Posts Tagged ‘First Amendment’

Why It Really Is EASY To Vote For Donald Trump In The General Election (Because The Other Side Is Openly STALINIST)

April 29, 2016

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.  And in this case it’s true: because this one picture describes EVERYTHING you need to know as you vote in the general election after the primary circus is over:

Liberal Fascism-Trump

There is actually a political party today – the Democrat Party – that widely believes that viciously punching people in the face merely because they went to a political rally and supported a major political candidate at that rally – are good, decent, tolerant people.

When ONE Donald Trump supporter punched a fascist free-speech hater who decided that Donald Trump didn’t have the right to speak and thousands of supporters didn’t have the right to hear him speak, hundreds if not thousands of “journalists” IMMEDIATELY held Donald Trump personally accountable for the actions of that one man.  But THOUSANDS of leftist thugs have been organized and literally bussed in to violently protest free speech political rallies and suddenly nobody is responsible in an amazing act of last-days stunning moral hypocrisy.

They say that Donald Trump is somehow responsible for inciting violence because of his “hateful rhetoric” about groups that the left adores: terrorist Muslim immigrants, vicious criminal illegal immigrants, baby-butchers, feminist-Nazis.  But what about the incredibly hateful rhetoric used to condemn and demonize him?

Let me get this straight: YOU’RE NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN THE KIND OF LANGUAGE HE USES????  WELL WHAT THE HELL KIND OF LANGUAGE ARE YOU USING!!!???

Doesn’t that “hateful rhetoric” inflame the left?  Very clearly it DOES: BECAUSE THEY KEEP SHOWING UP AND ACTING VIOLENTLY AT TRUMP RALLIES, DON’T THEY???

This is merely something called “the truth.”  This is merely something called “a FACT,” which I know already has the legions of demons inhabiting every single Democrat soul squirming and twitching.  How many times has Donald Trump incited his supporters to go to a Hispanic event, or a Muslim event, or a Democrat Party event, etc., etc., and violently disrupt it?  The answer is ZERO.  And yet DOZENS OF TIMES NOW Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have incited vile, venomous, vicious VIOLENCE against Donald Trump and his supporters at rallies as they demonstrate again and again and again their Stalinist contempt for free speech and the right of the American people to hear all sides of a debate without stormtrooper Nazi THUGS showing up to scream them down and in fact BEAT them down.

I’ve defined this term multiple times, but let us examine again “political correctness” and see how it works:

Political correctness is not just a leftist way to make overly-sensitive people feel better. It was designed by early Marxists in Russia and the left continues to execute the Orwellian tactic today: if you can control words, you can control thought; if you can control thought, you can control actions.  “PC” is an enormous, sophisticated and highly-coordinated effort by elitist intellectuals to “fundamentally transform” Western culture as we know it by  redefining it – by shaping the “acceptable” language people are allowed to use – and thereby dictating the parameters of cultural arguments.  And people with incredibly radical agendas have been exploiting this tactic for decades and it has succeeded.

This movement is grounded in the philosophy espoused by this Harvard leftist writing for the Harvard newspaper:

“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?”

“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”

WHOSE “justice”???? OURS and ONLY ours.  And the ends justifies the means.  And my side can scream you down and even BEAT you down.  While YOUR side doesn’t even have the right to complain about it.

Basically, all YOUR organizations that say anything I don’t like and I refuse to tolerate are “hateful.”  So I can demonize you and even physically attack you merely for supporting something I don’t like.  But meanwhile, all MY organizations are totally off limits to you.  So if you say anything “conservative” about illegal immigration, if you say anything “Christian” about abortion, if you say anything “pro-national security” about the very real phenomena of Islamic terrorism, I have not only the right but even the duty to demonize you and yes, even physically attack you and the ends justifies the means as I stop you from even exercising the right to speak.

According to the Democrat Party today, free speech ought to be crushed in the gears of leftist political correctness and the Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders big government combine harvester machine.

It’s remarkable.  Under the thug dictator regime of Barack Hussein Obama, it is the official position of the “United States,” under the Democrat Party, it is the political position of the Party, under the leftist administrations of most colleges and universities, under Hollywood, it is the doctrinaire propaganda position of virtually every actor and every movie or TV program… to demonize one group of people while simultaneously claiming that even speech directed at your side is “hate.”  The last time we saw this was in a place called Nazi Germany, where every single aspect of a depraved culture was directed at one group of people.  And every act of violence against that group of people was excused, if not condoned, if not outright celebrated.

And so here we are yet again this time in California as Democrats attack the Constitution and its guarantee of protecting freedom of speech:

Violence follows California Trump rally, 17 arrested
By GILLIAN FLACCUS and AMY TAXIN
Apr. 29, 2016 12:58 PM EDT

COSTA MESA, Calif. (AP) — Raucous protesters of Donald Trump took to the streets in California in violent demonstrations leading to 17 arrests as the Republican presidential contender brought his campaign to conservative Orange County.

While Trump held a rally at a fairgrounds amphitheater, dozens waved anti-Trump signs outside in mostly peaceful protests and traded insults with masses of the candidate’s supporters who had lined up to see him. Later in the evening, however, the protests swelled and grew rowdy and spilled into the streets.

One Trump supporter had his face bloodied in a scuffle as he tried to drive out of the arena. One man jumped on a police car, leaving its front and rear windows smashed and the top dented and other protesters sprayed graffiti on a police car and the Pacific Amphitheatre’s marquee.

Dozens of cars — including those of Trump supporters trying to leave — were stuck in the street as several hundred demonstrators blocked the road, waved Mexican flags and posed for selfies. Some protesters badgered Trump’s fans as they walked to their cars in the parking lot.

Police in riot gear and on horseback pushed the crowd back and away from the venue. There were no major injuries and police did not use any force. The crowd began dispersing about three hours after the speech ended.

Seventeen people were arrested, said Costa Mesa police Sgt. Mike Manson.

Earlier in the evening, a half-dozen anti-Trump protesters taunted those waiting to get into the venue. Trump supporters surrounded one man who waved a Mexican flag and shouted “Build that wall! Build that wall!” — a reference to Trump’s call to create a barrier between the United States and Mexico to stop illegal border crossings.

At one point, seven shirtless women wearing Bernie Sanders stickers over their breasts entered the square outside the amphitheater. They said they were protesting Trump’s lack of engagement on issues of gender equality and women’s rights.

“I feel like he wants to make America great again, but certainly not for women, for the LBGTQ community or for the lower class,” said one of the women, Tiernan Hebron, referencing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. “He has, like, done nothing to help with gender equality or women’s rights or reproductive rights or anything.”

Trump has drawn large crowds across the country as he has campaigned for the White House and some of his events have been marred by protests and scuffles. The Pacific Amphitheatre was filled to its capacity of about 8,000 and a couple thousand more were turned away, said Orange County Sheriff’s Lt. Mark Stichter.

Earlier this week, a Trump rally in nearby Anaheim turned contentious when his supporters and protesters clashed, and several people were hit by pepper spray. Trump was not present.

Ly Kou, 47, of Ontario, said she likes Trump because he has vowed to put the country first.

“It’s obvious that America loves Trump,” said Kou, who is from Laos, as she pointed at the waiting throng. “This thing about him being racist? Look around the crowd.”

Trump was traveling from the rally site to the state’s Republican convention in Burlington in the San Francisco Bay area.

And not long after Democrats mailed what they wanted people to think was anthrax to Donald Trump’s own FAMILY they’re at it again:

9:20 p.m. [April 28, 2016]

Thousands of supporters have turned out for Donald Trump as the Republican presidential brought his campaign to Southern California, predictably sparking shouting matches with counter-demonstrators.

Heated words were exchanged after people wearing expletive-laden anti-Trump shirts began to taunt people waiting in line to attend Trump’s speech in an amphitheater at the Orange County Fairgrounds in Costa Mesa…

9:40 p.m.

Six people are being evaluated by emergency medical crews after an envelope containing a white powdery substance was mailed to a Donald Trump campaign office in New York City.

Emergency crews were called to Trump Tower in Manhattan around 8 p.m. Thursday.

Police say a Trump staffer opened the letter containing the powder and immediately called police. It was unclear if the envelope also contained a letter.

The six people who were isolated and evaluated at the scene included five Trump staffers and a police officer who responded to the call.

In March, an envelope containing a non-hazardous white power and a threatening letter was sent to the Manhattan apartment of Donald Trump’s son, Eric.

As we speak right now this moment, fascist, stormtrooper THUGS from the National Socialist American Workers Party – a.k.a. the Democrat Party, the NAZI Party in the world today, are doing absolutely every fascist thing they can to urinate and defecate on the free speech rights that USED to be SACRED in America until the Democrat Party became toxic enough and treasonous enough to devour everything our founding fathers stood for.

Fox News just played footage of a leftist “protestor” (read “Nazi, fascist THUG”) viciously attacked a Trump supporter wearing a “Make America Great Again” shirt from behind:

One Trump supporter was punched in the back of the head after confronting a group of protesters. After engaging in some heated rhetoric with the group, the man, who was wearing a “Make America great again” hat, turned to walk away when a protester in a black hoodie punched him a few times as other protesters yelled at the assailant to stop. The Trump supporter made his way to a barricade, after a great deal of pushing and shoving, and was escorted by police into the hotel.

I didn’t see or hear “other protestors” yelling at the man to stop.  But without any question nobody stopped the thug from beating a man guilty of the First Amendment and therefore worthy of being physically beaten because he believed in the First Amendment.  And the Nazi Democrat who conducted that beating was not arrested.

Trump supporters are being physically attacked, having eggs thrown at them, spat upon.  by Nazis otherwise known as “Democrats.”  Welcome, New Jews, to rabid Democrat Party Nazi-style hate.  The “protestors” are also throwing eggs at police who are trying to maintain order as Nazis try to physically and violently stop people from exercising their First Amendment freedoms.

I sit in stunned amazement when I read this account of Donald Trump – the now presumed GOP nominee – trying to enter an event to speak to his supporters:

Donald Trump’s Secret Service detail and private bodyguards had the last laugh on Friday as hundreds of protesters swarmed at the front of a San Francisco airport hotel trying to block him from coming in for a speech at the state Republican Party’s annual convention.

Instead of partnering with uniformed police in riot shields trying to push the hordes back, they did a law-enforcement head fake – leading the billionaire across a grass highway median and in a back-door loading dock at the Hyatt Regency hotel in the suburb of Burlingame.

The move left Trump feeling ‘like I was crossing the border, actually.’

When Hillary Clinton has to crawl under a chain-link fence on her belly to get to an event to speak because thug conservatives are determined to stop her using whatever violence is necessary, that will be funny.  Right now, it is proof of something truly demonic having taken over the entire Democrat Party and everything the Democrat Party stands for.

There is one political party and ONLY one political party that is truly EVIL.

As Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party rose to power, he had his Sturmabteilung, his SA, his Brownshirts, who:

would march in Nazi rallies, assault political opponents, and intimidate voters during elections.

And now we’re seeing them again from the thug ranks of the Democrat Party.

And this naked, liquid hate is happening at virtually every Trump event as outright Nazi thugs show up to support their Democrat Party in an open war against the Constitution of the United States of America.

I simply mock liberals because to be a liberal is to be such an appalling, abject moral hypocrite it is beyond UNREAL to the point of padded-cell-straitjacket-hysterical-demented-psychosis.

As a result of the political correctness that I above defined and showed examples of, this culture has become NAZIFIED.

Democrats are demon-possessed people, and all we have to do is examine the fruits of these Nazi Brownshirts, these Stalinist Commissars, who thuggishly attack people for exercising First Amendment rights that until now every American used to deem sacred.

Democrats are demon-possessed people, and all we have to do is examine the fruits of these baby killers who are TEN TIMES MORE MURDEROUS than the Nazis when it comes to denying basic, fundamental humanity and then butchering human life on a scale never before seen in all of human history.  Because every child is human by virtue of its parents and a being by virtue of the simple fact that it exists: IT IS A HUMAN BEING.  That precious little soul that every single Democrat has personally participated in murdering SIXTY MILLION TIMES OVER since 1973 is according to the taxonomic system that has classified every single living thing that has ever existed: That “fetus” (which is merely Latin for “baby” by the way, if you merely look at the ORIGIN of the word: Origin of Fetus: “Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful“) is classified as follows: Kingdom-Animal; Phylum-Chordata; Class-Mammalia; Order-Primate; Family-Hominid; Genus-Homo; and Species-Sapiens.  Homo Sapiens, just like EVERY human being made in the image of God which every single Democrat Party member on earth is guilty of murdering.

Democrats are demon-possessed people, and all we have to do is examine the fruits of these sodomy-worshiping depraved perverts, sexually twisted perverts who exalt “lifestyles” that are not only immoral and utterly depraved according to every major religious tradition and in fact to all of human history prior to this time the Bible prophetically called “the last days,” but even according to the Darwinian evolution they claim to believe in as “science.”  Because Darwinian evolution very clearly tells us that homosexuality is a biological dead-end for a species every bit as much as the Bible tells us it is the most depraved path to hell and eternal destruction.

The Bible that corrupt, dishonest, demonic, heretic Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama claim to follow couldn’t be more crystal clear about the vile “lifestyles” they have blasphemously enshrined in our soon-to-be-destroyed culture:

The New Testament says that homosexuality is a “shameful lust” (Romans 1:26), a “shameful act,” an abandonment of “natural relations” (Romans 1:27), a “wrongdoing” (1 Corinthians 6:9), and “sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 1:7). Homosexuality carries a “due penalty” (Romans 1:27), “is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:10), and is listed among the sins that bar people from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). Despite the attempts of some to downplay these verses, the Bible could not be clearer that homosexuality is a sin against God.

Homosexuality is not the cause of a society’s decline, but it is a symptom of it; it is the result of people making themselves the final authorities. Romans 1 gives the natural digression of a society that has chosen idolatry and sinful pleasure instead of obedience to God. The downward spiral begins with denying that God has absolute authority over His creation (Romans 1:21–23).

The result of a society’s rejection of God’s rule in their lives is that God gives “them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:24–25). Verses 26 and 27 say, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” The phrase “God gave them over” means that when we insist on shaking our fists at God, He finally lets us have the perversion we demand. And that is a judgment in itself. Homosexual behavior is the result of ignoring God and trying to create our own truth. When we defy God’s clear instruction, we reap the “due penalty” of our disobedience (2 Thessalonians 1:8–9; Revelation 21:8).

What the wicked, vile Democrats teach is NOT ONLY anathema to Christianity, to Islam, to every major religion on the face of the earth, and to every single culture that ever existed in the entire history of the human race before our end-times, last-days, terminal generation, it is ALSO anathema to the very “science” the left claims to embrace:

Natural selection is the process by which individuals with characteristics that are advantageous for reproduction in a specific environment leave more offspring in the next generation, thereby increasing the proportion of their genes in the population gene pool over time. Natural selection is the principal mechanism of evolutionary change, and is the most important idea in all biology. Natural selection, the unifying concept of life, was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and represents his single greatest contribution to science.

If homosexuality and feminism aren’t Darwinian dead-ends, then “science” is either a monkey or just a naked liberal fool throwing his feces at a wall and declaring “scientific” whatever happens to stick.

Today, we are seeing a Democrat Party that has embraced the worst kind of Nazi Brownshirt tactics.  We are seeing the embrace of a Marxist ideological tactic having Nazified our society as Democrats define themselves as pure and their opponents as foul and embrace the ends-justifies-the-means to destroy everything our Constitution enshrined to impose themselves.  We see a mainstream media propaganda machine that exemplifies Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda refuse to cover the actual facts.

And I will crawl over broken glass to vote.  Even if I have to go through a gauntlet of Democrat Party Nazi thugs to do so.

 

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

October 22, 2010

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

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

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

That attitude has one serious flaw, however.

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

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

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

From Flopping Aces:

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

It’s been quite the 24 hours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,

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

That, ummm, would be the Boston Tea Party.

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

Nicely done, Sarah.

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

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

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

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

But O’Donnell probed again.

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

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

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

Point, O’Donnell.

Then Coons tried again to school O’Donnell.

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not.

For the record, the First Amendment says:

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

Point, O’Donnell.

Then a local law school professor chimed in:

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

Game, set, match- O’Donnell.

Another report of the debate went this way:

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

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

The audience exploded in laughter

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

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

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

The foolishness of liberals is literally biblical:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

 

 

Why Aren’t The Ground Zero Mosque ‘Religious Freedom’ Liberals Celebrating The Koran Burning?

September 9, 2010

Better put your mats down.

Not your Muslim prayer mat, but your roll-on-the ground-laughing-at-liberals mat.

Mocking liberals for their massive hypocrisy can be a dangerous sport; you don’t want to hurt yourself laughing at them by falling on the hard ground.  Take precautions.

We’ve been told by the American left – including Obama – over and over and over again that the Ground Zero mosque issue was a “religious rights” issue.  You may or may not like what the Cordoba Initiative is doing building a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero, but they have the right to do it, and if you don’t celebrate their “religious freedom,” you’re a bigot.

Conservatives have been saying over and over again that it isn’t and never was about “religious rights” or “religious freedom.”  We’ve said that we recognize that they’ve got the right to build; but that just because you’ve got the right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it.

I wrote this the last time I dealt with this issue:

This isn’t about freedom of religion, and it isn’t about the Constitution.  It’s about right and wrong.

Let me give you an example of what I’m saying.  In this country, I have every right to go into a black establishment and repeatedly shout the N-word at the top of my lungs.  I have the right to go into a black church wearing a white robe and a white pointy hat.  But I shouldn’t do it.  And all rights aside, I’m profoundly wrong if I do do it.

On the Democrats’ morally idiotic defense of the mosque, the fact that the Muslims have a right to build it means therefore ergo sum that they should build it, and that anyone who disagrees is “intolerant” or is violating the Constitutional rights of the Muslims.

But that is every bit as stupid as my walking down the street pointing out every single black person and shouting the N-word, and then telling anyone who criticizes me for doing it that they are enemies of the Constitution.

And, of course, the only reason I’m wearing that white robe and that pointy hat is for “community outreach.”  You see, I want to create a “racial dialogue.”

So how DARE you criticize me.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll put my pointy hood back on and be on my way.  I have some black people to go shout at.

But the left were too fundamentally morally stupid to understand that.  Teaching liberals good ethics is like teaching cockroaches differential equations; they’re just not very good pupils.

An all-too-typical liberal moral moron wrote in the Huffington Post:

“The core American ideal of religious freedom has been put at risk…  These protests, diatribes, and campaigns against Park51 violate the ideals of religious freedom to which our country has long aspired.”

And then he proceeds to lecture us on the First Amendment.

Which is exactly what the Ground Zero mosque protest isn’t about, of course.

I will be looking forward to reading this guy’s column angrily demanding that we all support Pastor Terry Jones’ Koran burning day and lecture the left that if they don’t support it, they are all a bunch of religious bigots and freedom-hating anti-Constitutionalists.  But I’m not holding my breath.

Because I’d pass out.  And probably miss my roll-on-the ground-laughing-at-liberals mat.

Sarah Palin Twittered her view that the Ground Zero mosque should be moved because it represented an “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts,” and that it should be rejected by Muslims “in the interest of healing.”  And the despicable, vile left demonized her for it, and made her “the face of intolerance” for taking a very legitimate moral stand.

Now we’ve got Pastor Terry Jones and his in-your-face Koran burning day.  And what are the left saying but that it is an “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts” and should be rejected by Christians “in the interest of healing.”

Because hypocrisy defines the left; it is what they are to the core of their shriveled souls.

Where’s Obama to endorse the controversial plan to burn Korans? Where is that little weasel now to tell us “that a nation built on religious freedom must allow it”?  I want our moral coward in chief to be consistent for just once in his life.

And where’s the ACLU flocking to Florida and making sure nobody interferes with Pastor Terry Jones and his team of Koran burners?  I mean, my Lord, these people celebrated the rights of Nazis to march through a town filled with Nazi Holocaust death camp survivors.  With that kind of company, can’t they give a Koran-burner just a little love?

This nutjob Pastor Terry Jones has a tiny little congregation of just 50 lunatics.  And yet the way the Obama administration is going after them, you’d think they were the ones who were way ahead of schedule developing the nuclear bomb, rather than Iran.

Attorney General Eric Holder is calling the Koran burning “idiotic and dangerous.”  But this same slimeball was out with the rest of the left celebrating the Muslims’ right to build that Ground Zero mosque which was the VERY DAMN THING that provoked this pastor to start showing that Korans burn at Fahrenheit 451.

Why does the left only care about the feelings and fear the provoking of Muslims?  Maybe if they had a functioning brain cell they’d think twice about that idiocy.

Hillary Clinton and her State Department went even farther, calling American citizens “un-American” for their participation in this exercise of the same religious freedoms and First Amendment rights they were celebrating when Muslims were sticking their thumbs in Americans’ eyes.

General Petraeus found it necessary to tell us that this act could provoke a response against our soldiers.  But where was either he or anyone anywhere on the left worrying that the Muslim Ground Zero mosque could provoke a response by Americans, and that it therefore it shouldn’t be built there?

And just who is more depraved and intolerant: the guy who burns a Koran, or the guy who commits an act or mass acts of murder because someone burned a book?

I don’t doubt that Petraeus is right, that the Koran burning would incite terrorists.  But on the other hand, you kind of have to laugh at this line of reasoning, too.  I can just see Al Qaeda saying, “We only kind of hated Americans when we flew passenger planes into their biggest buildings and murdered 3,000 of them.  But now we REALLY hate them!”

In all actuality, the fact that we’re worried about what Muslims will likely do just goes to demonstrate that the actual intolerant people are the very Muslims that the left has so ardently supported.  And if they’re as violent and evil as the left are now warning us about due to this Koran burning, then maybe we shouldn’t be encouraging these people to come to our country and burn mosques as close as possible to a Muslim act of mass murder just 10 years ago.

For the record, I think this Pastor and his “flock” are profoundly wrong for burning Korans.  Because – unlike the liberals, I am actually consistent.  I think it is wrong for Muslims to build a mosque right next to Ground Zero because it was nothing more than a provocation that resolves nothing, and I think this Koran burning would be a provocation that resolves nothing.

I don’t mind being labeled as “anti-Islam,” because I don’t believe for a second that “Islam is a religion of peace.”  It is, rather, a religion that boasts, “We will win, because we love death more  than you love life.”  But I am most definitely NOT anti-Muslim.  I’ve talked with quite a few Muslims, and generally found them engaging and polite.  If I saw a Muslim being assaulted I would come to his or her aid and help.  And if I saw a Muslim’s property being vandalized I would call the police.

I think Islam is evil, and I believe that we should document its evil teachings and its evil deeds.  But I don’t think that we should just insult Muslims with meaningless symbolic gestures merely for the sake of provoking them.  Which is why I earlier called Terry Jones a “nutjob” and his congregation “lunatics.”

On the other hand, the one thing Terry Jones and his band are accomplishing is demonstrating how vile liberals and most Democrats are.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, New York Maybor Bloomberg, and many other liberals have endorsed and supported the Ground Zero mosque.  And now they have now provoked at least one man (and probably others) to commit outrageous acts.  Americans overwhelmingly oppose this provocation.

Liberals are hypocrites to argue that the provocative Ground Zero mosque is a legitimate exercise of religious freedom and First Amendment rights, but that the provocative Koran Burning day is not.  And they are moral cowards for cheering the mosque which deliberately provokes Americans, but crying over the provocation of Muslims via the Koran burning.

If you support the Ground Zero mosque, I hope you support the Koran burning with every bit as much zeal.  But personally, I think you’re a moral idiot.

P.S. Speaking of true moral idiocy in the most blatantly morally idiotic sense of the word, Hillary Clinton’s State Department just came out with the following statemen comparing Pastor Terry Jones with the 9/11 terrorists:

“We hope that between now and Saturday, there’ll be a range of voices across America that make clear to this community that this is not the way for us to commemorate 9/11. In fact, it is consistent with the radicals and bigot – with those bigots who attacked us on 9/11.”

Only a liberal could be so profoundly stupid and fundamentally depraved to compare burning some books to murdering 3,000 innocent human beings.

Obama Continues To Demonize: This Time The U.S. Supreme Court

January 28, 2010

Since I wrote this (but before I posted it) we have a Supreme Court Justice responding to Obama’s continued demagoguery of SCOTUS.

Obama was saying:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

(APPLAUSE)

I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

And Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed, “That’s not true.”  In deference to the separation of powers, and all that:

Our Demagogue-in-Chief has now turned his demonizing away from George Bush (for just a brief moment, mind you) and toward the Supreme Court:

WASHINGTON — President Obama took aim at the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying the justices had “handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists” with last week’s 5-to-4 decision to lift restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The decision will have major political implications for this year’s midterm elections. After it was announced, Mr. Obama immediately instructed his advisers to work with Congress on legislation that would restore some of the limits the court lifted. But in his weekly address on Saturday, he sharply stepped up his criticism of the high court.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

Barack Obama is a demagouge, and nothing but a demagogue.  You are either with him, or he is bitterly against you.  He has been a fearmongerer and a demagogue from the beginning:

ABC’s Jake Tapper notes the “Helter-Skelter cultish qualities” of “Obama worshipers,” what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls “the Cult of Obama.” Obama’s Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience — to such rhetorical nonsense as “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.”

That was too much for Time’s Joe Klein. “There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism … ,” he wrote. “The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”You might dismiss the New York Times’ Paul Krugman’s complaint that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality” as hyperbole.

And what happens if you contradict such a “cult of personality”?  You become the enemy of the religion.  And you must be attacked with the zeal of the fanatic.

Did the five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court want to “strike at our democracy itself”?  Hardly:

The five justices who sided with the majority characterized it as a victory for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

Boy, is THAT ever striking against democracy.  Damn free speech!  Damn First Amendment!  Let’s get rid of them both and have Obama instead!

Let’s agree with Barry Hussein’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s take on it instead (see the embedded video):

“When you think about the First Amendment…you think it’s highly overrated.”

That joke dismissing the First Amendment was about as funny as Josef Stalin’s kneeslapper:

“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

Here’s an important question: Just why is our demagogic president and his lackeys so unhinged over this decision?

It comes back to the idea of his racist, Marxist, anti-American reverend’s words about “chickens coming home to roost“:

From the previously cited New York Times article:

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

I’m reminded of the sci-fi movies that feature an evil scientist finally having his own monsters turn on him while he screams.

It’s poetic justice that the industries and businesses that Obama demonized should finally get a chance to have their crack at him.

And only a profoundly anti-American ideologue would say that people shouldn’t have a right to publicly confront their accuser.  When Obama attacks them in public, they should have a right to speak out themselves in public.

An excellent summary of the grounds for the Supreme Court’s decision can be found here.  Basically, the Court recognized that there are two types of corporations: media corporations and non-media corporations.  One had the full rights of free speech, and the other had its free speech rights attacked.  Why should General Electric-owned NBC have complete access to free speech, while other corporations are banned from free speech?

As Justice Kennedy (who is hardly “right wing”) pointed out in his decision:

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

Why is it “striking at our democracy itself” to finally allow corporations to have a voice against a president who has given one sweetheart deal after another to labor unions, while working toward giving labor unions the right to force unions on businesses without a legitimate private vote via card check?

Here’s another example: one of the top bankruptcy attorneys in the country has stated that the Obama White House threatened to destroy his firm using the mainstream media if it continued to oppose Obama’s “Take my offer or else” offer for Chrysler investors.

Here’s another one: Humana was attacked, demonized, and handed an illegal gag order for trying to correct the record as the White House levied lies against it.

You can frankly understand why Obama and the far left want to have the ability to keep attacking businesses and people who depend upon businesses for their livelihood without their opponents being able to respond.  They want to be able to impose their agenda and crush any and all opposition.  By any means necessary.

Fortunately the Supreme Court has allowed corporations to answer back to this demagoguery.

This is an important fact:

Our United States Supreme Court has defined a corporation in the following language: “An association of individuals, acting as a single person …. united for some common purpose …. and permitted by the law to use a common name and to change its members without a dissolution of the Association.”

But liberals don’t like these “people.”  They don’t like businesses.  And they believe they should have the right to attack the people they don’t like, and that the people they attack should have no right to defend themselves.

Corporations are legally recognized to act as a “person.”  Obama has attacked such “persons” too many times to count.  And now that “person” finally is getting the right to respond.