Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
You’ve got to just stand back and marvel at the STUNNING hypocrisy and dishonest and disgraceful deceit that are at the core of every so-called “liberal” and at the heart of every Democrat and at the heart of their false messiah Barack Hussein Obama.
How dare we publish material that would offend Muslims, they argue in the name of the multicultural pluralism that they gave birth to.
Okay, fine. Every atheist who publicly claims there is no God ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Every liberal who espouses the radical secular humanist invention of a “separation of church and state” to annihilate their opponents’ religious influence ought to be publicly demonized.
But of course not. Christianity is of course different and ought to be attacked and demonized because unlike other groups that all come from the totalitarian left we don’t resort to hate and violence. I guess ultimately it’s Jesus’ fault for teaching His disciples to turn the other cheek and it’s the Holy Spirit’s fault for instilling in us the fruits of the Spirit rather than the hate of the left.
The French satirical paper that was attacked in France was a LEFT-WING magazine that generally attacked the political RIGHT, attacked Christianity and basically attacked opposition to liberalism. NPR had this factoid:
The left-wing magazine is known for its biting takedowns. Its past targets include the political right wing, capitalism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
The beauty of progressive liberalism, secular humanism and the Democrat Party which defends these engines of destruction in America, is it’s monolithic hypocrisy. Liberals are pathologically dishonest hypocrites whose cry is invariably “It’s NEVER fascist when we do it” because they have conveniently pre-defined themselves as virtuous and their opponents as guilty.
The left have been viciously attacking Christians and Christianity for DECADES. But of course now we shouldn’t have the right to employ the same standards that the left created to attack and undermine us to criticize their fellow “Government-as-God” worshipers in the Muslim religion.
Here is a piece that deliciously exposes this profound hypocrisy (and for the official record let me simply point out the fact that “Piss Christ” was funded by Democrats who had perverted the National Endowment for the Arts into something so vile it is beyond unreal):
As reported through Breitbart, the Associated Press made clear that its official policy is to censor photos of the Prophet Muhammad. Apparently, though, disparaging images of Jesus Christ are acceptable.
The AP told The Daily Beast, “It’s been our policy for years that we refrain from moving deliberately provocative images.” And because of that policy, the cartoons of Muhammad seen in the Charlie Hebdo magazine were deleted from its commercial photo service.
But as was discovered, the infamous “art” photo of a crucifix immersed in urine, known as “Piss Christ,” could be purchased online through the news organization.
A screenshot of the broken link is provided below:
Do you know what?
If you don’t want to offend Ismam, you shouldn’t elect a damn president who by definition of Islam is the worst kind of infidel because he was raised by his father as a Muslim and now (falsely) claims he’s a Christian.
OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.
Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come–
At this point, the only difference between Democrats, i.e. between DEMOn-possessed bureauCRATS, and Nazis is that the Nazis dressed better. And the scale of evil: Nazis murdered six million Jews and Democrats have murdered SIXTY million innocent babies in their death camp abortion mills.
And we see the hate of secular progressive liberal progressives for freedom and for the rights of others all the time.
Take a gander at this story, for an example for an example of the latest outrage directed against the rights of Christians to believe what thousands of years of the Word of God proclaims to be true, what the entirely of Western Civilization has believed to be true. Because under these antichrist Democrat haters, deviant homosexuals have every right to drag their moral filth into churches and flaunt their lifestyles and the only people guilty of “bigotry” are the people who say in their own houses of worship, “our faith says that’s not right, and is there nowhere we can go to practice our religion?” And NO, there is not in this age just before the Democrat Party worships the beast and takes his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.
Liberal intellectuals – which means people who have carefully taught themselves to be the stupidest people on the face of the earth – have proclaimed free speech to be the greatest threat to liberalism. Because nobody would ever believe this garbage called liberalism if they had all the facts presented to them – and thus the facts and the truth themselves become the enemy.
If you are a Democrat, you hate freedom and you rabidly despise the freedom of speech to say anything but what you have fascistically proclaimed to be politically correct.
If you are a Democrat, then you are a hypocrite and a liar and a pervert and a murderer. And God has decreed that you will get yours. Because if there is a God, there is a thing called justice. But I know, you want to make those words first a thoughtcrime just like the book 1984 described and ultimately an actual crime. It’s just who you are.
Secular humanism – in religious terms you can label it “atheism” and in political terms you can label it “progressive liberalism” – is a shell game that tries to hide the existence of the human soul.
The soul is there, of course. It simply HAS to be there for humans to be in any meaningful way categorically different than the beasts, or for human justice to be anything other than a morbid joke as “beasts” judge one another for acting like beasts. But the project of secular humanism is to only allow as much “soul” as is absolutely necessary to allow society to function while at the same time denying it’s reality lest the people reject the atheism and the progressive liberalism that are based on the denial of the soul.
The problem is that the soul is NOT a degreed property. “Size” and “weight” are a degreed properties; a thing can have more of it or less of it and still be the thing itself. But in this case the soul must be the kind of thing (a substance) that HAS properties rather than a property that has degrees. We therefore either have souls – in which case the secular humanists are entirely wrong about the nature of humanity, the nature of religion, the nature of morality, the nature of science and the very nature of the universe – or we do NOT have souls and therefore we do NOT have “free will” in which case human society, human justice and basically everything worthwhile about “humanity” is an entirely manufactured lie.
Look, I am either a soul – created in the image of God – that has a body, or else I am nothing more than a body – and frankly a meat puppet – which was the result of random DNA conditioned by my environment. It’s one or the other; there is no middle ground. Free will becomes a logical as well as biological impossibility for the latter view – which is why secular humanist scientists and philosophers are increasingly rejecting the very possibility of free will.
The problem is that if you were to actually assume the latter was actually true, then how could you hold anybody responsible for anything? It’s really a frightening thought. After all, if I commit a brutal murder, but there really is no “me” inside of me to truly hold accountable, but rather I was conditioned by genes I didn’t choose and an environment I didn’t choose, why should I be held accountable? How is this not like holding a child responsible for what his parents did? But of course, on this view, you can’t hold the parents responsible any more than the child, because they suffer the same complete lack of moral free will that their child does. And the final result of this view is that we should no more hold a human being – who is NOTHING but an evolved monkey, after all – any more morally responsible for his or her “crimes” than we would hold a tiger responsible for killing a goat. Because in both cases, you merely do what you “evolved” to do.
Therefore, the people who claim the latter (no God, ergo sum no imago dei ergo sum no free will) is reality have to pretend for the most part that it is most definitely NOT reality in order to have any kind of functioning human society. What they have done is determined that humans are in fact “animals” (or beasts); and that, more specifically, we are “herd animals.” Mind you, we are also clearly – judging by human experience – “predator animals” who prey on herd animals. And so the secular humanists have construed for themselves a “foundation for their description of reality” in which they have appointed themselves the outside role of “the bureaucrats” and “the professors” and “the journalists” (etc.) who shape and control the behavior of the herd and attempt to keep the herd animals relatively safe from the predator animals.
And of course liberalism only becomes consistent in their anthropology when they refuse to execute murderers (after all, THAT would be holding someone accountable for their moral crimes when that man is merely a beast who merely did what his brain had evolved to do); so we house them, keep them locked up in cages. Just like animals. Because they ARE animals and nothing more than animals conditioned by DNA plus environment. Just like YOU’RE nothing more than a mindless animal purely conditioned by DNA plus environment.
I suggest that the increasing breakdown of society under the control of secular humanism is itself a refutation of their system. We are skyrocketing out of control as a species because when you treat men like beasts, like beasts men shall increasingly become. As the Bible puts it, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7). But we can offer a great deal more of an analysis than merely pointing out that “by their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).
One of the things you need to realize is the bait and switch you have received regarding science and the nature of science. You have been fed a pile of lies in the form of a narrative that science is incompatible with religion and that “science” produces open-mindedness and tolerance for new ideas whereas “religion” produces close-mindedness and hostility to new ideas. But that is simply a lie: as a matter of factual history, “science” is uniquely a product of Judeo-Christianity. It arose ONLY in Christendom as the result of belief in a Personal, Transcendent Creator God rather than anywhere else on earth. Belief in God was a necessary condition for the rise of science as not only the discoverer of the scientific method itself (Francis Bacon) but the discoverer of every single branch of science was a publicly confessing Christian who “sought appreciate the beauty of God’s handiwork” and who “wanted to think God’s thoughts after Him.”
J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:
1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. the orderly nature of the external world
3. the knowability of the external world
4. the existence of truth
5. the laws of logic
6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. the adequacy of language to describe the world
8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)
9. the uniformity of nature and induction
10. the existence of numbers
Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide. Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.
To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire. And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again. And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.
God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man. And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity. That is the basis for science.
Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:
“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.
On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.” — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56
Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.
What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud. It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.
But imagine – for the sake of argument – what would have happened had I done such a thing with the work of Albert Einstein. Imagine I had enough of a vocabulary to pass myself off as a great scientific mind. What would have happened to science as a result of my limiting it?
And that is what’s essentially being described in the R. Scott Smith article below. Education – the teaching of science and of how to do science, for example – would suffer more and more as fools who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) hijacked the agenda.
I would like to begin this discussion with an article on the logically-entailed implications of Darwinism in crucial human pursuits by beginning with an article detailing the ramifications of Darwinism on education:
Low standard test scores, serious budget crunches and more — our public schools face daunting challenges. But perhaps they face a deeper issue, one not being mentioned in recent public discussions: What if they aren’t really teaching our youth knowledge?
Today’s education is based upon the assumption that science gives us knowledge. But other disciplines give us (at best) “inferior knowledge,” or just preferences and opinions.
And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.
If that seems overstated, notice what Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher of neuroscience at Tufts University, says. He admits that according to naturalistic evolution, the dominant scientific theory, brains and physical patterns of physical forces exist. Physical stuff (matter) is real, but things like mental states aren’t.
Yet when we do science, pay our taxes or watch a football game, it seems we really think, have beliefs and experience things. So, how can that be?
According to Dennett, all that’s going on is the interpretation of the behavior of “intentional systems,” like sophisticated chess-playing computers and people. While observing them, we try to interpret and predict their behavior. For instance, we might interpret a computer’s move in a game as “intending” to checkmate its opponent, whereas the human player “thinks” or “believes” she can escape by making a certain move. We just interpret their behaviors by how we conceive of (or talk about) their behaviors as mental states — but that’s all there’s to it. There are no real beliefs, thoughts or observations.
However, suppose a person comes here from a fourth-world country. She’ll need to get a concept of what a traffic light is and that she can cross the street on a green light, not red. To learn that, she’ll need experiences and thoughts of what these things are, and then form a concept of when it’s safe to cross a street.
So, for Darwinian evolution and naturalism, there’s a crucial problem here: How could anyone make observations and form concepts and interpretations? To do these seems to require we use the very mental things we’re told don’t exist.
Yet without real observations, we don’t seem able to do any scientific experiments. Without concepts, thoughts and beliefs, how could we even form, test and accept scientific theories?
Worse, how could we have knowledge if there aren’t real beliefs we can accept as true? We also need adequate evidence for our beliefs to count as knowledge. But with Darwinian, naturalistic science, evidence from experience seems impossible.
Now, maybe Michael Tye (a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin) could reply that we do have mental states, yet these really are just something physical, like brain states, being conceived of as being mental. But, that won’t work — to even have concepts, we need real mental states to work with.
So, it seems the assumption upon which our education system is founded — that Darwinian evolutionary, naturalistic science uniquely gives us knowledge of the facts — cannot be true. And, Darwinian evolution also is mistaken, for on it we couldn’t know anything. Yet we do know many things — for instance, that we’re alive.
Therefore, real, immaterial mental states must exist. While this essay doesn’t prove it, it suggests something very important — supernaturalism isn’t far-fetched after all. Indeed, we can infer even more. If we can have real immaterial thoughts, experiences, beliefs and more, then it seems that there must be something immaterial that is real which can have and use them. That suggests that we have minds, even souls, that are real and non-physical. So, how then do we best explain their existence? Surely not from Darwinian evolution. Instead, it seems that this short study highly suggests that God exists and has made us in a way that we can have knowledge. I am reminded of what Solomon said: “To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord” (Prov. 1:7, GNT).
Thus, fixing our education system seems to involve, in part, a repudiation of naturalism and Darwinian, naturalistic science. For on it, we lose all knowledge whatsoever. But since we do know many things, that fact strongly suggests that God exists.
R. Scott Smith (M.A. ’95) is an associate professor of ethics and Christian apologetics in Biola’s master’s program in Christian
apologetics. He holds a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics from the University of Southern California.
Science isn’t “discovering” very much. We put a man on the moon in the 1960s and we literally aren’t capable of repeating that feat today. The first computer was invented by a Christian, of course. We keep making them smaller and faster, but we haven’t had any major leaps for decades. We’ve been following Moore’s Law rather than any “scientific advance.” We’ve been very successful at “technology,” and at reducing the size of previously designed devices or at creatively marketing/engineering a device based on the success of a previous device. But contrary to your secular humanist, we’re not making giant leaps and bounds on the frontiers of science.
And that is most definitely true of education – and especially education in America relative to other nations as we plunge ever more deeply into the philosophy of secular humanism that had NOTHING to do with the origin of science or the origin of ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL THING.
I look at education and I see what many parents as well as many educators see: kids that are getting dumber and dumber.
And you have to ask yourself, why is that, given that we’re spending more per pupil than ever??? Why do we keep falling behind? And why do Christian schools run circles around the government (secular humanist education center) schools??? Because it is simply a FACT that they do:
If you want a flourishing education system – you know, the kind of system that put a man on the moon – you need to demand a return to a religion-friendly education system rather than the one that has replaced the system that made America great.
Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck. Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields. It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.
Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries. Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.
Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.
Look what’s happened. Liberals have purged out conservatives. The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.
The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.
“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]
Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”
Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people. Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.
That was our strike two for us [note: I write about three strikes in the article]. Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.
By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law. They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means. By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history. Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination. And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies. It has become a vicious circle.
Johnny can’t read, at least he can’t read very well. But that’s okay; he doesn’t need to be able to read very well in order to serve the future State or the crony capitalist corporations in the progressive liberals’ fascist system in order to be a good drone worker bee. When your child is toiling away at his or her menial job, feel good in the knowledge that your child will do so believing that being a good citizen and taking your place as one of myriad cogs in the machine will keep him or her moving mindlessly forward.
In a way, I’ve already also described the rabid intolerance that is the quintessence of secular humanism in describing above the purging of conservatives by liberals. But believe me, there is way, way more than that.
One of the frightening things about the Holocaust was that only one who closely followed the theories presented in the German universities could see it coming. But those who DID follow what was being taught in the elite German universities could see it coming very clearly. Many of those who did follow what was being taught were terrified and tried to warn the free nations about what was happening. But of course nobody listened. And so it all played out exactly as the most strident voices warned it would play out unless something was done. That “play” was World War II and the death camps that accompanied it.
The lesson of history is that ideas have consequences. And terrible ideas have terrible consequences, indeed.
So with that introduction, allow me to replay a recent article written by a student of one of the most – if not THE most – prestigious of universities in America reflecting a new rabid intolerance of free speech in academia:
In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.
Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?
Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue. […]
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.
Basically, she says that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.
Here as in so many other ways, secular humanist “liberalism” is Nazism. Period.
AN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.
Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”
It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.
“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”
We are now seeing a massive effort on the part of students who have been brain-washed by the above secular humanist dictatorship of academia in which they simply refuse to tolerate or even listen to any ideas that disagree with their dogma.
Students are now shouting down anyone with whom they disagree. It doesn’t matter how many other students want to hear a speaker: secular humanist liberal students and faculty are fascists who impose their will and dictate their agenda on others (even when they are in the very tiny minority): And so:
At least three prominent leaders — former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau — cancelled their commencement speeches this spring after a typhoon of campus activism.
Consider what happened this week with Birgeneau, who had been scheduled to speak at Haverford College, a close-knit liberal arts school just outside Philadelphia.
By some measures, Birgeneau is the perfect person to give a graduation speech: Successful, civic-minded and notable, not least for guiding Berkeley as it became the first American public university to offer comprehensive financial aid to students in the country illegally. But Birgeneau was actually far from ideal, some Haverford students and faculty decided.
Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 — or else they would protest his graduation speech.
In response, Birgeneau decided not to attend the graduation. His cancellation, the most recent of the three, is raising concerns in some quarters that campus leftist groups are putting so much emphasis on social justice issues that they’re squashing the spirit of open debate. […]
But some observers say the recent campus blow back belongs in its own category, which political writer Michelle Goldberg, in a column for The Nation, called “left-wing anti-liberalism” – the idea that some speech and some people are so politically disagreeable that their views don’t need to be heard.
Lukianoff, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pointed to a 2013 dust-up at Brown University in which former New York police head Ray Kelly’s speech to students had to be canceled after he was shouted down and unable to speak.
Kelly has long been despised by the left for his defense of stop-and-frisk policies and how the NYPD cracked down on Occupy Wall Street protesters. His embarrassment at Brown became a YouTube moment that other officials would likely hope to avoid. [….]
Therefore, what has happened in the colleges and universities is analogous to a wayward girl who began to date a monster and ultimately helped murder her own parents in the night. That’s what secular humanism did in purging the universities and colleges from the Christian tradition that gave BIRTH to those universities and colleges.
I compare what I’m seeing today to the French Revolution. It, like what we’re seeing today, was the result of secular humanism. And like what we’re seeing today, the French Revolution quickly degenerated from a bunch of hoity-toity pronouncements to hell on earth as the French Revolution rapidly degenerated into the Reign of Terror.
Occupy – as a symbol and a symptom of the left – believed it had the right to “occupy” private property, to destroy property, to destroy jobs, to pretty much take over. And in the case of UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, we discover that it is a sin punishable by the maximum penalty to apply law and order to the left. Better to just let them occupy and riot and vandalize, I suppose.
Liberalism is fascist intolerance when “liberalism” has been hijacked by secular humanist progressive liberalism. Liberals are simply pathologically intolerant people across the board as expressed in pretty much any way you can measure it.
Secular humanists have no answer for why this would be. After all, they’ve been talking about it and requiring more enforcement – including universities which clearly aren’t able to deal with the crisis – and punishing it more than ever. So why is it growing out of control on a liberal president’s watch?
The answer is easy. On my Judeo-Christian view, rape is wrong, wrong, WRONG. Because contrary to secular humanism, we’re NOT just DNA-plus-environment-plus nothing meat puppets; we are human beings created by God in His image. And to sexually assault another human being is to ignore, degrade and pervert the image of God in another soul.
On a secular humanist, not so much.
Oh, your liberal feminist asserts it’s wrong. But when you stop and consider the tenets of Darwinian evolution, on what grounds do they assert such a thing?
Evolutionists have long talked about rape in terms of advancing evolution. We’re equipped for fleeing, fighting and fornicating, we’re told. There’s such a thing as a “rape gene,” we’re told. And since Darwinism is all about “survival of the fittest,” and since the fittest survive precisely by passing on their DNA, well, rape is merely one of many possible pathways for an organism to strive to be the fittest in Darwinan terms. And of course the animal world abounds with examples in which humans would call it “rape” but animals would call it “reproducing.”
“rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”
Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.” Now go ye and do likewise. Unless something inside of you screams “NO! I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”
Rape isn’t wrong because secular humanists say it is. That’s not a good enough reason. Certainly not for the increasing numbers of humans committing sexual assaults it isn’t, anyway.
Why is rape wrong? Frankly, in our new system of “morality,” rape is wrong because Obama says it is wrong. That’s certainly the “logic” Obama used to first say that homosexual marriage was wrong when it was politically convenient to do so and that it somehow became right when it was politically convenient for him to say it was right. I mean, literally, gay marriage was wrong until Obama said it was right. And now it’s right. But anyone who thinks that this is the way morality works is quite literally morally insane.
And so we have insane sexual assault statistics to go with it.
If secular humanist liberalism is in any way, shape or form true, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE TOLERANT. In fact, we ought to be as vicious, as ruthless, as determined to win in our struggle for ideology – which of course is merely the result of how our brains happened to be randomly wired versus having any “truth” to them if secular humanism is true – as is necessary to prevail.
If secular humanist liberalism is true, then the struggle for “ideas” today is no different between rival packs of baboons fighting over the same turf.
And the reason the beast is coming is because God foreknew 2,000 years ago and beyond that in the last days, the most vicious pack of baboons (the secular humanist liberals) would prevail in a world in which rational argument and debate had been expunged by “liberalism.”
On Friday May 27, at the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration, Helen Thomas, the “Dean” of the White House Press Corps, answered a journalist’s request for an opinion on Israel:
“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land…not German and not Poland.”
“So, where should they go?”
“Go home. Poland, Germany.”
“So, you think the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?”
“And America and everywhere else.”
How is saying, “Tell all the Mexicans (whether legal or illegal) to get the hell out of America and go back to Mexico,” or, “Tell all the blacks to get the hell out of America and go back to Africa”???
And go back to Germany? Doesn’t Helen Thomas realize what she’s saying? “Go back to the country that only recently tried to exterminate your entire race as though they were vermin”? That event occurred within your lifetime, Helen. I mean, how dare you???
Helen Thomas: I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?
I don’t know. Maybe “objective” would have been nice.
Being a liberal journalist basically means being a propagandist and an ideologue for the left, unfortunately. It also means thinking oneself an “intellectual” – the “privileged” intelligentsia class which alone has “access to the truth.”
Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:
“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. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.
Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left. They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing. Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.
Of this effort, liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:
“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
It was Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the Progressive movement,” who RE-segregated the military, and who purged every single black from the federal government save a single “token negro.”
And now we’ve got Helen Thomas “on the record” being the useful idiot for the side of murder and totalitarian evil yet again – this time siding with the Islamic jihadist murderers who want to exterminate Israel and kill all the Jews just for being Jews.
Liberal progressives have done incredible damage throughout 20th century history; but they never seem to pay for it, because they’re the ones who get to “write the history.”
“We can’t expect to be number one in everything indefinitely,”
This is yet another example of the progressive mindset. The original story about this posted posted on CNSNEWS, which is currently down undoubtedly due to the server overload from the Drudge Report’s link to it. Oh BTW, here’s another ‘famous’ John Holdren quote:
I don’t understand why John Holdren is talking about America remaining number one. We had an election. We voted to “fundamentally transform America.” We voted to QUIT being number one.
I applied to be a progressive once. But I didn’t make the cut: I just couldn’t generate enough loathing for either myself, my whiteness, my maleness, or my country.
The next time you see a progressive liberal, realize that there is a good chance that they would love to see you in a soup line – helpless, hungry, desperate, and ready for “change.”
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.
Does that sound like something you’d like to see happen? I hope not! But you can bet that there are a lot of people on the political left right now who would love nothing more than having a crack at reshaping American society in their own image.
I cited the words of top Democrats like Obama’s chief of staff who said:
EMANUEL: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. This is an opportunity…. And this crisis provides the opportunity for us, as I would say, the opportunity to do things that you could not do before.”
Change it exactly how, Barry Hussein? And what about those of us who liked the United States of America our founding fathers gave us who don’t want it “fundamentally transformed”?
We haven’t known exactly what Obama meant by that. Because Obama turned himself into a “blank screen” while he was running for president:
A politician who has Obama’s ostensible verbal skills is, quite simply, not a “blank screen” unless he wants to be one.
Obama did not want us to know who he was, because we would have rejected him as our leader if we knew.
The more we finally learn about who Obama really is and what he really wants to do, the less we are going to like it.
We’re seeing more and more now. The man has a record. And sadly, it is a record of filling his administration with far leftist radicals – even with outright self-described communists (e.g., Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Anita Dunn, Carol Browner, Ron Bloom, Andy Stern) – and of pursuing government takeovers of one sphere of our economy (e.g., auto manufacturing, banking industry, financial sector, health care system) after another.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why a man who professes himself to be a free market president would appoint a man who would say “We know that the free market is nonsense” as his manufacturing czar. Ron Bloom is a man who said:
“We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”
You’re a “free market guy” who appoints a man who thinks the free market is “nonsense” and agrees with Mao to restore our incredibly important manufacturing sector?
For the life of me, I can’t understand how a man who says he’s a “free market guy” would appoint Andy Stern to his fiscal commission given statements such as the following:
We now have a new metric. The president says he wants to judge the new economy whether it increases the number of people in the middle class. Whether we have shared prosperity, not just growth. Which is a fundamental different philosophy then what we’ve seen in this country to date. Now how do we distribute wealth in this country … clearly government has a major opportunity to distribute wealth – from the EITC, from tax policies, from minimum wages, from living wages – the government has a role in distributing wealth and social benefits. We are at historic crossroads … in terms of what our new president is trying to do and a different way we are going to try and evaluate the economy. And so all of sudden we are witnessing the first new American economic plan led by the government, not necessarily by the private sector.
You’re a “free market guy” and you appoint a massive big government Marxist to figure out how to reduce government spending??? You’re a “free market guy” and you’re pushing a “fundamentally different philosophy” than anything this country has ever seen? You’re a “free market guy” and you want to redistribute the wealth at the expense of growth? You’re a “free market guy” and you have an economic plan led by the government, and not the private sector?
Really?
And, of course, for the life of me, I can’t understand how Barack Obama would have installed a man (i.e., Van Jones) who routinely said things like this –
“I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’”
How’s that capitalism working for ya?
And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities.
“This movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don’t stop there! Don’t stop there! We’re gonna change the whole system! We’re gonna change the whole thing!
– to be his Green Jobs Czar!
“Free market guy”? Really? And I’m not supposed to be either rolling on the floor laughing or barfing in a giant bucket WHY?
Obama told us that he chose his friends carefully, and “carefully” chose to be friends with “Marxist professors” and Marxist terrorist-bombers. The problem is that he’s STILL choosing to surround himself with Marxists.
Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) — U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey.
The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency.
To summarize to this point, “Mr. Blank Screen,” who wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” by “never letting a serious crisis go to waste,” calls himself a “free market guy” while repeatedly appointing communists to important “free-market”-positions. But more than 3/4ths of American investors who earn their bread and butter from the aforementioned free market think he’s full of crap.
With that foundation, let us get back to the strategy of Cloward and Piven.
The following comes from a member of the leftwing in very good standing. He’s written and worked for LeftTurn, Political Affairs, and Monthly Review according to his Wikipedia entry. He lives in Chicago (Barry Hussein’s hometown), where he founded Youth Against Apathy.
At a recent Brecht Forum, event, Jed Brandt said the following:
JED BRANDT, COMMUNIST: “We have to help bring this government down, we have to help destroy this system and that requires increasing the alienation that working class and oppressed people feel. The way change is going to happen in this country is through the destruction of what we call the United States of America.
I’m opposed to white supremacy not because it’s white people involved. I am opposed to the system we traditionally call imperialism and the idea that some people have rights and privileges that are not granted to all human beings. And the solution to that problem is called communism and socialism and we should put it in our mouths. We should say it when we say what is your politics? I am a socialist. I demand that we have health care for people and it’s not a demand that’s negotiable with health insurance companies.
We will take your insurance companies; we will take the farms in this country; we will shut down the military apparatus in this country and I am tired of being told to stuff my anger back in my pants.
Compare that to what Cloward and Piven were saying needed to happen way back in the 1960s:
Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands
Am I the only one who finds it interesting that the man who says “The way change is going to happen in this country is through the destruction of what we call the United States of America”is demanding that ObamaCare be passed in his very next breath?
I mean, if the Democrat talking points had any validity, wouldn’t this guy be who wants to see America destroyed be saying, “I want health care that features tort reform, competition across state lines, and all the other elements of the Republican plan???
This is where articles such as Cloward-Piven Crisis Care should start making sense. I myself offered my own article, “ObamaCare Is Cloward-Piven Strategy In Microcosm” to establish this connection well before hearing Jed Brandt make the connection. I cited the world famous Mayo Clinic as pointing out that ObamaCare represents the idea of:
As we speak, we are talking about the destruction of America by means of a political technique that the Democrats themselves called “the arrogance of power,” “majoritarian absolute power,” “the precipice of a constitutional crisis,” “the abandonment of the concept of check on power,” and “a naked power grab.”
My favorite description and prediction comes from Max Baucus, who is now pushing for the very thing that he said would be “the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”
I think that last is correct. ObamaCare, forced down the throats of Americans by the unAmerican nuclear option, will indeed be the way Democracy ends.
ObamaCare – by whatever name it is called – will be the ultimate actualization of the Cloward-Piven strategy. It will in short order overwhelm and collapse our social support network just as leftists have been dreaming about for decades.
The “Too big to fail” mindset wins yet again. First it was big union-dominated automakers and high-risk lending institutions. And now it’s entire countries, starting with Greece. And after Greece comes Spain and Portugal, and then will come California and a bunch of other mostly decades-long liberal-progressive states like New York and New Jersey. High taxation and out-of-control spending equal fiscal disaster as states and countries rack up enormous debts that they can never hope to repay.
And you know damn well it is. California all by itself is the sixth largest economy on the planet. And the inescapable logic of redistributionism means that the other 49 states are going to have to redistribute their wealth to bail out the People’s Republic of Pelosistan.
Their understanding of free market capitalist economics comes primarily through the straw man created by Karl Marx, and so they fundamentally misunderstand and distrust the economic system that made America the greatest nation on earth. They want redistributionism, and someone has to pay for my right to be a nonproductive bon-bon-eating couch potato. That “someone” ends up being the only people with the resources to invest and create jobs. But the rich aren’t stupid, and so they shelter their money to avoid the higher taxes.
I mean, even Oprah Winfrey does everything she can to avoid high taxes. Even MICHAEL MOORE does everything he can to avoid paying more taxes.
And what do we do when the disaster these people created finally comes home to roost? We bail them out, so they can do it all over again. It’s called “moral hazard.” Somebody in power should look it up and then quit doing it.
We keep making this giant ball of stink bigger and bigger and bigger, and we’re all wading through it now, and everything is going to sh*t all around us because our leaders don’t have the courage to simply let losers lose. We’ve become bailout nation, where the people who had discipline and did things right prop up the reckless so they can continue being reckless until the system crashes. Or to put it more precisely, until the system crashes bigger and badder the next time around.
There’s no question that we need to collect more taxes. But raising rates isn’t the way to collect more taxes. The Bush tax cuts stimulated an unprecedented 52-consecutive months of economic growth even as it generated MORE tax revenue. Obama’s going back to “the failed policies of the past” from the Jimmy Carter era are going to create a lot of damage as Democrats refuse to learn the lesson of the luxury tax again and again and again.
There’s also no question we need to dramatically decrease our spending. And along with that, we need to phase down the boondoggles we’ve created via Social Security (which is now in the red, paying out more than it collects) and Medicare/Medicaid (how does a ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLAR unfunded liability strike you?).
The problem is that the federal government has expanded so far beyond its constitutional limitations that its not even funny – with the lion’s share coming from progressive-Democrat social programs. The government which was supposed to be limited to defending the country and creating infrastructure is now involved in absolutely everything under the sun.
And Democrats will fight to the death for every single one of these programs.
There’s also the now-typical Democrat demand from the government:
Which means we can’t control our black hole-spending. Which means we can’t reduce our never-before-seen-in-human-history debts. Which means that we’re on the same road that Greece is on. Only no one will be there to bail us out when we collapse.
The only question is how long it takes for us to get there.
I’ve watched Glenn Beck and listened to his radio program. Aside from his frequent snide attacks on Republicans, I’ve usually enjoyed the program and thought he brought out interesting facts and ideas.
But when he appeared on CBS with Katie Couric, he jumped off the cliff into crazy town located far, far below:
Fox News host Glenn Beck, whose ratings and profile have soared this year as he has pummeled the Obama administration and become a rabble-rousing protest organizer, once again demonstrated his flair for creating viral new media moments, if the widely reproduced advance video excerpt from the show is any indication.
“John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama,” Beck told Couric. He also said that he might have cast his vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton rather than McCain if he had been faced with a choice between the two.
“I can’t believe I’m saying this, I think I would have much preferred her as president and may have voted for her against John McCain,” Beck said, explaining that in his world view “McCain is this weird progressive like Theodore Roosevelt was.”
Well, Katie Couric is happy. The left is happy with this latest fracturing within the conservative ranks. “Conservative” independents are happy with the demonization of Republicans as a means to help their various “third party” causes. And Republicans are trying to pull the knife out of the middle of their backs.
This morning on his radio program, a caller protested Beck’s damnation of Republicans as progressives and fakes. Beck interrupted him repeatedly and ultimately implied that he was crazy for supporting Republicans (“What’s the definition of insanity?” he asked, with the obvious answer, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”).
Beck’s ridiculous answer was that the Republicans were only voting against it because they were out of power. As though a sane and serious person believes that the GOP would have been proposing and passing these things if they WERE in power. Does anyone seriously think that? Socialist health care? Cap-and-trade energy policy? Seriously, Glenn? Because that is just really asinine.
As for Beck’s bringing up the definition of insanity, let me just say this for that heckled caller today: rightbackatchya, Glenn.
You tell me when hoping for a third party victory amounted to anything other than a Looney Tunes fantasy.
Glenn Beck calls himself a Libertarian. Do you know how many Libertarians there are in national office? Zero. That’s how many. And there are only two independents in national U.S. politics, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. Sanders, by the way, refers to himself as a “democratic socialist.”
Now ask me how many Libertarians have stood up against the massive liberal onslaught that can be exemplified by the following articles:
Under President Obama, the 2009 budget deficit is set to reach a staggering $1.8 trillion. It took President George W. Bush seven years to run up $1.8 trillion in debt. And these deficits aren’t merely a temporary result of the recession; the president’s budget would run deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year for the next decade.The national debt would double. In other words, Obama would run up as much government debt as every president in US history from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. Put simply, he’d dump $84,352 per household of new debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren over the next decade.
Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
The Office of Management and Budget has released its annual mid-session review that updates the budget projections from this past May.[1] They show that this year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. The federal government will increase spending 22 percent this year to a peacetime-record 26 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush.[2]Driven by this spending, America will run its first ever trillion-dollar budget deficit this year. Even worse, the President’s budget would borrow an additional $9 trillion over the next decade, more than doubling the national debt. By 2019, America will be spending nearly $800 billion on net interest to service this large debt.[3]
That’s right. Zero. Not one.
In fact, out of the 537 elected national politicians (President, VP, US Senators, US Representatives), the only two who are “independents” vote with the Democrats.
The conservative “Pipe Dream Party” that Glenn Beck thinks will one day sweep into power aint going to happen. Except in the minds of the brain damaged.
And he’s mocking this caller as insane?
One of the things I concluded long ago was that, if we ever by some miracle got a third party off the ground with enough power to change things, it would become every bit as corrupt as the other two. Or does Glenn Beck think his politicians would be sinless, morally perfect saints?
If you think a third party would do everything right, you seriously need to wake up and quit being so foolishly naive.
Another thing: Glenn Beck admires Sarah Palin, as I do. But Sarah Palin RAN with John McCain. She’s continued to praise him. If McCain is that terrible, than Palin is terrible too. She’s tainted by McCain. We can do one of Glenn Beck’s chalkboard exercises and draw double arrows connecting Palin to McCain.
If McCain is worse than Obama, then Sarah Palin deserves to be thrown into the junk pile of history.
I’m perfectly consistent in continuing to support Sarah Palin; Glenn Beck is not.
“I think there’s enormous confusion and positioning and pandering. It may be entertaining, but from my perspective, it’s not. It’s pathetic.”
Beck is great at criticizing Republicans’ motivations. Let’s see him justify his own damned motivations. He is pandering to divisiveness and anger. He is appealing to the type of people who would rather take their ball and go home than grow up and try to build the Republican Party into what real conservatives should want it to become.
(CNSNews.com) – Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
Conservatives overwhelmingly outnumbered liberals while Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over the House and Senate, and conservatives overwhelmingly outnumbered liberals while Barack Obama became president and liberals increased their stranglehold over our government.
And the simple fact of the matter is that they’re going to keep doing that unless “conservatives” decide they don’t want to keep eating liberal crap and start making their votes count.
As a practical matter, what Glenn Beck said on Katie Couric’s show was that he supports the hard-core liberal agenda more than he supports the conservative agenda.
Being able to work off the anger at the worst president in American history sure has done his pocketbook an awful lot of good. Methinks Beck doesn’t want his gravy train to end with a conservative takeover.
This isn’t the first time talk of conservatives forming a new party has happened. It happened in 1977, too. Ronald Reagan responded:
I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends—perhaps including some of you here tonight—who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.
I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over.
What Reagan said is every bit as true today as it was in 1977.
It was Ronald Reagan’s philosophy – NOT Glenn Beck’s – which led conservatives out of the wasteland and into the promised land.
And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.
Start Thinking Right 