If Government Was Responsible For Jack Gilchrist’s Success In Business, Then Government Is EQUALLY Responsible For James Holmes’ Mass Murder Spree

I’ve written a couple of articles that have featured Obama’s idiotic worldview summed up by “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” remark.  And I’ve received quite a few comments from liberals pointing out that Obama is right.  Why?  Because Jack Gilchrist went to public school and even got a government education loan.

Well, okay.  Government is responsible for our success.

Mind you, Government is equally responsible for damn near every single murder, every single rape, every single gang banging criminal, heck, every single criminal of every stripe, every single scumbag and every single slimeball in America.

Let’s take James Holmes.  Did you know that James Holmes went to a public school?

CASTROVILLE — Adam Martinez and Chris Elkins, Castroville Elementary School classmates of accused Colorado shooter James Holmes, were in shock over the weekend, unable to reconcile their childhood memories of a young man they both agreed was “an exemplary person — he never gave any trouble, and never got in trouble himself.”

Did you know that James Holmes received a government grant for his PhD studies?

James Holmes, the suspect in the Dark Knight Rises shooting rampage at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater that killed 12 people and wounded 58 others, received a prestigious taxpayer-funded stipend from the National Institutes of Health that covered his graduate school tuition.

The federal government education grant that James Holmes received totaled $26,000 and “paid his tuition for the highly competitive neuroscience program at the University of Colorado in Denver,” reports CBS News.

I know this is getting pretty creepy, but did you know James Holmes actually drove on public roads?  Did you know that he even used a public road to get to his kill zone the night of his murder spree?

Ready to strike, on Thursday evening Holmes drove the five miles from his home next to the faculty complex to the multi-screen Century 16 cinema in a sprawling shopping mall.
 
There he bought a ticket for the midnight screening of Dark Knight Rises, the new Batman film, went into the auditorium with other excited cinema-goers, but slipped straight out the back into the car park though the emergency exit, leaving the door lodged slightly ajar.
 
Holmes changed into his body-armour and moved back into the cinema to launch his real-life rampage just as a cacophonous shooting scene erupted on the screen.

Oh, my gosh, I just thought of something that completes the picture: I’ll bet you anything you want to bet me that James Holmes used the internet.

Horrors, I was right:

Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes bought his 6,000-round arsenal legally and easily over the Internet, police said as Holmes was to appear in court Monday.

Holmes, 24, accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 others inside an Aurora, Colo., movie theater Friday, ordered 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun almost as easily as a person orders a book from Amazon.com, police told The New York Times.

He spent an estimated $3,000 at the online sites in the four months before the shooting, police told the newspaper.

My God.  Obama killed those people.  Just as surely as Obama took credit for successful business owners like Jack Gilchrist!!!!

What did Obama say in claiming that Government was responsible for the success of business owners who therefore ought to render unto Obama more in taxes?

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)

It’s all there.  Public schools, check.  Roads, check.  Government education programs, check.  The Internet, check.

Let’s replay fellow liberal Democrat ideologue Elizabeth Warren (when she’s not being a fake American Indian to dishonestly benefit from the politically correct racist point system of liberalism) to see how she dovetails with Obama:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

Let me rewrite this to describe James Holmes:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is anti-human warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got to be a mass murdering psycho on his own. Nobody.

“You built a ‘house bomb’ out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your guns and your ammunition and your explosives and your murder suit to the movie theater on the roads the rest of us paid for; you bought your homicide supplies from workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your ‘house bomb’ because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize all of your guns and ammunition and bombs and your death suit, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

Notice that my modified version of Elizabeth Warren’s – as idiotic as it sounds – is every bit as true as the original idiot Warren version???

Barack Obama and the Democrat Party – the same people who are trying to take credit for the success of business owners – are every bit as responsible for James Holmes and every single murdering psycho and every single rapist and every single criminal, etc., etc., etc. as they are for those business owners.  Because all these slimbags and many others benefitted from those public schools, those public roads, those government loans, the internet and the police and fire departments just as much as business owners like Jack Gilchrist ever did.  That is simply a fact.

If you’re saying, “That’s crazy!”  Please understand that if the left is right about business owners, then precisely what I’m saying follows.  Because please find me the murder, rapist, gangbanger, child molester, etc. etc. etc. etc., who never went to a public school, or who never used a public road or bridge, or who never got any kind of government loan or grant, or who never used the internet and I could show you ten thousand who DID.

What the left is trying to claim to justify their messiah Obama is not merely wrong; it is flat-out demonic.

The left is bombarding the airwaves and the blogosphere with claims that business people owe their success to the government.  Why?  Because after all the government gave them education or assistance and built roads and the internet for them.  But by their very “logic” that liberals are claiming credit for every success, they are EVERY BIT AS RESPONSIBLE for every evil thing under the sun.  Because the same stuff that Obama is claiming credit for that gave us successful business owners such as Jack Gilchrist IS THE SAME DAMN STUFF that James Holmes used.

One liberal gave me a link that had the following:

After-all, it is government , we the people, that built the roads, airports, water plants, Internet, and other infrastructure businesses are dependent on. Taxpayers, we the people via teachers and other professions provided the knowledge that allowed the entrepreneur to innovate. […]

After-all, it is government , we the people, that built the roads, airports, water plants, Internet, and other infrastructure businesses are dependent on. Taxpayers, we the people via teachers and other professions provided the knowledge that allowed the entrepreneur to innovate.

The video is a highly edited version of Jack Gilchrist admitting what every single homo sapiens on the planet would acknowledge.  And yet the left cites it as if it’s some kind of giant admission.  Yes, dumbass, I know that.  I also know that James Holmes got the same things.  Please claim him, too.

The next liberal then says:

If you see the unedited remarks the president made and not the edited version Faux news showed you will see what the president was talking about and it was not building your buisiness it was the infrastructure to get your buisiness going like the roads which someone else built, the internet, schools etc.

Yes, stupid, we understand.  The same roads, the same internet, the same schools that James Holmes got.  [Feel free to notice that this idiot is claiming credit for the success of businesses while not even being capable of spelling the word “business” correctly].

After a couple of liberals who decided simple personal attacks was the way to go, the next lefty offered this:

Not only did Obama say that businesses had help from many along the way, and that they didn’t build the roads and bridges, etc. that businesses need in order to function, but Romney agreed with him. Yet Romney still chose to edit Obama’s remarks to make it look as though a business owner didn’t build his own business. And as it turns out, Jack Gilchrist most definitely benefited from government help, receiving millions in government loans and contracts.

Yes, yes, dumbass, Romney knows that the government has built some stuff.  And he probably also knows that James Holmes used it all along the way to being a mass murdering zombie.  Please credit the government for the killings.

And again the liberals who had nothing more than personal attacks, we have this:

1. YOUR parents sent you to public school. If you have a problem with that blame YOUR PARENTS.

2. The fact remains that unless you are independentely weathly like say,.. Mitt Romney you will at some point need help opening your business. Loans from the bank are guaranteed by…(shocker I know) THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Jack Gilchrists dad may have put taken out a second mortagage on his house, but that doesn’t change the fact that he may have ALSO gotten a loan from the government.

And the last one I got:

Michael, so what do you have to say now that it’s been shown he DIDN’T do it on his own but with some government loans? Hypocrite is as hypocrite does.

And, okay.  As I documented, liberals should proudly embrace James Holmes and say, “What a wonderful product of all the stuff we’re claiming credit for.”  Public school, check.  Public road, check.  Internet, check.  GIANT GRANT FROM GOVERNMENT, CHECK.  Go down that list again.  We have the Democrat Party to thank for every mass murderer, every rapist, every pedophile, every gang banger, every criminal, every slimebag.  Every vile insect that preys upon American society got to where they are because of big government.  And that is according to the very same argument that liberals are using to argue that business owners got to where they are because of big government.

Let me go back to James Holmes.  I heard Greg Gutfeld make a funny but true comment about the insanity defense and how contrived it is.  Gutfeld said that it’s funny, but the murderers who claim they’re insane after their crimes somehow never claimed insanity for anything GOOD they did.  And that’s exactly how liberalism is: they have a religious view of the Government that makes it only responsible for everything GOOD.  And they will NEVER own up to anything bad unless they can say, “Bush did it.”  When you’re talking to liberals, you are talking to insane, pathological people who simply cannot think outside of their disturbed, warped, diseased little brains.

So, here’s the deal.  If a liberal says, “The government gave us schools,” YOU say, “James Holmes went to a public school.  Obama’s a murderer.”

If a liberal says, “The government gave us roads,” YOU say, “James Holmes used public roads to kill people.  Obama is a murderer.”

If a liberal says, “The government gives us loans and grants,” YOU say, “James Holmes got government grants and used the money to buy his arsenal.  Obama is a murderer.”

If a liberal says, “The government gave us the internet,” YOU say, “James Holmes used the internet to buy his arsenal.  Obama is a murderer.”

It’s that simple.  It’s a matter of using “idiot judo” to use the sheer stupidity of Democrats against them.

What the hell happened to this country?  How did business owners become successful?  I’ll tell you: they were successful because they studied harder, and worked harder, and took risks to make their dreams come true, and displayed personal responsibility for themselves, and took personal initiative for their own lives, and made good decisions, and practiced fiscal responsibility, and basically did everything that the Democrat Party is trying to destroy today.  Democrats want to tax the success of successful business owners and redistribute the fruits of that success so they can dole it out to failures to reward failure and ultimately so they can buy the votes of failures.

The Democrat Party has just taken stupid to an entirely new level.  The Democrat machine has become like a giant reciprocating engine of moral idiocy that just keeps getting dumber and dumber and dumber with every downward stroke and particularly with every single speech from Obama.

Obama’s ‘If You’ve Got A Business, You Didn’t Build That’ Is Incoherent Marxist Pabulum. Period.

Obama was campaigning in Roanoke, Virginia when this little “spread the wealth around” beauty popped out of him.  (And keep in mind this came out of “a man who never created or ran so much as a candy store”).

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

     The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That’s how we funded the GI Bill.  That’s how we created the middle class.  That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That’s how we invented the Internet.  That’s how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea.  You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.  (Applause.)

So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers — how do we help them succeed?  How do we make sure that their hard work pays off?  That’s what I’ve been thinking about the entire time I’ve been President.

Now, over the next four months, the other side is going to spend more money than we’ve even seen in history.  And they don’t really have a good argument for how they would do better, but they’re thinking they can win the election if they just remind people that a lot of people are still out of work, and the economy is not growing as fast as it needs to, and it’s all Obama’s fault.  That’s basically their pitch.

The spirit of Obama’s words boils down to EXACTLY what I said about this demon-possessed man in a piece I wrote nearly two years ago titled “Obama’s Government As God Believes It Owns Everything The People Earn.”  To wit: we owe the government EVERYTHING.  We are NOTHING without the government; we are ENTIRELY produced and shaped by government and we could do absolutely nothing to better ourselves apart from politicians and bureaucrats.  The only difference between rich, successful people and poor, unsuccessful people is that the former are better at taking advantage of the benefits of government.  And therefore the Government frankly ought to basically own us and it own absolutely everything we produce – such that whatever the Government DOESN’T take in taxes from us is literally considered a COST to Government.   But Government in its deity is gracious and mercifully allows us otherwise pathologically helpless descendents of monkeys to keep some of what we earned entirely because of all the many Government blessings.

Obama’s remark produces this question: is America a people who have a government or is America a government that has a people?  Obama very firmly believes the latter.

Let me first explain why Obama’s words are just incoherent pabulum.  Obama starts yapping about roads and bridges that were built by government.  But there’s an obvious question: where did the government get the funds to build those roads and bridges?  And is it seriously Obama’s assertion that “the Government” climbed aboard the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria and was the very first entity to stride onto the beach of the New World???

What came first, the chicken or the egg?  I don’t know what YOUR answer is, but Obama’s answer is “The Government came first, and that’s all that really matters.”

Obama’s rant depends entirely upon the assumption that government didn’t even exist at all until Karl Marx invented it.  It depends upon the straw man demagoguery that Republicans are nihilistic anarchists who have actually been trying to dissolve all government.  It depends on the narrative that only Democrats and only Obama want to have ANY government at all.  And that is why quite literally every single success of government in history actually becomes the result of Obama’s policies that Republicans want to stop.

It’s an incredibly weak and idiotic point, and so it isn’t that surprising that Obama would reach to some profoundly contradictory examples to try to substantiate it.

Government gave us the internet.  So of course therefore rich people should be taxed at whatever the hell rate Obama says they should.

Well, “government” didn’t create the internet.  In actual point of fact, the Department of Defense created the internet.  This is a significant distinction because while Obama is massively expanding “Government,” he is in fact annihilating the actual department that created the internet:

“The President signed and supported cuts in the defense budget of close to a trillion dollars that his own Secretary of Defense has said—we’re talking about Leon Panetta, here—are devastating to the military and equivalent to shooting ourselves in the head. This was done with no strategic analysis of the needs of national security and no plan for how to implement the cuts. Even now we don’t know the details of how the cuts are going to be implemented. We do know that they’re planning to cut 200,000 troops. Given the state of the economy, it’s equivalent to laying them off and the military is sending them to the unemployment lines.”

Fact: Obama has said that he will veto any attempt to roll back the massive cuts to the military that gave us the internet.

Fact: Somewhere between 1.1 and 1.5 MILLION defense industry jobs are going to be lost if Obama gets his way and the trillion-dollar cuts of sequestration gut the military that gave us the internet.

Fact: the military didn’t build the damn internet “so that all the companies could make money off the Internet,” you damn disgrace to the presidency; the military built the internet to network computers so that the United States could further protect itself against attack and regain a technological edge that had been lost to the Russians.

[Update, July 23: Even I didn’t realize how wrong Obama was.  It turns out it wasn’t even the MILITARY that created the internet; it was private sector innovators who paved the way to the internet].

Obama says, “That’s how we sent a man to the moon.”  That was a good thing, was it?

I’ve written a couple of articles about the utter and complete devastation to NASA that has befallen that agency in “the age of Obama.”

Space Program: Obama’s Strategy To Turn America Into Banana Republic Moving Like Clockwork

When American Greatness Is Gone, And When NASA = ‘National Aeronautics and Sharia Administration’

Lest We Forget: OBAMA Is America’s Sputnik Moment

Right now, as it stands, Obama has OUTSOURCED the government sector that put a man on the moon TO THE DAMN RUSSIANS.  Obama canceled NASA’s space program and now we are paying the Russians something like $63 million per seat to go into space.  And Obama threw the men and women who basically put that man on the moon that he boasted about out of work.

You need to understand, Obama’s never-before-seen expansion of government into Government isn’t going to create the next internet and it won’t put the first man on Mars.  Rather, it will put a man on his couch on permanent welfare for life as long as he votes Democrat and as long as we don’t run out of somebody else’s money.  Obama’s Government is only intended to massively, MASSIVELY, MASSIVELY expand government dependency of a class of redistribution-loving welfare-sucking pigmy people.  Obama’s policy is not the means to the next great thing; it is the END of greatness.

When Obama pitches roads and bridges and the Hoover Damn and the Golden Gate Bridge, you can actually decipher that as code for “Barack Obama is the most recklessly failed leader who ever lived.”  Remember the “storytelling” that Obama relied on to sell his massive $862 billion stimulus that will actually cost the American people $3.27 TRILLION?  “Shovel-ready jobs”???  Remember that???  Obama’s “storytelling” now is just the same damn bogus “storytelling” he has been selling since he passed that turd stimulus: “Let’s Spend Billions to Fix What the Stimulus Was Supposed to Fix.”  So we went from the “story” of “shovel-ready jobs” to the new “storyline” of “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.” to the next “storyline” of “construction workers ready to get dirty right now.”

Let me just round file that “storytelling” into a “How the hell can you be that stupid?” alert.

Obama wants to take credit for public schools, does he?  The public education system has utterly and comprehensively failed American children who are left “waiting for Superman” because government and unions have seized childrens’ futures.  The only reason that public schools continue to exist is because liberals turned the public school system into a monopoly that benefits liberals.  An organization I serve provides monthly support to a Christian private school.  That school is located in a state (California) that is in the bottom ten percentile of schools in the nation for SAT scores.  That school is located in a county (Riverside) that is in the bottom ten percentile of schools in California for SAT scores.  And that Christian school is in the ninetieth percentile in the entire nation for SAT scores.  And politicians and bureaucrats like Barack Obama WILL NOT allow parents to use their tax money to attend such a school; rather they will force most American children to rot in these government schools that are frankly more like prisons today than centers of learning.

Let me simply assure you that Barack Obama is dead frigging WRONG about “without Government there would be no schools!” and present the fact that kids who have escaped Obama’s wildly failed government schools are running circles around the mindless drones that are increasingly being pumped out by union-owned indoctrination factories a.k.a. public schools.

Public schools aren’t a blessing; they are a curse.  Even liberals like Juan Williams have decried the way Democrats have done everything possible to keep disadvantaged children from being able to escape the black hole-orbit of government schools by allowing voucher systems.  Democrats want what their teachers union campaign supporters want: a system whereby unions parasitically exploit the education system to the appalling detriment of children for their cynical political advantage.

Let’s go over the punchline of the sick, twisted, perverted joke Obama is playing on the American people again:

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

I’ve known quite a few people who started their own businesses.  And what I’ve encountered proves that Barack Obama is a liar without shame.  Because the small business owners I have known were people who risked virtually everything they had built in their lives to borrow enough money to start their businesses.  Because the small business owners I have known were people who worked upwards of a hundred hours a week – basically seven days a week – to get their businesses off the ground.  Because the small business owners I have known were self-made men and women who scratched and then carved out a niche for themselves with the government being FAR more of a burden and hindrance than it ever was a blessing to them.

The Washington Times has this to say about Obama’s stunning idiocy:

“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” Mr. Obama continued. “Somebody else made that happen.” This claim would come as a surprise to the small-business owners who have invested their lives and life savings in making a go of it. It would be a shock to inventors and innovators who have been the drivers of America’s technological edge. It does make sense, however, coming from someone who has never had a job that didn’t depend on patronage and has spent his entire career getting ahead on identity and charisma instead of creativity and achievement.

“We succeed because we do things together,” the president chimed. He neglected to mention that lately, too much togetherness has been a source of failure. The type of relationships that help lead to success in life, the personal and professional bonds of trust and fellowship, aren’t what Mr. Obama is selling. He’s trying to pitch the idea that everyone in business should be required to take on government as a partner, with himself as a member of the board. He’s discarding the capitalist notion of free association and replacing it with the socialist idea of forced oversight by the state. The anemic economy, high unemployment and skyrocketing debt that are the products of his policies don’t deter Mr. Obama. He envisions a golden age in the future by repeating the failed policies of the past.

The government Mr. Obama worships isn’t a source of economic growth. It retards innovation, prevents jobs from being created and halts business expansion. Government under current management has become the greatest threat to initiative, creativity and wealth generation in American history. Mr. Obama thinks there is no finer force for good than his administration, but it’s a wrecking ball to prosperity. His Cabinet has the least collective private-sector experience of any Cabinet ever. This is the group that thinks unemployment checks and food stamps create jobs, that the public sector creates prosperity and that raising taxes on the productive to transfer it to the unproductive will create growth. The wonder is not that the economy is doing so poorly, but that it hasn’t collapsed altogether.

Mr. Obama has no business talking about business. He has never created anything substantive and doesn’t understand those who have made it their life’s work. This president only invented the stories and people he made up for his purported autobiography, assuming somebody else didn’t make that happen.

When you consider what small businesses really are and what they have to overcome in order to succeed, you will understand that Obama’s statements are quite simply demonic.

Update, 7/18/12: I’ve already had liberals say that “Obama didn’t say what he very clearly actually said.”  So let’s show an even clearer version of Obama’s gobblygook to see that what Obama is saying has already been spread through every single liberal roach in the nest:

Elizabeth Warren, pseudo-Native American who lied to falsely advance herself:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

That is the SAME argument that Obama was making – and it couldn’t be clearer.  The assertion is that “nobody in this country who got rich on his own.”  Those are the exact words.  And why would Democrats say that?  Because Government built the roads, that’s why.  And therefore the Government is responsible for ALL the wealth that was created.  And therefore those who ONLY succeeded because of Government owe the Government EVERYTHING.  EVERYBODY owes the Government EVERYTHING.  Which is a statement of pure Marxism and which if taken to its logical conclusion justifes the Government in taking over EVERYTHING.

Let me give you a couple of quick examples of where evil ideas like this lead:

1) Liberals say that health care is a universal right that everyone should have and nobody (but rich people) should have to pay for.  Okay.  What about housing?  How is it that health care is a universal right but housing isn’t?  Don’t I have the right to live in a house that somebody else should have to pay for?  What about food?  Why the hell am I forced to pay for my own food when Obama should be giving it to me?  Wht about clothing?  What about transportation?  What about fuel for my transportation?  If health care is a universal right, then ALL of the others and many more things become universal rights.  Becaue there is no way in hell that you can say that everyone has the universal right to health care but nobody ought to have the universal right to housing, to food, to clothing, to transportation, etc. etc. etc.  And the logically necessary conclusion to the first “universal right” is a totalitarian Marxist state in which the State owns you and owns everything around you.

2) A particular example comes from Rahm Emanuel who is taking Obama’s abrogation of illegal immigration to the next logical level.  Obama’s former chief of staff and now Chicago Mayor Emanuel is saying that Obama didn’t go far enough in refusing to enforce federal laws that were passed by Congress and signed into law by a president of the United States.  Emanuel has an out-of-control murder rate that proves that liberalism equals lawlessness.  So he’s in a tight spot and has to get Hispanic voters on his side.  And so now he’s saying he’s more liberal than Obama; Emanuel is a better liberal who can out-liberal the liberal-in-chief.  So Emanuel will go even further in abrogating the law to win his base than Obama went to win his.  And there is simply no end to that.  Until you get to a pure Marxist State for which the Constitution and the constitutional framework of separation of powers is utterly meaningless.

To further attack Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama’s idiotic Marxist rhetoric, both the rich and the poor get to take equal advantage of all the government services.  If you call the cops, does the 911 operator ask you if you are rich and hang up on you if you’re not?  If you pull out of the driveway, does a cop demand your IRS information so that you can show that you are wealthy enough to use the damn road?  It is a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.  And in point of fact the rich paid a much, MUCH bigger share for those roads and those police than the poor ever did.  You are simply a liar if you suggest otherwise.

But some people playing on that level playing field took independent initiative which Marxists around the world hate.  They wanted to better themselves.  And Democrats like Obama and Warren can’t have any of that.  If you take risks, buy a business, work like hell to grow that business, spend all of your energy and time investing yourself and your creativity into that business, well, to quote Obama: “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”  The welfare-sucking Democrat parasite deserves as much of the wealth produced by your business as you do.  Why?  Because the government built the roads and hired the police and so that business owner built nothing and therefore deserves nothing.

And you will necessarily get Marxism unless and until people start saying, “That is a lie from the devil.  We can’t go there.  We WON’T go there.  We will vote out Obama and Warren and absolutely everybody who believes the hell that they believe.”

You need to understand something: liberalism is half-ass Marxism that will be taken to full-fledge Marxism the moment the left truly is able to take power. 

There’s a problem with Marxism that few liberals bother to think about in their Utopian visions of a world in which everyone has a universal right to everything that Government can provide.  Allow me to quote the question and the Marxist answer that was developed out of necessity because their original premises were so wildly wrong and evil:

Why work?
 
In a challenging paper, Shapiro and Stiglitz (1984) argued that – despite imperfect monitoring – work incentives are preserved in Western economies because those caught shirking face the threat of unemployment and loss of income. The ‘No Shirking Condition’ they derive for wages constitutes the effective labour supply curve for the economy – with labour demand given by its marginal productivity. We apply the same broad logic to the Soviet system in CEPR DP 6621 – but with two significant alterations. First, in deriving the No Shirking Condition for labour supply, custodial sentences replace spells of unemployment-on-benefit as the ‘worker-discipline device’, so the supply price of labour falls not with the numbers of unemployed but with the population of the Gulag. Second, wages are set below the marginal productivity of labour as the dictator exercises monopsony power in the labour market to maximise investible funds.

… The state commands a goodly share of national resources, but wages are pushed down to ‘efficiency’ levels – just high enough to prevent shirking. No-one is unemployed, but many are in labour camps.
 
Ironically, the outcome for labour is as if it faced a greedy capitalist who wanted to maximise profits and had the market power to do so. More than that, the state employer can also manipulate the living and working conditions for those not in civilian employment to further its own ends. To increase investment, for example, prison conditions can be made harsher – so as to lower the supply price of civilian labour and reduce consumption. Where this may lead is what Solzhenitsyn (1963) describes – from first-hand experience – in One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

You need to understand that everything Obama stands for is a system in which the rich are discouraged from working harder because they are not allowed – and do not deserve – to keep the fruits of what they risked more and worked harder to earn. 

So why work harder at all?  Why even work?  After all, if business owners didn’t build their businesses, who can truly be said to build anything?  Why bother to work to build anything at all?

The penultimate result of that kind of thinking is the Marxist solution.  You will work harder not because we will reward you for working harder – that contradicts our liberal philosophy that some deserve more than others.  No, you will work harder because the State requires that you work harder and you will work harder because otherwise we will put you in a gulag and MAKE you work harder.

That is the logical outcome of where Obama is heading.  History has already proven that time and again.

Let’s see what small business owner Jack Gilchrist says about Obama’s telling him he and his family didn’t build their business:

More Hitler Youth-Stuff In Our Public Schools: Students Got Extra Credit For ‘Volunteering’ For Obama’s Campaign

I keep calling Democrats fascists (and see this article that contains a list of fascist Obama policies).  And that is because they just won’t stop acting like FASCISTS.

I’ve written about this government school indoctrination a number of times before.  But it just doesn’t stop with these roaches.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Nevada students received extra credit for volunteering for the Obama campaign; Update: Students received class credit

Update (2/22/12): I called Loretta Harper to ask her about the program, and she said the students aren’t getting extra credit, but class credit. More at the bottom of the post.

We’ve had public schools teaching kids to literally sing President Obama’s praises, so why not take a more direct route and put those kids to work?

Loretta Harper of Las Vegas is a newly named national co-chair of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. …

Harper, 58, is a counselor at Desert Pines High School. She’s also a member of the Board of Directors of the Nevada State Educators Association.

During the 2008 Obama campaign, when he won Nevada on his way to the presidency, Harper said she got more than 100 students extra credit when they volunteered to help elect the Democrat. (Emphasis added.)No word on if Harper, who makes $74,000 a year plus benefits, plans to expand outreach “efforts” like this nationwide now that she’s a co-chair of Obama’s re-election campaign, but if you’ve got “free labor” available, why not take advantage?

Never mind that Nevada’s high school graduation rate currently sits under 45 percent, liberals have a president to elect. We all have to get our priorities straight now, people.

In case you were wondering how Nevada can nearly triple inflation-adjusted, per-pupil education spending in the last 50 years and get stagnant results, tidbits like this provide part of the answer.

Update (2/21/2012): Shortly after I published this post, I called Loretta Harper to ask her for more details about this. Her is what she had to say:

First, she said the kids weren’t receiving extra credit as the RJ reported, they were receiving actual class credit. Students need 7.5 “extra curricular” credits to graduate and volunteering 60 hours gets them .5 credits. (There are other ways to get these credits too.)

Second, when I asked her if students approached her about volunteering for Obama or if she suggested it, her reply was “both ways.” (Emphasis added.) So, yes, she did use her position as a school counselor to steer students into volunteering for Obama’s campaign. If this was a private school, this wouldn’t be an issue, but she works for a public school.

Third, I asked her if the same thing would hold for a student wanting to volunteer for a Republican presidential candidate, and she said it would, but no students have asked her about that.

And yes, she is planning on having students volunteer for Obama to receive class credit again this year.

Obama is like Freddie Krueger; he keeps targeting our children.

Even more frighteningly, Obama is also like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, who pulled this crap too.

In God Damn America Children MUST Learn The Propaganda Of The Radical Homosexual ‘Lifestyle’

“There are those who believe that a new modernity demands a new morality. What they fail to consider is the harsh reality that there is no new morality. There is only one morality…all else is immorality. There is only true Christian ethics over against which stand the whole of paganism” — President Theodore Roosevelt, in one of the many views of Teddy that Barack Obama somehow DIDN’T channel.

A few things about God damn America:

In God damn America your Bible gets banned.

In God damn America the radical homosexual agenda is imposed on the military – even a military in the middle of fighting two wars – with any dissent ruthlessly persecuted and purged.  Even though that imposition of said homosexual agenda results in crap like this.

And in God damn America you are forced to indoctrinate your kids whether you like it or not.  Because screw you, screw America and its history and traditions, screw Christianity and for that matter the Judeo-Christianity upon which our very civilization as well as our nation was based upon.

The radical homosexual agenda has “complicated” life beyond the ability of the wisest grown-ups to fathom, such as the case of the two lesbians arguing over custody of a child.  One donated the egg (fertilized via a donor, of course), one carried the baby.  Both are claiming custody as “the mother.”  Which ONE is the mother?

There’s a riddle your child will wrestle with rather than learning that useless reading, writing and arithmetic.

And of course God forbid that your kid learn history, or else he or she would learn that this crap was never tolerated in our history or any other nation’s history until the most vile generation ever to inhabit the earth arrived on the scene.

But here we are, because this is God damn America.

So let’s put on our learning caps and teach kids all about perverting sexuality.  C’mon!  It’s gay!  And “gay” means “happy” boys and girls!!!

And the indoctrination of “happiness” begins in the People’s Republic of California:

California Public School Kids Now Required to Study Contributions of LGBT Americans
By Philip Shepherd
January 4, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – On Jan. 1, the California Department of Education started implementing a new law that requires all children in the state’s public schools to study the “role and contributions” of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans” to the “development of California and the United States of America.”
 
This law, according to the pro-family group SaveCalifornia.com, will require the schools to promote “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans as role models” and mandate that “children as young as kindergarten must be taught to admire persons who engage in homosexuality.”
 
The bill, SB 48, amends Education Code Section 51204.5, which already included the study of men and women of various ethnic groups. A summary of the law states, “The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act amends the education code to require schools to integrate factual information about social movements, current events and history of people with disabilities and LGBT people into existing social studies lessons. It also prevents the State Board of Education from adopting instructional materials that discriminate.”
 
The California Department of Education Web site states, “Instruction in history-social science should include the contributions of those groups listed above in Education Code Section 51204.5, but it is up to local districts to determine how the instructional content is included.”

The site says the new law “applies to the course of study in grades one through twelve, but again it falls to the teacher and the local school and district administration to determine how the content is covered and at which grade level(s).”
 
In a statement published on the site, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson said, “I applaud Governor [Jerry] Brown’s decision to sign SB 48 into law, and I congratulate Senator Leno for authoring this important legislation. Our history is more complete when we recognize the contributions of people from all backgrounds and walks of life.”
 
To meet the new social content requirements, districts may adopt content-reviewed supplemental materials in lieu of new text books, the site says, adding, “After districts have certified that each pupil has been provided with adopted, standards-aligned basic instructional materials, the district may use general funds to purchase supplementary materials that have passed the State’s social content review.”

SaveCalifornia.com, a nonprofit organization that “stands for moral virtues and against the liberal takeover,” issued a statement on its Web site addressing some of the changes resulting from SB 48.
 
“Textbooks and instructional materials must positively promote lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans as role models,” said the statement.
 
It also notes that “children as young as kindergarten must be taught to admire persons who engage in homosexuality, same-sex marriages, bisexuality, and transsexuality (cross-dressing and sex-change operations).”
 
Further, the organization says that parents of California schoolchildren will not be notified and will not be able to exempt their children from the new social content materials.
 
“It’s decision time for California parents,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com.  “Children will be taught to see homosexuality, bisexuality, cross-dressing, sex-change operations, and homosexual marriages as good and natural and perhaps even for them.”
 
SB 48 does not require teachers to instruct children of the health risks associated with homosexual activity.
 
“SB 48 absolutely prohibits the government schools from teaching the facts that homosexuality is inherently unnatural and unhealthy with the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases and the highest mode of transmission for HIV/AIDS,”  said Thomasson.

“The truth is prohibited; the facts are prevented,” he says.  “It’s ironic and sad that children in California government schools will be taught that cigarettes are negative, driving drunk is negative, drug use is negative, but they won’t be taught homosexuality is unhealthy.”
 
In Thomasson’s opinion, the government-run schools are beyond reform.  “The only clear solution is to rescue your children from the immoral, imploding, dysfunctional state school establishment,” he said.
 
The California Department of Education Web site explains how districts should address questions and concerns about the legislation stating, “As with any other district policy, school districts should be open and transparent in determining policies with regard to the implementation of this and any legislation.”
 
The site quotes an Education Code section: “Each district board shall provide for substantial teacher involvement in the selection of instructional materials and shall promote the involvement of parents and other members of the community in the selection of instructional materials.”
 
SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that  represents children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

“Tolerance” is an amazing thing.  In the name of “tolerance,” we can eradicate and purge the values of Christianity and all of Western Civilization and ruthlessly impose a radical agenda by force.

“Tolerant” people crush those with whom they disagree.  In the name of open-mindedness, of course.

One group of radical people are now smarter than all of those around them and smarter than every human being (especially that idiot Jesus of Nazareth) who ever lived before them in the entire history of the world.

And, of course, now the goal is to redefine human history to comport with those radical set of depraved values.

And of course to indoctrinate your children such that they are more willing to embrace – and hopefully even partake of – those values.

Ah, these pesky homosexual relationships that gays want to normalize.

Only, they aren’t anything even CLOSE to “normal.”

Take domestic violence:

The American Journal of Public Health has published a detailed study of battering victimization in the male homosexual community (December 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12). The probability-based sampling of “men who have sex with men” (MSM) focused on four geographical areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York) and resulted in 2,881 completed telephone interviews.

Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is “substantially higher than among heterosexual men” and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.) […]

The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships “is a very serious public health problem.”

That’s not normal. That’s a 406.5% increase in violence.

Maybe you’d rather consider married women, versus lesbian women in domestic partnerships:

• The Journal of Social Service Research reported in 1991 that survey of 1,099 lesbians showed that slightly more than 50 percent of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner, “the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.” ^[14]

• A study of lesbian couples reported (2000) in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention “indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time.”^[15]

• A study that compared domestic violence between lesbian couples and married women is even more pronounced in respect to the above statistics that suggest that homosexual couples are more violent than heterosexual couples.

And what you actually find is that these statistics – as terrible as they are – are actually dramatically UNDERREPORTED:

“But the issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently…” (New York Times, November 6, 2000)

“Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community…” (Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403)

Why would any morally intelligent person want this?

When you compare drug use, suicides, rape, promiscuity/infidelity, psychiatric problems, child molestation, and sexually transmitted disease, the rates between heterosexuals in marriages and homosexuals in committed relationships are likewise so through the roof that it’s positively unreal.

And you can add treason to that list as well, given Bradley Manning and his Wikileak hissy fit because his gay lover broke up with him.

We’re not talking about normal, healthy people in normal, healthy relationships that should be encouraged in society. We’re talking about broken, fractured people in broken, fractured relationships that are a lot more like cancer and a lot less like healthy.

But in order to be “tolerant,” I have to drill a giant hole in my head, scoop out all my brains, slam then on the floor, and then repeatedly stomp on them until I am morally stupid enough to become a liberal.

I have to accept whatever lame answer I’m spoon-fed regarding the massive issue with homosexuality in our prison system. You know, all those rapes that occur because “sociopathic criminal” and “homosexual” are synonyms?  Mind you, we’re assured that if we were thrown in jail for a weekend, we’d surely all turn gay for the duration of our sentences.  Baloney. These violent felons are homosexuals with massive identity issues.  They’re in prison for the same reason they’re homosexual – they’re deviants.  I’m forced to accept whatever answer I’m handed regarding the massive problem with homosexual Catholic priests and the fact that most of the sexual abuse occurred between priests and teenage boys. 80% of priests who sexually abuse do so with adolescent boys rather than prepubescent minors. The “Pedophile Priests” are mainly homosexuals, and not so-called “pedophiles.” And the cancer they have inflicted upon the once-respected Catholic Church, and upon the larger society, cannot be underestimated.

And of course there’s pedophilia itself.  Fully 60% of the children who are sexually molested are male.  And of course they’re molesters are male, too.  But it’s not “homosexual,” you see, because there are actually three sexual genders: there are males, there are females, and there is another sexual gender called “child.”  Children don’t have penises or vaginas because that would make them “male” or “female” and we just can’t have that kind of thing complicating our politically correct theory.  Otherwise, you would have to recognize that one or two percent of the population was responsible for 60% of the child molestations.  You know, when they’re not sodomizing each other in prison for having committed some monstrous act or other.

The North American Man-Boy Love Association was for quite a few years under the homosexual banner of the LGBT movement. Hell, NAMBLA was even recognized by the United Nations.  You know, until people started asking “What the hell…?” and the whole trying to encourage more sex between men and boys thing became a political liability.  David Thorstad of NAMBLA pointed out, “Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilization-and not only in the West! Pederasty is inseparable from the high points of Western culture-ancient Greece and the Renaissance.”

Mind you, they weren’t exactly the “high points” of civilization.  Unless of course you think powerful elite men using children as sexual objects is a “high point.”  And mind you, NO civilization ever allowed anything so harmful to society and family as homosexual marriage, but other than that, yep, Thorstad is right: you can’t separate pedophilia from homosexuality; one is very much part of the other.

Homosexuality is a medically filthy lifestyle: but hey, let’s try to get kids to fist one another’s anuses, or of course stick something even worse in there.  And if homosexuals have so many times the sexually transmitted disease rates of their “straight” peers that it’s beyond crazy, so what?  Who gives a damn if your child has fifty weird diseases?  Who are YOU to judge?

Don’t teach your kid to open his mind; teach him to open his anus.  That’s what public school is for, you know.

Homosexuality is a morally filthy lifestyle: but hey, I always hoped my son would grow up to bend over and accept sodomy in prison.  I mean, what daddy DIDN’T want that for his boy?  What mother didn’t want her son to have hundreds of anonymous sexual partners?  And you’d BETTER want these things or else you’re “intolerant” and you need to be “re-educated.”

Because we do that stuff now, you know.

And homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle: but as long as my kid is “gay” I mean happy, so what if he dies by the age of forty?

It’s all win-win around here.

I won’t call homosexuals “gay” because “gay” used to have a positive reference.  These people aren’t “gay” in the historic sense; for the most part, they are rather SAD, deeply depressed people.

Treating this “lifestyle” as something that ought to be encouraged and celebrated by our children is one of the powerful signs that America is truly in her last days.  It is no coincidence at all that the “I want what I want NOW and I have a RIGHT to have it!” culture from which rampant homosexuality has sprung is the same culture that is so many hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt that it is quite literally beyond insane.  It is all part of the same warped and perverted mindset.

God damn America is about to go down very, very hard.

I agree that the LGBT lifestyle should be taught in schools: it should be taught that such a lifestyle will almost invariably lead to a miserable and shortened life. And from there move on FOR GOD’S SAKE PLEASE TEACH OUR KIDS TO READ AND WRITE AND DO MATH!!!

Public Schools Caught Indoctrinating Children Over And Over Again

Earlier this month I wrote an article about ObamaDay at the public schools, in which Barack Obama gave a speech and the Department of Education provided an ideological lesson plan to give to teachers courtesy of the Obama White House.  Shortly after I wrote another one to shout back at the left who thought conservatives had gone way over the top by pointing out that Democrats had literally tried to criminalize a similar speech George H.W. Bush gave.

I tell you what.  I was utterly wrong.

I didn’t know the TENTH of how blatantly evil the left was when it came to deliberately indoctrinating public school children.

Let’s begin with the most vile piece of indoctrination and “Dear Leader-worship” that this country has probably ever seen from B.Bernice Elementary school in Burlington Township, New Jersey:

This is some of what children are being told to sing in public schools.

Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

I mean, as a child I was taught to sing, “red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight.”  We were singing about Jesus, the Messiah.  The Son of God.  Now children who could NEVER be taught to sing “Jesus Loves the Little Children” are being brainwashed to sing praise hymns to Barack Obama.

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”

Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country’s economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue —- Mr. President we know you’ll do the trick
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray —-

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

This song was sung to the melody of “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”  Same song, just with the words changed.  These were the old words (the rest of the song is here), before Obama’s people blasphemed it:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;

He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:

His truth is marching on.

(Chorus)

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

His truth is marching on.

These songs were sung by the children in “honor” of black history month.  Government union teachers today are more than capable of using ANYTHING to indoctrinate their students into radical leftist politics and flat-out Obama worship.

Another effort by the radical leftwing and George Soros-supported Tides Foundation has received wide viewing from children in public schools.  It is blatant ideological leftism.  Capitalism=bad and socialism=good.

A few words on that:

There is a video called the Story of Stuf, that is being showed in schools across the country.You can watch it here.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8&feature=player_embedded.  The problem with this video, is that it was paid for by the George Soros funded Tides Foundation and the Host Annie Leonard is a former Green Peace employee and has worked on several environmental issues.  The problem with the video is that it is filled with lies and misrepresentations of the facts.

Here is a four part video that debunks the Story of Stuff, and many of its outrageous claims. SOS Critique 1, SOS Critique 2, SOS Critique 3, SOS Critique 4.  Please watch all 4.

There was another video project called “I pledge” that sought to link “positive change” with the person of Barack Obama shown in public schools.

During the campaign public school teachers were certainly out to brainwash kids under their care.

It’s not just pro-left and pro-Obama indoctrination.  Children are being taught to hate conservatives and Republicans.

And we have kids reminding us that Hitler’s Brownshirts are never far away:

This isn’t just frightening.  It is a moral outrage.

Anyone on the left who wants to try to sell the message that our schools aren’t bastions of liberal political activism are just wrong.  Not to mention evil.

Demonization And Other Examples Of Liberal Hypocrisy

I recall a bit from a Seinfeld episode that involved a bedroom technique known only as “the move.” It was apparently a very potent and successful “move,” indeed:

Elaine: I was with David *Putty* last night.

Jerry: Yeah, so.

Elaine: He did the move.

Jerry: What move?

Elaine: You know…*the* move.

Jerry: Wait a second. *My* move?

[Elaine nods].

Jerry: David Putty used *my* move?

Elaine: Yes, yes.

Jerry: Are you sure?

Elaine: Jerry! There is no confusing *that* move with any other move.

Jerry: I can’t believe it. He *stole* my move.

Elaine: What else did you tell [reaches over to slap Jerry] him. [does it

again] The two of you must have had *quite* a little chat!

Jerry: Oh, it wasn’t like that! I didn’t even mention you. You know, we

were in the garage. You know how garages are. They’re conducive to sex

talk. It’s a high-testosterone area.

Elaine: Because of all the pistons and the lube jobs?

Jerry: Well, I’m going down to that garage and telling him to stop doing it.

Elaine: Well, wait—wait a second.

Jerry: What?

Elaine: Isn’t that a little…rash?

Jerry: No! He stole my move!

Elaine: Yeah, but…*I* like the move.

Jerry: Yeah, but it’s like another comedian stealing my material.

Elaine: Well, he doesn’t even do it exactly the same. He–he–he uses a

pinch at the end instead of the *swirl*!

Jerry: Oh, yeah. The pinch. *I’ve* done the pinch. That’s not new.

Well, with that that long bit of introduction, the Democrats have their very own “move,” – an extremely potent and successful “move” – and they are clearly angry that Republicans are beginning to steal their move.

The Democrat’s “move” – by the way – is demonization.  It’s their move, they’ve used it to great effect for the last twenty years or so, and they don’t want their rivals using it.

Here’s a little story to illustrate the Democrat’s and their “move”:

It Takes One to Know One
“Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, one of the most prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals in the United States, announced yesterday that she would refuse a prestigious award from the University of Notre Dame rather than appear on the same platform on which President Obama is being awarded an honorary degree,” the Boston Globe reports.

The Globe notes that not all Catholics are unhappy with Notre Dame’s plan to give the president an honorary degree:

“There are some well-meaning people who think Notre Dame has given away its Catholic identity, because they have been caught up in the gamesmanship of American higher education, bringing in a star commencement speaker even if that means sacrificing their values, and that accounts for some of this,” said the Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of theology department at Boston College. “But one also has to say that there is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison. Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation.”

Now read this 2006 Associated Press dispatch:

Nearly 100 faculty members at Boston College have signed a letter objecting to the college’s decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree.

The letter entitled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” was written by the Rev. Kenneth Himes. . . .

“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work,” the letter said.

Himes, it seems, is an expert on demonization.

Kenneth Himes lectures us: How DARE you do what I did to you!  There must be something morally WRONG with you!!!  Demonization is “OUR” move, and you can’t steal it!

Well, as Obama folk like to say, “YES, WE CAN!”

Being a liberal means being a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy defines liberals; their shriveled little souls swim in it.  And part of being a total hypocrite means having the pathological ability to be perfectly at home with their own massive contradictions.

For instance, liberals are “tolerant,” which means they lash out and demonize anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them – in the name of “tolerance.”

A few other examples of liberal hypocrisy:

Liberals support high taxes on the rich.  As long as it is understood that they have no expectation to pay such taxes themselves.  Ask pretty much anyone on Barack Obama’s cabinet.  Liberals like “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Nancy Kelleher, and Kathleen Sebelius.  And that doesn’t include Congressional Democrats such as Charles Rangel – who is writing YOUR tax laws even as he cheats on HIS taxes.  And don’t forget the mantra from Rangel’s former fellow member of the House Ways and Means Committee William Jefferson: “FBI sting money hidden in freezers is NOT taxable.”

Liberals claim that it is the rich’s “patriotic duty” to pay a shockingly high percentage of total income taxes while simultaneously pandering to the clearly unpatriotic – by their own standard – 42% of Americans who pay NO federal income taxes at all.

Liberals claim that they are generous and conservatives are stingy; yet the facts demand the exact OPPOSITE conclusion.  The fact of the matter is that conservatives are FAR more “liberal” givers than liberals.  Conservatives give 30% more than liberals even though liberals earn slightly more.  And religious conservatives give THREE AND A HALF TIMES more of their income to charities than secular liberals.  If you’d like some particular cases, consider the loathsome lack of personal generosity displayed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden relative to the extremely generous conservatives like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and John McCain.

Liberals love racial diversity – as long as they can continue demonizing black conservatives such as Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimahs” or “race traitors.”  Janeane Garafalo is completely free to be a hard-core racist, just as long as the minorities she viciously attacks are conservatives.  Newsweek Magazine –  in wholehearted agreement with Garafalo – literally argued that whites who don’t vote for Obama are racist.

In the same vein, liberals are pro-woman – just as long as “women” are defined as “liberal feminist”; otherwise, they hand out the Sarah Palin treatment (e.g., “Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman”).  Ultimately, of course, Sarah Palin is a “bad mother” for allowing her baby born with Down Syndrome to live.

Liberals stand for the helpless and oppressed victim: as long as that helpless and oppressed victim isn’t a baby having his brains sucked out.  Meanwhile liberals attack conservatives as not caring about the poor, even though – as has already been pointed out – conservatives are in fact FAR more generous than liberals (example 1, example 2).

Liberals continually decry the “rightwing smear machine” even as they have hard-core hate sites such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos – which DWARF anything even remotely compatible on the right.   The primary funding comes from documented Nazi collaborator George Soros, an American-sovereignty-undermining trans-nationalist who has made his billions undermining currencies all over the world – including America’s.  And his friends have been just as bad.  And Soros and friends such as Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler have used their massive fortunes to ensure that NOBODY smears like the left: think “General Betray Us.”

Liberals “interpret” the Constitution to find “penumbras and emanations” that they allege mandate a constitutional and sacred right to abortion on demand, but twist and contort the English language until the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give the people the right to bear arms.

Liberals demand socialized medicine.  Michael Moore made a ton of money demonizing America’s privatized system and claiming that Cuba’s socialized medicine was better; yet when that fat SOB needed heart surgery, he elected to go to Cleveland rather than Cuba.  Even more glaring, Belinda Stronach of the Canadian Parliament opposed even allowing private medicine in Canada; but when she was diagnosed with breast cancer she came to the United States to obtain the very thing she denied her fellow citizens from having.

As to the death penalty for convicted murderers, liberals argue that inserting a hypodermic needle into the vein of a death row inmate constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, yet insist that sucking the  brains out of a viable baby whose head is sticking out of a birth canal is compassionate.

They also say that a 13 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without her parents’ consent, then tell parents that they face jail if they don’t ensure that that same 13 year old girl doesn’t miss school (with attendance being the barometer for public school funding).

Liberals demand that they be able to teach issues such as homosexuality in the guise of open-mindedness and diversity, but come absolutely unglued if any school board so much as suggest that evolution is only a theory rather than a law, let alone present any alternative to evolution whatsoever.

On the subject of evolution as it relates to morality, liberals denounce any dependence on the natural law (grounded in a transcendent Creator God) as the only basis for objective morality, and then impose one utterly subjective moral norm after another.  In so doing, they literally subjective natural law and objectivize their own highly subjective moral preferences.

Liberals demand that all children go to government schools and fight any effort to provide vouchers to parents, and then send their own children to private schools.  For all of liberals’ indignant outrage concerning “the children,” the fact is that the teachers’ unions are far more important than the education of children.   Barack Obama ensured that children like Marquis Greene couldn’t go to his daughters’ Sidwell Friends School.

Liberals take private jets to denounce people for being polluters.

Liberals claim that whether the Antarctic ice sheet grows or whether it shrinks, it still proves global warming.

Liberals lampooned President Bush for his verbal gaffes, and yet idolize the “sublime speaking ability” of a man who can’t so much as say, “Good morning” without reading from a teleprompter screen.  Barack Obama has already used his teleprompter FAR more in just his first 100 days than George Bush did in his entire 8 year term.

Liberals repeatedly (falsely) claimed that Jefferson said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when conservatives attacked their lack of patriotism.  They were terribly upset with any insinuation that they might be unpatriotic – because when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq (QUOTE: “I believe that this war is lost” UNQUOTE) even as our troops were in the field fighting to prevail, he was surrendering as a “patriot.”  And when John Murtha proclaimed Marines who turned out to be innocent of murderous war crimes in Haditha, his demonization of our Marines was “patriotic.” Now, of course, Democrats are all over themselves labeling Republican opposition to their socialist agenda as “unpatriotic.”

As for liberals’ view on patriotism, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words – when that picture is a cartoon drawn by Ted Rall:

Let’s see: racial hatred directed at white males.  Check.  Cynicism of the patriotism that would make a young man fight for his country.  Check.  Mockery of religion.  Check.  Contempt for America as a country of suicide bombers.  Check.

Or another liberal cartoon.  America as viewed through the warped lenses of the liberal New York Times: the Statue of Liberty swinging a whip at the poor, tired, huddled masses.

As liberals now demand that conservatives stop using “their move,” realize that they will NEVER stop using it themselves.  It is simply who they are.  So we might as well sick their own dog on them – and let us make sure that dog is foaming at the mouth when it bites them back.

Coca Cola, Typical Pluralistic (Except for Christianity) Company

Bob McCarty came across this:

The crescent moon and star — yes, the same symbol featured on the flags of so many Muslim countries — is an internationally-recognized symbol of the Islamic faith in much the same way as the cross represents Christianity and the star of David Judaism. When I learned the symbol of the Islamic faith will appear on Coca-Cola packaging during Ramadan 2008, I found myself wondering whether or not the Atlanta-based soft drink maker will soon include the Christian cross and Jewish star of David in future holiday packaging designs targeting people of those faiths.

Here’s what the new cans look like:

Coca Cola – ever the profit-seeking enterprise – puts cute polar bears on their cans to “celebrate” Christmas. Jews don’t even receive the token snub that Christians get for their Hannukah.

In the name of pluralism and multiculturalism we are downright hostile to our own religious traditions even as we eagerly celebrate others.

Coca Cola and companies that now shun “Merry Christmas” greetings in favor of the neutral “Happy Holidays” pursued this reverse discrimination tactic only after years of lawsuits and judicial-activist government rulings.

World Net daily had an article titled “‘Five pillars of Islam’ taught in public school” that begins:

Another school has been “teaching” Islam by having students study and learn Muslim prayers and dress as Muslims, and a lawyer who argued a previous dispute over this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court said such methodologies wouldn’t “last 10 seconds” if it were Christianity being taught.

Educational Issues has an article titled, “Muslim Prayer in Public Schools: Are Public Schools Accommodating Islam Over Christianity?” And the answer is clearly, “YES.”

The ACLU, so vigilant of any “intrusion” of Christianity into public life, make it a point to look the other way when Islam is thrust upon us even when public funding is used to do the thrusting.

It is frankly amazing how liberals and secular humanists are so unrelentingly hostile toward Christianity in the name of “multiculturalism” and “separation of church and state” even as they embrace religions such as Islam in the name of the very same things!

As government creates a “gulag-like” mentality about expressing Christianity in public, corporations like Coca Cola follow the trend and go where the most money – and the least controversy – is.

And we continue to surrender everything that made this nation – and the Christian religious tradition that both formed and informed it – great.

Bill Maher vs. Pope Benedict: and the Winner is…

The too-often unfunny comedian Bill Maher’s comments about the pope deserve all the outrage and contempt that the self-righteous media could possibly dump on the man.  But it is very unlikly that he will receive more than the most mild criticism.

You think of Don Imus getting dumped over his “nappy headed hoes” comment; you think of the media universe literally coming unglued over Senator George Allen’s use of a single word – “macaca” which I still have never actually heard defined.  (Media narrative: “We don’t know what it means, but it just sounds racist to us, coming as it did from a Republican and all.”).  Actor Isaiah Washington was fired from his role on Grey’s Anatomy over an anti-gay slur.  But when Bill Maher viciously rips the pope and a billion-plus Catholics again and again, the media doesn’t seem to see any problems.  It’s a matter of one of their own targeting one of their targets.

Christians – and Catholics, especially – are fair game.  I guess when every other group has special protections, somebody has to remain on the “fair game” list.  Every propaganda machine needs a villian, after all. 

I’d like to say a few things about Bill Maher.  But first let’s let the man speak for himself:

According to Newsmax:

“The comments were made on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday, Apr. 11. Maher went into a long monologue on his program comparing the Catholic church to a polygamous cult — the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints — which was raided on Apr. 3 and whose founder, Warren Jeffs, was convicted last year for being an accessory to the rape of a teenage girl. Bill Maher compared the Texas scandal and its latest alleged abuse with the sexual abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church in the United States in 2002. http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Pope_bill_maher_/2008/04/15/88028.html

These are a few of Maher’s remarks:

“I’d like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult,” Maher told his audience. “Its leader also has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he used to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats. That’s right, the Pope is coming to America this week and, ladies, he’s single.”

And again:

“If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you ‘Pope.’ It’s like, if you can’t pay your mortgage, you’re a deadbeat. But if you can’t pay a million mortgages, you’re Bear Stearns and we bail you out. And that is who the Catholic Church is: the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia — too big, too fat.”

First of all the man is a documented liar.  Pope Benedict XVI – like ALL German youth of the time – was conscripted against his will into a German youth organization, from which he fled as soon as he could.  He was not a Nazi.  He was never a Nazi.  If anyone is a Nazi, it is Bill Maher for using Joseph Goebbels-like propaganda tactics to maliciously brand an innocent man with the most despicable charge.

Bill Maher clearly doesn’t mind telling vicious, hateful lies.  So it isn’t surprising that he would also talk about the Catholic Church in this manner.  I did a little reading on the subject, and discovered that one of the most reliable sources available – the February 2004 research study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice – found that 81% of the so-called abuse cases involved teen-age boys and up.  Stephen Rubino, a lawyer who has represented over 300 alleged victims of priest abuse, estimated 85 percent of the victims have been teen-age boys. And Catholic psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, who has treated many victims and offending priests, agrees with that figure, noting that 90 percent of his patients are either abused teen-age males or their priest abusers.  These were cases of evil abuse against young men who were taken advantage of by certain priests in the worst way, but they were NOT cases of “child molestation” and/or pedophilia.  Rather, these cases were the result of a massive homosexual sub-culture within the Catholic Church taking advantage of their positions and the unequal-power-relationships they initiated to have homosexual intercourse with teens and young men.

It turns out that genuine cases of pedophila are MUCH more likely to occur in the public schools than in the Catholic Church.  And that the culture of cover-ups, transfers, and

other protective schemes to conceal abusive teachers are likewise FAR more likely to occur in the public school system than in the Catholic Church – especially today.  Public school abuses – including both the cases of sexual abuse by teachers and the covering up of such abuses by the administrators and unions – ought to be far more shocking and disturbing, because parents are forced to send their children to public schools whereas they are not so required to send their children to priests.  Why doesn’t Bill Maher charicterize public school teachers as pedophiles?  If you hate religion, don’t let facts get in the way of a good propaganda campaign.  The Catholic League has documented the points I made at:  http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

Second, Bill Maher is a bigot.

That’s what he’d call him if he singled out ANY other group of people for such hateful remarks.  If I go on a comedic rant about blacks, or Muslims, or gays, or most anyone else, and I’m sure going to hear that label applied to me.  And from no less a personage than Bill Maher, to boot.

As a counterexample to Maher, I, along with the overwhelming majority of genuine Christians, would never use rhetoric like Maher’s to describe or ridicule homosexuals in spite of our beliefs about the nature of their lifestyles.  We recognize that they are human beings who deserve compassion.  So are the one billion Catholics that Maher calls deranged cultists.

Third, Bill Maher is a coward.

I’m sure in his little “yuk-it-up” elitist social gatherings, Maher is routinely praised for his “courage” in “taking on” the Catholic Church, Christianity, and organized religion.  But this atheist wouldn’t dare attack and insult and lie about Islam the way he so cavalierly does about Catholicism and Christianity.  why not?  Because they will go after him and kill him, that’s why.  And he won’t go after Jews or Judaism (or rabbis, who have about the same rate of sex-abuse as Catholic priests, by the way) the way he goes after Catholics and Christians, because that really would be “politically incorrect” (the title of his former show), and organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League would rightly make him pay.

Fourth, Bill Mayer is a bully.

Instead of taking on people and organizations that would go after him or undermine his popularity, Maher takes advantage of the fact that Christians believe in turning the other cheek.  He takes advantage of their goodness, graciousness, and self-restraint to attack them and hurt them.  He takes advantage of the fact that his core audience – which is as vile, as bitter, and as mean as he is – are the type of people who wouldn’t at all mind seeing Christians killed by the tens of thousands in the Coliseum just as they were in the Roman days.  He’s no different than the ringleader of a group of thugs in a school yard who single out a particular kid for torment.

Fifth, Bill Maher is a hypocrite.

I mentioned that the overwhelming majority of Catholic priests’ sexual abuse cases were homosexual in nature rather than cases of pedophilia.  Let me take a moment to document the homosexual subculture within the Catholic Church before I relate this to Bill Maher. I quote one paragraph from the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm).  I am including the footnotes in order to better document the following statements, and maintain the numbering of the footnotes as they are found in the article:

* Father Donald Cozzens wrote that several studies have concluded that about 50% of priests and seminarians are gay. 5
* David France of Newsweek, referring to St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, CA, wrote:
“Depending on whom you ask, gay and bisexual men make up anywhere from 30 percent to 70 percent of the student body at the college and graduate levels.” 3
* Rt. Rev. Helmut Hefner, rector of St. Johns Seminary “accepts that his gay enrollment may be as high as 50 percent.” 3
* Gay journalist Rex Wockner commented: “When I was in the Catholic seminary in my early 20s (St. Meinrad College, St. Meinrad, Ind., 1982-1983; University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, Ill., 1983-1984), at least 50 percent of the students were gay….At St. Mary of the Lake, the straight students felt like a minority and felt excluded from some aspects of campus life to such an extent that the administration staged a seminar at which we discussed the problem of the straight students feeling left out of things…” 6
* Author and sociologist James G. Wolfe estimated that 55.1% of seminarians were gay. 7

3   David France, “Gays and the Seminary,” MSNBC, 2002-MAY-20, at: http://www.msnbc.com/
5   “Vatican threatens gay purge of priesthood,” The Data Lounge, 2002-MAR-6, at: http://www.datalounge.com/
6   Rex Wockner, “The end of Catholicism in America,” PlanetOut, at: http://www.planetout.com/
7   James G. Wolf, “Gay Priests,” Harper and Row, 1989, Pages 59-60. Cited in Father Donald Cozzens, “The Changing Face of the Priesthood: A reflection on the priest’s crisis of soul,” Liturgical Press, (2000), Page 99.

One of many supporting articles would be http://www.actupny.org/YELL/catholicpriests.html which begins, “Roman Catholic priests in the United States are dying from AIDS-related illnesses at a rate four times higher than the general population and the cause is often concealed on their death certificates, The Kansas City Star reported in a series of stories that started Sunday.”  The article goes on to describe the homosexual subculture within the Catholic Church.

I don’t point out that the maliciously characterized “pedophile priests” have actually been homosexuals in order to attack homosexuals or homosexuality in this context.  Most of these homosexual priests – in the overwhelming majority of casaes – have practiced their vows of abstinence.  The statistics demonstrate that a tiny minority of priests perpetuated all the abuses.  Rather, I bring this up in order to reveal what a hypocrite Bill Maher is.  This man, who has made so much of these abuse cases within the Catholic Church, is a hard-core liberal activist.  Homosexuals are very much one of the groups of people that he and people like him have shielded.  One of the main reasons people like Bill Maher have so vindictively attacked Christianity and Catholicism has been because Christians and Catholics have condemned homosexuality.  And for Maher to lay at the feet of Catholicism what more deservedly lays at the feet of people whose rights he defends is the basest form of hypocrite.

The Catholic Church could have done a much better job of dealing with the abuse cases by aggressively purging homosexuals from its priesthood – which would have brought the ire of liberals like Bill Maher.  Instead, they tolerated this massive homosexual presence within their midst for decades – and Bill Maher attacks the Catholic church for tolerating a group of people that he demand they tolerate!

Thus I conclude my case that Bill Maher – and quite frankly every one who agrees with him – is a lying, bigoted, hypocritical, bullying coward.

The Catholic Church is a flawed organization, without a doubt.  But when I look at all the good that Catholics have done in the world, and then look at the fruits of people like Bill Maher, it is not the Catholic Church that looks bad.