Liberal Elitists Believe American People Need Their Wisdom; But THEY’RE The Stupid Ones

What is modern liberalism, a.k.a. progressivism?

It is the mindset that the unwashed masses are too stupid to govern themselves, and therefore need a nanny state to take care of them.

Given that understanding, it turns out that there is a nexus between Democrat Party liberals, liberal intellectuals and mainstream media liberals.  It is the idea that “They need us.  They need our superior understanding.  They need us to tell them what to think.”

That attitude has one serious flaw, however.

These people are even dumber in their own way than the very unwashed ignorant masses they seek to manipulate.  And whenever the culture becomes ignorant enough, or uncertain enough, that it begins to follow liberals, watch out; because the disaster of “dumb and dumber” is right around the corner.

Ronald Reagan put it best when he said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Progressives are people who “know” all sorts of things about American history that simply aren’t true.  They “know” all sorts of things about our Constitution that simply aren’t true. They “know” all sorts of things about our economy that simply aren’t true.

From Flopping Aces:

Allegedly unintelligent Republicans make fools of Democrats
Posted by: DrJohn @ 11:35 am

It’s been quite the 24 hours.

Liberals just love trying to beat up on Sarah Palin. They repeatedly question her intelligence. And she just wipes the poop off the floor with them.

Mark Hemingway had a glorious article at the Washington Examiner and I am posting the whole thing:

So the Los Angeles Times reported on a recent Sarah Palin event:

Seeking to channel the sign-bearing, flag-waving enthusiasm of the “tea party” movement into ballot-box victories, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told hundreds of supporters Monday they couldn’t “party like it’s 1773″ until Washington was flooded with like-minded conservatives.

Immediately, Palin’s critics leapt into action. Here’s The Daily Kos himself on Twitter:

Sarah Palin to supporters: “Don’t party like it’s 1773 yet”. is.gd/g7rRb…. She’s so smart.

And here’s PBS’s Gwen Ifill, moderator of presidential debates, also on Twitter:

Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,

Blogger Cuffy Meigs rounds up all kinds of similar “HAHAHAHAHA! She’s so stupid!” reactions to Palin’s reference to 1773. So what did happen in 1773? Oh, right.

That, ummm, would be the Boston Tea Party.

Moulitsas and Ifill were in such an orgasm to insult Palin they stuck their feet not only into their mouths but up where the Sun doesn’t shine as well. Idiots.

Nicely done, Sarah.

Then there’s Christine O’Donnell and her debate with Chris Coons:

WILMINGTON, Del.—Republican Christine O’Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.

“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.

Coons responded that O’Donnell’s question “reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. … The First Amendment establishes a separation.”

But O’Donnell probed again.

She interrupted to say, “The First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ’separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”

That’s pretty clear. And as any Constitutional scholar should know, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. O’Donnell was right, yet Ben Evans, the author of the piece, characterized the exchange as another controversy to “befall” O’Donnell.

Why is being right something that “befalls” someone? Because she’s a Republican?

Point, O’Donnell.

Then Coons tried again to school O’Donnell.

“He noted again the First Amendment’s ban on establishment of religion” reported Evans.

(There is no ban on the establishment of religion in the Constitution.)

O’DONNELL: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

COONS: “‘Government shall make no establishment of religion’”

O’DONNELL: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

It’s not.

For the record, the First Amendment says:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Point, O’Donnell.

Then a local law school professor chimed in:

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, “She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise.”

This is something I despise about both academicians and reporters. Liberal bias.

It’s pretty obvious that O’Donnell was being literal and it’s painfully clear that she was right on both counts. O’Donnell was surprised that Coons, Daly, Evans and the rest of the smug twits in the audience could actually believe that the phrase “separation of church and state” resides in the Constitution and that the Constitution bans the establishment of religion.

Entirely unreported by Evans was O’Donnell’s challenge to Coons:

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

Game, set, match- O’Donnell.

Another report of the debate went this way:

Ms. O’Donnell likened Mr. Coons’s position on evolution to those of “our so-called leaders in Washington” who have rejected the “indispensible principles of our founding.”

When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The audience exploded in laughter

One would have to say that an awful lot of law students overpaid for their education and that some law professors are overpaid.

George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.  And Thomas Sowell has pointed out that the record of 20th century intellectuals – precisely the period when liberals began to decide that only they properly qualified as “intellectuals” – was especially appalling in this regard.

Whenever a liberal talks – and frankly most of all when that liberal is an “intellectual” – you should listen very closely to whatever he or she says, and then believe the exact opposite.

The foolishness of liberals is literally biblical:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools — Romans 1:22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth — Romans 1:18

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths — 2 Tim 4:3-4

.

 

 

Hillary Clinton Dabbled Into Witchcraft, And Barack Obama And Chris Coons Dived Into Marxism

Christine O’Donnell has a new “scandal”; according to a never-aired Bill Maher program, she “dabbled into witchcraft.”

The revelation is certain to upset some on the religious right who make up a good part of the Tea Party’s support and who helped to propel O’Donnell to prominence last week with her shock defeat of the Republican leadership’s favoured candidate to contest the Senate seat in Delaware.

In the video, O’Donnell says: “I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven … I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up.

“One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s a little blood there and stuff like that … We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

O’Donnell declined to appear on Fox News, which is regarded as more than sympathetic to the Tea Party, after the video of her appearing on the Politically Incorrect show in 1999 was released by its host, Bill Maher, who now has a semi-satirical chat show on HBO.

He said he has more such embarrassing material and that he is going to show a fresh revelation every week until O’Donnell agrees to appear on his show.

“I’m just saying, Christine, it’s like a hostage crisis – every week you don’t show up, I’m going to throw another body out,” he said.

O’Donnell had already drawn widespread scorn for earlier comments in which she condemns masturbation.

So Bill Maher is even MORE loathsome than I thought he was?  Hard to believe, but it’s true.

Meanwhile, the left used to endlessly harp on “The Salem Witch Trials” to pontificate upon the horrors of the intolerant Christian religion.  And now they’re out leading the charge to burn Christine O’Donnell.  File that under the “strange but true” file.

And how about if we make masturbation legal so it’s, you know, like chewing gum.  That way liberals can do it in public, since it’s such a wonderful thing to them.

On second that, I take it back; a whole lot of them would very probably do it in public.  Which would at least create jobs for the barf bag industry.

In any event, it seems to be the witchcraft thing that has Democrats aghast.

It wasn’t such a problem when Obama’s current Secretary of State and former Democrat front-runner for president was “dabbling” in the most hard-core form of witchcraft of all – necromancy.

Once it was “outed,” First Lady Hillary Clinton called it “imaginary conversations.”  But she was on the record acknowledging communicating with the dead.

There are some juicy points about that:

When she was first lady, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., worked with spiritual adviser Jean Houston to access an “Eleanor Roosevelt-like consciousness” from within her own psyche. Clinton wrote in a column that Roosevelt “usually responds by telling me to buck up, or at least to grow skin as thick as a rhinoceros.”

[And I thought HRC already had skin as thick as a rhinoceros…]

And:

Though she has dismissed it as an intellectual exercise, Hillary can expect to again be derided for what journalist Bob Woodward first reported as a “seance” with Eleanor Roosevelt. At the prompting of New Age guru Jean Houston, Hillary engaged in fantasy chats with Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi, two of the First Lady’s heroes.

And what does the Bible say about Hillary’s “intellectual exercise” i.e. “seance” i.e. necromancy?

“Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.” — Leviticus 19:31

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” — Leviticus 20:27

But let us not take up stones for the woman who is currently serving in the 2nd most important office in the government, who practiced necromancy in the White House as a fully adult (though not particularly grown-up) woman; let’s use them on little Christine O’Donnell who “dabbled in witchcraft” as a giggly high school girl instead.

Then again, which is the greater sin to you right now: someone who “dabbled in witchcraft” in high school, or someone who dived into Marxism in college?

In Obama’s own words:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.  The more politically active black students.  The foreign students.  The Chicanos.  The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.  We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.  At night,in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.  When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.  We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure.  We were alienated.”

By the way, just to follow up, here’s the skinny on Obama’s hero Franz Fanon:

His work remains influential in the fields of post-colonial studies and critical theory. Fanon is known as a Marxist^[1] thinker on the issue of decolonization and the psychopathology of colonization.^[2] His works have incited and inspired anti-colonial liberation movements for more than four decades.^[3]

This in terms gets us into the question of how Obama thinks.  And, in his own words, Obama received Dreams From His Father, a Marxist anticolonialist:

Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama’s acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, “The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races.”

Which is a pretty damn scary philosophy to have in the White House, brooms and cackles aside.  It is a terrifying thing to have a guy in the White House who believes we should “resist and overthrow the oppressors.”  Especially given the fact that the United States of America is foremost on the list of “the oppressors.”

Dr. John C. Drew had occasion to spend some time with Obama at Occidental College.  As he described Obama:

“He was arguing a straightforward Marxist-Leninist class-struggle point of view, which anticipated that there would be a revolution of the working class, led by revolutionaries, who would overthrow the capitalist system and institute a new socialist government that would redistribute the wealth,” says Drew, who says he himself was then a Marxist.

“The idea was basically that wealthy people were exploiting others,” Drew says. “That this was the secret of their wealth, that they weren’t paying others enough for their work, and they were using and taking advantage of other people. He was convinced that a revolution would take place, and it would be a good thing.”

Drew concluded that Obama thought of himself as “part of an intelligent, radical vanguard that was leading the way towards this revolution and towards this new society.”

And he still does see himself that way.  He certainly still sees himself as redistributing (i.e. “spreading”) the wealth.

Leviticus DEFINITELY would have commanded Marxists to be stoned to death.  I’m just sure of it.

It’s not just the Marxist-in-Chief who was/is/will be a Marxist; so also is Christine O’Donnell’s Democrat opponent, Chris Coons:

An article Democrat Chris Coons wrote for his college newspaper may not go over so well in corporation-friendly Delaware, where he already faces an uphill battle for Vice President Joe Biden’s old Senate seat.

The title? “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist.”

“My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe the strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear-thinking Americans and sends back bearded Marxists,” Coons wrote, noting that at one time he had been a “proud founding member of the Amherst College Republicans.” […]

Hoffman said the trip to Kenya helped lead to Coons’s decision to become a Democrat.

Which is, of course, basically the same thing as a Marxist these days.

I’ll tell you what: dabbling in economic destruction is going to hurt a whole bunch more people than Christine O’Donnell’s giggly schoolgirl past.

In what may be even worse than being a Marxist, Chris Coons also happens to be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “pet”:

“I’m going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He’s my pet. He’s my favorite candidate,” Reid said.

Which is to say, Coons has a very pure Marxist “petigree.”

And being Harry Reid’s Marxist “pet” is a far more serious thing in September 2010 than being a giggly little high school witch back in 1997.

If Chris Coons is elected as U.S. Senator, he will continue to faithfully serve as Harry Reid’s “pet” and vote for his fellow Marxist neocolonialist pal Barack Hussein.

Hopefully, the residents of Delaware will be of the mind to usher in Christine O’Donnell to come in with her broom and help sweep the Marxists who have been destroying our economy the past two years (really since 2006, when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid first ruined the Congress, truth be told).

If we’re fortunate, the Democrats will be so dead in Congress that Hillary Clinton will actually start channeling them.