Posts Tagged ‘liberals’

In Ferguson, Liberals Carry Out The Glorious Tradition (That Led To The Third Reich) As They Once Again Reveal Their Fascist Nature

November 25, 2014

I had to laugh at the so-called “leaders” as they called for peace from both sides of the Ferguson situation.  You know, like conservatives were getting ready to riot if the officer WAS indicted.

No, the only way there would have been any riots had the grand jury in Ferguson returned an indictment against Officer Darren Wilson would have been the kind of rioting you see when a professional team wins a national title and its own residents tear their own city apart in riotous celebration.

There’s only ONE side that riots; and it’s ALWAYS the SAME side: the left.

Liberals are the people who keep revealing the fascist nature of their wicked hearts over and over and over again.

Conservatives accept the rule of law even when – and under tyrant Obama it pretty much always does – it goes against them.

We learn all the lies and false reports liberals provided in trying to frame Officer Darren Wilson.  Liberals don’t give a damn about the truth.  We learn that the rioters peeled off to start burning and looting the MOMENT they heard the prosecutor say there wouldn’t be an indictment; you know, as opposed to listening for the evidence.  Because liberals don’t need evidence.

Liberals are people who want more and more and bigger and bigger and increasingly fascist government.  But they will riot and burn and loot the moment that more and bigger fascist government doesn’t kowtow to the fascist standard of the political correctness that they’ve fabricated.

Where are all the black civil rights leaders – the Al Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons – who pledged that they were going to be in Ferguson after the verdict?  Where are they now?  They fanned the flames of race-baiting hate and now they move to the next Ferguson to encourage the next black community to burn down THEIR city, that’s where they are.

The profiteer off of the race-baiting division they create and then they move on to let loose the dogs of war they unmuzzled and unleashed on any given community.

We found that a good half dozen black witnesses had the decency to tell the truth about what they saw on that street where Officer Darren Wilson fatally shot a young black thug who – after strong-arm robbing a store and brutally shoving aside the owner who was trying to protect his merchandise, after strolling down the middle of the street ad blocking traffic like he owned the planet, after he assaulted the officer in his own vehicle and punched him in the face – shot the punk as he tried to charge the officer again.

But the testimony of decent black people doesn’t matter to the left any more than all those decent black-owned businesses matter to them.

Truth doesn’t matter to them.

All that matters to them is that they didn’t get exactly what they want and so they had a rage tantrum.

Which is basically what happened when Obama signed his executive order on illegal immigration after an election didn’t go his way.

Liberals are the people whom St. Paul prophetically warned us would characterize a wicked, toxic world just before it welcomed and worshiped the ultimate Big Government dictator:

The Dangers of the Last Days

You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times. For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that! — 2 Timothy 3:1-5New Living Translation (NLT)

That’s the liberalism of today’s left to a “T”.

Why is this terminal generation so evil?  The answer in one word: Democrats:

Missouri Democratic state senator and University City school board member Maria Chappelle-Nadal said on MSNBC that her school district had taken steps to prepare their students to protest in the wake of the Ferguson grand jury decision…

So Democrat Party “gubmint skool” was dutifully teaching their pupils how to burn and loot.

Our little darlings are being indoctrinated by Democrats as to how to deal with cops (i.e., gestapo):

Kate Briquelet reports in the NY Post that Principal Mark Federman of East Side Community HS has invited the New York Civil Liberties Union to give a two-day training session to 450 students on interacting with police. “We’re not going to candy-coat things — we have a problem in our city that’s affecting young men of color and all of our students,” says Federman. “It’s not about the police being bad. This isn’t anti-police as much as it’s pro-young people … It’s about what to do when kids are put in a position where they feel powerless and uncomfortable.” The hourlong workshops — held in small classroom sessions during advisory periods — focused on the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program and how to exercise Fourth Amendment rights when being stopped and questioned in a car or at home.

Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice. “It’s unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs,” says Eugene O’Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Ivy League universities are holding mock funerals for Michael Brown, because everything these perverted institutions that were originally dedicated to the advance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before they were hijacked by liberals DO is a mockery today.  They are saying that police are an occupying force in black communities.  You know, like the 97% of all blacks who are killed by other blacks when they aren’t burning and looting somewhere like Ferguson wouldn’t happen if the police just abandoned these communities instead of policing them.

St. Paul may as well have written, “In the last days, Democrats will come…”

And when the beast issues his executive order that every single human being will have to take a mark on his or her left hand or on their foreheads in order to buy or sell – in other words, when the Democrat Party finally fulfills their dream of taking over every aspect of the economy and thus seizing all power – liberals will cheer and worship their Dear Leader who will be their god.

But it will be God who burns and loots them forever and ever as He sends these people who murdered sixty million babies and worshiped homosexual sodomy to the eternal riot of hell.

Which is why we don’t have to riot, we who love God; because unlike the liberals, we have a God who will win in the end and Who will throw the human government liberals worship right into hell with them.

Advertisements

Do You Want To Be A Hunter And Killer Or Do You Want To Be A Hider And Cowerer? (It’s Moot: Obama Has Chosen For You)

October 22, 2014

As I write, Muslim terrorists have attacked the Canadian Parliament buildings in Ottowa with multiple shooting locations.

Canada is rightly calling this a terrorist attack.  Had it happened in the United States – even if the killers had beheaded their victims all the while screaming to Allah in Arabic – it would have been declared “workplace violence.”  That is simply factually true, given that it has already happened and the most dishonest administration in the history of the republic has already repeatedly lied about the dozens of terrorist attacks in the United States since Obama took power.

That’s the power of a president who assured us over and over again that the Benghazi attack that resulted in the first murder of a United States ambassador since the failed Carter years in 1979 was the result of an American-made youtube video rather than a terrorist attack.  That’s been the pattern over and over again, as it was recently when the first American citizen EVER to be beheaded in the United States was murdered by a Muslim screaming praises to Allah in Arabic after erecting a shrine to ISIS on Facebook.  It was true when a Muslim major with business cards that said he was a “soldier of Allah” shot to death 13 soldiers as he shouted “Allahu Akbar!”   It’s been true over and over again.

Obama is a denier of reality.  When the President of Libya came out and refuted Obama and pointed out that the attack on the US compound in Benghazi was “a preplanned act of terrorism,” Obama just kept repeating his lies.   And here we are today as the Prime Minister of Canada describes the attack on the Canadian Parliament as a terrorist act, and Obama just keeps denying.

If denying reality is the pathway to success, Barack Obama is the most successful “leader” who ever “led from behind.”

Barack Obama has been caught telling more lies to more people on video than any human being in the entire history of planet earth bar none.  So when he claimed in order to get re-elected that he had defeated terrorism, he was true to his form.  Oh, I could prove my case with nothing more than the 37 documented times Barack Obama lied to the American people about the effect of his ObamaCare.  But Obama the liar goes FAR beyond ObamaCare: take immigration.  Obama deliberately misled the public by artificially inflating his so-called “record deportations” by including categories that had NEVER been included by ANY administration.  So over and over again, the liar-in-chief was taking credit for something that was a lie and which he KNEW was a lie in order to deflect legitimate Republican criticism over Obama’s protection of our borders (and actual lack thereof).  In reality, Obama was doing such a piss-poor job of securing our border that his administration was literally letting out criminal illegal immigrant murderers and rapists.  And then of course lied about it:

New records contradict the Obama administration’s assurances to Congress and the public that the 2,200 people it freed from immigration jails last year to save money had only minor criminal records.

The records, obtained by USA TODAY, show immigration officials released some undocumented immigrants who had faced far more serious criminal charges, including people charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, drug trafficking and homicide.

Barack Obama lies about EVERYTHING.  He is a liar without shame, without honor, without decency, without integrity and without virtue of any kind other than a virtue of evil in which every feeling, every thought, every action line up to advance evil.  He is a truly wicked man.  Which means he is the perfect leader of the party of wickedness in America.

Obama has all of his spinners declaring that we’re “succeeding” against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  While all of the generals and everybody who isn’t a Kool-Aid-sipping ideologue is acknowledging that Obama’s “strategy” – to the extent that a compilage of Obama’s contradictory statements can be called “a strategy” – is failing.  Even the leftist Washington Post admits that Obama is failing against this rapidly growing terrorist army.   And one of the expert military analysts consulted by the left-leaning PBS says:

“…overall, ISIS continues to act like a Pac-Man in the video game, gobbling up territory in Syria and in Iraq.”

Yeah, we’re “succeeding.”  As long as we all understand that “succeeding” is a synonym for “surrendering.”

We’ve got American residents and even American citizens streaming to Syria to fight for the ISIS Beheaders.  Because ISIS is the coolest soccer team in the world right now and all the kids want to wear its jersey.

People in Western societies like America are instructed to hide and cower if they are attacked.  Because Democrats would rather Americans be mowed down by crazed psychos than allow one law-abiding citizen to have the right to defend himself or herself.  While Islam is preaching to its believers to hunt and kill.

And the American sheople and the sheople of all Western so-called democracies are losing.

And it’s hard to blame kids for wanting to be on the winning side versus Obama’s side.

The other thing that’s going on is that Western societies stand for NOTHING today.

Oh, I suppose you could argue that we stand for the right to murder your baby and for the right to bend over and submit to being sodomized.

But that’s about as successful as Obama’s strategy against ISIS.  I mean, hell, our birthrate is plummeting given the fact that we’ve murdered sixty million of our own children and given the fact that homosexual sodomy is a very piss-poor way to reproduce while the Muslim birthrate is SKYROCKETING.

They are mothers and fathers who are willing to send their sons to fight; we are a nation of queers cowering and hiding all the while demanding that the only way to deal with terrorism is to bear our throats to the scimitar rather than fight like the damn MEN that we aren’t and haven’t been.

They have a theology and they’ve got Allah; we’ve got political correctness and we’ve got Obama.  And we’re far more like sheep than human beings as a result.

I remember the last time we actually got to win a damn war.  We had a general who proudly used the term “Crusade.”  Brave men went on a Crusade and they faced a deadly and virulent enemy and a deadly and virulent ideology.  And they triumphed in their Crusade against evil.

Today we’ve got a president and we’ve got a political party in power that demonizes the very notion of such a Crusade.  And thanks to Democrats and their pathology we haven’t been allowed to win another war since.  World War II – that last “Crusade” of ours – was the last time we had the courage to declare a war and the last time we actually won a war.

Today we’re governed by secular humanist liberals who are terrified of using that term because they live in holy terror of Islam.  Because Islam and Allah is stronger and more powerful than anything that secular humanist liberalism stands for or ever did stand for.  And liberals – Democrats – know that if they dare provoke Islam they will have to bow down before and submit to Allah.  Because Allah is mightier than Obama.

Oh, it doesn’t have to be that way.  America could hunt down every Democrat with dogs and then return to its roots in the God of the Bible and the Crusade.  We could recognize the truth, stand up and fight for ideals and principles that are truly sacred rather than sodomy and abortion and government-as-God-socialism.  And we could prevail in such a struggle.

We used to be a people who could stand up with courage and conviction in the name of God and fight and defeat those who would impose evil on us.  Now only our enemies can do that.

And that is why Islam will win and America will lose.

I’m talking about transcendent values, something that is greater than the citizen (well, given that Democrats have proudly flooded America with illegal immigrants who piss on our culture and on the nation our founding fathers created, I suppose the word “citizen” is as meaningless as our “values.”).  They have a system – demonic as it is – that actually describes a genuine afterlife and something worth serving and fighting for and dying for.  We have Obama and abortion and sodomy.  And the end of all of these is death.

Liberals will continue to deny that Islam presents a crisis.  Denial has been Obama’s strategy from the outset: first deny there’s a problem, then deny that he’s responsible for the problem he denied.  Until that problem has metastasized.  And then try to change the subject and distract the sheople with a different bright and shiny object.

When 100 million American liberals stand up and shout, “I’m going to stand up and I’m going to fight and die for the glory that is Obama!” I’ll be proven wrong.

But in fact I’m going to be proven right.  Because liberalism is the gutless ideology of cowards and weak people who love death and will receive the death that they love.  It is in the liberals’ love of death that they find common ground with the Muslim terrorists who also love death.  And ultimately both of these will receive what they love.

Liberals have murdered more than sixty million innocent human beings as they have chopped up and hacked to death and murdered with acid the most innocent human beings of all.  They have shown far more viciousness and contempt for human life than has ISIS.  And they have done so on a far more vast scale.  At least up to now; because ISIS is gearing up and we can only wait and see if they can top liberalism’s tally of vicious death of human life.

The Muslim’s desire to give their children a better life is greater and more powerful and even more righteous than Democrats’ desire to murder their children.

Our society has decayed to the point that there is nothing truly worth fighting and sacrificing for.  And that is why we will ultimately surrender and bow down.

And that is why the beast described in the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel will come exactly as God foretold to the “perilous times” of the last days as we have become the very despicable people that God warned about.

The beast is coming.  You literally voted for the Antichrist to come when you voted for Obama.  The Bible declares that he will seem to have all the answers, but that he will literally be the devil in masquerade.  Liberals will vote for him because he will be the ultimate tyrant representing the ultimate big government Utopia.  You want a world without Jesus Christ and you will get it.  And before it’s all said and done, you will get the literal hell on earth that you so richly deserve.

You might as well start getting ready for it.  Because your only alternative at this point is to get on your knees before God and confess that you are a sinner and that you desperately need a Savior – the only true Savior of the world Jesus Christ – and receive the perfect life He lived in place of your sinful life and the perfect sacrificial death that He died in your place as your sinless substitute.  And receive His Holy Spirit.

But liberals are truly wicked people and they would much rather bow down before Allah or any other demonic tyranny than bow down before the King of kings and Lord of lords.  Because that is their nature.

Ultimately liberals WILL bow down before Jesus – because EVERY knee will ultimately bow down before Him – but not until AFTER it is too late.

 

 

 

Why Do Big-Government Liberals And No-Government Anarchists Riot At the Same Riots? They Want The SAME Thing

September 9, 2014

I had a realization of why big-government liberals and no-government anarchists would be in the same camp (as they clearly are).

Liberals have been calling Republicans “anarchists.”  It doesn’t matter that we very clearly AREN’T.  I mean, which party supports a federal government going to war???  Is it the damn DEMOCRAT Party?  Nope.  Which party represents law and order and which one has been sending rioters to Ferguson, Missouri to protest a cop having the right to shoot a thug strong arm robber?  Yep, it sure aint Republicans.

The “Republican anarchists” crap is a myth from the Party of LIARS.

Republicans are all for government.  They just want that government to be limited to the proper role as described in the Constitution.  We’re the ones who favor a strong military because a strong military is one of the relative FEW things that the Constitution approves of federal government doing in “providing for a common defense.”  We know that a strong military serves as a deterrent to foreign aggression such as we are beginning to experience now at the hands of Russia, China, North Korea and Islamic State.  We know that maintaining a strong military generates allies – the kind we are losing by the SCORES right now under Obama’s immoral policies.  We also support a strong police to deter crime.  And as our ability to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate and put to death criminals deteriorates, guess what happens every time: a skyrocketing surge in crime.  We also as Republican conservatives believe that government should be strong enough to maintain a level playing field but weak enough to not be able to tip the scale to favor one chosen side over the other.  The result of that policy would be lower taxes, less regulation, less bureaucracy and more JOBS.

We want government.  We just don’t want the State that replaces God and thinks it has the right to dominate everything.  Because our founding fathers actually fought a damn REVOLUTION to separate themselves from a British state that was NOWHERE NEAR as thuggish and dictatorial as the one we’re in now.

But here liberals are, labeling Republicans as “anarchists.”

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, one of THE most important Democrats in the nation, called Republicans “anarchists.”

Elizabeth Warren, the woman the left wants to run for president for 2016, called Republicans “anarchists.”

Let’s take a moment to examine the leftists own argument as they try to make a nonexistent connection between Republicans and anarchists:

In 2011, Timothy Egan wrote a blog post for the Opinionator, the New York Times’ regular online opinion mill. He described his experience at the 1999 World Trade Organization summit in Seattle. He described the window-smashing, understood by anarchists as being purely symbolic and a venting of frustration against multinational corporations who exploit workers at home and abroad, as a manifestation of the nihilistic spirit of all anarchists everywhere. “[It] seems to have found a home: in the Republican Party,” he wrote.

Yeah, let’s go back to Ferguson, Missouri.  WHO is smashing windows and whining about the exploitation of workers???  I mean, seriously, you actually think it’s REPUBLICANS???

Let’s replay who was involved in those Seattle World Trade Organization riots:

Organizations and planning[edit]

Planning for the demonstrations began months in advance and included local, national, and international organizations. Among the most notable participants were national and international NGOs (especially those concerned with labor issues, the environment, and consumer protection), labor unions (including the AFL-CIO), student groups, religiously-based groups (Jubilee 2000), and anarchists (some of whom formed a black bloc).[2]

The coalition was loose, with some opponent groups focused on opposition to WTO policies (especially those related to free trade), with others motivated by pro-labor, anti-capitalist, or environmental agendas. Many of the NGOs represented at the protests came with credentials to participate in the official meetings, while also planning various educational and press events. The AFL-CIO, with cooperation from its member unions, organized a large permitted rally and march from Seattle Center to downtown.

However, others were more interested in taking direct action including both civil disobedience and acts of vandalism and property destruction to disrupt the meeting. Several groups were loosely organized together under the Direct Action Network (DAN), with a plan to disrupt the meetings by blocking streets and intersections downtown to prevent delegates from reaching the Washington State Convention and Trade Center, where the meeting was to be held. The black bloc was not affiliated with DAN, but was responding to the original call for autonomous resistance actions on November 30 issued by People’s Global Action.[3]

Of the different coalitions that aligned in protest were the “teamsters and turtles” – a blue-green alliance consisting of the teamsters (trade unions) and environmentalists.[4][5][6]

Corporations targeted[edit]

Certain activists, including locals and an additional group of anarchists from Eugene, Oregon[7] (where they had gathered that summer for a music festival),[8] advocated more confrontational tactics, and planned and conducted deliberate vandalism of corporate properties in downtown Seattle. In a subsequent communique, they listed the particular corporations targeted, which they considered to have committed corporate crime.

EVERY SINGLE THING mentioned in those paragraphs above – every single group and every single tactic – are leftist and come from the LEFT.  EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Republicans favor laissez-fair free trade and free markets.  We’re also told every damn day that WE’RE the pro-big corporation party.  REPUBLICANS WERE NOT RIOTING.  LIBERALS WERE.

But being liberals, they are pathologically dishonest lying hypocrites without shame, without honesty, without integrity, without virtue and without honor.

So why would anarchists who hate government and liberals who love government be completely on the same side?

Because they both want the same damn thing, that’s why.

I’ve been pointing this out over and over again on my blog.  Big government liberalism is crony capitalism, where liberals get to decide who wins and who loses, who gets taxed and who gets tax breaks, who gets their wealth seized and who receives the redistribution of wealth, who gets fat union contracts and benefits and who gets stuck with the bill for those fat union contracts and benefits.

Liberalism is nothing short of a massive plan to benefit the rich – THEIR rich, mind you – by stealing from everybody else.

Hollywood liberals are THE most likely people to say taxes ought to be higher on everybody while demanding and receiving from the massive Democrat majority in California special tax breaks.  It’s just who these hypocrites are, pure and simple.

In my own incredibly dysfunctional city, I have been crushed and saddened by the election of liberals to dominate the city council.  I wanted to cry the last election.

So I’m talking with the owner of my gym.  She points out that the city nailed her with a big fee to put rocks in the front of her gym.  She was able to document that the police department didn’t have those rocks in the same sort of area; the fire department didn’t have rocks in the same exact sort of area.  It didn’t matter, the liberals of the city council said; it was “the cost of doing business.”  We get to decide who wins and who loses, and guess what: we decided that you lose.

So a big developer comes in and wants to build a complex.  And anchoring the complex is a huge gym.  And guess what: the same damn city council that nickeled and dimed the small biz gym is all of a sudden waving huge development and impact costs for this developer.

And the small gym owner is pointing out to me, “Who is going to get stuck with those costs?  I am.  And meanwhile they wouldn’t cut me so much as ONE INCH of slack over even the most TRIVIAL costs.”

Ah, liberalism.  Where whites lose and minorities win.  Where men lose and women win.  Where Christians lose and homosexuals win.  Democrats pit races, classes, genders and ages and win a majority by 50 percent plus ONE.  And then it’s “and punish our enemies and reward our friends” time:

Well, what does that have in common wit h anarchists and no government at ALL?

Because the same people who choose who wins and who loses with big government and crush and oppress the rest of us are the same people who would hire thugs and crush the rest of us if there were no government at all, that’s what.  What does the law mean?  Well, we’ve seen that now under Obama and his lawthug Eric Holder.  We’ve SEEN it in the liberals on the Supreme Court: it means whatever the left SAYS it means.

You’ve got your Western movie plot: a bunch of small government conservatives are living in a small town running their little businesses and all of a sudden some rich and powerful slimebag comes in with all his hired guns and seizes control and runs everybody who doesn’t knuckle under to him out.  And to the extent that there’s any law, they BUY the law and its THEM wearing the damn badges.  That’s what these people do when there’s no government and that’s what these people do when government gets huge enough to pick all the winners and the losers.

Big-government liberals or no-government anarchists: either way, it’s just a different means toward the same end, it’s just a different way to give total power to the SAME people, is all.

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.

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

April 3, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressive Liberals Are The Pharisees And Sadducees Of Modernity In America

January 16, 2013

Liberals love to castigate conservatives by labels such as “fascist” and “pharisiacal.”  But in both cases, they are actually looking into a mirror when they point their finger and hurl out that label.

First, allow me to make a very important distinction between “progressive liberalism” and “classical liberalism.”

Here is classical liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy.[1][2][3]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[4] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[5] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the free-market economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[6] utilitarianism,[7] and progress.[8]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[9]

With that understanding, the fact of the matter is that conservatives are the inheritors of classical liberalism.  We are the ones who want limited government under the rule of law with a laissez-faire economic policy.  The progressive liberals who dominate today are the “social liberals” whom we can now accurately call “socialist liberals.”

Liberalism is good in the classical sense; it is truly evil in the socialist sense.

I have many times asked liberal Democrats to explain how they disavow Karl Marx’s central defining statement of economic Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  To this day I have never received a response.

But I understand that our liberals are not honest people and will not wear the label “socialist” no matter how much it applies to them and to their purpose in establishing a giant totalitarian government that increasingly centrally plans the economy.  So I’ll call them “progressive liberals” instead.

The word “progressive” helps us understand Obama’s prophecy that his administration would “fundamentally transform America.”  That’s what they want: to reshape America not in the founding fathers’ image, but in their own self-image.

I have described liberals as trying to establish “Government as God.”   It is also called “statism.”  Here’s another way to put it: Who is your Savior? Do you turn to the God of the Bible – Who actually rather specifically warned man against big government – to provide to you?  Or do you want to turn to your government to meet your needs?  Our coins say, “In God we trust,” and progressive liberals have been trying to stomp that nonsense out for decades.  Because they trust in human government, not in God.

Here let me again cite Karl Marx.  In one of his most famous statements, after first stating that man invented religion, Marx said:

“Religion is … the opium of the people.  The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”

Aside from the obvious fact that it is the Democrat Party who removed God from their party’s platform and cynically and frankly illegitimately put Him back in to a loud chorus of boos by the Democratic National Convention, aside from the fact that it is the Democrat Party that is at open war with religious freedom in America today, what did Karl Marx mean by this statement?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the economic haves and the economic have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today by the Democrat Party and by progressive liberals who energize that party.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves, in both Marx’s and Democrats’ understanding.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and taking what is theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, they were happy in their religion, which had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Since religion is an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

And how is the Democrat Party today not arguing the same damn case that Marx made?

As we shall see, this is important.  Marx’s anti-God message has been supplanted by a cynical Democrat Party who has replaced God with a flagrantly anti-God ideology (e.g., homosexual marriage and abortion) while dishonestly refusing to acknowledge that they did so.

The message of Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party is not the message of Jesus Christ, who most assuredly did not come to earth to either make Caesar’s government larger or to replace him with another version of big human government totalitarian tyranny.  The message of the former is that the poor should be angry and rise up to seize what is rightfully there’s either by vote or by force; the message of the latter was for the poor to be cheerful and content in the God Who watched over them and to trust in Him for His provision.

It’s interesting what does not happen when Jesus says, “Show me a coin.”  What Jesus does NOT say is that giving to Caesar (human government) is the same thing as giving to God.  Jesus makes a very clear contrast between the two.  Which do you want to empower?  Which do you want to give to?  Giant totalitarian human government, or God?  I want to give more to God; liberals want to stop me and force me instead to give more to government.

So why do I call the progressive liberals the “Pharisees and Sadducees” of modern America?

Well, first understand who the Pharisees and Sadducees were.  The Sadducees were the secular branch of Judaism.  They did not believe in a resurrection or an afterlife; they were the closest things to secular humanists or atheists in their day.  And thanks to the Romans the Sadducees largely controlled the lucrative Temple and the money and political clout that went along with it.  The Pharisees were a group who had the people behind them because they were the champions of the Law.  And yet they were no longer using the Law of Moses as their guide; they had long since turned to the Mishnah, which they considered “a hedge around the Law.”

Basically, the Pharisees piled laws on top of laws on the backs of the people that had nothing to do with the Word of God.  That’s what Jesus rails on them for in Matthew 23.  When I hear Jesus say, “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger,” I think of Barack Obama taking away guns from parents’ while his own family will be safely protected by men with guns for their entire lives.  I think of the liberals like Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who put people in prison for not paying their taxes when he himself was a tax cheat.  I think of Jesus’ takedown of the most vile human beings in the world of His day – government-power-seeking thugs who used the law to exploit and burden the people – and I think of the Democrat Party and the stubborn ass that is its symbol.

If you broke the laws as handed down by the Pharisees and Sadducees, you were punished by the system.  With the full weight of the government backing that system.

Which is the same thing the progressive liberals who run the Temple of big government do.  They burden the people with taxes and regulations and laws and tell the people that thinking like them is the only way to be a good person.

Pharisees and Sadducees had different agendas, but John the Baptist said they were both the same in their hostility to God and called them both “a brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7).  Jesus also lumped them together (Matthew 5:17).  Both exploited the Law to get what they wanted and to burden and oppress those whom they wanted to burden and oppress.

In Jesus’ day, when you talked about “the law” it connoted the religious laws.  But our progressive liberals today talk about the law, the law the law every bit as much with every bit as much of an intent to impose their will on the people they are determined to dominate and rule over.  I can assure you that there are a LOT more laws that have been erected in the United States than there ever were in the Mishnah – as burdensome and unjust as that was.

Democrats are the Pharisees and the Sadducees of American culture today.  They are the priests of big government who demand more and more control the laws and by controlling the laws they exploit and burden the American people.  They erect more and more and more onerous and burdensome and loathsome laws and force us to abide by them or be punished.

By the way, Jesus did a lot of denouncing of the scribes, too.  Who were they?  They were the lawyers of the day.

Just look at which party the lawyers of our day support and which party has a buttload of system-manipulating lawyers, and my case is made complete.

The scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees murdered Jesus in his day.  They are murdering America in our own.

Democrats Continue To Prove That Theirs Is The Violent Ideology Of Fascism

October 24, 2012

Just to first document that the story that follows is no fluke, here are just a few of the articles I’ve written featuring Democrats proving over and over and over again that theirs is the ideology of hate and intolerance:

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

Another Example That Liberalism Is The Ideology Of Hate And Violence

Leftwing Violence And Media Propaganda/Coverup Continues Unabated

Kansas City Throat Slashing Liberal: Media Continues To Cover Up Leftist Violence

On The So-Called Link Between ‘Rightwing’ Political Rhetoric And Violence

Liberal Fascists In Wisconsin: Show Me Crap Like THIS Coming From Tea Party Protests

When It Comes To Charges Of Racism And Violence, Democrats Need To Do A Lot More Shutting The Hell Up

AFL-CIO President With Brutal History Of Inciting Violence Attacks Sarah Palin For Inciting Violence

When America Goes To Hell, Rest Assured It Will Be Leftists Resorting To Violence, Too

Demagogue Democrats Now Support Violence And Swastikas

Left Continues Violence; Media Continues To Demagogue Tea Parties

Labor Unions: A Century Of Genuine Evil

Actual Leftwing Violence Keeps Piling Up While Media Focuses On ‘Threat’ From Tea Parties

Left Continues To Be Source Of ACTUAL Acts of Violence

And so, again, true to form, Democrats document yet again that they are the violent fascist thugs out to intimidate and attack decent people:

State Legislator’s Son Beaten Defending Romney Sign From Thieves
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/22/12 7:21 PM

Vandalism is a normal part of the course of a political campaign — with signs stolen, cars with bumper stickers keyed or spray painted comments plastered on walls of offices used by candidates and their staff.

But the son of a Wisconsin state legislator paid the price for defending a Romney sign from two apparent Obama supporters, he was beaten for standing up for his property and the candidate his sign supports.

From Brietbart:

Early Friday morning, thugs presumably supporting President Obama beat up the son of Wisconsin State Senator Neal Kedzie outside of his apartment in Whitewater. Kedzie caught the two men removing a Romney sign outside of his apartment around two o’clock in the morning. After telling them to put the signs back, one of the thugs attacked Kedzie and then put him in a choke hold and continued to beat his head.

Mark Belling spoke to the Senator’s son Sean on the radio earlier today. Sean Kedzie told Belling he was rushed to the hospital by ambulance with possible skull and eye socket fractures.

Here is Sen. Kedzie’s statement:

Early on Friday morning, October 19th, my son Sean was awakened by noises outside his residence in Whitewater. As he went to see what the commotion was about, he noticed an individual removing a Romney/Ryan yard sign from his property. He yelled to the person that they were taking something not theirs and to return it immediately. The individual returned the sign, however, a second person confronted and attacked Sean without warning.

Sean was wrestled to the ground by both persons, held down by a constricting chokehold, and struck repeatedly about the face and head. He nearly passed out from the chokehold and suffered contusions to his face and eyes. Fortunately, an alert neighbor heard the commotion, scared the individuals away, and called the police. My wife and I were awakened by a telephone call from Sean’s roommate that Sean had been taken by ambulance to Fort Atkinson Memorial Hospital.

Sean was treated for his injuries and released from the hospital the same day. As this was a private family matter, we chose not to remark publicly about it and allow law enforcement to do their job. But we understand these types of incidents will eventually become public and questions will arise, particularly in my position as a state legislator.

Sean is still recovering from the injuries he sustained as a result of this beating, and we are confident he will make a full recovery. But obviously, as parents, we are shaken by this event and very troubled it was apparently initiated and motivated for political reasons.

Soon – and particularly if Obama gets re-elected – we will be seeing unions and students violently rioting to get more of other people’s money.  It is who they are because liberals are evil and violent and hateful (55 million babies murdered by Democrats and liberals are crying out for God’s justice as we speak).  When violence comes to America, it will come from the left.  Just as it is coming from the left now all over Europe.

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.

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

January 26, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

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

Vile Occupy Protests In Videos

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

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

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

So, yes, liberalism IS a mental disorder.

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

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

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

November 16, 2011

The LA Times has this to say about the Occupy Movement’s only documented “accomplishment” thus far:

Now, about L.A. City Hall’s lawn
Occupy L.A. has killed the grass. A water-wise garden should take its place.
By Emily Green
November 16, 2011

Whatever the accomplishments of Occupy L.A. when it finally decamps — or gets evicted — from around City Hall, one positive achievement is already clear: It has killed the lawn.

The Times’ editorial board has harrumphed about the taxpayer expense of replacing one of downtown’s “rare green spaces,” and it worries that the “majestic figs” are at risk. Last week, the Department of Recreation and Parks sent an aggrieved letter to the mayor about signs nailed to trees, broken sprinkler heads and compacted soil. The nails and compacted soil are unfortunate. But really, Rec and Parks is missing the point. Occupy L.A. has given City Hall the chance to walk its talk.

For more than two years, the mayor and the City Council have been preaching water conservation. Yet since they instituted a citywide sprinkler ordinance in 2009, and even started paying single-family homes a buck a square foot to rip out lawns, by the Department of Water and Power’s own estimate 54% of the water used by single-family homes still goes outside. The government is almost as profligate: 41% of its water is outdoor use. Much of this goes to lawns.

Los Angeles cannot be expected to improve these numbers unless the mayor and the City Council lead by example. Other cities, such as Austin, Texas, understand this. In 2004, Austin responded to chronic overuse of the local aquifer by surrounding its City Hall with native gardens irrigated by a rain-catchment system.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles has left a plan for re-landscaping City Hall with a similarly progressive garden stuck somewhere between the bureaus of sanitation and engineering. City officials will neither confirm nor deny the existence of the plan, but word in the landscape design community is that it is stalled because of lack of funds.

This insistence that we cling to a wasteful model because conservation is too expensive doesn’t scan. Whatever hard times the city faces, the real deficit isn’t money. It’s skill. The inertia isn’t budgetary. It’s cultural.

Until Occupy L.A. smothered it last month, lawn remained around Los Angeles City Hall in part because that’s what Rec and Parks knows how to tend. To have a garden that celebrates our Mediterranean climate the way Austin’s salutes Texas prairie, Rec and Parks staff would need to learn how to weed instead of mow, mulch instead of blow and maintain drip irrigation instead of sprinklers.

Since the largely drought-tolerant sweeps of palo verde trees, succulents and desert palms went in near City Hall around police headquarters in 2009, lead landscape architect Scott Baker has become so demoralized by Rec and Parks maintenance that he sounds halfway between heartbroken and bitter. Asked what might be done around City Hall, he said, “I don’t think that this city deserves any great green spaces until they can figure out ahead of time how to maintain it.”

Thanks to Occupy L.A., Los Angeles will have the perfect place to learn. Stephen Billings, landscape architect behind the year-old gardens around the Valley Performing Arts Center in Northridge, managed the wide use of native trees and grasses only by working from inception with the facilities staff of Cal State Northridge. As Billings sees it, the teaching gardens around City Hall could be temporary until grounds staff were skilled enough to maintain a suitably stately model. “It’s a new time,” he said. “It’s about learning. It’s not about keeping up appearances.”

[…]

And the article continues to drone on and on.  Blah blah blah.  And then more blah.

You see, I’ve got a much better way to deal with the fact that liberals have killed the lawn and the landscaping around city hall.  Let it stay exactly as it is.

Let it remain exactly as it is as an object lesson of what liberalism does: it ruins.  It destroys.  It kills.  And then, of course, it seeks to take the very damn “crisis” that it itself created and turn it into yet another boondoggle symptom of the very liberalism that created the mess in the first place.

Oh, we might spend a few bucks on the formerly hallowed (before liberals pissed and crapped all over it) landscape of the formerly beautiful Los Angeles City Hall – to buy a big sign.  It would contain a “before” and “after” photo of the grounds and state simply, “Liberals did this.  Don’t let them do it to you.”

My solution will be far, FAR less expensive than Emily Green’s.  And it will actually tell the real story.

Here’s another solution: make the worthless Occupy cockroaches get off the damn grass or at least confiscate every single thing that the as a “community” own to force them to pay for the millions of dollars in taxpayer money they (literally) pissed away.  Because I bet liberals would actually start getting responsible about the trillions of dollars they piss away every damn year if it was THEIR DAMN MONEY.