melt every gun down and turn it into ploughshares – as the Holy Bible declares that Messiah will one day do during the Millennium when He reigns as King of kings and as Lord of lords – then you won’t be a crazy fascist nutjob.  Until then, you are crazy fascist nutjobs.  Because the simple fact is that you CAN’T ban guns; you can only pass laws that prevent LAW-ABIDING citizens from being able to legally buy them as criminals couldn’t give less of a damn about your stupid laws.

I pointed out this inconvenient truth about other Dianne Feinstein attempts to stop crime by criminalizing legal products.  Thanks in large part to liberal Democrat Feinstein, it is now incredibly difficult for anyone to purchase pseudoephedrine – a prime ingredient of “meth” and “crank” – except for the criminals who have explodied meth production as a result.  Her proposed ban on assault weapons does little more than treat law-abiding citizens like criminals even as liberals treat criminals like law-abiding citizens.

Secular humanist liberals stupidly think that human nature is something infinitely malleable, something they can mold and shape by replacing God with “the State.”  They foolishly think that the GUN has the depraved worldview rather than the mind of the person who is pulling the trigger.  They think that they can control human behavior by controlling human environment.

In reality, they are the very ones who are producing these sick, evil minds.  In reality, when you criminalize guns you only allow the criminals who don’t give a damn about your stupid laws to possess them.  In reality, when you criminalize guns, you only keep law-abiding citizens from having the means to protect themselves.

By the way, Adam Lanza parked his vehicle in a fire lane.  I know that’s impossible, because it’s illegal to park in a fire lane.  But that’s what he did.  That’s the “respect” psychos have for your stupid laws.  That’s how successful all your stupid laws are in deterring crime.  And in the same way, NONE of the bans or regulations that Obama is proposing as he hypes and demagogues Newtown would have done ANYTHING to prevent the very mayhem that he is so cynically exploiting.

A pro-2nd Amendment rape victim asked the question, “How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?”  I demand that question be answered.

How does it?  How does abrogating the right and the ability of self-defense to the government – a government whose president literally fearmongered to take away the police as he deceitfully demagogued the sequester - do that?  Why should I surrender my own security and protection as a law-abiding citizen to a president who literally threatened to withhold the police protection that I would as a result of his policies depend on for my survival unless I agree to his massive tax hikes?  Why should the American people make themselves hostages to an incredibly cynical political agenda?

Under secular humanism, i.e., under liberalism, no one is responsible for their actions – just as no one is to be given any credit for their hard work or the wealth that they earn as a result of their efforts – and therefore ANYBODY can go nuts at any time and therefore NO ONE should be allowed to possess a gun even as no one should be allowed to work hard and keep the wealth they earned.  Except liberals and the government they erect to advance liberal fascism.  Society is to blame when murders murder; society is to be credited when rich people work hard and become rich.  Individual responsibility and individual credit alike are anathema to the left.  We are herd animals; only the herd matters.

And liberals – who invariably manage to exempt themselves from all their edicts – hypocritically view themselves as having some sole mandate to rule over all others and crush all opposition to their rule.  Society is all that matters; and they get to dominate that society.

We find that Obama has been the WORST president when it actually comes to enforcing the gun laws already on the books.  Just as his home city of libturd Chicago is the worst city in the nation at enforcing the laws already on the books.  These people don’t want to protect the defenseless; they want to exploit the tragedies that their policies create in order to impose more fascist control over the people and render them more and more and more powerless to defend themselves and defend their Constitution from government tyranny.

Every single tyrant regime on earth – whether it be Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Kim Jong-Un’s North Korea – seized guns from the people before they imposed their godless agenda.  Every single one.  And now we’re following the same path toward slavery and the ultimate crushing of the human spirit.

That was the whole point of the 2nd Amendment: it was to be the people’s protection against future government tyranny.

Since we’ve already seemingly decided that the Constitution isn’t worth its weight in bovine manure, why don’t we just cut to the heart of the matter and ban something that will actually stop the mayhem???  Why don’t we ban secular humanism?  Why don’t we ban atheism?  Why don’t we ban murderous political systems masquerading as religious systems like Islam does?

In reality, over 55 million innocent human beings have been murdered by Obama’s demonic abortion hell pits.  As opposed to the relatively miniscule number of children killed in gun homicides.  If you care about children, why do you smile sweetly at the millions of precious babies murdered by your abortion???  Why should anybody give one damn when holocaust baby murdering liberals demand children be “protected” by fascist gun laws?  And why is it that it is LIBERAL cities like Obama’s home city of Chicago - rather than the pro-gun conservative areas – where all the children are being murdered as law-abiding people are rendered defenseless and helpless?  Why is it that the murderous policies of liberalism become the basis for even more murderous policies of liberalism?

We’ve got a Democrat doctor right now on trial for delivering numerous babies alive so he could have an easier time slashing their little spines and throats with his scalpel.  Just as we have a Democrat professor demanding that his students stomp on Jesus and everything Jesus stood for.

Why don’t we ban Obama?  Why don’t we criminalize the Democrat Party?

But of course we’re not going to do those things, are we?

The beast will be celebrated, worshiped and praised by the Democrat Party that actually voted to remove God from its Party platform.  He will be celebrated, worshiped and praised by the same Party whose representatives demanded that the idiot youth whose morally-warped minds Democrats have captured stomped on the name of Jesus.  He will be celebrated, worshiped and praised by the same Party that is now exalting in the homosexual sodomy that God in His Word declared to be an abomination.

That’s why when the beast of the Book of Revelation comes, there will BE no guns for people to protect themselves with.  And every single Democrat will eagerly worship the beast and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.

You’ll get yours, Democrat.  In the exact same place where the Columbine killers are already getting theirs.  Your day is coming.

As a P.S. of how liberalism is to blame for these savage murders, it turns out that thirty years ago, a family could petition a court to declare a family member crazy and have him or her committed.  But guess who decided that was inhumane?  You guessed right: ACLU liberals.  Liberals, understanding that liberalism is a mental disease, figured that it was better to keep these psychotic lunatics outside where they could vote Democrat than locking them up and putting them in rubber rooms where they belong.

As a P.P.S. of how liberalism is to blame for these savage murders, it similiarly turns out that Hollywood liberalism is responsible for both the violent movies – which glorify violence – and the video games that literally teach kids how to kill while desensitizing them to the violence they commit.  And again, liberals, apparently understanding that they are entrenching a violence-laden culture, could do something about this problem they created if they wanted.  But they would rather cynically exploit their culture of violence by blaming it on guns.  And of course, on Republicans.

Should I add a P.P.P.S. about liberals and rap music that glorifies violence, hostility toward women and the lowest form of gang-banging nihilism???

Where Economic Marxism – And LIBERALISM – Truly Comes From: Hostility Toward God And Religion

Few casual liberals realize the fact that the entire economic premise underlying economic Marxism flows from a hostility toward God and toward religion.

Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism.  In the words of Karl Marx:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

What did Karl Marx mean by this?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system.  Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.”  Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God.  And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASED on coveting.  “Hey, look at those damn rich people!  They’ve got everything!  Let’s take their stuff!”  Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.

God said, “Thou shalt not covet.  Thou shalt not steal.”  And Marxists – and frankly liberals and Democrats – declared instead,  “Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s possessions, and thou shalt seize them and redistribute them.”

The sin of Achan as described in Joshua chapter 7 (especially 7:21) follows this order: first you covet, THEN you steal.  And thus economic Marxism, based on atheism and upon replacing God with the all-powerful socialist State, first ordains abolishing God, then ordains materialism and demagogues coveting, and then ultimately empowers the all-powerful government that they have erected to steal in the name of the people.

The book of Ephesians 5:5 identifies coveting with idolatry.  And this idolatrous coveting is a root-sin from which all others flow.  Covetousness comes from idolatry because you are taking God off the throne and replacing Him with yourself – or in the case of Marxism, with the State – in God’s place.  We covet what belongs to others because we have a misplaced value system.  As our desires and our pleasure are directed more and more toward more material things, we covet and begin to feel entitled to take – or allow the State to take – what others have built and worked for.  And many people as a result of this system have a seething anger toward those who have more than they because their unrealistic expectations aren’t being met.  God created us to find our fulfillment and our happiness in Him, but Marxism – and liberalism – says piss on that.  God is an illusion, and we can take what we want from others to make ourselves happy.

Glenn Beck featured a Jewish Rabbi named Daniel Lapin who described the Tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis chapter 11.  Lapin says that these nine verses in Genesis 11:

“reveal this dark secret that lies at the deepest recesses of the human soul, which is our susceptibility to become slaves. It’s there. It’s ready. It can pounce at any moment and transform us into serfs.”

Rabbi Lapin points out that King Nimrod didn’t actually come out and say, “Let’s build a tower.”  Rather, he said, “Let’s make bricks.”  And united the people in the endeavor of making bricks.  And this is important, as Lapin explains:

Bricks are really important things here. Later on in the five books of Moses, ancient Jewish wisdom highlights the fact that that an altar — an altar to God must not be built of bricks, right? It has to be built with stones.
 
Why? Because this tension between the bricks and stones is absolutely crucial. Bricks and stones are a biblical metaphor for the way people should be stones, and the way we are easily pulled to be bricks.

Two differences between bricks and stones.
 
Number one, every brick is the same as every other brick. That’s the whole point. They’re totally interchangeable. If you want to turn people to bricks, you are able to turn them into interchangeable social economic cogs that can be just plugged around society.
 
The second thing about bricks is they’re made by man. Stones are each unique. When we have a tradition in Western civilization that man is created the image of God, what it really means is that just as God is unique, so is every single human being is unique, just like a stone.
 
Don’t allow other people to turn you into bricks, retain the personality of a person for which you are created.
 
It’s a difference between “yes, I can,” and “yes, we can.” [...]

And one way it really works is that in every epoch, there is always going to be somebody who tries to seize power. What these 11 verses — these nine verses in Chapter 11 tell us is here are the things you have to watch out for. Here are the things that a potential tyrant is going to do in order to seduce you.
 
Number one, he is going to have a tower. Now, a tower means reaching for the skies — appealing to everything that is great in human nature.
 
Now, look, any leader, whether you’re taking care of your family, whether you’re running a business, whether you’re a military leader — you know, military recruiters don’t say: Hey, come join us. The food is horrible. You’re likely to get killed and you’re going to be a horribly hot — they don’t do that. Step forward and play a role to defend your country, be all you could be. You appeal to the highest in human nature.

That’s what tyrants learn to do as well.

And we don’t need God. We don’t need stones. We don’t need anything that God created because you are great, people are great. All of this is going to be built with bricks and we’re going to make you all interchangeable. That’s why tyrants will do exactly that.

Conservative thought emphasizes that individuality of the Bible as told by the God who created us in His image.  We’re not interchangeable bricks unified by an all-powerful State, we’re individual stones.  But Barack Obama is firmly rooted in man as bricks.  He says of small business owners, the most individualistic people of all, “You didn’t build that.  Government did.”   But back in this ancient time, just as they were when Karl Marx emerged onto the scene, people had been worshiping God and content in their religion.  But then this King Nimrod came along.  The Bible described him as a “hunter of men.”  Why?  Lapin explained:

Why on earth would this one man, Nimrod, be identified as a hunter? Because he hunted, not animals, he hunted people. Not to kill them, he hunted people to seduce them into becoming his subjects and to allow him to become their master.

Karl Marx and Barack Obama haven’t presented anything new, as Rabbi Lapin explains:

The new idea is — and is presented as the Babel blueprint. This is not long forgotten story. This is actually something which is as relevant today as it will be tomorrow, as it was when Robespierre was conducting the French Revolution. The principle is always the same.
 
The two competing ways of organizing human society: One is the Abraham vision of individual independence, individual accountability, God-centric — versus the idea of centralized control.

So, Abraham gives the vision of individual independence, which always has to include economic impendence. That’s absolutely crucial. And sure enough, Abraham, first man in the Bible described as a wealthy man, a blessing, a good thing. Not a curse — a good thing.

And what is it that binds all of these interchangeable bricks that Marxism and liberalism want us to become?  Mortar.  And what is mortar?  Lapin again:

Yes now, in Hebrew, mortar is very related — same word really as the word materialism. And you can actually even hear the similarity transfer into the English language. Mortar — M, T, R are the key consonants. Material — matter — same word essentially.
 
And it’s very important because the lesson from ancient Jewish wisdom here is that you can bond people and unify people with a sense of common spiritual purpose, but if you’re going to eliminate the spiritual — if you’re going to take God entirely out of the picture — then you can unify people through materialism.
 
Get people in debt, use your credit cards, folks. Buy stuff. Acquire stuff. And then you can rent storage facilities to keep the stuff you bought that you don’t need.
 
But that way, we’re all in this together and we can all talk about the great commercials we saw during the football game. And we’re all in this great materialistic splurge because it will unite people.

Materialism that flows from the denial of God:

And what any tyrant knows is that you cannot enslave a people that believe in the Boss. You just can’t. And so, therefore, any tyranny will always begin to develop a hostility to traditional biblical faith, a hostility to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, a hostility to biblical commitment of any kind at all.
 
You always find that, whether it’s Cuba or the Soviet Union or anywhere else, secularism becomes the religion of the day. In fact, I gave it a name — secular fundamentalism, I think, is the religion of the day.

Now, it usually doesn’t begin with religious belief and God-centric thought and then get replaced by atheism.  There is, rather, very often a process by which religion is eroded away until it can be overthrown altogether and replaced.  And so atheistic Marxism was itself officially repackaged into a pseudo-Christian heresy called “liberation theology” that Barack Obama bought from his pastor for 23 years. I described this movement and its relationship to communism in my very first article:

But even allowing that Obama somehow never heard – and even more amazingly, never heard of – anything offensive ever coming from the mouth of his pastor, anyone even remotely familiar with Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and the Trinity United Church of Christ knows full well that both the pastor and the church are leading proponents of an extremely radical ideology known as “black liberation theology.” In short, liberation theology is a giant nut of Marxism covered with a candy coating of Jesus. Liberation theology is a reading of Christianity through Marxist eyes, and very pointedly NOT vice versa. Rather than forgiving its enemies, its adherents all over the world have routinely claimed that oppressors should be overthrown by violent means.

Liberation theology was developed in the early 1970s to pave the way for the communist Sandinistas to infiltrate – and subsequently dominate – Nicaraguan society. The Sandinistas understood full well that they had no hope of installing a Marxist regime in a country that was well over 90% Roman Catholic unless they could successfully subsume Catholicism into their cause of Marxism. And the wedding of Marxism with Christianity was brought about in a clear effort of the former to crush the latter.

Marxism – atheistic though it is – has frequently been characterized as a Christian heresy, in which a glorious new age utopia (a Marxist perversion of heaven) is to be ushered in by a transformation of human nature in a grand historical dialectic. In traditional Christianity, the ennobling of human nature takes place because of the creation of man in the image of God and because of the divine Christ’s Incarnation; in Marxism, the State assumes God’s place. Marxism offers rival theories of sin (private property) and salvation (collective ownership), a church that dispenses grace (the State), and a litany of saints (the proletariat and their Marxist leadership) and sinners (the bourgeoise and their capitalists enablers). In actual historical practice, in every single case, Marxism in a single century has led to more human slaughter and more degradation than all the religions of the world combined led to throughout all of human history.

Thus we see that it is not too much of a stretch for Christian heretics to embrace Marxism as a creed, since, as G.K. Chesterton pointed out, heresy is often truth gone mad. Liberation theology is the subsumption of one tiny truth (that God cares about the poor) wrapped by so much error that it resulted in a form of insanity that saw “Christians” embrace what clearly amounted to terrorism against governments and the very poor and innocent that they claimed to champion.

That last sentence about “terrorism against governments and the very poor and innocent that they claim to champion” is simply true: Marxism has been responsible for the murder of 100 million of its various regimes’ own people in less than a single century. It has crushed the human spirit more than any other system in the history of the world. It offered fantastic promises to create a Utopia for the poor and then ended up taking everything from the poor before ultimately destroying and murdering them.

Marxism was NEVER about the poor; Marxism was ALWAYS about the State.

Liberalism as a movement has LONG realized what hard-core Marxism understood through “liberation theology” in the 1970s.  Namely, that you could “Christianize” socialism by taking that little kernel of truth – that God cares for the poor – and then exploiting that to build a gigantic totalitarian nanny state that is itself a massive lie out of that tiny kernel of truth.

Don’t tell me that liberalism isn’t a close relative of Marxism that is only waiting to be given enough power to become exactly LIKE Marxism.  Karl Marx provided a key statement about economic Marxism when he said:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

What we have here is the grounds for a State to seize wealth from those who produce and redistribute it to those who do not.

And I defy any liberal to explain how ideological liberalism repudiates and denounces this central premise of Marxism.

I have more to say about liberalism and how it has perverted the essence of Jesus and Christianity, and will do so in an article I have yet to write titled, “Why Do Depraved Democrats Deceitfully Distort Jesus To Demagogue Republicans???”

Left’s War On Women Continues: Planned Parenthood In Public Schools Teaching 10-Year-Old Girls To Give Blowjobs – Then Accept Sodomy.

I know I’m getting old.  I know it because at this point I think I’ve seen everything.

I’ve been documenting the real “war on women.”  It is literally a war of extermination on women, in addition to hatred for women and the role they play as wives and as mothers:

Planned Parenthood’s War On Baby Women: Planned Parenthood Kills Girls Just Because They’re Girls While They Claim Their Opponents Are ‘Anti-Woman’

Former CNN Anchor BLASTS Obama For ‘War On Women’ And ‘Julia’ Campaigns And Says STOP CONDESCENDING TO WOMEN

Obama, The War-On-Women President, Slow-Jams On Jimmy Fallon Show To Same Band That Played ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch’ When Michelle Bachmann Appeared As Guest

Liberals CONTINUE To Document That They Despise Housewives And Mothers

Democrats And Their War On Women

Obama And Democrat Party Want To Bring Sweden’s War On Parents By Government Takeover On America

Obama ‘Boy’s Club’ White House A Hostile Work Place Against Women (Obama Pays Women SIGNIFICANTLY Less Than Men)

Here’s a new front: teaching little girls to be big whores to sexually satisfy however many men wish to use them in a manner that won’t end up creating a hated baby:

School Uses Planned Parenthood Curriculum to Teach Kids Oral Sex
by Rita Diller | Olympia, WA | LifeNews.com | 6/20/12 4:19 PM

Parents could tell something was wrong with the children when they came home from school. They were quiet and withdrawn, embarrassed, and didn’t want to talk about what had happened. When Curtis and Jean Pannkuk began questioning their young daughter, they discovered that her elementary school principal had instructed her that day in how to perform oral and anal sex. The traumatizing instruction was delivered as a part of state approved sex education that was orchestrated, developed, pushed, and policed by Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice Washington, SIECUS, and a host of other agencies.

Though parents in the small town of Onalaska, Washington, are furious that their children have been violated and traumatized by the highly inappropriate sex instruction, the superintendent defended the principal’s delivery of graphic instruction in aberrant sex to the elementary school students, telling local media, “I think the principal handled it appropriately at the time; she only gave factual information, no demonstrations.” In another interview, he indicated that she “stuck to the curriculum.”

Curtis Pannkuk says if that’s the case, the curriculum needs to change. In an interview with Fox Radio News, Pannkuk said, “One of the other parents said it well—they raped the minds of the ten-year-old, eleven-year-old kids.”

Planned Parenthood’s influence in state-approved and state-mandated sexuality education is taking a ghastly toll on children. Onalaska parent James Gilliland expressed anger and dismay after his daughter’s innocence was stripped from her by the oral sex instruction. His wife, Kadra, said, “I was just shocked because I trusted my little country school. I trusted my school—that’s the bottom line, and they crossed the line.”

And that is exactly what Planned Parenthood relies upon when pushing its agenda through coalitions on the national, state, and district levels. Planned Parenthood operatives know that parents are busy with their lives and often trust their schools to do the right thing for their children. That creates the perfect opportunity for Planned Parenthood to enter the schools while parents are not paying attention, with all the wrong things for children.

Everyone is focused on Planned Parenthood and the evil it does through abortion. That evil is the ultimate child abuse and certainly renders the abortion giant unworthy of one penny of government funding. But even if Planned Parenthood never committed another abortion, the impact of its sex indoctrination programs on children, teens, and young adults is reason enough to strip it of government funding and run it out of the nation.

Visit our Defund Planned Parenthood action center and watch our ALL video report “Hooking Kids on Sex.” Then visit http://www.stopp.org to find out how to run Planned Parenthood out of your schools and out of your community. To book one of our expert speakers, contact msedlak@all.org.

Read Planned Parenthood is behind King County schools’ sex education for more information on Planned Parenthood’s intricate, not-so-well-hidden puppet-mastery of the HIV and sexuality education program in place in the King County, Washington, school that led to the forcible invasion of these children’s right to sexual innocence.

–

The curriculum in use in the King County, Washington, school where children in fifth grade were recently taught how to have oral and anal sex, is the Family Life and Sexual Health (F.L.A.S.H.) state-approved curriculum. Planned Parenthood is particularly enamored with this curriculum, highly recommending it on its website, alongside lesson plans from the SIECUS Sex Ed Library. (Dr. Mary Calderone, a former medical director at Planned Parenthood, was the first director of SIECUS.)

The state of Washington OSPI (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction)—the agency that approves sex education programs for use in schools—recommends the Rutger’s-based Answer in its flyer as the resource for teacher training and staff development for state mandated HIV and state approved sexual health education. Answer is also recommended on the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood website, which goes on to say, “Teachers can earn professional credits from the ETR Associates Resource Center for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention (ReCAPP).” (ETR Associates began its corporate life as the Education Department of the Santa Cruz Chapter of Planned Parenthood.)

Answer promotes a Teen-to-Teen Sexuality Education Initiative called Sex, Etc. It offers the usual Planned Parenthood fare, including links to Planned Parenthood websites, advice on how to skirt parents, immoral sexual advice, abortion rights information, gay rights information, and instructions on how to have gay sex. Its website features a video claiming that when it comes to sex, “parents obviously don’t have the answers, and teenagers still need them. That’s where honest sex ed comes in.”

And who do you think might be training the teachers who are teaching the F.L.A.S.H. curriculum? A visit to Answer’s TISHE 2.0 (In-Service Training) Core Staff 2012 page features Mark Huffman, who just happens to be a former vice president for education and training at Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee. Also on staff is another former PP employee, Kurt Conklin, who is now the director of programs at SIECUS.

Additionally on staff is Nora Gelperin, recognized for her experience in training teachers nationwide in 2010. She received the Mary Lee Tatum Award from, that’s right, the Association of Planned Parenthood Leaders in Education. You might say she wrote the Answer book, in that “she developed Answer’s three dynamic online workshops ‘Sexuality ABCs (Abstinence, Birth Control and Condoms),’ ‘STD Basics’ and most recently ‘LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning) Issues in School.’”

Current Planned Parenthood employee Maureen Kelly rounds out the list of presenters. She is VP for programming and communications with Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes. She also served for nine years on the SIECUS board of directors. “Kelly is the proud founder of Planned Parenthood’s Out for Health: LGBT Health & Wellness program.” Only two out of the six TISHE presenters do not list a current or past association with Planned Parenthood.

The TISHE 2.0 in-service teacher-training program is co-sponsored by SIECUS and Answer.

Planned Parenthood goes to great lengths to hide from parents its dominant position in school sex ed programming, but a few hours on the Internet reveals an extremely intricately woven web of deceit composed of organizations that spring from or are otherwise closely connected to Planned Parenthood. Those organizations and individuals are actually working with Planned Parenthood to call the shots when it comes to school-based sex education.

LifeNews.com Note: Rita Diller is the national director of American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood Project.

The more evil the left becomes, the more depraved our kids become.  Which in turn the left cites as justification for instilling still MORE evil.  And the vicious cycle just keeps getting more vicious.

In the Indian state of Punjab, there are 300 girls born for every 1,000 boys.  And you can thank abortion, liberalism and the Democrat Party for championing this extermination of womens in the name of “the right to choose.”

Men don’t bother to stick with women any more.  Abortion and the liberal Democrat justification for abortion has determined that men can’t really be “fathers” of anything other than non-human lumps of goop.  Further, liberal Democrats teach that men should have absolutely ZERO to do with whether babies live or die.  Which means they are completely expendable as “fathers” and really shouldn’t bother to stick around.  Democrats have done a fantastic job teaching men to abandon women and to abandon their role as fathers.

Now liberals are teaching women to shut up and start sucking.  And when they’ve finished doing that, they can stay shut up and bend over so there won’t be any babies.

It started when liberals taught us that oral sex wasn’t really “sex” to justify what Bill Clinton did clearly couldn’t be “sexual” when he had his intern giving him blow jobs in the Oval Office.  Now the left has added the new twist of teaching it in public schools to go along with accepting sodomy.

And that from the movement that continually tells us how “pro-woman” they are.

Like I said; I’m officially old.  Because I’ve seen everything.

Why Liberals Are America’s Nazis: A Look At The Milgram Experiment, Fanatic Religious Faith In Global Warming And Worship Of Big Government Authority

Ever hear about the Milgram Experiment?  It was a rather famous – or  infamous – 1962 experiment that measured the willingness of ordinary Americans to brutalize or even torture another human being under the auspices of a white-coated authority.  Milgram found that 62 percent of Americans would pull a switch that delivered what they believed was progressively high doses of electricity that ultimately reached what would have been a fatal dose of 450 volts.

Milgram said by way of conclusion to what he had learned through his experiment that, “If a system of death camps were set up in the United States of the sort we had seen in Nazi Germany, one would be able to find sufficient personnel for those camps in any medium-sized American town.”  [But allow me to point out at the very outset that Milgram's initial experiment actually measured garden variety Connecticut liberals and the subsequent verifications of his experiment mainly measured liberals located in liberal university towns].

That thought frankly ought to scare the crap out of you as you survey your neighbors and your friends and consider what kind of hell they would willingly support in the event of a political change.  You ought to realize you could very quickly end up being the next “Jew” in the next Nazi Germany.  And if you claim that the fundamental decency of the American people would preclude that from happening, the title of “fool” belongs to you.

I was watching a program about a repeat of that experiment that ended up showing that ordinary Americans are as willing to follow a white-coated authority figure’s instructions to brutalize as they EVER were.  You can skim through this to familiarize yourself with the experiment and the findings:

Would You Have Been A Nazi?
A new test of Milgram’s obedience experiment asks if it can still happen here.
Ronald Bailey | January 6, 2009

Don’t answer too hastily, but have you ever wondered what you would have done if you grew up in Nazi Germany? Of course, we all hope that we would have had the moral strength to stand against that monstrous regime, but can we be so sure? After all, times were tough and both important politicians and leading intellectuals supported Nazi theories and policies. And then there were the ordinary Germans, friendly neighbors like Karl and Lötte down the street. They had joined the Party and were sending little Wolfgang and Gretchen to healthful Party-sponsored summer camps. Being a Nazi was normal for many Germans. Would things have been any different for you or me if we had been unfortunate enough to grow up at that time and in that place?

The most horrific feature of Nazi and Communist regimes, of course, was their industrial-scale savagery. The Nazis managed to murder six million Jews and 22 millionother Europeans. The Soviet Communists exterminated 62 millionand the Chinese Communists killed 35 million. While these murders were ordered by vicious dictators, they were actually carried out by ordinary people like Karl and Lötte. Which brings us to the famous obedience studies conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram.

In 1961, Milgram did research involving ordinary residents of New Haven, Connecticut, who participated in an experiment that ostensibly aimed at determining the effect of punishment on learning. Along with the experimenter, the situation involved two subjects, one a “teacher” and the other a “learner.” The learner was a confederate of the experimenters, so the teacher was the only actual participant. In the experiment, the learner was supposed to memorize a list of word associations. The learner was strapped down to a chair with an electrode attached to his wrist. To encourage learning, the teacher was to pull switches that would supposedly increase electric shocks from 15-volts up to 450-volts in 15 volt increments. Before the experiment began, both the teacher and the learner were given 45-volt shocks. In addition, the switchers were labeled with warnings such as Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, and so forth, all the way up to Danger: Severe Shock. The final two switches were marked XXX.

As the experiment proceeded, the learner (experimental confederate) would keep making wrong answers. The teacher (experimental subject) would then be instructed by the expermenter to progressively pull the switch for ever higher levels of shock. The learner would begin to make noises expressing pain at 75-volts increasing in loudness until 150-volts, at which point he would urgently demand to be released, complaining of heart palpitations. His complaints would grow louder until 300-volts were reached. At 330-volts the learner fell silent. If the teacher showed signs of wanting to discontinue, the experimenter offered a series of prompts:

• “Please continue”
• “The experiment requires that you continue”
• “It is absoulutely essential that you continue”
• “You have no other choice, youmust go on”

The appalling results of these obedience experiments was that 65 percent of participants eventually pulled all of the switches, ultimately reaching the 450-volt level. But perhaps modern Americans would be less susceptible to the demands of authority. After all, the intervening years have seen the rise of the civil rights, peace, and gay rights movements, right? Not necessarily. Last month, Santa Clara University psychologist Jerry Burger reported the results of replicating Milgram’s experiment. He excluded people who had heard of the original experiments and found that the average rate of obedience remained the same at around 65 percent. In addition, there was no difference between men and women.

In 1965, Milgram wrote, “With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter’s definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts.” In 1979, Milgram’s judgement was more severe: “If a system of death camps were set up in the United States of the sort we had seen in Nazi Germany, one would be able to find sufficient personnel for those camps in any medium-sized American town.”

But can it really happen here? It’s a giant step from a Yale psychology lab to Auschwitz and the Gulag. What Milgram showed was that ordinary people are deferential to authority figures in laboratory settings. The exact nature of the authority wielded by experimenters is controversial, but it seems based on both perceived legitimacy and expertise. It doesn’t take too much imagination to think that even more people would have gone all the way to 450-volts if the experimenter had the power to punish disobedience. Leaders of governments, militaries, religions, corporations, universities, and gangs all arguably exercise these types of authority. Hierarchy is a universal feature of human societies.

As obedience experiments show, Americans are not really any better at resisting the claims of authority than other people, yet there was no Gulag and no Auschwitz here. True, there was the immense moral evil of slavery, the destruction of Native Americans,Woodrow Wilson’s imprisonment of thousands of dissidents, Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans, and more recently, the Abu Ghraib cruelties. Leaders at all levels can persuade some Americans to participate in immoral activities. However, the arc of American history has been toward correcting old evils and the commissioning of fewer atrocities over time. Why? Because our institutions of freedom have maintained and expanded the norms that limit the powers wielded by authorities.

For example, a free press is able to criticize practices like slavery and racial discrimination and help establish new norms. If Bill and Joanne down the street send their kids Joe and Kathy to an ethnically mixed school, in other words, it must be OK. In addition, American governmental powers are fragmented and in competition with one another. As another Milgram experiment showed, if two experimenters disagreed about continuing the experiment, the majority of participants sided with the one who argued for stopping it. In other words, when people could refer to an authority figure who agreed with their moral views, they were much more likely to act on them. Similarly, dividing up governmental power increases the chances that some authorities will act ethically and thus inspire people to act on the dictates of their consciences.

Milgram didn’t really explore why it was that Germans created death camps while Americans did not. The answer is liberty. In 1974, Milgram more generously noted, “It is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.” Americans have not escaped the natural human tendency to defer to authority. Instead, we have had the good fortune to find ourselves in the situation where our social institutions have traditionally limited what authorities can get away with. The institutions of liberty are what enable people to act on what Lincoln called, “the better angels of our nature.”

Ronald Bailey is reason‘s science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Well, this is what occurred to me as I watched the program: this shocking experiment could easily be rephrased as a measurement of one’s commitment to liberalism.

Why would I say that?

Which political ideology WANTS a state possessing limitless power (see here and here for examples)?  Which ideology is only too über-willing to commit itself to every new pseudo-scientific trend that appears under the sun?  Which ideology is constantly trying to expand the role and power of government to have the ability to shape and control peoples’ lives?  Which ideology has the frightening tendency to worship its leaders in what I argue is a shockingly similar to the adoration that the German people accorded to their Führer?

Let me begin with my last question first: let’s consider the Obama worship that I argue conservatives would NEVER have applied to George W. Bush.

If you’re a liberal and you want to deny or rebut my premise, YOU SHOW ME REPUBLICANS DOING CRAP LIKE THIS FOR THEIR MESSIAH PRESIDENT GEORGE DUBYA BUSH (see also here):

That ought to terrify the hell out of you almost as much as the Milgram experiment.

You show me garbage like this:

You show me this:

You show me government school teachers indoctrinating precious American schoolchildren (including REPUBLICAN PARENTS’ children) like this:

And of course this liberal propaganda-in-public-school crap goes on ALL the time, as government and union teachers exploit their positions as opportunities to try to indoctrinate, as we again recently saw.  Leftwing political meddling in the guise of “education” goes on all the time because the essence of the left is fascist propaganda.

You show me a famous conservative celebrity saying stuff like this about George Dubya:

Spike Lee: “It means that this is a whole new world. I think…I’ve been saying this before. You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”

Barack Obama – a future president of the United States of America – not only attended but actually helped ORGANIZE the Louis Farrakhan-organized Million Man March.  I’d say that combined with the fact that liberals themselves claim that a million men attended that march is more than enough to acclaim Farrakhan as a major liberal religious figure.  So you show me an equally powerful CONSERVATIVE religious figure saying similar stuff about George Dubya Bush that Farrakhan said about Obama:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”  

I’d like to see rightwing conservative media figures appearing on rightwing news sources such as Fox News or the Wall Street Journal the way Newsweek editor Evan Thomas appeared on MSNBC to say something like this about George Dubya Bush:

“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

Obama himself is allowed to blatantly swim in this Obama worship:

You show me the mainstream media smiling happily while George Bush claimed, “There are no red states or blue states, just BUSH states.”  You show me that.

There is a worship of Barack Obama from the left – even after the years of abject failure – that we never saw coming from the right for George W. Bush.  Not only would the mainstream media – which is overwhelmingly dominated by liberalism which dives into ideological propaganda – never allow this, but conservatives themselves are simply not the kind of people who would so blatantly succumb to messiah-worship from its political leaders no matter how much we might respect a Ronald Reagan or a Margaret Thatcher.  It’s just not in our DNA.

It sure is in the DNA of the left.

I also asked, “Which ideology is only too über-willing to commit itself to every new pseudo-scientific trend that appears under the sun?”  I think of global warming that got morphed into the even more nebulous category of “climate change” and the answer is again blatantly obvious: it is the essence of the left to take the marching orders coming from the white coats while we conservatives are shaking our heads in skepticism and dismay at all the liberal “sheeple.”

I’ve written numerous articles on the legitimate issues casting doubt on global warming.  Consider facts such as: 1) the history of planet earth is a history of climate change and huge swings in climate; 2) we have seen even larger episodes of “global warming” on the planets in our solar system – none of which have SUVs driving around on them – than we see on our own planet earth; 3) the “science” of global warming has been warped with mindbogling acts of fraud and shocking manipulation of data; 4) not only is there no “consensus” about “global warming” but in fact increasing numbers of scientists are outright hostile about “‘decarbonizing’ the world’s economy”; and 5) in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the United Nations is demanding $76 TRILLION in what amounts to pure socialist redistributionism to “save the planet” from “climate change.”

I just learned that the Old Kingdom of Egypt began as a result of an enormous climate shift in which Northern Africa went from a verdant and fertile land to a desert while the Nile began to bloom (4000 BC) and collapsed as a result of massive climate change in which the Nile transformed from lush farmland into dust.  And nobody was driving SUVs, were they???  Just as nobody is driving SUVs on Mars.

The fact of the matter is that it was never anything more than a completely artificial and arbitrary decision to blame manmade CO2 – which constitutes such a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the actual global warming gasses it is unreal – for all of our current climate change.  When manmade CO2 very obviously never had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with all the myriad episodes of climate change that have characterized the history of planet earth from time immemorial ever before.

But liberals swear up and down that we must spend at least $76 trillion to fight the manmade CO2 bogeyman regardless.

And the conclusions of the left as to what we need to do to billions of human beings to deal with this bogeyman are themselves so shocking they made the brutal results of the  Milgram Experiment look like the warm fuzzies:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
- Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
- Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews and other “racial inferiors.”  But for the liberals in global warming establishment of today, NEARLY THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE IS THE NEW “JEW” TO BE VIEWED AS A DANGER TO BE EXTERMINATED.

Please don’t think for a nanosecond that these people wouldn’t gladly up your voltage when they electroshock you to death.  AND THEY ARE LIBERALS, LIBERALS, LIBERALS!!!

You can look at my articles and see the mindset of the left: how DARE you be against global warming!  The guys in the white coats tell me to believe it and if they tell me to turn that knob and deliver a fatal dose of electricity then the only reasonable thing to do is turn that damn knob and push that damn button!!!

Just a few days ago we larned that the arctic sea ice is the thickest it has been in more than a decade:

Heavy ice could delay start of Shell Alaska’s Arctic drilling
May 28, 2012
The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of August, a delay of up to two weeks, Shell Alaska officials said.

Unveiling a newly refurbished ice-class rig that is poised to begin drilling two exploratory wells this summer in the Beaufort Sea, Shell executives said Friday that the unusually robust sea ice would further narrow what already is a tight window for operations. The company’s $4-billion program is designed to measure the extent of what could be the United States’ most important new inventory of oil and gas. [...]

“We’re seeing multiyear ice that they’ve not seen in such large quantities in over a decade, and it could impact our ability to start the well,” Slaiby said. Of particular concern, he said, is the region of the Chukchi Sea around the company’s Berger Prospect – potentially the crown jewel of the company’s offshore oil inventory – which in normal years would be accessible by mid-July. This year, it may be unreachable until late July or early August. [...]

Compare that to the dire warnings just five years ago from the left that there would be NO arctic ice by now:

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
Seth Borenstein in Washington
Associated Press
December 12, 2007

An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.
 
One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years. [...]

“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.  [...]

That’s an Associated Press screech that was re-screeched by National Geographic.

On the one hand you have actual facts and reality and legitimate science and on the other hand you have the Associated Press, National Geographic and “senior government scientists” PUTTING THEIR EARS TO THE ICE AND CLAIMING TO HEAR IT SCREAMING.

I frankly don’t give a damn how many diplomas are on these fools’ walls.  They have abandoned “science” in favor of a fanatic religious committment.  And they will use the raw, naked power of government force and – if they get their way – exterminate human beings by the BILLIONS to force the world to bow down before their global warming gods.

Global warming has been utterly refuted and the motives and methods of its white-coated priests have been discredited time and time again.  But these people – liberals – cannot even theoretically ever possibly be proven wrong to their satisfaction.  And that is only because they have a worldview that is totally divorced from reality.

Liberals are now beginning to admit that the ethanol that they imposed on America wasn’t such a good idea, after all.  Even Al Gore said he was wrong about that little doozy.  Who would have guessed that burning food for fuel might possibly contribute to hunger?  But that doesn’t matter, so never mind; they’ve moved on to DIFFERENT energy boondoggles to demagogue and are screeching even more loudly about them than they screeched while imposing ethanol.

And this love of death and complete fanatic insanity that today’s liberalism has embraced isn’t new.  We can go back to Darwinism and eugenics – and the Holocaust was nothing more than applied Darwinism – and see a history of liberalism, liberalism, liberalism.

Margaret Sanger – Hillary Clinton’s personal hero – was all about killing as many black babies as she could.

Given that Hillary Clinton is one of the über heroine’s of the mainstream left, let’s consider what Hillary Clinton’s own heroine said in her own words:

On large families:
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” (Women and the New Race, Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

Margaret Sanger had other things to say, too.  About the birth control that the left wants (Sanger said it would lead to a “cleaner race”); about sterilization (“to prevent multiplication of this bad stock”); about hell on earth which she demonically believed was a Utopia.

I don’t believe I have to say a further word about how genuinely EVIL this hero of liberalism, who was not only a Nazi sympathizer but whose work was cited as justification for the Nazis’ own extermination program, truly was.  Her own volume of words and her entire life’s work betray her.

The Planned Parenthood that Margaret Sanger founded continues to be THE darling of liberalism.  This organization of pure hate continues to “exterminate” black babies and locates 80% of its clinics to ensure that black women continue to self-eradicate two out of three of their black babies.  And we just learned that Planned Parenthood is perfectly willing to wipe out another “inferior” – women.

A.C.O.R.N., yet another liberal darling, was revealed to be all-too willing to accept donations specifically earmarked for the purpose of specifically killing black babies.

As I previously stated above, liberals are absolutely immunized from accepting reality.  Liberals are morally insane, regardless of their color, gender or professed creed.  That is why black liberals continue to support the ideology that is wiping out blacks in a genocide that surpasses the Holocaust and female liberals and female liberals continue to rabidly support a party that will not condemn killing female babies as women pursue their “right” to sex-selective as well as race-selective abortions.

Barack Obama, himself the object of fanatic liberal worship, may best exemplify my point: this man who once demonized George Bush as a warmonger while repeatedly embracing a fantastically unrealistic view toward terrorism (not “terrorism” but “man-caused disasters; not the war on terror but the “overseas contingency operation”) while idiotically vowing to close Gitmo within a year of his assuming the presidency (see also here), this man whose foreign policy was frankly best captured by terms such as “unicorns” and “fairy dust,” is now personally pouring over “baseball card”-style ”kill lists” to lift his thumb up or down like an emperor deciding who should live and who should die.  Were it George Bush doing this, the left would have screamed that this was CLEARLY the act of a fascist Nazi stormtrooper monster.  But it’s Obama lifting his thumb up or down like some deranged Roman emperor deciding who lives and who dies with his political advisor sitting in the room, so it’s A-okay.

For the record, Barack Obama just failed his very own Milgram experiment by the very standard that he himself assumed the presidency espousing.

The End of Obama Liberalism as an Intellectual Movement (For The Record, Liberalism Has ALWAYS Been Vacuous Pseudo-Intellectualism)

Well, another way to sum it up would be “Yes, we can!” and “Change you can believe in!” and (my own favorite): ”I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage… If I help [Obama], he’s gonna help me!”

May 5, 2012
The End of Obama Liberalism as an Intellectual Movement
By Carl Paulus

Over the past six months the public has watched the current liberal intellectual movement crumble as its leaders have failed to provide a tenable solution to the serious problems facing our nation. President Obama is desperately searching for a way to convince the public he should be reelected. But his liberal ideology is no longer capable of providing effective answers to the questions of the 21st century. Today’s liberalism has been reduced to an opposition movement, rather than a coherent ideological alternative to conservatism. The Democratic Party all but confirmed this notion with their latest slogan for the 2012 campaign: “Not A Republican.”

When President Obama and the Democrats used the largest majority in over three decades to pass Obamacare — despite the objections of the country — they did so because they believed that it offered a significant solution to a problem. Though it remains unpopular with a majority of citizens, at least Obamacare was introduced as a bill, debated publicly, and signed into law. However, after being rejected by the people in 2010, modern liberalism has ceased to be a serious intellectual movement, trading gimmicks and demagoguery for substantial policy initiatives. Starting with the introduction of the Ryan budget in 2011, Democrats — led by the president — have disengaged from discussing ideas and negotiating legislation. Instead, emotional rhetoric has been used to mask the evidence that liberal programs offer very little substance to move the nation forward in the modern world.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner exhibited the lack of ideas coming from the Democrats when he told House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan that the administration “doesn’t have a definitive solution” to the impending debt crisis, but that they do know that they “just don’t like” the House Republican plan. In other words, liberals have admitted that they only have the intellectual disposition to oppose Ryan rather than providing a different way forward. Democrats have become the armchair quarterbacks of public policy. They offer criticism without a workable alternative.

Liberals have abandoned policy issues as a way to intellectually combat those who disagree with them. It was not a coincidence that the Obama administration announced a plan to force Catholic institutions to go against their consciences and pay for contraception and abortifacients just three days after the White House outlined its budget for 2013. Instead of debating budgetary reforms the country desperately needs, liberals sparked a faux debate over contraception, claiming that arguments based in both the history of the Enlightenment and the founding of the nation regarding religious freedom were actually about access to contraception in general. Liberals maintain that women who work for and attend Catholic institutions are not exercising a choice to do so. In effect, they undercut the feminist movement that for decades argued that women have the capability to make their own decisions and provide for their own lifestyles, undermining an intellectual foundation they helped to create. The entire topic of contraception was brought up without any Republican, especially the presumptive nominee, talking about birth control during the campaign.

The White House sparked a month-long, superficial debate over the Republican “War on Women” in order to distract Americans from the stunning realization that President Obama is the first president in American history to have two budgets rejected unanimously by his own party in Congress. Furthermore, Democrats have controlled the Senate for nearly six years. Yet, under Harry Reid’s leadership, they have proposed a budget only once since the inauguration of President Obama and no longer even attempt to seriously negotiate a budget with Republicans. The entire discussion about the “War on Women” substantiates that modern liberalism offers no intellectual foundation for governing the United States.

The rhetoric and actions stemming from the fight over contraception might be construed as an isolated instance — a desperate president hoping to change the narrative in a cynical attempt to be reelected. Unfortunately, it was not. When Mitt Romney appeared to secure the Republican nomination, the president, with the full support of his party, reignited the discussion of the Occupy-Wall-Street inspired tax on millionaires he named the Buffett Rule. Democrats hoped to sell it to the people as significant piece of legislation. President Obama first suggested it was needed to help reduce the deficit. When that was disproven, he then said it should be enacted in the interest of “fairness.” When that fell flat the president finally maintained that the Buffett Rule was based on “an argument about how do we grow the economy in a 21st century environment.”

President Obama’s reasoning for the Buffett Rule changed for clear reasons. His attempt to add a special tax on the wealthy had little substance and was nothing more than an emotional ploy meant to appeal to the “Not Republican” liberal base. Rather than providing an intellectual foundation to tackle the numerous challenges the country faces, liberalism has deteriorated into a purely reactionary doctrine that hopes to win an election by demagoguing the wealthy. Liberals want to say that Mitt Romney’s success makes him unelectable just eight year after nominating the billionaire John Kerry for the presidency because that’s all they really have left to argue.

Over the next six months the president and his supporters are going to talk a lot about “fairness.” However, do not expect them to offer a definition of the term. Vague rhetoric about their plans, just as in 2008, will be used to conceal the lack of appreciable ideas coming from the Democratic Party. When a liberal such as Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, gets precise, the electorate is rather unkind. The reason for this is clear: emotional rhetoric about the rich not paying enough in taxes only works on the envious or guilt-ridden. Ordinary Americans are neither of those things. This is why when pollsters ask the public what the wealthy should pay in taxes they choose a lower rate than the current tax code.

Liberalism used to be a movement capable of producing ideas that could be debated both publicly and in the intellectual marketplace. Though conservatives disagreed with them, liberal ideas had to be contended with through thoughtful rebuttals produced by those, in the words of the historian Gary Nash, who “engaged in study, reflection, and speculation; purveyors of ideas.” Conservatives had to explain why our path was a better way forward than the left’s. However, today’s liberal movement offers no direction, just resistance. Modern liberals have become defined by this picture: empty chairs in a budget committee meeting that they control. Admittedly, their focus is solely on policy aimed at stirring controversy and allowing them to act as demagogues. President Obama and the current Democratic leadership have ushered in the end of liberalism as an intellectual movement because the ideas they offer are based more empty rhetoric than smart policy.

Conservatives must be wary and refuse to be pulled down into their realm of liberal inanity, even if it can be fairly funny to mock them. After all, the true unemployment rate is still in double digits and in the five minutes that it took to read this article the United States of America added 15 million dollars to the debt as we race towards a crisis. Our current problems require thoughtful solutions.

Carl Paulus, Ph.D., is a historian of American Politics and a staff assistant for the Robert Gonzalez congressional campaign in TX-14.

Liberalism is vaccuous nonsense.  Liberalism is gutless: it stands for mutually exclusive things.  Liberalism is fiscally reckless BECAUSE of its gutlessness: it demands spending that is shockingly unsustainable while it demonizes those who are doing nothing more than trying to prevent those who are trying to keep failed programs such as Medicare solvent.

Liberals are stupid people.  And they are the worst form of stupid people.

There are people who just aren’t that smart due to limitations in their genes and/or limitations in their educations.  But we’re not talking about that kind of “stupid”; rather, we are talking about a deliberate, intentional refusal by people who ought to know better to refuse to acknowledge reality.

What is “reality”?  Ultimately, it is the world as God sees it.  It is the world as it really is; the world as God ordained it to be.  Liberals ACTIVELY DESPISE that reality; and instead of looking to the Word of God for truth they look to “-isms” such as Marxism and socialism and Keynesianism for their “truth.”

History refutes them over and over and over again.  But they WILL NOT acknowledge that because they have completely immunized themselves to reality.

Want A Brilliant-Yet-Simple Explanation Of What’s Right With Free Market Enterprise And What’s WRONG With Liberalism? Milton Friedman Has It.

A reader sent me a link to great conservative economist Milton Friedman appearing on the Phil Donahue program 33 years ago (just as America was in the dismal throes of the Carter administration).

You can’t put it any better than this 2 1/2 minute explanation as to why free market economies thrive and leftist economies fail.

Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue Discuss Capitalist “Greed” vs. Socialist Redistribution of Wealth [1979]
On April 1, 2010, in economy, by velvethammer

Watch as economist Milton Freidman smacks down Donahue’s equating of capitalism with greed. If only Friedman were alive today to take Obama to school. What a debate that would be. Obama would not know what hit him, he would be left in a stuttering, stammering pile of um’s and uh’s. If only…

Milton Friedman as charming as he is brilliant. As gentle as he is razor sharp.

Transcript:

Donahue: When you see around the globe the mal-distribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?

Friedman: Well, first of all, tell me is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; its only the other fellow who’s greedy.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

Donahue: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.

Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? You think - excuse me, if you will pardon me - do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self interest is nobler somehow than economic self interest? You know I think you are taking a lot of things for granted. bJust tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us? Well, I don’t even trust you to do that.

Some choice Freidman quotage:

“The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.”

“Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.”

“Governments never learn. Only people learn.”

“So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is, no they do not”

“The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that’s why it’s so essential to preserving individual freedom.”

“Most economic fallacies derive – from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.”

“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

“What kind of society isn’t structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system”

“History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.”

“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both.”

Ah!  The good old days when communist leaders could sip on fine cognac and eat caviar from the luxury of their Black Sea dachas while exhorting the proletariat to keep up the heroic fight for “the workers of the world”!!!

And now communist North Korean leaer Kim Jong Il – who lived a life of mind-boggling luxury while his people literally starved to death by the millions - is gone, too.

The left loves workers, everyone knows that, right?  That’s because they are fed lies by the ton by mainstream media propaganda that could have come from Stalin’s TASS or from Hitler’s Ministry of Propaganda.

Joseph Stalin loved the worker so much that he came up with a way guaranteed to have zero percent unemployment: if you ended up being unemployed, he declared you “indolent” under his “no shirking” policy and sent you off to a slave labor camp to be worked to death (see a Reader’s Digest version of that article here).  It was amazing how “motivated” workers were to participate in Stalin’s workforce!!!  Call it “GDP growth the hard way!”

“No-one is unemployed, but many are in labour camps.”

Because that great big huggable socialist Joseph Stalin just loved his workers to death.  Literally.

That’s what you get when you take out the so-called “greed” incentive in an economy, for what it’s worth.

And what is the goal of our very own ”deal leader” in America today?

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.” — Michele Obama

See ya at camp, and I sure hope you’re looking as forward to your “re-education” and your opportunity to “move out of your comfort zone” when you’re “required to work” as I am!!!

Arbeit macht frei, mein comrades.  Arbeit macht frei.

Of Liberalism, Victimism, Avoidance, Projection And Other Personality Disorders

I get a few things all the time from liberals in my experience of blogging, and I’m going to get a couple of the things that annoy me the most off my chest.

I wrote an article titled, “Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER.”  It certainly isn’t my biggest article ever (as an example, I once had someone who called herself “Ann” come across one of my articles titled, “Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” and it turned out to have been Ann COULTER.  She linked to it on her site and it just went ballistic), but this more recent article is definitely in the top ten in terms of views in a single week:

Now, I’m sure that some bloggers who might come across this might think, “9k views in a week for one article?  Big Deal.  I get that all the time.”  But as I said, this is definitely one of my top ten most viewed in such a short time period.

I obviously love it very much when an article I write takes off, because I’m writing to try to make a difference.  But the problem is that somebody must have re-posted my “Who Spent More” article under a rock or something.  Because a bunch of liberals suddenly started coming to visit me.

Now here’s the thing that annoys me.  I’ve got a very clear premise that clearly matches my title: Democrats demonized George Bush for spending, but lo and behold Obama’s spending makes Bush’s spending look Lilliputian in just three years in office.  But do liberals want to talk about Obama’s spending?  Nope.  That is pretty much the last thing they want to talk about when they comment to me.

What is the real important subject as far as they’re concerned?  In a word, it’s that I’m “mean.”

And, you see, if I’m mean it means that facts don’t matter, so nyah, nyah, nyah.  Or something to that effect.

I tried to respond to somebody the other day that if Aristotle had a scowl, he’d be just as good of a philosopher as if he wore a smile.  But that didn’t seem to wash.  The “You’re a mean meany so I get to disregard all of your facts” meme continued to play and play like puppies who afterward can’t control their little bladders.

If you were racing down the road at 120 mph and I had a scowl on my face when I shouted that the bridge had washed out, would it really matter whether I had that scowl and shouted?  I mean, if you’re genuinely sane?

The bottom line, for the record, is that liberals are giving me a play from the Saul Alinksy playbook.  He said on page 75 of his Rules for Radicals (which was dedicated to Lucifer as “the first radical known to man”):

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”

And, to an extent, this is true.  For one thing liberals don’t have any rules or code of honor that binds them; they can be as vile as they wish: Lucifer sure won’t care.  And the Kingdom Jesus established is a spiritual one.  And you must therefore either recognize that strife and violence is a part of this world while you strive for the better one to come, or you simply bow your head to the next dictator that comes along.  But it is very difficult to fight for a very political world in the here-and-now against a side that has no rules beyond “Rules for Radicals.”  It’s a genuine dilemma for Christians.

This dilemma has increasingly overtaken us during the course of the last century.  It was there when the Germans used first poison gas and then total war and then the intentional bombing of civilian populations.  Should we have used these vile tactics against an enemy that had no moral restraint, or should we have encouraged more and more of the same by displaying that we wouldn’t fight in such a way that the enemy knew there would be consequences for such terrible actions?  By using poison gas ourselves we forced the Germans to quit using it; wouldn’t not using poison gas have amounted to an immoral sacrifice of our own troops?

I’ve come to realize that I can turn the other cheek to the guy I’m trying to bring into the kingdom of heaven and I can shoot the home invasion psychos who are breaking in my house to murder my family.  And I believe that any morally intelligent individual can understand that difference.

I also believe that most of the reason that culture has degenerated to the shocking extent that it has (I mean Lady Gaga?  Seriously?) is related to the fact that too few Christians were willing to stand up and fight – even wrestle in the mud as necessary – for their culture.  It was far easier for too many to create their own little sub-culture, much as the monks did in walling themselves up in monasteries lest they have to face a nasty world.

So I’m fighting as best I know how.  And I often must fight against a pseudo-righteousness from a side that calls me all kinds of terrible names and labels even as it hypocritically demands I refrain from doing the same thing they’re doing to me.

In any event, I’ve recently gotten a larger dose in a shorter period of time crap from liberals that I’ve basically been experiencing since the day I got my “very first comment” and it turned out to be from a liberal hater.  I’m getting my fill of liberal avoidance and victimism and projection and other disorders.

“Victimism” in this context is when a liberal practices a particularly bizarre form of psychological jujitsu in order to make themselves the victim in an argument or debate.  You see, in their warped little minds, if they can manage to make themselves the victim, they win.  It doesn’t matter how strong your case is or how weak theirs is otherwise; in liberalism the victim always wins.  Period.  And look; they’re the victim!

So, of course, if I say something mean – (regardless of anything vile they previously said to me) – they become the victim and therefore they win the debate.  Because that’s the way their world works.

You can, of course, translate this into the larger socio-economic-and-political issues: victimhood means everything to the left.  It is a cherished status to be sought above everything else – especially above facts.

I would rather have someone sitting right next to me raking her fingernails over a chalkboard than be involved in such a “debate.”  But as a conservative blogger I am nevertheless forced to endure it most every day.

There’s a flip side to the victimism, and that is avoidance.

Liberals do not like things called “facts” or “arguments.”  They are too constraining and isn’t “liberalism” all about feeling free from such constraints?

So I write an article on the issue of abortion and as a result I get called a “KKK racist.”  I get a very similar accusation of being a racist if I talk about government spending.  Because, as we all know, being pro-life or anti-reckless government spending is very clearly “racist.”  I mean, what liberal doesn’t know that?

Why talk about the facts when you can talk about something else instead?

So all the time I respond to liberals, carefully try to interact with and refute their arguments, and it’s like I haven’t said anything, or maybe like I’m writing in a different, incomprehensible language.

I get very bored very quickly arguing with somebody who doesn’t bother to even acknowledge anything I say.  I start thinking about all the things I could be doing that would be far more productive usages of my time.

Again, that’s pretty much just par for the course of being a conservative blogger.

There’s another psychological malady that’s pretty typical of the liberals who comment on my site: a bizarre identity disorder which results in liberals being unable to simply admit what they are.  All the time I get people who are very clearly committed leftists/Democrats trying to pass themselves off as “moderates” or “independents.”  Because, you see, if they’re “moderate,” then they represent the giant voice of the middle.  And how on earth can I debate someone who is the living embodiment of The Middle.

So I get liberals all the time who will post comment after comment – with every single ONE of those comments arguing for liberal/Democrat positions – and then they’ll tell me that they’re most certainly NOT liberals or Democrats.

Often I catch them red-handed being deceitful, such as a guy who started calling himself “Moderate Conservative” to try to fool me shortly after introducing himself as “Moderate Liberal.”  He lacked any shame for his deceit in attempting to pass himself off as something he was not, but at least I got him to acknowledge what he was doing.  And this same guy was posting to the “Who Spent More” article, fwiw.  He was lecturing me on being more civil while dissociating himself from the vileness of his own side.  Because the Democrat Party – at the highest national levels – call conservatives “terrorists” and “racists” and “anti-immigrant” and every hateful pejorative they can think up.  We want dirtier air and dirtier water and we want children to suffer from Down Syndrome and autism – and those last according to the guy who is calling himself “the President of the United States” as though he represented the entire country rather than just the radical left.

Notice everything I’m linking to is recent.  I don’t have to dredge stuff up from 16 months ago; I get this crap ALL THE TIME from liberals.

It’s not enough for me to say that I would never go to a liberal’s blog and try to pass myself off as a liberal in order to achieve some perverted goal; I have never even HEARD of a conservative talking about trying to pull that kind of stunt.  It is a peculiar disorder that only liberals suffer.

But, again, the left does it all the time.  It’s simply a documented fact that they have done this and continue to do it.  They pretend to be conservatives and do something vile to make people believe the lie that conservatives are vile rather than the TRUTH that liberals are vile.

And you might notice that liberals have to manufacture crap by deceit against conservatives.  Liberals just crap all over the place all by themselves:

Personally, I believe that liberals, at least at some subconscious level, intuitively understand that they are cockroaches and really ought to feel ashamed of themselves if they could only possess the virtue of shame.  But that’s just a pet theory of mine.

This reminds me of another personality disorder that defines the left: projection.  In psychology, you’ve got the pathologically angry person who immediately assumes that everyone around him is angry – which of course justifies his constant angry outbursts.

Well, we don’t have to stretch very hard to think about all the labels and demonization the left handed out to the Tea Party.  And then the Occupy (OWS) movement came along and showed us what all the ugliness the left was falsely accusing the Tea Party of REALLY looks like:

Call The Occupy Protest Movement And The Left That It Comes From What It Truly Is: Fascist

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Vile Occupy Protests In Videos

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Tea Party Vs. Occupy Protests: The Winners Of The Out-Of-Control Violence Trophy – For The Millionth Consecutive Time – Is The LEFT

Nazis, Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Democrats, Obama, Media Propaganda ALL Support Occupy Wall Street

So, yes, liberalism IS a mental disorder.

But rather than simply walking around muttering to themselves like they ought to, liberals find a way to make their unfortunate mental condition as annoying and harmful as possible.

I just wish they wouldn’t do it so much around me.  But as a conservative blogger, I am a light.  And they are a bunch of moths.

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

“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.

 

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.”

Anthony Weiner A Too-Typical Liberal Bureaucrat: A Pervert With No Marketable Skills Whatsoever

One of the reasons it took twenty days for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign when it didn’t take much more than twenty minutes for Speaker Boehner to demand Rep. Chris Lee’s resignation turned out to be the hold-up of some kind of job for him.

Here are the facts:

Want to know a primary reason that thus far Weiner is refusing to quit  despite the calls for him to do so from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, DNC  Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, NY Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the House  Democrats’ campaign committee and others?  A big reason is he simply cannot  afford to. His world has been turned upside down overnight, and the nation’s  politicians are incensed by it – but it really comes down to the fact that his finances  don’t lend many options right now.

As The NY Post reported “Weiner doesn’t have a business or even a law degree  to fall back on. He made $156,117 in 2010, and owes between $10,000 and $15,000  on his American Express card according to his most recent financial-disclosure  forms.” Anthony Weiner, the man, has never had another job since starting in  politics at the age of 21 in 1985. The future career possibilities for the 46  year old “object” Anthony Weiner aren’t too bright these days.

We are talking about a man who has never held a private sector job in his entire life.

Michelle Malkin has more to say about this:

Last year, the now-jobless Weiner joked on former roommate Jon Stewart’s cable comedy show that he didn’t “have a lot of marketable skills.” It’s one of Weiner’s rare truthful utterances over the past year.  A protégé of fossilized New York Sen. Charles Schumer, Weiner has spent the last 20 years in politics – straight out of college to the present. Through seven consecutive congressional terms, he has stridently advocated job-killing policies in the name of the working class. About which this ruling-class elitist knows nothing.

But it turns out Weiner DOES have one highly marketable skill: he is a rarefied pervert.  And in a degenerate world of pornography (a gift of liberals and liberal judges who said they couldn’t tell the difference between “art” and “porn” no matter how much of it they watched), being the level of sexual pervert that Weiner clearly is DOES have value:

Anthony Weiner Gets Offer From Larry Flynt to Work For His Hustler Empire in Beverly Hills

So I’m sure Weiner will be fine doing what he loves for fellow Democrat Larry Flynt.  Together they can continue to work for “liberal values.”  Such as LYING.

But here’s the thing.

Anthony Weiner was one of THE leading voices of the Democrat Party and THE voice for liberal values.  Bill O’Reilly demonstrated that the real loser in this Weinergate scandal is liberalism; they lost their star voice.  He debated with two liberals who couldn’t come up with anybody better than also-utterly-disgraced Rep. Charlie Rangel.  Even über über liberal Rachel Maddow says Weiner’s resignation will hurt the Democrat Party “probably for a generation.”

And who is this voice of liberalism?  An arrogant perverted punk who has spent his entire life on the taxpayer dole and who has absolutely no redeeming quality whatsoever in the world he demanded to have the power to regulate and then regulate some more.

I have pointed this out before: why on earth would any decent American want a Weiner running their lives???  Why would anyone but the worst fool imaginable want a guy like Anthony Weiner – who is not only a lying pervert but who literally is utterly USELESS in the real world – writing the laws that will control our economy and our lives???

Which just gets more to the point: if you vote for Democrats, you are a true fool indeed.

Michelle Malkin wrote a brilliant chapter in her book, Culture of Corruption.  It details how liberals make incredibly lucrative careeers moving from politics (either in elected office or as staffers) to crony capitalism (as lobbyists or in firms that want to schmooze politicians).  Michelle Obama is an example of this, as is Rahm Emanuel, as is Valerie Jarrett.  Crony capitalism is nothing more than fascism in waiting.  These people get rich gaming the system even as they corrupt and rot the system from within like leeches.