Posts Tagged ‘conservatives’

If Conservatives Were Like Liberals, They Would Riot, Burn And Loot In Every City Until The IRS Thug-in-Chief Nixon-Waved And Resigned

August 19, 2014

I was watching the news as I rode my exercise bike/hamster wheel and heard a “journalist” on CNN lecture the space-time universe that in spite of the fact that blacks were violently rioting, looting, burning, throwing Molotov cocktails, etc., etc., etc., there was no “racial pathology” involved and to think otherwise was itself “racist.”  After all, there have been other riots.  And he proceeded to cite riots that were caused … by liberals in every single case.  I mean, we’ve got our violent World Trade Organization protestors (liberals); we’ve got our violent Occupy Movement protestors (liberals); we’ve got our violent union thug protestors (liberals); we’ve got our violent May Day protestors (liberals).  And of course we can go back to the violent gay riots in Stonewall or violent black riots in Watts.  Liberals, all.  Always liberals.

Watts – excuse me, I meant what – we DON’T have is conservatives rioting in Republican cities.  Never, ever, ever.  Nope.

It’s liberals who riot, because it is liberals who are pathologically – to cite that CNN commentator’s term – vicious, violent fascist goon-thugs.

I watched a brilliant Wall Street Journal editorialist take apart Obama’s “neutral” stance on Ferguson (as in no “If I had a son, he’d be just like that strong arm robbery thug, Michael Brown”) by pointing out that in addition to Obama being wrong about his application of moral equivalence, he was even MORE wrong about his diagnosis of the problem being discrimination and poverty in black communities.  The Wall Street Journal editorialist pointed out the inconvenient truth for the left that the black crime rate was far, FAR lower in 1960 before the Great Society, the New Deal or the Civil Rights era.

Who is lying?  Is Obama lying now when he claims that the skyrocketing black crime rate is due to discrimination and poverty, or is it that Democrats have been demonically lying for going on fifty years as they claimed they were making things better for blacks when in reality they were creating even MORE discrimination and poverty for blacks and other minorities???

So either in fact black rioting and violence DOES have a “racial pathology,” or its not the color of their skin that is at issue, but rather the color of their communist red liberal ideology that is pathologically violent.

I actually agree with that CNN commentator: it’s not because they’re black that they’re vicious and evil; it’s because they’re liberals that they’re vicious and evil.  All liberals are fascists who want to impose their fascist totalitarian government on people who don’t want it.  That’s the problem.

So, here’s the deal.  They say they want “justice” in Ferguson, Missouri, do they?  Well, damn, so do I.  I want JUSTICE in Obama’s use of the IRS as his own personal “Internal Revenge Service” against conservatives.

Somebody might say, “Well, you don’t have proof that Obama did anything wrong.”  Well, other than the fact that we’ve got 500 times more proof than the protestors in Ferguson have.  After all, we’ve got 500 conservative organizations that were singled out versus one black punk who was shot.  And we’ve got every bit as much if not MORE proof that Obama was the one who wanted “anti-Obama rhetoric” officially attacked by the IRS than they’ve got proof that that cop did anything criminal.

I want JUSTICE.  I want a damn special prosecutor.  No way Obama’s lawthug Eric Holder “investigates” this fairly, given what we’ve already seen as most of the organizations that were victimized and had their civil rights flagrantly violated by Obama’s criminal IRS were even INTERVIEWED.

Michael Brown’s family defines “justice” as the police officer arrested, prosecuted and convicted.  Okay.  That’s what justice looks like: Barack Obama arrested, convicted and prosecuted.  Nothing short of that is anything close to “justice.”

If conservatives were like liberals, we’d have been violently rioting and burning and looting in every damn city in America until Obama did his Nixon wave and resigned from office like the disgrace he is.  And they would keep tearing America apart and burning the rest until Obama was behind bars.

But the fact remains that we’re not like liberals.  We’re not fascist.  We want justice but we rely on our words and our reason.  Which of course the brainwashed left – hat tip to truthunites – is pathologically incapable of responding to.

All we have is violence and thuggery against the Thug-in-Chief and his criminal co-conspirator Eric Holder.

Here’s another great recent example: Governor Rick Perry got criminally indicted by THE most liberal county in Texas and one of the most flagrantly liberal counties in America.  Why did they do it?  Because they could.  They already illegitimately nailed one Republican – Tom DeLay – and destroyed his career without anything more than rabid liberal hate.

But do Republicans have the right to do the same thing?  Nope.  If they impeach Obama – even thought they have EXCELLENT constitutional grounds to impeach that fascist – there will be hell to pay.  Which is why Republicans wouldn’t DARE do what Democrats are doing as we damn well speak.  So we sit back aghast and appalled as Democrats seek to take down by nothing more than their rabidness one of our front runners for president in 2016.

I’ve made this point before: we aren’t like the left, which is why we’re losing.  The left employs violence and cheating and every nasty, vile tactic there is to ensure that they win and we lose so they get to pick the winners and losers.  If conservatives lose elections, we get regulated and taxed and criminally prosecuted by liberal union thugs using the power of government as a punitive instrument; if liberals lose elections, they get left alone by a smaller, more limited government.  So the way things are framed, either they win or we lose.  Meanwhile, the right is sadly not all that “right” anymore.  It’s like what was said of the so-called Moral Majority movement in the 1980s: we are neither moral, nor a majority.  If we were truly powerfully righteous, it would be one thing.  But we are sadly much more like the Laodicean Church from Revelation chapter 3 than we are like anything else.  So instead of being inflamed for righteousness – as we should be – or inflamed for wickedness – as the left is and has been – we could fight.  But as it is, all we do is hunker down while the left keeps agitating toward the day when they get their beloved Anitchrist to take total government power as they have been dreaming of for sixty years now.

So if you’re a conservative, I know where I WON’T be seeing you.  At the next riot.

As I close, I can’t not cite the following fact: Russia, China and Iran are pointing fingers at America and lecturing us for our criminality and our human rights violations.  And you know who agrees completely with our worst enemies?  Liberals, that’s who.

We keep hearing from the news media that is terrified of being labeled as “racist” that it’s only a “few” bad people “from out of town” who are coming in.  Don’t blame the residents of Ferguson.  Don’t blame black people for what we CLEARLY see BLACK PEOPLE doing.  That’s bullcrap.  Let me tell you something that is simply a fact: if there weren’t those thousands of people out there night after night, the so-called “few outsiders” wouldn’t be there burning and looting.  If those mobs of people weren’t out there at night, the police would easily be able to get control of the situation and crack down on the so-called “few” who are doing all the rioting.  Which is why every single person who is out there is participating in the violence and rioting and looting.  Because it’s only happening because YOU’RE there to give the rioters and looters the distraction and the cover that they need.

Update: we are now getting in the actual facts of what happened to Officer Darren Wilson before the fatal shooting.  In short, Michael Brown assaulted him, punched him hard in the face, and there was a struggle for the officer’s gun.  Officer Wilson fired at Brown and Brown began to run away, but then bum-rushed the officer who – already dazed and beaten from the beating he had just endured – fired and kept firing until Brown was down.

Now, if conservatives were like liberals, we wouldn’t CARE about any evidence that proved Barack Obama wasn’t guilty in the criminal conspiracy to use the IRS to target hundreds of conservatives and violate our civil rights.  Nope.  We would be driven – like the left in Ferguson – entirely by our hatred, our bitterness and our viciousness.  And we would continue to demand “justice,” which means we would continue to demand Obama’s head.  Whether he was actually guilty or not.

 

Advertisements

Decent People MUST Demand A Special Prosecutor Over IRS Scandal: ‘Not Even A Smidgeon of Corruption’ Obama Says Of Supposedly Active Investigation

February 5, 2014

What do we as a people do when the president refuses to put an independent prosecutor in charge of an investigation into the worst kind of democracy-poisoning corruption in his own administration???

It is a fact that 292 conservative groups were targeted by the IRS (whose union gives 97% of political contributions to Democrats versus 2% to Republicans, for what it’s worth) versus only SIX liberal groups.  And only ONE of those six liberal groups was denied the approval that ALL the conservative groups were denied.

It is a fact that the criterion for the targeting was “anti-Obama rhetoric.”  That is simply chilling to anyone who ISN’T hoping Big Brother and then the beast of Revelation will show up to take over the world.

What do we do when we find out that this investigation has without any question been slow-walked, with the director of the FBI forced to acknowledge that he had no idea who was running the incredibly important IRS investigation, or how many agents were working on it as far back as June of last year.  We found at that time that few if any of the conservatives who had been politically targeted by the IRS had been interviewed to obtain their stories and their testimony.  We learned that as of late last year, the FBI had STILL had bothered to contact any of the conservative victims of the IRS.  How on earth can you claim that you are investigating a crime if you don’t even bother to get the stories of the victims of the crime???

What do we do as a nation when the president’s handpicked law dog appoints a maxed-out Obama donor to head this investigation???

Two Republican lawmakers and a conservative legal group are questioning the Justice Department’s selection of a Democratic donor to lead the agency’s probe into the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of certain advocacy groups during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.  on Wednesday demanding the department remove DOJ trial attorney Barbara Bosserman from the case, saying her involvement is “highly inappropriate and has compromised the administration’s investigation of the IRS.”

Bosserman donated a combined $6,750 to President Obama’s election campaigns and the Democratic National Committee between 2004 and 2012, according to federal campaign finance records.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which represents 41 groups suing the IRS over its controversial screening methods, also criticized the appointment of Bosserman to lead the probe.

“Appointing an avowed political supporter of President Obama to head up the Justice Department probe is not only disturbing but puts politics right in the middle of what is supposed to be an independent investigation to determine who is responsible for the Obama administration’s unlawful targeting of conservative and tea party groups,” ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement Thursday.

The Obama DoJ excuse is that they “cannot take political leanings into account when assigning cases and that making legal political contributions does not prevent its attorneys from fulfilling their duties without bias.”  Okay, fine: so appoint an investigator who maxed-out giving political donations to Mitt Romney.  Allow a doctrinaire conservative to conduct the investigation, since it [supposedly] doesn’t matter to the Obama DoJ.  It’s kind of like the wrong price in the store: every single time it happens it seems to favor the store and work against the customer and yet it’s always an accident.

What do we do when the president says that there is “Not even a smidgeon of corruption” in an investigation that is supposed to be open and ongoing???  How can anyone now claim that this investigation has been anything other than politically tainted???  And at the very highest possible level???  And why don’t the American people deserve a special prosecutor to ensure that the tax collection service of this nation is not being used as a political attack dog to benefit a pathologically dishonest and corrupt administration???

It comes down to this: how in the hell does Obama know that the investigation won’t turn up so much as “a smidgeon of corruption”???  Because his maxed-out donor stooge is fixing the investigation for him, that’s why.

This is the most corrupt administration and the most corrupt president in history.  Obama compared himself to Nixon during O’Reilly’s interview.  Good.  Because he makes Nixon look like a choir boy when it comes to political corruption.

Consider how Obama had his gubmint thugs go after one woman who had never had a problem with the government until she made the mistake of refusing to believe that her new president was a total fascist who would reward his friends and punish his enemies:

IRS officials have recently admitted improperly giving special scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status because the agency was “swamped with applications” and looking for “shortcuts”. But in a federal lawsuit filed last week, Engelbrecht claims the IRS’ actions toward her interests actually created a great deal more effort and paperwork for all concerned.

The trouble began shortly after Engelbrecht founded True the Vote, which trains election volunteers and aims to root out voter fraud; and King Street Patriots, a group with ideals similar to the Tea Party. Both sought tax-exempt status from the IRS in July 2010. And both organizations drew the ire of Democrats. Democrats accused True the Vote of intimidating voters in its poll watching efforts, which the group denies. And the Texas Democratic Party successfully sued King Street Patriots, arguing that it’s an unregistered political action committee.

But Engelbrecht’s attorney, Cleta Mitchell, says it’s not just the Democratic Party that went after the conservative causes, but also the federal government. Within months of the groups filing for tax-exempt status, Engelbrecht claims she started getting hit by an onslaught of harassment: six FBI domestic terrorism inquiries, an IRS visit, two IRS business audits, two IRS personal audits, and inspections of her equipment manufacturing company by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Texas environmental quality officials.

“Not a smidgeon of corruption.”  That’s like Obama when he said, “Your taxes won’t go up one dime.”  Because they went up by THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS instead.

It is a fact that 76% of the American people want a special prosecutor to investigate Obama’s IRS scandal.

Obama’s “faux” Fox scandal is an outright lie from a truly evil man.

We now find that the Benghazi scandal that Obama also refuses to acknowledge is anything other than the invention of Fox News is a red hot example of political corruption.  We learn that the CIA station chief – whose assessment is all important – very clearly and very immediately stated that the attack was NOT an “escalation of protest” as Obama had all of his officials claim it was.  Contrary to the Obama cover-up, THERE WAS NO PROTEST.  We now know that within MINUTES of the Benghazi attack, Defense Department officials briefed Obama that the event was a terrorist attack and NOT a demonstration over a video as Obama claimed for weeks afterward.  How on earth is that not a scandal???  We suffered a terrorist attack at the very time that Obama was falsely stating that he had won the war on terror.  We now know that the Deputy Director of the CIA lied – and even lied to the FBI – about having changed the official White House talking points.  And we now know that this very same former Deputy Director just joined a group founded by “Clinton’s principal gatekeeper.”

Obama says there was no scandal in the cover-up of Benghazi.  Just answer the question: who altered the talking points that claimed a Youtube video protest instead of a terrorist attack was responsible for the Benghazi event that resulted in the murder of the first US ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979???  And why is it that what we now know to be a lie so transparently benefitted Obama’s political interest during a campaign when he was trumpeting his victory over terrorism???

We have a very clear pattern of systematic corruption at the highest levels of the Obama administration.  That is simply a categorical fact.

During Watergate, there came a point when Republicans had a choice to make: do the right thing for the nation or circle the wagons politically.  In doing what was right for the nation, they did something that we can now definitely say that the Democrat Party is pathologically incapable of doing.  To be a Democrat at this point means to be a person devoid of any scintilla of virtue, or integrity, or honesty, or honor, or decency of any kind.  And all we need to do is look at the ObamaCare disgrace along with the IRS scandal to learn that there is no possible way that Democrats will do the right thing for the country.

It is long past time to demand that Barack Obama appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS scandal.  If there was in fact “not even a smidgen of corruption,” then why the hell did multiple senior level IRS managers plead the fifth amendment???   What do you say when you plead the Fifth Amendment?  You say, ” “Your honor, I respectfully invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on the grounds that answering questions may incriminate me.”  These people committed CRIMES and they KNOW they committed crimes.

What is perhaps even more frightening is that Obama is trying to rewrite the law so that the criminal targeting of conservative groups becomes the way it is done moving forward.

If Obama allows an honest investigation into the scandals plaguing his administration, it will lead to his being impeached for committing high crimes and misdemeanors.  And dirty Democrats know it.

Progressive Liberals, Open-Mindedness And Tolerance: The Great Oxymoron

July 31, 2013

It’s an amazing thing how the word “tolerance” has been perverted by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  A couple of articles point this out (see here and here and here and  here).  It’s not like I’m inventing anything with this charge.  Basically, in classical usage, the word “tolerance” meant the following as recorded in the 1828 Webster’s definition:

The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

And according to Webster in 1828 it also carried the meaning of:

The allowance of that which is not wholly approved; to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition or hinderance; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing; not to restrain; as, to tolerate opinions or practices

In other words, what did you “endure”?  Stuff that you didn’t approve of, such as opinions or practices.  There is absolutely no sense according to this definition that you have to AGREE with the stuff you “tolerate.”  In point of fact, in order to “tolerate” something, you had to NOT approve of it.

But, like pretty much everything else secular humanist progressive liberals have touched, they perverted the notion of tolerance.  They turned the definition on its head and today it has the sense of somehow being open minded to all ideas.

The problem is that liberals are anything BUT that.

An ostensibly humorous definition of “tolerance” from a liberal point of view is this:

 A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward the opinions and practices of others as long as they fit the liberal agenda

But what you find out pretty quickly is that as much of a joke the above might appear to be, it is actually quite true.  Read this piece, for example, from liberal Lauren Jacobs on the liberal Huffington Post:

Many people I’ve spoken to lately seem to be confused about the true meaning of “tolerance” and “liberalism.” I think it is time to set the record straight. Tolerance in its simplest definition is “freedom from bigotry.”

Liberalism in its simplest definition is a belief in tolerance (freedom from bigotry) and in progressive reform in socio-cultural, moral/religious, and political matters.

Neither one is about being required to accept all people’s viewpoints all the time, especially when those viewpoints are themselves the opposite of tolerant and liberal, containing bias, prejudice, hate, or a belief that someone other than the self is less-than the self.

Americans who are poor, female, of color, queer, or not Christian cannot afford to practice the nonchalant type of acceptance-of-any-and-all-opinions when the opinion of many hardline social conservatives is that it would be preferable to exclude these people from the conversation altogether (if not to eliminate their equal/human rights).

Lauren says that “many people … seem to be confused.”  So she volunteers to be the blind leading the blind into further blindness.  I want you to note that she immediately manages to redefine “tolerance” as “freedom from bigotry” rather than what it always used to mean before secular humanist progressive liberals came along to pervert it.  And then she immediately goes on to impose HER OWN bigotry on her already twisted definition.  Note that white male heterosexual Christians such as myself are all but guaranteed to be the bogeyman on her presentation.  I mean, somebody please help me, I’ve been “labeled” by a narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant – and oh, yeah, misandrist – liberal.

As a Christian and a conservative, I am very definitely NOT “open-minded” in the sense that the liberals demand I be.  I’m one of those who believes that the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it.  And I submit that the first being who suggested “open-mindedness” was the devil in the Garden.  God told Adam and Eve some very specific things, and they believed what God said.  But then the devil came along in Genesis chapter 3 and told Eve that she should question God, that she should be open-minded to other possibilities – such that God was lying to her and Adam and that God was lying in order to keep them down.

And in being “open-minded” to God, Adam and Eve committed the first sin.  Which resulted in total human depravity.  Which of course ultimately resulted – after a long string of degeneration and perversion – in secular humanist progressive liberalism.

That being admitted, let’s look at liberals and see just how “open-minded” and “tolerant” they are to opposing ideas and views.

Are liberals more “open-minded” than conservatives?  They sure do have a funny way of showing it:

Today the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held a hearing in DC called “A Conversation on Race and Justice in America”. The three panelists were all far left people who believe America is essentially an unjust country. How exactly is this a “conversation”?

That is a very accurate description, given that:

Pelosi will preside over the hearing, which will include Democrats from the party’s Steering and Policy Committee.

The scheduled panelists are Southern Poverty Law Center founder Morris Dees, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, president of the Center for Social Inclusion.

Hey, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Allen West, did your invitations get “lost in the mail” again?  Darn.  We’re so, so sorry.  Better luck next year.  And of course, if those invitations get lost in the darn mail again, better luck the year after that.  Or maybe the year after that.

Ah, yes, “tolerance” is refusing to allow the side and the people you disagree with to not even have a VOICE.  “Open-mindedness” is only allowing liberals in the door.  Just like that not-so-funny-after-all-definition said above.

Just imagine if the State of Israel were to have “A Conversation on Race and Justice in Jerusalem” and only invited ultra-Zionist Jews to attend it who of course would offer nothing but ultra-Zionist Jewish conversation.  Because who needs Palestinians to have such a “conversation,” am I right???  I’m just guessing that liberals – who hate Israel as much as they hate Christianity – would be outraged at the hypocrisy and the intolerance and the narrow-mindedness.

Not that liberals aren’t über hypocritical and über intolerant and über narrow-minded, but they’d sure hate it if Israel did what THEY do on a daily basis.

Yeah, that’s right.  I’m a conservative and I’ve pretty much made up my mind about the world.  And the liberals who have every scintilla as much made up THEIR minds about the world constantly demonize me for doing what they’ve done because they are hypocrites and liars.

For the record, “making up your mind about the world” is NOT a bad thing to conservatives like me.  Moses demanded, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.” And people like me made up their minds and came over to where Moses stood.  Joshua said, “Choose this day whom you will serve” and people like me made their choice to serve God.  We made up our minds.  And the secular humanist progressive liberals have been demonizing us for it ever since.  Literally dating back to Adam and Eve when the very first open-minded and tolerant liberal started crawling around.

As You Survey The Mess Our Culture Is In, You’ve Got To Ask: ‘How Did It Come To This?’

January 31, 2013

There was a scene in the Lord of the Rings in which King Theoden – finally realizing that a vast horde of darkness is coming against him and that his people’s situation is now all but hopeless – asks:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

I ask that question of America.  The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.  In the Middle Earth of Sauron and in the America of Obama.  And the only “Return of the King” to complete the LotR trilogy will be the physical return of Christ Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords.  And that will occur only after the world has gone through seven literal years of hell on earth otherwise known as the Tribulation.

How did it come to this?

First, liberals are the most intolerant people in America.  As you read this article, realize that our crisis stems from profound liberal intolerance.  And the worst thing of all about them is the way they continually demonize their opponents as “intolerant” for the speck of intolerance in the conservatives’ eyes when there’s a giant log of intolerance in the liberals’ eyes.

Liberals are hypocrites, period.  The quintessential ingredient to liberalism is abject moral and intellectual hypocrisy.  It’s why Al Gore sells his television station to a pro-terrorist entity owned by a filthy oil emirate.  It’s why Al Gore tried to structure the deal so he wouldn’t have to pay the higher tax rate that Obama wanted and he publicly campaigned for.  And it is most certainly why liberals continually depict themselves as the most tolerant people when in reality they are by far and away the most intolerant people of all.

Pew: Liberals most intolerant online
posted at 11:00 am on March 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates.  Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves.  Does that sound like tolerance to you?  A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

  • 10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
  • 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
  • 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
  • 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
  • 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

It’s not even all that close, as their chart shows:

Andrew Malcolm has some fun with the implications:

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy  — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter.  I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements.  I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life.  Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing.  I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too.  It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals.  While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative?  Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine.  Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out.  They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice.  The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.

Don’t worry, kids at home.  Liberals say that conservatives are intolerant; and if anybody else disagrees with liberals, well, those people are all intolerant, too.  And according to liberals – who are the high priests of tolerance – it is perfectly okay to be tolerant and even fascist to intolerant people.

You need to understand how we got to be in such a cultural mess, where 88% of Americans think one way but the 12% who think practically opposite the majority have been able to pretty much make up all the rules.  And our society is about to collapse because their rules are evil and frankly fascist to go along with failed.

Let us return to the main point: the secret for the collapse that will plunge us into a collapse unlike ever seen in history is liberal fascist intolerance.

I have come to believe that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  Based on that view, I understand that God prophetically warned man in His Word that as we neared the end, man would increasingly turn away from God and fall into the errors that He warned us about.  I also understand that the same God who told us it would happen 2,000 years ago and beyond is in control, and is allowing the last days to finally come upon the world.  I’ll say that from the outset.

I’m talking to a lot of Christians who have used the word “despair” to describe how they feel about the way America is going.  They somehow felt the world would just keep getting better and better and of course the exact opposite is happening.  And I want you to understand that, for me, Bible prophecy is a great comfort.  Again, I see so many signs that God predicted as a sign the last days were coming to pass and it makes me all the more certain and confident in my faith in God.  The U.S. is now over $225 trillion in actual debt when you add in the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  It is growing by about one trillion dollars every single month.  And you ought to be able to see the signs that if we fall down we will NEVER get back on our feet the way we did in the years following the Great Depression (recognizing that FDR stalled that recovery by seven years according to economists) with his failed liberal policies.  We were the most productive nation on earth at that time in terms of manufacturing; we were a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation at that time; our citizens were NOT consuming mass welfare the way we overwhelmingly are now, nor would they have stood for the kind of sloth that passes for normalcy today; and we had just won a world war and were frankly the only economy on earth that hadn’t been destroyed.  When we fall now – and we WILL fall in the next twenty years – we will shatter into pieces and those pieces will never be reconstituted.  America will be a relatively insignificant banana republic or group of banana republics.  The day our economy crashes we will lose the status that has allowed us to accumulate such a super massive debt – our status as the world’s reserve currency – and it will all be over for us.

America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy.  All the other major nations and regions – such as Russia, Europe and Asia ARE mentioned.  America has largely already guaranteed that it simply will not matter in the coming years.  We had a vote and literally determined to follow the path of the Dodo bird to certain extinction.  There are famously nine stages of civilization.  Last year we were in the seventh, but this election put us over the top of number eight – we voted for entitlements and to become a dependency-based society.  In our final age, bondage will mean bondage of the very worst kind: bondage to the coming Antichrist.

I neither take comfort nor rejoice in that sad, tragic and pathetic end for America.  I rejoice and take comfort in the fact that God has a plan for His people – and I am one of His people.  I need neither weep nor worry.  My treasure is in heaven and I don’t have to fear how much Obama or the beast who will succeed him will take away on earth.

I have another home to go to – and it will be a far grander land than this one ever was even in its brightest day of promise.  And frankly, my faith in the next land (Heaven) grows stronger even as this one (America) grows weaker and weaker.

But why does it happen?  How did we sink this low?

Our modern media descended from the propaganda of World Wars One And Two.  Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were men who believed that people could and frankly SHOULD be manipulated.  They believed that a class of cultural elites should anoint themselves to serve as gatekeepers and ensure that their secular humanist worldview and values would be advanced and rival worldviews and values would be defeated.  You simply cannot read the writings of these fathers of journalism and media elitism and not see that common thread in their work.

What I’m saying is that when it comes to journalism and modern media, you cannot say that conservatives ever “lost control” over these institutions – because we never had any control over them to begin with.  They were never anything other than secular humanist and liberal progressive in orientation.  And all it took was for the technology to become sufficiently powerful and all-encompassing that their domination of the media would translate to their being able to dictate to mass culture what to think and what to believe.  And here we are.

The power of media was used against Christianity in 1960 with an incredibly dishonest piece of propaganda titled Inherit the Wind (see also here).  And the order of magnitude in terms of media manipulation has grown by giant leaps and bounds in the over fifty years since.  Most people – the 88 percent above – understand that they are being routinely lied to with outright propaganda.  The problem is that even though they know they’re being brainwashed, they’re STILL being brainwashed.  The media is altering people’s perceptions much the way the constant ocean tide wears away even the rocks let alone the sand; it is the inevitable result of being washed over with lies again and again and again and again, ad infinitum.

How did the secular humanist left gain control over academia?  Christians unwittingly played a giant part in that.  Do you know how many of the first universities in America were founded by Christians?  How about pretty much ALL of them.  Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  That trend continued long into America’s journey as a nation: I just got through reading an excellent article about the incredibly enormous role Christian churches and denominations played in the establishment of virtually all of the schools, universities and hospitals in the American West.  Education was almost ENTIRELY up to Christian churches and denominations.

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us.  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Strike three for conservatives and for the United States of America was when liberals seized control of the government.  They didn’t do it by winning elections; they did it by stacking the government employees with leftwing union thuggery.

FDR said that government employee unions were unAmerican.  And of course he was right.  But as far to the left as FDR was in the 1930s and 1940s, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to just how radically far the Democrat Party would go to to undermine the United States of America.  FDR said:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Unions are completely dead in America in the private sector, where they have killed jobs and crushed entire industries.  But they dominate government employees.  And if Mitt Romney and Republicans were to have won the election, they would not have been able to significantly change the way government “works” (in quotes because in the vast majority of respects, government doesn’t “work” at all).  That is because virtually every level and layer of government “service” is as dominate by liberals as the kitchen floor of a filthy house is dominated by cockroaches.

You’ve got the government as an entity unto itself whose primary purpose is to create more government, more government jobs and more government workers with more lavish government pensions and benefits that are borne on the backs of the taxpayer.

The aim of the Democrat Party and the aim of the government unions is identical: to explode the size and power of government and to make government employees an elite, privileged class of masters over the rest of society.  Their collective goal is to attain government power that allows them to dominate forever by being able to be able to pick the winners and losers and the victims and villains of society.

And they have largely attained that power.  Once a government bureaucracy is created, it can never be undone; the liberals who own government by what FDR said was an immoral tactic have never allowed it and WILL never allow it.

There’s a reason for this that goes to what I said above about how Christians trained their people to go into the mission field and liberals trained their people to go into government: and that is, for liberals, serving government is tantamount and in fact even greater than serving God.  Liberals have simply flooded government and there is no practical way to purge the influence that even FDR said was illegitimately obtained.

There are other reasons that our culture became toxic and doomed, of course.

“Political correctness” is a huge factor.

Political correctness is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a vast, coordinated effort on the part of the secular humanist, socialist left to change Western culture as we know it by  using rhetoric to redefine it. Early Marxists in Russia designed this game plan long ago and liberals continue to execute the tactic today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

With the “news” media, with academia and with government at their beck and call, to go along with liberal Hollywood culture, it was easy to tell people what to think.

Liberals have used boycotts to devastating effect; while conservatives say boycotts are wrong and refuse to call for them.  The result of this disparity is that our businesses are vulnerable and exposed to incredible pressure from the left, while liberal businesses are completely safe.

I think of two recent examples of how the difference between liberalism and conservatism works in the form of two athletes.

Phil Mickelson “sinned” by saying that the tax burden that Democrats were demanding he pay – basically 63 percent of everything he makes – was far too high, and that he was fleeing the Socialist Republic of California as a result.  Do you think it’s unreasonable for Mickelson to say that he disagrees that Obama is 63 percent responsible for his success and that he’s only at most 37 percent responsible for his success?  This gets us right back to Obama’s, “you didn’t build that, government did” argument.  Mickelson was so viciously demonized that he went out something like four times to mea culpa and say he was terribly wrong to say stuff like that.  On my count he came out four separate times begging people to please quit hating him for believing he had a right to express his views in Amerikkka.

The second recent example is San Francisco 49er player Chris Culliver, who expressed his opinion that he would not personally feel comfortable having an open homosexual player on the team.  And of course, he was quickly broken as liberals demanded he literally be fired for expressing his views.

How many celebrities have been celebrated and adored by the liberal media culture for saying that celebrities should “pay their fair share” with high taxes and that homosexuality is so wonderful it’s even better than sliced bread?  Were they forced to do a perp walk and apologize for their remarks?  Not a chance.

You see, here’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Conservatives believe that people – even liberals – have a right to express their views and beliefs.  Conservatives believe that our nation with its freedoms and liberty should not persecute people merely for expressing a viewpoint that they disagree with.  Liberals, on the other hand, are fascists who brutally and viciously attack anyone who doesn’t bow down to their agenda.  You do NOT have the freedom of self-expression if you use that freedom to say something that liberals don’t like.  They will come after you with stunning hatred if you try to do so.

Liberals are people who routinely shout down everyone with whom they disagree.  You do not have the right to say anything that offends them.  They will simply come after you in full-fledged fascisti mode.

Genuine tolerance is a weapon that liberals have turned against conservatives.  As liberal activist Saul Alinsky – who devoted his book to Satan – said:

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

And of course liberals like Al Gore have no “book of rules” to have to live up to.  They can preach radical environmentalism and demonize oil for years.  They can say that people ought to pay their “fair share” of taxes.  And then – like Al Gore – they can sell out to a terrorist “journalism” network funded entirely by oil money and try to structure the deal so they don’t have to pay Obama’s sky-high tax rates.  But because they always parroted the liberal vision – no matter how hypocritically – they’re on hallowed ground with the vast majority of the propaganda machine a.k.a. journalism in America.

Liberals are currently decrying guns, because everybody knows that human beings are merely farm animals incapable of exercising personal responsibility or self-restraint.  Guns must be taken away from the law-abiding even if it makes them utterly helpless in a deteriorating society because that’s the only solution that liberals will allow.  I submit that there aren’t too many guns; there are too many abortions.  There aren’t to many guns; there’s too much pornography.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too little respect for the dignity of human life that the abortion culture and the pornography culture that liberals fought so hard to institute guarantees.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too much lawless disregard for justice that liberals (the ACLU being your classic example) have produced throughout our legal culture.

We kicked God’s butt right out of our schools, banned prayer, banned the Ten Commandments with its “Thou shalt not murder” and we’re just astonished that the children who grew up godless in liberal indocrination facilities a.k.a. our public school system would actualize the disgusting hatred of life that liberalism produced in their empty souls.

And now liberals are exploiting the gun violence that their policies produced in the first place to implement their next step in the Stalinist takeover of America.

And that’s why we’ve lost.  And why the America we stood for is now basically eradicated.

And those three strikes plus are why America is going to go down and go down hard.  King Theoden ultimately won; America is ultimately going to lose and then the beast will come just as God told us would happen.  Theoden’s enemies were outside the walls; America’s enemies are very much within.

Obama Says, ‘We Don’t Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country.’ Especially People Who Start Businesses Or Risk Their Money Investing.

October 8, 2012

Put this in your, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” comment and smoke it:

Obama: ‘We Don’t Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country’
11:59 AM, Oct 5, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

President Obama, speaking in Virginia, said, “We don’t believe anybody is entitled to success in this country.”

“This  country does not just succeed when just a few are doing well at the  top,” Obama said, according to a rush transcript of the remarks. “It succeeds when the middle class gets bigger. Our economy does not  grow from the top-down, it grows from the middle-out. We do not believe  that anybody is entitled to success in this country. But we do believe  in opportunity. We believe in a country where hard work pays off and  responsibilities are rewarded and everybody is getting a fair shot and  everybody’s doing their fair share. And everybody’s paying by the same  rules. That is the country believe in. That is what we have been  fighting for the last four years. That is what we’re going to put in  place in the next four years if you reelect me as president of the United States of America.”

You see, that’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals say everybody ought to be the same, everybody ought to have their wealth redistributed and doled out to everybody else such that as Karl Marx famously stated:

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

You see, conservatives don’t think so.  We think if a small business owners works a hundred hours a damn week to make his or her business successful, that business owner is entitled to his or her success.  Conservatives think if a smart investor risks his or her money on an investment that succeeds, that investor is entitled to his or her success.  We think that people who work harder or who work smarter than other people ought to be entitled to keep what they worked harder or smarter than others FOR.  In the case of rich people, we even think that rich people who worked hard their entire lives to give their children an inheritance are entitled to GIVE their kids that inheritance.  Just as we think those kids are entitled to receive what their parents worked so hard to give them.

Do you know what you ARE entitled to in America under Obama’s failed presidency?  Food stamps:

[W]e are confident that no readers will be surprised to learn that foodstamp usage for both persons and households, has jumped to a new all time record.

At 46,681,833 persons hooked on SNAP, the July number crossed the previous record posted a short month before, as the foodstamp curve continues ‘plumbing’ newer and greater heights each month.

More disturbing is that in the same month, the number of US households reliant on foodstamps rose by a whopping 99,493 to 22,541,744. Assuming a modest 2 persons per household, the increase means that more people went on Foodstamps in the month of July than found jobs (181,000 according to the latest revised NFP data). Furthermore, it appears that buying votes has become a tad more expensive in the past month. After the benefit per household dipped to a record low in April at just $275.81, this has since retraced some of its losses and is now at an inflationary $277.92. Oh well: inflation.

Adding the number of disability recipients in the month of July, which in that month rose by 20,474, and one can see why the government is quite happy with dumping this particular release long after everyone was on their way back home for the weekend.

Finally, and putting it all into perspective, since December 2007, or the start of the Great Depression ver 2.0, the number of jobs lost is 4.5 million, while those added to foodstamps and disability rolls, has increased by a unprecedented 21 million. Oh and about $7 or $8 trillion in debt. Who’s counting really.

Which is why you can bet your farm that this government-subsidized princess will be sure to vote Obama:

I wish I could go to the home of every liberal (like a liberal version Santa Claus) and take away every single toy their kids come out of the house with.  A liberal’s kid comes out with a new bike, I’m going to take that bike.  That kid isn’t entitled to that bike.  And I’m going to redistribute it to some other poor kid.  If a liberal’s kid comes out with the hot new toy, why, just how in the hell is that kid entitled to that?  Santa Claus is coming to town to redistribute the damn wealth.  And I’m going to make sure that every fat-assed, lazy, good-nothing sluggard gets what every hard-working person worked so hard to build.  Because I think that “you didn’t build that” and “you’re not entitled to it.”

People who work hard and suceed are FAR more entitled to what they earn than every single liberal parasite on earth combined.

Scott Walker Wins, Communists (A.K.A. Democrats) LOSE HUGE

June 5, 2012

Democrats are communists, and even the true blue state of Wisconsin has just OVERWHELMINGLY rejected their fascist tactics.

A liberal group used clear voter intimidation tactics to threaten people to vote (Democrat).  “Fascist tactics” is a technically accurate term here.

Democrats do not live in the real world, as what we just saw in Wisconsin proves.  What was the left saying not long ago???

From the überfascist publication The Nation only a couple of months ago:

The Power of Recalls in Wisconsin
John Nichols on March 17, 2012 – 8:31 AM ET

With Wisconsin recall elections looming against four Republican state senators—as well as Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch—the state’s politics was thrown for another loop Friday when a targeted senator up and quit.

State Senator Pam Galloway, a Tea Party favorite and one of Walker’s steadiest backers in the legislature, announced her immediate resignation from the legislature and her decision not to contest the recall election.

The move had dramatic repercussions:

1. Republicans have lost the complete control of state government that allowed the governor to advance an austerity agenda that was defined by attacks on unions and deep cuts in public education and public services funding—along with the harshest voter ID law in the nation, a rigidly partisan redistricting of legislative districts and what critics complain has been a battering of the state’s open-government tradition.

2. State Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald, (brother of Assembly Speaker Jeff) a Walker ally who is targeted for recall, has lost his position as the dominant player in the legislature. He now must enter into a power-sharing agreement with minority leader Mark Miller, a progressive Democrats who led a historic walkout by his caucus during last year’s struggle over Walker’s labor law changes. Committee assignments will be redone to reflect what is now a 16-16 split in the Senate.

3. Governor Walker, who has threatened to call special sessions of the legislature to deal with pet projects, will now only be able to do so if he can work with the Democrats—something he has not done up to this point.

4. If, as expected, the federal courts reject the state’s redistricting plan, it could be sent back to a legislature where Democrats can now play a critical role in drawing the maps. That could result in a significant upturn in their fortunes going into this fall’s elections.

5. Republicans have lost their premier candidate in one of four state Senate recall elections that are now scheduled for May 8 primaries and a June 5 election. Galloway had raised major money and organized a campaign of consequence before announcing that family health concerns had led her to exit the legislature. Now, Democrat Donna Seidel, a popular former county official in the Wausau-area district and the assistant minority leader in the state Assembly, emerges as a clear front-runner for a seat that—if she wins—would tip the Senate to full Democratic control.

All of these changes were made possible by the recall power, which allows citizens to petition for new elections. This old progressive tool of accountability was used last summer to force a number of Republican senators who supported the Walker agenda to defend their seats.

Going into last summer’s recall votes, Republicans held a 19-14 advantage in the Senate. Two Republicans were defeated, leaving the GOP with a narrow 17-16 advantage—and giving moderate Republican Senator Dale Schultz the power to temper his party’s excesses. Now, with Galloway’s exit, the chamber goes to the 16-16 split.

After the next round of recalls, it is possible that Democrats could end up with full control of the Senate, potentially by a margin of up to 19-14—or, if Fitzgerald is defeated by upstart challenger Lori Compas, 20-13.

Additionally, a new Democratic Senate could sit with a new Democratic governor, as Walker’s recall is now all but certain to take place on the same day as the senators.

What has happened is remarkable. What could happen is historic. And the people, using the recall power afforded them by progressive reformers of a century ago, are making it happen.

I wanted to post this example of liberals claiming victory in Wisconsin before it got purged with all the rest of their bogus smack talk.

It’s time to eat your cockroach poison and start flailing around wildly on your backs, Democrats.  You just got sprayed with the nasty crap that you were so damned determined to spray on Walker and every Republican you could smear.  And this is what, the third time you’ve had your asses handed to you after previously trying to recall state senators and a judge???

Even in a blue state like Wisconsin, you just got utterly rejected.

As of my sending this out to the world, Walker is up by a massive 20 points with 40% of the precincts reporting.  And the race was called within what?  About forty minutes of the returns coming in???  In a race all the liberals were saying would go to the wire?  This is a state that Obama won by ffifteen points just a few years ago!!!

I guess voters like the guy who created tens of thousands of jobs while taking a $3.6 billion deficit that his Democrat predecessor left for him and turning it into a $150 million surplus without raising taxes.  And I guess they don’t like Democrat politicians who act like cockroaches when the lights get turned on and flee the state rather than vote.

And where was Obama?  The cowardly little political weasel was flying all over doing fundraiser after fundraiser but you could turn over every rock in Wisconsin and you wouldn’t find him supporting the recall that his cockroach minions started last year.  The Slimebag-in-Chief literally flew over the state while going from Minneapolis (where he did three fundraisers) to Illinois (where he did another three fundraisers) so the man who took more money from Wall Street than ANY POLITICIAN IN HISTORY and the man who has raised more money than any cyncial money-grubbing politician in the entire history of the human race could whore himself for more money.

How did Obama lead?  Well, it’s my understanding he sent a tweet.  I guess I’m glad Obama isn’t supporting me, because this is a guy who only knows how to support himself at other people’s expense.  If you’re a Democrat, you truly ought to be ashamed of the turd you elected.

I’ve got to just laugh my very best mocking laughter as the same Democrats who wildly cheered when Obama was raising and spending more campaign money than anyone in human history are now crying and whining that Republicans are outspending them.  It must truly suck to get hung on your own petard.

Every model that Obama’s campaign had for his path to victory counted on Wisconsin.  And that state is VERY OBVIOUSLY now in play for Mitt Romney.  Which is to say that if Obama has to even defend one of the most reliably Democrat states in the nation, well, he’s just starting to look more and more and more like Jimmy Carter.

Update, June 7: Democrats have been whining about the spending gap between Democrats and Walker, claiming something like a $7-$1 dollar difference because of all the conservative money pouring in from across the nation.  The media has widely reported this Democrat talking point.

It turns out that it’s a lie, like pretty much everything else the left says: the fact is that the same media that reported every dollar coming in from conservatives somehow omitted $21 million coming in from the unions.  Which is to say that liberals are furious that their out-of-state money wasn’t as much as the Republicans’ out-of-state money and therefore out-of-state money is anti-democratic even though they tried to raise as much of it as they could themselves.

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

May 12, 2012

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.

Liberal Calls Sarah Palin A “Cunt” A Week After Calling Her A “Dumb Twat”

March 29, 2011

All I can say is that, based on liberals rationale, conservatives should be able to call Obama a “stupid nigger” all day long.  After all, just as it’s wrong to use such hateful language toward women unless we don’t happen to like a particular woman’s political views, it’s therefore perfectly okay to use the “N” word toward a black person when you don’t agree with him or her politically.

This racist, bigoted hatred of the left isn’t new.  It is who they are and who they always have beenIt defines them.  It’s called “projection”: liberals assume that conservatives must be racist and bigoted and misogynist, because liberals are so damn racist and bigoted and misogynist.

Interestingly, given that I said conservatives have every right to call Obama a nigger now, given the left’s justification for anti-woman hatred for Sarah Palin, it is fitting that it is – as usual – LEFTISTS who are actually applying that label on Obama.

The fact that Bill Maher is still on the air is proof positive that liberals are despicable, hateful, vile hypocrites.  Because only liberals are depraved enough to watch this over-the-top despicable liberal fascist.

Bill Maher Calls Sarah Palin a “****” a Week After Calling Palin a “Dumb ****”
Monday, March 28, 2011 | Kristinn
Posted on Monday, March 28, 2011 3:50:53 PM by kristinn

A week after calling former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a “dumb t***” vulgar insult for women, comedian Bill Maher went all the way and called Palin the c-word, adding, “There’s just no other word for her.”

The Dallas Voice (The Premier Media Source for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) Texas) reporting on Maher’s appearance Sunday night at the Winnspear Opera House Sunday night, cheered Maher using the crude sexist slur against the 2008 Republican party vice presidential nominee as an act of “fearlessness”:

It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a “c***” (“there’s just no other word for her”) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.

The audience at the Winnspear was descibed by the Voice as “largely gay (and certainly gay-friendly)”, which might explain Maher’s fearlessness in attacking a conservative, Christian, married mother of five in the most vulgar, personal and sexist way.

When Maher was first being criticized for calling Palin the t-word, Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters asked:

Is the universal media hatred for this woman so pervasive that it’s now acceptable for a man to call her that?

Can the dreaded C-word be far behind?

Sadly, it didn’t take long for Sheppard to be proven right.

Last month, Slate Magazine was caught slyly calling Palin the c-word in a headline. Slate’s editor apologized after being called out by Big Journalism.

It’s really not all that hard to be right when you’re talking about liberal progressives.  Simply assume that they are as vile as possible, and then think, “If I were 95% cockroach, what would I do next?”

Lesbians, gay, bisexuals and transexuals cheered this as “fearless,” did they?  So conservatives now have every right to be similarly “fearless” and apply the same sort of bigoted hatred in labeling toward them now?  Why is it only “fearless” when a liberal displays this level of personal hatred toward a conservative?  How does it not work the other way around?

If Glenn Beck did this, there is no question that he would be fired.  And that is because conservatives are superior to liberals in every way morally possible.

These are ugly, ugly people.  They have no shame.  They have no decency.  They have no integrity.  And they have no honor.

Rush Limbaugh Discusses Ronald Reagan And Demonstrates Why Liberals Must Be Defeated Rather Than Reasoned With

February 8, 2011

I thought this was a very interesting discussion.  Here’s the transcript of it, with the response that I found most significant in bold font:

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I, um… I’m calling because… Well, first of all, I’m a liberal, and I seriously don’t understand this, uh, Reagan idolatry on behalf of conservatives.  I’ll get… I’ll give you my reasons.  Instead of privatizing Social Security, he raised taxes. We’re all paying higher taxes today out of our paychecks every single week because he decided to save Social Security.  He —

RUSH:  Wait, wait.  Hold it.  I need to go…

CALLER: (speaking rapidly)
 
 
RUSH: Wait. Jeez.

CALLER:  The Greenspan Commission.  He signed it into law, and it raised taxes on Social Security.

RUSH:  What…? Wait, you’re talking about Reagan or Clinton?

CALLER:  I’m talking about Reagan.  Reagan did that.  He raised taxes on Social Security.  He negotiated with terrorists, sending — over and over again — arms to Iran in exchange for hostages; by contrast Jimmy Carter didn’t give an inch to the Iranians.

RUSH:  What in the world…?

CALLER:  Not an inch.  Instead Reagan (crosstalk)

RUSH:  Testing the true depth of my politeness here on this call, folks.

CALLER:  Say that again?

RUSH:  Let me ask you a question.  What do you think, given all this that you believe, when you hear Obama and the Democrats cite Reagan as they have been doing since about a week before the State of the Union?

CALLER:  It’s funny you ask that.  Because as a liberal I think Obama owes his presidency to Reagan.  They’re both kinda stuffed suits that say one thing and then do another.  Obama hasn’t been anywhere near liberal enough for me.  He said he’d close Guantamano (sic), he hasn’t done that.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: He said he’d help people out with foreclosures, he hasn’t done that.

RUSH:  I feel for you on that.

CALLER:  But Reagan, I mean, amnesty to people who are breaking the law and living in the country illegally. He said, “Forget about it. Stay here forever.” He cut and ran from Lebanon. How many hundreds of Marines were killed —

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: — and he just decided, “Well, you know, instead of the fighting the bad guys I’m gonna run away”?

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?

RUSH:  “Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?”  I don’t think you… Given what you’ve said, and I’m not trying to avoid the question, I don’t think you’d ever understand it.

CALLER:  Well, he’s a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists.  Why is he a hero to conservatives?  I don’t think you understand it.

RUSH:  No, I do. Most assuredly I do.  I just don’t think that you would understand it.  Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes on Social Security?  What websites do you read?  Where did you pick that up?

CALLER:  Look up the Greenspan Commission.  It’s not too hard to find.  I mean, it’s a matter of history.

RUSH:  Where did you get it?  I mean, you’re asking me questions.  I’m just reversing one on you here.

CALLER:  I’m sorry.  It’s just general knowledge.  It’s something I’ve known for a long time. I can’t remember where I got it from.

RUSH: You can’t remember? You’ve never heard of a website called Media Matters which highlighted it yesterday?

CALLER: (static) Oh, no. I know Media Matters very well but that’s not where I got it.

RUSH: Oh, not where you got it. It’s an amazing coincidence.

CALLER: (static) I mean, I’m a liberal.  Of course I know Media Matters.

RUSH:  Amazing coincidence out there.

CALLER: (static blaring) They’re a fantastic website.  But why are you dodging the question?  I want to know why a tax-raising, amnesty-giving, cut-and-running, negotiating-with-terrorists guy is a hero to the conservative movement.

RUSH:  Well, because you understand Reagan in a way that is flawed. You —

CALLER: (static)

RUSH: Your call is actually kinda interesting because you represent the impossibility of “bridging the gap.”  Somebody like you just has to be defeated.  There’s no crossing the aisle and finding common ground with you.  You’re free to be who you are, don’t misunderstand.  I’m not trying to be insulting. I’m just saying, you are unreachable. You don’t want to be reached.  This picture of Reagan, you’ve just described somebody you should love, and you hate him! You just described somebody you should absolutely love, all these things. He’s an anti-conservative, as you say, but you don’t love him. You’re having trouble understanding why he’s viewed as heroic to a lot of people. 

I could talk to you about anti-communism. I could. You want to talk about amnesty? Yeah, that was Simpson-Mazzoli, and that was one-and-a-half, two million illegals; and he was told, “Okay, if we’re gonna do this, this is it, then. We’re gonna secure the borders and that’s it.”  It’s the same thing with every tax increase he signed. It was also accompanied by promises to cut spending, and it never happened.  Reagan’s not perfect.  Nobody is.  But I think the proof of Reagan is the fact that when your guys get in trouble, who do they seek to associate themselves with?  Remember, Obama and these people are all about getting votes. 

The fact that he’s trying to surround himself with Reagan, the fact that he’s trying to position himself with Reagan is the best indication anybody could have of what this country really thinks of Ronaldus Magnus.  I think if you want to focus in on hypocrisy, you’ve got far more of it on your side of the aisle to explain and dig through than we do.  Reagan was forced to raise payroll taxes by a crisis in Social Security in 1983. He endorsed that rescue plan that was written by Alan Greenspan. It was reluctant.  He was not a big supporter of that.  Remember, Reagan did not have a congressional majority with him.

Everything he got, the tax cuts, he had Democrats outnumbering him in the House and Senate everywhere.  There were certain realities that he faced.  But the biggest tax increase on Social Security was authored by none other than Bill Clinton.  But did you understand the notion? Ronald Reagan fought for America.  He loved America.  He feared where the left, based on history, wanted to take the country.  Ronald Reagan set the stage for the end of the Cold War.  Ronald Reagan defeated Soviet communism without firing a shot.  I don’t know… But none of that would matter.  So you, sir, a nice individual, I’m sure you’re a fine guy (probably not too much fun at a ball game, unlike Bill Clinton), but still, you illustrate that people like you just have to be defeated, not met halfway and gotten along with.  I mean politically.

Rush is entirely correct here.  You can’t have a rational or meaningful discussion with people like this liberal caller.  You can only defeat them and render them powerless politically.

You can’t have an honest conversation with a dishonest person. There is simply no point.  They won’t tell you what’s really on their heart and mind; they merely constantly employ rhetorical games that mean nothing and go nowhere.  In the case of Rush’s caller, you had a man who simply spoke lies about Ronald Reagan.  If he had actually believed any of his own crap, he would have LOVED Reagan, as Rush pointed out.

I remember a discussion I had with a liberal on an article I wrote about the tax cuts.  An individual who called himself “michael” wrote and said:

I am at work right now but i just read this article and it is the funniest thing i have ever read. no hate intended but it looks like it was written by someone who read someone elses work and is trying to claim their opinion as his or her own

Well, this individual dismisses my work as having been plagerized.  That certainly wasn’t true.  I wrote every word that I didn’t directly cite as a quote and legitimately sourced every citation as having been quoted.  But after a little dicussion this same liberal writes another comment that supposedly puts me in m place.  Among other huge problems with this comment was the fact that my former professor’s nose smelled a rat.  Basically, the tone of the two writers didn’t match one another.  I googled part of the diatribe, and sure enough, discovered that the selfsame liberal who falsely accused me of plagerizing had actually completely plagerized his rebuttal to me.

After exposing his dishonesty, I said:

You are not an honest person, Michael. And there is no point having a discussion with a liar. Because the truth and the facts don’t matter to a liar. And someone like you can and will say anything and claim lies as fact.

And I’m not going to waste my time with you.

And that’s where we’re at.  There’s no “bridging the gap” with liberals.  There’s no rational dialogue.  They have a warped and depraved worldview, which means they cannot even possibly understand the world as it really is (i.e., from the “God’s-eye view”), and then, to make it even worse, far too few of them are personally honest enough to have a meaningful discussion involving facts and truth because dishonest people will simply invent “facts” and surround themselves in lies.

Rush ultimately informs the audience that Reagan basically NEVER had Republican control of Congress throughout his entire presidency.  The House of Representatives, which controls spending, was under complete Democrat control for every single year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency (with first Tip O’Neil and then Jim Wright serving as Democrat Speakers of the House).  As for the Senate, it was also under Democrat control for part of Reagan’s presidency; and Reagan NEVER had a strong majority there.  So the caller was not depicting events honestly: it wasn’t like Reagan realized his policies were failing and raised taxes.  Rather, Reagan had to constantly negotiate and compromise with Democrats in control of the Congress – particularly the House – and was forced to make concessions to get other things he wanted.

Furthermore, this caller who plagued Rush was little different from the blogger who plagued me.  He passed off liberal talking points as his own thoughts.  It turns out that this caller was merely regurgitating crap that was flying out of the mouths of the vomitous left.  You can see a conservative response to these slime attacks on Reagan here.

So let me quote that article’s response to the liberal’s charge that Reagan gave illegal’s amnesty:

The Democrat leadership in Congress promised to enact strict enforcement measures as a trade for a one-time amnesty deal. In an effort to control the border, Reagan went along with the deal.  At the time (1986), the measures were marketed by Democrats as as being able to stop illegal immigration. Ted Kennedy himself sold the enforcement clauses of the law as strong enough to ensure that only a one-time amnesty would be needed. But, as is their standard practice, Democrats lied about sealing the border.

Which not only shows that Reagan most certainly did NOT say, “Forget about it. Stay here forever,” as the caller deceitfully claims, but in fact goes back to the now documented proof that liberals are liars who cannot be trusted and cannot be bargained with or reasoned with.

The caller describes Reagan as running from Lebanon with his tail between his legs.  Which is actually funny, given the fact that Democrats at the time demanded that Reagan immediately pull out of Lebanon after the Beirut bombing that killed 241 Marines.  Nobody on the left was demanding we attack Lebanon.

I have my own perspective on that.

Reagan’s pullout from Lebanon bothered me greatly at the time.  But I realize the Reagan’s wisdom now.  He was already in the process of fighting and defeating the Soviet Union – the largest military power on earth – and he saw the folly of getting America into another war against a different ideology and another limitless enemy at the same time.  If you were in the infantry in the 1980s, you knew that we were preparing for some potentially imminent conflagration; and we would be pouring in to Western Europe to fight a defensive war against a Soviet invasion.  Ronald Reagan wisely chose to stay the course in facing and defeating the Soviet Union, and allow the Islamic threat to remain for another day when the Russian threat was gone.  Just imagine how much the Russians would have loved it to be able to supply millions of death-happy Muslims and watch us bleed from the sidelines in an endless proxy war?  Which is to say that the caller not only misrepresents what in actual fact happened – making him a liar – but also argues that Reagan should have fought two civilizational wars simultaneously, making him a complete fool.

When Democrats routinely pursue such deceit, it becomes pointless to argue with them.  It boils down to the Mark Twain wisdom of, “Never argue with a fool.  People won’t be able to tell the difference.”  Try to reason with those independents who are capable of “bridging the gap,” as Rush Limbaugh put it.  Argue with people who might change their minds.  Argue with people who won’t play a neverending tune of rhetorical garbage.  Argue with people who won’t constantly rely on lies.

And just defeat liberals.  Because defeat is the only reality that they are capable of understanding.

Leftwing Violence And Media Propaganda/Coverup Continues Unabated

January 27, 2011

How long did it take for liberals and their media lackeys to blame Republicans and conservatives for Jared Loughner and the “climate of hate” that resulted in the Tucson, Arizona shootings?  Probably about two minutes, but New York Slimes columnist Paul Krugman was the first “mainstream” “journalist” to viciously attack the right two hours after the event (evidence not required).

The left immediately cited Sarah Palin having used a map “targeting” Democrats.  It didn’t matter that it was DEMOCRATS who invented these “targeting maps.”  Nor did it matter that the Democrat PARTY – not just some politician who wasn’t even in office anymore like Sarah Palin – had used these maps themselves (both the Democratic Leadership Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are were discovered to have used such maps).

The left immediately attacked Sarah Palin because one of the vulnerable districts that Sarah Palin “targeted” for defeat in the midterm elections was Gabrielle Gifford’s district.  It didn’t matter that the powerful liberal site DailyKos had similarly targeted Gabrille Giffords because she wasn’t leftwing enough for them.  And even more, it didn’t matter that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas took his hate to a whole new level beyond anything Sarah Palin approached by saying of Gabrielle Giffords, “she’s dead to me.”

Nor did it matter that if anything at all, shooter Jared Loughner exhibted FAR more characteristics of a leftwinger than he did of a rightwinger (and see also here).

You see, for any of the above to matter, the left would have to have some shred of virtue.  And they simply don’t have any virtue at all.  They are liars without honesty, shame or integrity.  Hypocrisy and deceit are pathological.  Take these things away from a liberal, and he or she would vanish.  Because it’s all they are.

Even as the left denounced the right for the “climate of hate,” they were frothing at the mouth with their own special climate of hate.

Now, for the record I don’t really mind the left spewing their hate.  I think it helps reveal who and what they are.  What I DO mind – and what got me into blogging – is the massive hypocrisy in which these people constantly denounce us for hate when they are so full of it themselves.  These are people who have practiced hatred and violence for decades, and when we respond to their jackboots in our faces, they denounce us as practicing hate.  As if the victim who fights the attacker is every bit as guilty as the attacker for any violence.

So it was rather revealing that the only person who was in any way, shape or form connected with the Tucson Arizona shooting who actually threatened to kill somebody was a LIBERAL threatening a TEA PARTY spokesman (and see also here).  The self-described LIBERAL took a picture of the tea party member and said, “You’re dead.”

President Obama gave one of his “just words” speeches filled with flowery but empty rhetoric in which he condemned the harsh polarized political climate that he himself was instrumental in creating.  And, of course, Obama himself hypocritically loaded up the Tucson memorial service with his own image and his own political sloganeering in marked contrast to his message.

But the left is vicious and vile and venomous.  So it took them no time at all to show their demonic nature.

Republicans tried to play by the new rules.  They called a break (and a truce) for a week and halted their calender in an important time that the opposition party would ordinarily want to use to full advantage prior to a State of the Union speech.  And they toned down their language, for example, changing the word “kill” in “job killing” to “crush” or “destroy.” It was a useless gesture, I know, but the Republicans were doing what they could to practice civility according to the long laundry list of words that political-correctness-embracing Democrats had decided was off limits.

But, of course, Democrats paid no attention to the rules they insisted that Republicans follow.  Controlling liberal hate is like controlling a rabid dog in full-frothing mode; it just doesn’t happen.  So it should be no surprise that Democrats would be unable to control themselves in their hateful dialogue even while Republicans tried to jump through the rhetorical hoops Democrats demanded.

Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen invoked the most evil event in human history to attack Republicans on the House floor:

“They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels,” Cohen said. “You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing.” And Congressman Cohen didn’t stop there.

“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it–believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover,” Cohen said.

Now, keep in mind, Sarah Palin got demonized by the mainstream media for having maps that did the exact same thing that Democrat maps had been doing for years.  Did the media come unglued and denounce Cohen for his despicable hate?  Nope.  They put it in a “broader context,” which means that to the extent that they didn’t simply ignore it altogether, they explained it away.

Fellow Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee had her own version of attacking Republicans for a Holocaust to be if they dare to vote according to their principles:

“Frankly, I would just say to you, this is about saving lives. Jobs are very important; we created jobs,” Jackson Lee said. “But even the title of their legislation, H.R. 2, ‘job-killing’ — this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill.”

Okay.  So Republicans are “killing Americans.”  But other than that they’re decent people.  Really.

There’s your new “civility” for you.  It’s Democrats demonizing Republicans for what Democrats have actually done more than Republicans.  And heaping hate on top of rabid hate even as they hypocritically denounce Republicans for the climate of hate that Republicans are of course responsible for.

And the media will play that game all day.  Because, contrary to Steve Cohen’s remark, the new “Jospeh Goebbels” in this country are journalists.

So we’ve got stuff like this: a leftist radical who acted on his radical leftism tried to murder a politician who wasn’t far leftist enough.  He wrote, “How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?”

This radical leftist slashed the throat of a college dean out of the mistaken belief that he was the governor of Tennessee.  It happened last September.  And nobody reported it simply because, well, they couldn’t figure out a way to turn this radical leftist into a Republican.

But they sure were on top of the story that Sarah Palin had a map that you needed to know about, didn’t they???

And if Democrats had a stack of maps themselves, well, you just didn’t need to know that, the self-appointed media gate-keepers figured.

Nor did you need to know about that petty little leftist would-be assassin.

Nor do you really need to know anything that contradicts the mainstream – liberal, of course – media message.