Posts Tagged ‘truth’

How The Mainstream Media Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ Even The TRUTH Into ‘Fake News’ By Weaponizing The Truth

May 4, 2017

I watch the White House press corp. do its thing every now and then, and I regularly read the Los Angeles Times and USA Today scan a number of other news sources.  And overall, for Donald Trump, it’s “Damned if he does, but also damned if he doesn’t.”  If he follows through with his campaign promises, they attack him as rigidly inflexible, but if he compromises in any way they attack him for compromising in any way.  In the press briefing yesterday, for example, a reporter fixated on “wall” such that ANY kind of wall that contained ANY kind of fencing whatsoever – including on structures that have always been CALLED walls such as “bollard walls” and “levy walls” are in face “fences” and not hypertechnically “walls” even though the federal government engineers have always CALLED them “walls.”  And therefore President Trump would be breaking his word to build a “wall.”  I’m not kidding.  They did that.  Look at the briefing transcript.  So on the one hand they are rabidly dead set against Trump building a wall and will demonize and slander him as a racist and every other hateful thing if he does so, but if he in any way, shape or form tries to negotiate or compromise, they’ll frame him as a liar.  They will not allow him to be “flexible.”  They just will not.

This is every single day on every single issue.  I’ve seen numerous mainstream media outlets questioning Trump’s motives on being willing to talk, for example, with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un for “appeasing” and “coddling” dictators.   CNN’s opening salvo on May 1 was this:

The President has made a habit of praising the leaders of some of the most oppressive regimes, calling Kim Jong-Un a pretty smart cookie issuing a surprise White House invite to the Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte who was – has bragged about personally killing suspected criminals when he was a mayor. And famously defending Vladimir Putin again and again and again and planning to speak to the Russian president in just hours. We will talk about that in a moment. So, is this a deliberate strategy or is the President just not up to speed?

The editorial board of the LA Times hurled an article at Trump titled “Schmoozing with a killer” on May 2.  And you go back to the pure, rabid hate and contempt that the Lost Angeles Slimes threw at Trump in their six-series by the same editorial board titled “Our Dishonest President” that begins, “It was no secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters.”  And just realize that these are people pathologically incapable of anything remotely close to “fair and balanced.”  They are unfair and unhinged.

Now, when Barack Obama declared that he would be willing to talk with dictators including pretty much all the players that they are now viciously attacking Trump for being willing to talk to now, the same mainstream media heralded it as the greatest vapor of fresh air the universe had ever breathed.  When Obama gave $400 million in unmarked bills packed in crates in a secret flight to the world’s worst supporter of terrorism, the mainstream media yawned.  When Obama basically gave that same world’s worst sponsor of hate and violence on earth $33.6 billion which they could use to finance their ballistic missile system which is necessary for them for when they break Obama’s stupid nuclear treaty that was dishonestly presented to the American people and in which Obama openly pardoned the worst terrorist murderers on the face of the earth if you want to talk about schmoozing with killers – the mainstream media yawned.  Or we could talk about all the lies surrounding Obama’s decision to schmooze with killers when he traded five terrorist generals with the blood of American servicemen on their hands for a confirmed traitor named Bergdahl and Susan Rice declared that acts of treason was synonymous with “serving with honor and distinction.”  I could literally go on and on about Obama schmoozing with killers.  Obama watched a baseball game with a hard-core murderous dictator named Raul Castro.  CNN called it “baseball diplomacy.”

You would get very filthy rich if you had a chance to accept a high-stakes bet that CNN wouldn’t call it that if Trump did the same exact thing with dictator Putin that Obama did with dictator Castro.  The Philippines have been one of America’s staunchest allies in Southeast Asia since before World War II; Cuba was a steadfast enemy of the United States until Obama unilaterally decided they were our friends and allies.  So the same mainstream media that demonizes Trump for befriending the dictator of one of our very best friends since World War II is the same media that praised Obama for befriending the dictator of one of our worst enemies since World War II.  You have to be a LIBERAL to be that kind of a moral hypocrite.

The mainstream media is as dishonest as the sun is hot.  And hot damn is that sun ever hot.  Not that the sun has anything whatsoever to do with global warming, which is entirely caused by humans, mind you.

So, again, if Trump actually takes a strong stand against the dictators, this media will brand him as a “warmonger.”  And you’ll see all kinds of stories trying to – in the LA Times’ words – be demagogues who use fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters by hyping up images of nuclear war and world war three as they try to frame Trump as they’ve already done.

So he’s damned if he takes a stand; damned if he tries to use diplomacy.  Damned if he does but every damned bit as damned if he doesn’t.

And since these matters are ALWAYS and INVARIABLY subject to interpretation and perception, they will ALWAYS interpret and perceive in a way hostile to Trump and to any kind of traditional American value system.  They will ALWAYS be biased and unfair and yes, therefore dishonest.

It was the Los Angles Times that had Barack Obama dead to rights in having in their possession a video of Senator Barack Obama honoring and glorifying a rabidly anti-Israel TERRORIST propagandist named Rasheed Khalidi.  The LA Times has refused to publish the truth about Obama because it not only would have destroyed any chance whatsoever that he had of ever becoming president, but it would destroy any legacy that he still has today.  They were all too willing to release video about Donald Trump that was literally illegal to release, necessitating a run-around where the video was given by one “journalist” from one network to another “journalist” so the hit could take place with no one going to jail for it.  But when it came to Obama, it was high-gear hoity-toity self-righteous indignation about journalistic ethics.  It is literally a fact that Barack Obama spent eight cancerous years as president because the Los Angeles Times refused to have anything whatsoever to do with legitimate news.

The Lost Angeles Slimes is a fake news organization if there is such a thing.

Let’s look at some of the numbers.  In a recent study of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, 89% of the coverage of Donald Trump was NEGATIVE during his first hundred days as president.  In a thousand stories, with nineteen hundred minutes of total airtime, only 186 minutes could be viewed as “positive” in either content or tone.  The Washington Times declared that “It would be hard for biased, negative news coverage of President Trump to get any worse.”

I used to think that way.  Now I realize that the mainstream media can ALWAYS get worse and more biased; what they CAN’T do is get any better.  Journalists will one day scream in the hottest part of hell for their crimes against truth because they had a sacred obligation to report the truth and they instead perverted it on a daily basis.

The mainstream media has weaponized the truth.

What do I mean by that?  They will tell the unvarnished truth – if and only if the unvarnished truth at a particular moment happens to correspond to their ideological and political agenda.  Otherwise they will pervert the truth, they will adulterate the truth, they will prejudice the truth.  They will play games with the truth and manipulate the truth and massage the truth until “the truth lies.”

The truth when Obama’s stooge Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump is an interesting matter.  The New York Times reported the “truth” that Hillary had an 85% chance of winning the presidency on election day.  The actual reality was that she got her ass handed to her.  Before that, these same “truth-tellers” assured us that the Brexit vote would go the way the internationalists liberals wanted it to.  I wrote an article about that titled, “Brexit: Democrats, You Ought To Wake Up SCARED, Because Your Vile Failures Have Caught Up With You.”  But these people who today love so much to attack anything favorable to Trump as “fake news” had no freaking clue what the actual true news was.

I watched part of the White House Press Correspondents Dinner.  The one that President Trump blew off as a waste of time and which was rightly described as “an extended middle finger to Trump.”  Tucker Carlson pointed out that the nearly unanimous liberalism in the media amounts to as blatant a form of extremist bigotry as exist anywhere on earth today.

Even New York Times reporters are admitting that Donald Trump is FAR more tolerant of the 1st Amendment than Barack Obama ever was.  Trump is giving press briefings that Obama refused to give; whereas Obama was the worst enemy in American history of Freedom of Information Act requests, and literally labelled legitimate journalists like James Rosen and legitimate news organizations like the Associated Press as criminals so he could place them under surveillance.  And Hillary was even WORSE than Obama!

But you’d never know that listening to that White House Correspondents dinner, because while journalists are literally being assassinated in Mexico, American “journalists” are decrying the nosedive into Stalinism that Trump represents.

Even though he is measurably better in every imaginable front than Obama was or than Hillary would have been.

And you could see it coming: because when Hillary staffers told “journalists” they would have to follow along like sheep behind rope lines, they like sheep obliged.  Versus the snarling, barking, vicious, rabid wolves they become whenever they hear the name Trump.

I literally do not care what the media says anymore.

When you will only tell your biased and distorted and perverted version of “the truth” about your enemies while sheltering your friends and fellow ideological travelers, your “truth” doesn’t matter.  That’s what I mean by “weaponizing the truth.”

The same media that illegally and criminally released Donald Trump’s tax records and his horrifying slip on a hot mic for Access Hollywood have steadfastly refused to release Obama’s college records in addition to his praise for an anti-Semitic terrorist propagandist.  There is no question whatsoever that Obama filed for college as a foreign exchange student.  In his own autobiography Obama acknowledged that he was an indifferent student who had poor grades and used drugs.  How the hell did he get into the most prestigious universities in America?  Because foreign exchange students don’t have to perform the way American students do to gain admittance.  But the media didn’t want you to do that and to this day they refuse to report that.  In regards to the Access Hollywood footage, California law makes it a CRIME to do what “journalists” did by releasing a recording of someone without their knowledge or consent.  Just as it is a federal crime to do what Susan Rice did to Mike Flynn by releasing his eavesdropped conversations and it is a federal crime to release someone’s tax records.  But standards and laws don’t mean anything to these people, who know how to sidestep the law or their ethics whenever they want to sidestep them.  But at the same time somehow prevent them from reporting the truth when that truth would destroy their candidate.

Today, the Los Angeles Times has an incredibly smarmy bold-face and all-caps title to their main-page print edition article on health care: “A REPUBLICAN WIN, FOR NOW.”  Rest assured that wasn’t the same spirit this fake news outlet took when the epic Titanic disaster a.k.a. ObamaCare was passed by the same one-party vote.  I remember reading the shock of the mainstream media that for the first time, the U.S. death rate rose with that rise incredibly coincidentally coinciding with ObamaCare running like the death-panel-machine that it was always guaranteed to be.  Not only is ObamaCare not saving lives; it is actively KILLING AMERICANS.  ObamaCare premiums rose a nationwide average of 25% this year over last and the deductibles one has to pay just for the cheapest ObamaCare product are an incredibly high $6,000 with the average family enrolled in the plan paying an average of $12,393 before their ObamaCare “insurance” kicks in.  How in the ehll can anyone legitimately claim that ObamaCare provides “coverage” when it has made actual health care so expensive that people cannot actually afford it?  What do you call a health care law that creates a higher death rate?  A grotesque and frankly evil euphemistic oxymoron, is what I call it.

The ObamaCare death rate surge is a “surprise” to the same experts who month after month were astonished by the “unexpected” disappointments that occurred month after month after month in Obama’s failed economy.  Because liberal “experts” are biblical in their foolishness: “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”  Because “Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.”  That is what they are; it is what they always have been; it is what they always will remain.

When Sarah Palin RIGHTLY predicted that ObamaCare was a giant “death panel,” she was not only mocked, she was viciously and hatefully attacked for saying such an ugly “fearmongering” thing about major legislation.  That we can now document was RIGHT.  But the same Democratic Party that is inciting VIOLENT RIOTS to undermine Trump are saying even WORSE and MORE fearmongering things about the GOP legislation.  Just like when Obama was president, it was an ugly, hateful and racist thing to attack him and it was even MORE unheard of to attack his wife and his children; but now Democrats are gleefully the most vicious hate to do those very things.  And the same mainstream media that demonized those who said anything negative about Obama and family are ENCOURAGING hate against Trump and his family.

The Democrat Party comes out and lies, LIES, LIES and slanders, SLANDERS, SLANDERS.  And the mainstream media “reports” their lies and their slanders as if they were the truth.  Every intent of the GOP plan is to do the vitally important thing that ObamaCare very painfully obviously did not do: lower the actual cost of health care.  And while insurers are bailing out of ObamaCare because this demonic turd is very clearly in its death spiral, the GOP plan will both give Americans more control over their health care and create the completion that has always been the source of American marketplace success such that insurance companies can create across state lines and provide more streamlined products at lower costs whereas ObamaCare created fiefdoms.  But the same mainstream media that mocked the GOP when they RIGHTLY called out ObamaCare as a death panel are now fixing their dishonest slander-guns at the GOP plan; the same mainstream media that steadfastly refused to tell the actual TRUTH about how terrible ObamaCare was are now viciously attacking every aspect of the GOP plan.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream media that serve as their propagandists literally have blood on their hands, but that doesn’t stop them from continuing to hurt the American people as they keep sucking the life out of this nation and the citizens who inhabit it.

The stories from the media are characterizing the world as on the brink of world war three: but who put us in this dilemma?  Maybe it was Obama who disastrously set forth a “red line” that was crossed dozens and dozens of times with Obama doing NOTHING such that even Obama’s fiercest apologists such as John Kerry were forced to concede that it “cost us significantly by leading other nations to see America as WEAK.”  Maybe it was Obama who emboldened Russia by doing NOTHING when they were seizing countries and taking over the Middle East that every previous president had successfully shut them out of.  Maybe it was Obama who allowed China to militarily occupy the South China Sea – THE most commercially vital sea lane on planet earth – and allowing China to push America out and push us around.  Maybe it was Obama who did NOTHING to stop or even slow down North Korea from obtaining ballistic missiles; and maybe simultaneously it was Obama rewarding Iran for being the largest sponsor of terrorism on earth by giving them $33.6 billion to perfect their own ballistic missile technology so they could return to developing their nuclear weapons which are useless without the ballistic missile system to deliver those weapons on another country.  Maybe it’s the fact that under Obama and because of Obama, terrorist deaths rose by an eyeball-popping one-thousand, nine-hundred percent.  And yet the same media that kept allowing Obama to blame Bush for every failure are now pretending that Trump is the one who did all these things to erode American credibility, influence and power???

How can people who profess to be “intelligent” fail to understand that a “nuclear deal” that gives a rogue nation BILLIONS to develop ballistic missile technology ONLY guarantees that that rogue nation will have nuclear weapons PLUS the means to deliver them to our cities???

The mainstream media keep focusing on “Russian interference in our election.”  They fail to point out that it was OBAMA who stood back incompetently and uselessly while Russia did it, just as he did nothing all the other times they bullied Obama and pushed America around.  They also conveniently (for Obama) fail to mention that if what Russia did was wrong, then Obama needs to go to prison for doing the same damn thing to Israel that Russia did to us.  And lastly, they fail to mention that all Russia did was reveal the damn TRUTH that Hillary Clinton was a pathologically dishonest and secretive shrew who illegally installed a secret server to bypass American transparency laws under Obama’s watch.  In other words, the Russians told the American people THE TRUTH that our own dishonest fake news media refused to report until it was thrown in their faces and they were FORCED to report it.

If there is any conceivable way the mainstream media can frame a total failure as some kind of “success” when Democrats are in office, they will do so; if on the other hand there is any conceivable way they can frame an amazing success as an unmitigated failure when Republicans are running things, they will do so.  And since these stories are ALWAYS a matter of “perception” or “interpretation,” they will always perceive or interpret exactly the way their ideology prompts them to.  And so Obama presided over the worst economic “wreckovery” in American history, and the media “perceived” it to be a success; and so far Trump has added over $3 trillion to the economy in a record-short time since becoming president due to the optimism that Obama’s economy-eroding dictates would be undone, and the same media “perceives” it to be a failure.

There has NEVER been a law that made EVERYBODY happy and there never will be.  Take ObamaCare.  PLEASE, as the comic says.  There were MILLIONS of Americans who were HURT by ObamaCare from the very getgo, such as my own parents who lost their Medicare Advantage plans that Obama promised them they could keep.  But we never really saw that coverage, did we?  Just like every day when the mainstream media find “victims” of Trump’s policy to actually follow the damn LAW when it comes to ILLEGAL immigrants and do “victim” stories on how hard their lives are because Trump is so mean.  They don’t give one flying DAMN about all the Kate Steinles out there.  They simply don’t matter because the victim hurts rather than helps their ideological narrative.  Put it this way: say TrumpCare helped 97% of Americans and was by any legitimate measure an overwhelming success.  What would the media do?  They would place 97% of their coverage on the 3% who weren’t happy.  Because that’s what they do when it’s a Republican or conservative policy.  The same damn way they do the exact opposite and ignore the negatives no matter how large that negative crowd is when it’s some crap that Obama put his stamp on.

And I for one am beyond sick of the 89% rabid bias that is literally the defining characteristic of the mainstream media today.  I’m beyond sick of the unrelenting double-standard whereby it was a horrible thing to do to attack a presidents wife and children until and unless that president was named Donald and his wife was named Melania and his daughter was named Ivanka: and then it’s open-damn-season on the hate-machine from the “tolerant” crowd.

The media is on the warpath against Trump and they are taking sides and they are out to get him.  And I am ignoring them the way they ignored every single ignominious failure that characterized the entire Obama degenerate presidency.

So “report” whatever the hell you want to, media.  I know the truth about YOU and I know the truth about those whom you have been in the business of protecting for decades.  And I simply refuse to play your game where only your adversaries are to be held accountable to “the truth.”

 

Advertisements

Theological And Political Liberals: The Exact Same People Doing The Exact Same Thing

March 16, 2014

It doesn’t matter whether you’re having a discussion about politics or religion, liberals are truly exasperating to have a conversation with.

Whether they are reading their Bible or their Constitution, it comes down to the exact same issue:

The Bible:

The Bible doesn’t mean what it actually (literally) says: it means whatever we liberals say it means.

Liberals are people who read the Bible and understand that God loves homosexuality and sodomy.  Because it really doesn’t matter to them what the Bible says or what God thinks.  After all, they have replaced God with their totalitarian human State.  And the Bible merely means whatever the hell they say it means rather than, you know, what it actually and clearly SAYS.

In much the same way, liberals have tried to “fundamentally transform” Jesus into some kind of raving government-power-hoarding socialist.  Show me just ONE TIME that Jesus called for a bigger and more totalitarian human government, or for government to get more involved with ANYTHING.  When the disciples came to Jesus and told Him that there were 5,000 people and that they needed something to eat, He did NOT say, “We need to have a government welfare State”; He said YOU feed them.  And it was JESUS who blessed the food for the crowd, NOT Herod or Pilate or Obama.  And in fact, given that it was big government that murdered Jesus and murdered St. Paul and St. Peter along with a few million other Christians just in the 1st century AD alone, just what the hell do you think Christians who best knew Jesus and who best understood Christianity would have said to Obama coming along (after mocking the Bible) and telling them that what they needed most was the government that had just murdered them???

And this is not an answer that you should need to think about if you have a mind or even a brain.  Because Jesus told the parable of the good Samaritan; He most certainly did NOT tell the story of the good bureaucrat.

Not that liberals give one damn about what the Bible says.  They truly couldn’t care LESS what the Bible says.

The Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights):

The Constitution doesn’t mean what it actually (literally) says: it means whatever we liberals say it means.

It really doesn’t matter to them whether the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms (GUNS) or that such right is NOT TO BE INFRINGED.  Liberals don’t want the people to be able to keep and bear arms because an armed citizenry interferes with their establishment of Government as Dictator God.  And since liberals don’t want it to mean what it clearly and obviously means, it simply has to mean something else.  And that’s why it is their passion to infringe upon what is NOT to be infringed upon (like your right to have the health care you want and see the doctor you want to see).

Not that liberals give one damn about what the Constitution says.  They truly couldn’t care LESS what the Constitution says.  It’s just another text for them to hijack and spin and pervert.

Either the text means something as it was written and as it was intended by its authors or it doesn’t.  To liberals, it means nothing because they don’t bow down before God or His Word or to any sacred principle laid down by the wisdom of the founding fathers; they bow down only to totalitarian human government and to whatever will seize more power for that totalitarian human government.  And whenever what they want to believe gets in the way of the facts, well, so much the worse for the facts.  And that’s why “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”  Because it ALWAYS depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is with them, and ‘is’ means whatever the hell they want it to mean at any constantly shifting moment.

In John 18:37, Jesus told Pilate, “You say correctly that I am a king” (i.e,., He was saying it’s really NOT about YOUR human government, but about My DIVINE government). He continued, “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”  Liberals don’t hear Jesus’ voice because they WON’T hear His voice.  Rather, they have replaced His voice with their own.  They have distorted and frankly perverted (as in homosexual sodomy) Jesus’ voice with Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, socialism, fascism, Marxism, communism, existentialism, postmodernism and whatever other “-ism” they need to do the job at any given time.

Liberals’ favorite game is to equivocate the truth.  In the words of their hero, Pontius Pilate, they ask, “What is truth?”  And of course just like Pilate they turn their backs on the One who is its very embodiment.  I have many times watched with amazement as liberals have zipped back and forth between the two false polar extremes of truth (“Nothing is true” and “Everything is true”).  It’s amazing to watch: they’re exploit the fact that people disagree on the one hand to explain to you that there is no ultimate truth.  Not understanding that the statement “nothing is true” literally kills itself (think about it: if nothing is true, then the statement that “nothing is true” would have to be true – but that would make the statement “nothing is true” false.  Which is to say it is self-refuting.  The fact that people disagree is irrelevant.  In science we have FREQUENTLY experienced moments in which every single human being was wrong until ONE GUY introduced the truth.  What is “true” has nothing whatsoever to do with what people think; it has only to do with conforming to actual reality (i.e. agreeing with God) irregardless of what people think.

On the other hand, liberals will then also immediately and hypocritically swing wildly to the other polar extreme, that of assuming the position that “everything is true.”  Allow me to explain:

I had a conversation with a liberal who noticed my star of David and liked it because he likes it that ALL religions are equally true (not just Christianity or Christianity and Judaism, but Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism,Confucianism, Disneylandism and whatever else strikes his fancy).  The fact that these religions mutually contradict one another was irrelevant.  Reality contradicted political correctness, and so so much the worse for reality.

As an example, on the one hand, Eastern religions and the monotheistic religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam mutually exclude each other.  Eastern religions annihilate the individual.  The individual self must literally cease to exist in Buddhism and Hinduism.  Individuality is merely an illusion.  “You” aren’t really you; there IS no “you.”  In fact, the clinging to individuality is the CAUSE OF ALL SUFFERING in Buddhism.  Contrast that with God, who according to Genesis 1:27, which states “So God created man in His own image (i.e., in the image of a conscious, personal, individual God), in the image of God He created him (i.e., as a unique individual); male and female He created them (as a unique individual created to have community with other unique individuals).”  In the Scriptures, God says to mankind, “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).  Liberals who deny God and therefore piss away the image of God aside, human beings are rational as well as being personal individuals.

Eastern religions and the monotheistic religions cannot both possibly be true.  If one is true, the other is simply false.  They don’t merely disagree with one another; they mutually exclude one another.  No rational mind can simultaneously believe in mutually exclusive concepts.  Which is why only liberals do it.

In the same way, Christianity and Islam (and Judaism as it is tragically understood) likewise mutually exclude one another.  Christianity, as part of the Trinity (the Tri-Unity of the Godhead) upholds the Son of God; in Islam, it is the highest blasphemy to claim that God has a Son.  One cannot be in any sense true without the other being false and ruled out.

But liberals don’t think that way simply because “truth” does not matter to them and they don’t WANT to think that way.  As the Scripture puts it, they prefer darkness and refuse to comprehend the light.  As the Scripture puts it, they are “always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.”  They prefer the sound of their own voices as they express the slogan of politically-correct gibberish, “There are many paths to God” as opposed to ever once listening to the voice of God in His Word.

“Political correctness” is the death of critical thinking because it puts sentimentality on the throne and utterly dispenses with inconvenient things such as truth, facts, reason and logic.

I’m hardly saying all the destruction to America was worth it by any means, but it has at least been highly informative for increasingly large numbers of Americans to see everything that Barack Obama and liberals like him promised proven to be complete and utter idiocy.  And that is because their economic thinking, “The more we tax and regulate businesses, the more jobs they will create” is every single bit as obviously self-refuting as any of their religious idiocy.

Theological liberalism and political liberalism will very soon be truly wedded together in the coming of the Antichrist: a big-government politician they will worship in place of God.  And it is because of the machinations of liberals that this beast is coming and will soon arrive to deceive the world and literally lead it into hell as he promises his liberal Utopia.

Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson Suspension: Two Things Liberals Hate (Facts And Freedom) And The One Thing Liberals Love (Fascism)

December 19, 2013

We live in a world where Phil Robertson has no right to express his views on homosexuality, but where homosexuals have every right to express their rabid, frothing hatred of Christianity and evangelical Christians.  We live in a world where Phil Robertson gets suspended for basically just saying what the BIBLE says but Miley Cyrus doesn’t get suspended for performing a simulated sex act on television.  We live in a crazy, morally depraved world, in other words.

I mean, just try to get your head around: Phil Robertson is being suspended from a “reality program” for actually being “real.”  And A & E wants to take Phil Robertson out of a show that is actually mostly about HIM (he was the inventor of the duck lures of “Duck Dynasty,” you know) and is entirely about his family of which he is the patriarch.  And since A & E wants the family to continue with the show that they just banned the family’s patriarch from, A & E literally is attempting to “suspend” Phil Robertson from his very own family.

Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson allegedly just got suspended from his own television program for saying that homosexuality was next to bestiality:

Not only does “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson fail to understand what it’s like to be gay, but he also thinks homosexuality is a sin comparable to bestiality.

In a shocking new interview with GQ’s Drew Magary, Robertson — the 67-year-old patriarch of the Duck Commander kingdom that earned his Louisiana family a fortune and a hit A&E series — opened up about “modern immorality” and the gay community.

It doesn’t matter that Robertson didn’t actually do that.  Read his quote (and it would have been nice and, well, HONEST had GQ provided the context OF the quote – unless you think Phil Robertson just started popping off about homosexuality without any prompting whatsoever):

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine,” he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Notice that you “START from homosexuality” and then you “morph out from there.”  One is NOT necessarily the same as the other in Robertson’s description any more than a nasty kid starts with pulling the wings off of insects and morphs out to killing other children means that children and winged insects are the same thing.

It also doesn’t matter if the Bible confirms the view that, yes, homosexuality really IS next to bestiality:

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.  Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.  Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” — Leviticus 18:21-23

In blatant fact, not only is homosexuality next to bestiality, but it is actually sandwiched in between bestiality and child sacrifice (which liberals also love: we call it “abortion” today and 55 million innocent children have been sacrificed to the gods of convenient liberal demonism).

And, no, homosexuals will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.  Don’t take my word, don’t even take Phil Robertson’s word, take the Word of God’s word:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

And it’s not just the Book of Leviticus or 1 Corinthians.  Go to Romans Chapter One.  In fact, go to ANY passage of God’s Word and see if it EVER says a positive word about homosexuality (hint: it DOESN’T).

Liberals are pathologically opposed to the Bible.  And their hatred for the Word of God literally begins with the very first words of the Word of God and pervert more from there.

Liberals have “fundamentally transformed” morality by replacing God’s morality with their own perverted version of it.  And now they sit in rabid judgment of God and the Christians whose crime is believing the Word of God which had been the source of the moral backbone of Western Civilization for 2,000 years.

I’ve pointed this out so many times: liberals have a fundamental and profound hostility toward the Bible and toward everything about the Bible and the God of the Bible.  That hostility permeates their entire worldview.  God wanted us to be stones – individuals free to choose as individuals.  But liberals want us to become government-stamped bricks where one is identical to all the others.  It has been so from the very beginning of human civilization and it is so today.

As a Christian, Phil Robertson ought to have the right to accurately express the content of his faith – particularly when he is virtually quoting the Bible when he does it.  But “Christianity” now has to bow down before political correctness.  And the factual content of the Bible and the Christianity it expresses be damned.

Facts are anathema to the left.  They utterly despise them.  And therefore they utterly despise anyone who disagrees with them.

You need to understand how liberals, secular humanists, et al view “truth.”  I wrote about this a long time back (see part I, part II and part III).  Basically, liberals reject the classic philosophical position of foundationalism and believe instead in postmodernist coherentism.  Under coherentism, knowledge does not require any foundation and rather can be established by the interlocking strength of its components like a puzzle.  Which is to say liberals parted with “truth” long, long ago.

I stumbled across a great expression of this liberal “philosophy”:

The only difference between an opinion and a fact is the way you look at it.

In many ways, there are no facts. There are just different ways of looking at things.

With that in mind, I think it’s important to think of your opinions as facts.

Don’t tell me what you think. Tell me what you know, and if you don’t feel passionately enough about something to think you “know” it, then you should probably save your breath.

A good argument is when two people take two competing facts and let them battle it out.

The truth is created when an opinion beats out all other opinions.

Don’t say what you think is true. Decide what is true and then try to be right.

Like I said, liberals HATE truth.  They don’t even accept the possibility that there could be something called “the truth.”  They despise facts as irrelevant whenever they become inconvenient.  What they love is perverting discussion about truth into opinion polls.  And then relying upon their propaganda control over the media to slant the debate by creating straw men regarding the view they despise versus a celebrity culture regarding the view they cherish.

On my view as a foundationalist, our ultimate foundation for being able to know truth and have genuine knowledge of the external world rests with Creator God who made man in His own image and created the world for the man whom He created in His own image.  Because of the Fall and sin, we do not know truth perfectly, but because we are the result of a special creation by a truth-knowing God and because He created the world around us for us, we can reliably know things about the world.  That is the ultimate foundation upon which human epistemology rests.

Let’s hear what evolution logically entails:

Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There is no purposive principle whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable…

Second, modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society.

Third…the individual human becomes an ethical person by means of two primary mechanisms: heredity and environmental influences. That is all there is.

Fourth, we must conclude that when we die, we die and that is the end of us…

Finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived…simply does not exist. — William Provine, Distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University

To put it in Phil Robertson Duck Dynasty terms, if you are a man and you prefer another man’s anus to what God intended for you, you are a biological meat puppet insect who cannot help but prefer the anus to the vagina. And since there is no possibility of “morality” in the world your love/lust for the anus is simply a brute fact that cannot be questioned in any way, any shape or any form.  And it is for some mysterious reason only those who hold any other view who must be suppressed as ruthlessly as necessary.

Contrast that with the view that necessarily stems from the philosophy atheism and evolution:

“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 own 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

As a result of my view, I can know the truth and I can have free will and freely choose.  And I therefore have the right to express my beliefs.  Versus anyone who believes in evolution, who necessarily is a biological meat puppet entirely conditioned by DNA and environment and by definition can have nothing the Bible calls a “soul.”  Whereas such humanity is utterly and completely impossible to liberals BY DEFINITION.

Anyone who believes in evolution is according to their own view basically an insect who crawls a certain way merely because they were either hard-wired to so crawl or because their parents crawled that way once and didn’t happen to get eaten as a result.  That is what you are and that is all you are.  It is scientifically impossible for you to ever be anything more.

Ooops.  Did I say “free”???

Liberals also viscerally and viciously despise human freedom.  And as I believe you ought to see, that hatred stems from their views on human origin itself which result from their radical hatred of the God of the Bible.

Do I have the right to my beliefs?  Absolutely, says the liberal.  As long as your beliefs accord with mine.  Otherwise, as Khrushchev boasted, “We will bury you!”

Liberals, secular humanists, atheists and evolutionists (basically one and the same group, for the record) exploited the view of their enemies regarding individuality and freedom to make their public case.  Conservatives opposed what they said, of course, but they did not oppose their right to say it because they believed in freedom.  But the moment the left got their way, they shut the door.  They use a device called “political correctness” to shape society and therefore shape reality to their point of view.

Being politically correct is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it. Early Marxists designed their game plan long ago and continue to execute it today — and now liberals are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

We’re told that “political correctness” is about being sensitive to people.  But we already have the template for that; it’s called “good manners.”  Political correctness is not at all about anything other than power.

You need to understand how this has worked its way into our government: huge, sweeping government that has the power to intrude into virtually every component of our lives.  A giant welfare state.  A giant ObamaCare bureaucracy.  Stifling regulations.  The belief that “you didn’t build that” and therefore the government has the right to whatever it demands from the fruit of your hard work.

What you end up with is “Government is God” from the people who first rejected the God of the Bible.  And you end up with the battle between: Paul Ryan: ‘Our Rights Come From Nature And From God.’  Barack Obama: ‘Our Rights Come From Government And To Hell With God.’

Obama openly mocked the Bible as a book that should have anything whatsoever to do with modern life or the modern world.   I explore Obama’s demon-possessed misunderstanding of Scripture.

And instead of any worldview informed by Christianity in any way, shape or form, we have this demonism:

Liberals are fascists.  They are intrinsically and pathologically fascist.  I wrote an article two years ago that went on and on and on documenting Obama’s fascism.  And note that I predated Obama’s NSA scandals, Obama’s criminal abuse of the IRS as a weapon to target conservatives or anyone who used “anti-Obama rhetoric,” and the latest ObamaCare meltdown.  Note that I predated a Clinton-appointed judge who denounced Obama as a fascist who rules by “secret law.”  Another judge described Obama’s policy as “almost Orwellian.”

Let’s consider these statements from these judges, first from Clinton-appointed Judge Ellen Seal Huvelle:

In a Freedom of Information Act victory, a federal judge has slapped the Obama administration for its secretive ways and ordered officials to turn over a bland-sounding foreign policy document.

Chastising what she called “the government’s unwarranted expansion of the presidential communications privilege at the expense of the public’s interest in disclosure,” U.S. District Judge Ellen Seal Huvelle ruled the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development is not exempt from FOIA.

Judge Huvelle’s 20-page decision took a shot or two, or three, at the Obama administration’s penchant for secrecy.

The government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight, to engage in what is in effect governance by ‘secret law,'” Huvelle wrote.

Now by Judge Richard Leon:

A federal judge ruled Monday the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records “almost certainly” violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon described the NSA’s activities as “almost Orwellian.” He wrote, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen.”

This from the administration of “The Liar of the Year” (by both überliberal Politifact and by the überüberliberal Washington Post) who made a career dishonestly and deceitfully boasting that his was “the most transparent administration in history.”

Note: when I called Obama a FASCIST and pointed out that it is the pathological nature of the left to BE fascist, I WAS RIGHT.

In all of human history, we have NEVER had a man as stridently revealed as a complete and utter liar as Barack Obama has now been.  More human beings have seen his lies played out before them than any other liar who ever lived.  And this dishonest man is a fascist.

And the same damn people – and “damn” being a technical term for those who are one day surely going to burn in hell – are out to get Phil Robertson.  Because as I describe above, they are biological meat puppet insects and it is their nature as slave-beings who by definition have no free will and therefore do whatever their hateful slave ideology compels them to do.

You can be the random evolution meat puppet or you can get off your ass and not stand for what the left is trying to do to a man just for expressing his opinion and exercising his freedom of religion.

I mean, stop and think about it: “marriage” has meant a particular thing for the entirety of human civilization and certainly the entirety of the Judeo-Christian-based Western Civilization upon which our society was formed.  Liberals believe they have the right to redefine marriage to mean something that it never meant before as they “fundamentally transform” America.  But it gets worse, because these fascists literally believe that no one has the right to oppose them or stand for the sum entirely of previous human civilization as they pervert and distort reality to suit their demonic ideology.

In the same manner, a damn liberal judge just imposed POLYGAMY on America.  Nothing is more alive in America than the slippery slope that conservatives have been warning about.  The claim to polygamy logically follows the claim to homosexuality: who are YOU to tell me I can’t marry the man – or men – of my dreams???  And that same “logic” will necessarily ultimately see the imposition of the very bestiality that Phil Robertson talks about, because who are YOU to tell me I can’t marry my canary???  And again, that same logic will also ultimately spill over to children having the “right” to be sodomized by some adult pervert.  Because if a kid is old enough to choose abortion – which all kids are by definition according to the “logic” of liberalism – then who are you to tell them they can’t have sexual relationships with the people they choose to have them with???  It either all logically follows or NONE of it does (another free hint: NONE of it does).

Liberals can say whatever the hell they want and nobody boycotts them because conservatives believe that people have a right to say what they think.  But the liberals who believe THEY have such freedom are fascists who would NEVER grant that freedom to anybody who doesn’t think just like they think.

I update this to note that Mark Steyn wrote:

Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It’s quicker and more effective to silence them.

That is precisely right: Christians who dominated society allowed gays and other radical leftists to have free speech because it is our nature as conservatives to allow freedom.  But the left is truly fascist and the moment they were allowed in the door they slammed it shut because genuine freedom is anathema to them.

I update again to add Bristol Palin – who apparently has her mother’s way of expressing herself – to the mix:

“I think it’s so hypocritical how the LGBT community expects every single flippen person to agree with their life style. This flies in the face of what makes America great — people can have their own beliefs and own opinions and their own ways of life.

“I hate how the LGBT community says it’s all about ‘love’ and ‘equality,'” she added. “However, if you don’t agree with their lifestyle, they spread the most hate. It is so hypocritical it makes my stomach turn.”

I demand the left defend it’s “tolerance” when they are so radically INTOLERANT with anybody who doesn’t precisely march to their goose step it is beyond ridiculous.

Take a stand against that fascism while you still have a little bit of your country left.

Saul Alinsky Was RIGHT In The Liberal’s Book He Dedicated To Lucifer: Christians Need To Start Living Up To The Book Of Rules

August 2, 2013

I was working out in my gym training legs.  I noted that the hack squat machine was in use, so I went over to the squat rack.  I did five good, hard sets.  During that time, the guy on the hack squat machine had done maybe ONE set because he was so occupied with his cell phone and his texting.  Right next to a sign that reads, “Cell phone use is prohibited while using equipment.”

Well, I wanted to use that hack squat machine, but the rude dude was still wasting his time on it.  So I went to the seated calf machine and did six good, hard sets of calves.

You guessed it: when I was done with that piece of equipment, the rude dude was still wasting his – and worse yet MY – time on the hack squat machine.

So I went over to the leg press machine right next to the hack squat machine.  And I was mostly done with the five sets on that before Mr. Cell Phone finally left.

Because I was right next to the hack squat machine, I was able to readily note two other facts: he didn’t re-rack his weight – in spite of the fact that he was literally “exercising” directly under a giant banner with two foot high letters that read, “Re-Rack Your Weight”; and he didn’t wipe down the machine after using it in spite of the sign right next to the banner that read, “Wipe down your equipment after use.”

Basically, there was no possible way this guy could have been more rude or more discourteous.

Well, here’s the rub: this guy, Mr. Cell Phone, is, rather amazingly, a “pastor.”  His church is virtually right next door to the gym.

I thought about confronting him for his unbelievable rudeness, but he’s a black guy.  And you know how THAT tends to go now that Obama has healed the racial divide.

The Bible tells Christians to confront brothers who are acting shamefully.  But tragically, in these slimes that are the times, it’s seriously risky to dare to treat certain people like “brothers.”  And I didn’t want to be the source of a rift – no matter how right I would have been – that very likely would have degenerated into a charge of “racism.”

All I can tell you is that man publicly shamed the name of Jesus Christ.  And it doesn’t really matter what color this “reverend’s” skin is when he acts like that man acted.  At least, not to me.

I wear a Cross or a Star of David every time I work out – and frankly virtually every time I appear in public.  There have been more than a few times that I’ve thought about saying or doing something and changed my mind because of the symbols I was wearing around my neck.

So I don’t even BRING my phone into the gym; I ALWAYS re-rack my weight every time I use a piece of equipment; and I wipe down the equipment I’m using TWICE – once before I use it (because there are a lot of rude people like Reverend Cell Phone) and once again after I’m finished.

I try to publicly live up to that cross – even though I have to confess that I’m not thinking very nice thoughts about the incredibly rude and ungracious people all around me.

When I gave my life to Jesus Christ, I very quickly quit smoking.  Why?  Because I thought of the image of myself trying to tell somebody about how Jesus Christ changed my life with a stinking cigarette hanging out of my tobacco-stained teeth, and it was enough of a visceral disconnect that I knew what I had to do.

More recently, I’ve lost over seventy pounds over the last 11 months.  And one of the driving forces to my success was the fact that I am named “Michael” and it was time to start LOOKING like the archangel I was named after.  Because in this postmodern, secular humanist culture that Hollywood liberalism has bequeathed us with, how you look very often determines more than anything else how people perceive you.  And I recognized that it was time for me in these last days before the Antichrist that it was long-past time for me to shape up in every way I could.

But all that said, it’s time for me to have my own mea culpa: I have too often resorted to name-calling in my articles and in my responses (to hateful comments).  And I was wrong to do that.

Anyone who has read much of what I’ve written has likely come upon terminology such as “turds” and “cockroaches” in my descriptions of the left.  I’ve been called much, MUCH worse myself – usually before my own use of such terms – but that doesn’t justify my behavior.

I’ve also been guilty of calling liberals “idiots” or “stupid.”  And while it is true that many liberals ARE ignorant and frankly stupid people, it is also quite true that some of the most brilliant minds routinely believe the most stupid things, such that George Orwell pointed out that “There are some ideas so absurd that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe them,” because no ordinary man was capable of being such a fool.  And thus it is not always easy to tell whether you are talking to a “stupid idiot” or a “brilliant idiot.”

I won’t call liberals “stupid” anymore because they may be very intelligent people who are merely a) evil and b) deluded.  Which is to say they might be very brilliant moral idiots – but not “stupid.”

Saul Alinsky – in his “Rules for Radicals” (which was dedicated to Satan and which Obama once taught in his days as a community organizer) has one rule in particular that liberals have loved to apply to me:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

I’ve had many liberals follow up on my response to hateful comments by liberals such as this one – “You are such a moron. I cannot waste anymore of my time talking to someone who is lost in an alternate universe. I only hope that you get hit by a truck or die a horrible death. You are an enemy of America scumbag. THATS A FACT” – by attacking me as a terrible Christian in my response.

I’ve noted to these liberals who follow the crash and then pile on:

It’s kind of strange.  I wrote an article never ONCE hoping anybody got hit by a truck or died a horrible death.  I never degenerated into that level of viciousness.  And nobody else did either.  Because that level of pure hate doesn’t happen UNTIL THE LIBERALS SHOW UP.

Here’s the liberal game plan for those who haven’t learned it.  Liberal A comes along and just viciously personally attacks the conservative.  Often they show up in rabid packs and just dump hate on the Republican.  And then, when the conservative responds with anger of his own, well, that’s when liberals like YOU show up.  The sanctimonious, self-righteous ones who pointedly ignore the hate that their own side just dished out and instead personally denounce the “hate” of the conservative.  That hateful, divisive conservative shouldn’t have responded angrily to all that liberal hate.  It’s wrong.  It’s evil, even.  And that sanctimonious, self-righteous liberal often proceeds to then attack the Republican’s Christianity.  Which is of course an even MORE hateful attack than the liberal haters that got the conservative to respond with anger, of course, but what does that matter?

And if you were to keep reading Saul Alinsky’s book where he gives his rule to “make opponents live up to their own book of rules”, you find that this leftist who called upon his fellow liberals to demonize others as evil really couldn’t have cared LESS about morality applied to himself or his liberal movement:

The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means. It is this species  of man who so vehemently and militantly participated in that clasically  idealistic debate at the old League of Nations on the ethical differences  between defensive and offensive weapons. Their fears of action drive them to  refuge in an ethics so divorced for the politics of life that it can apply only  to angels, not men. — P.26

One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s  personal interest in the issue. — P.26

The fifth rules of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics  increases with the number of means available and vice versa. To the man of  action the first criterion in determining which means to employ is to assess  what means are available. Reviewing and selecting available means is done on a  straight utilitarian basis — will it work? Moral questions may enter when one  chooses among equally effective alternate means. — P.32

The seventh rule of ethics and means and ends is that generally success or  failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. The judgment of history leans heavily  on the outcome of success and failure; it spells the difference between the  traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful  traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. P.34

The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is  automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical. — P.35

The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with  what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches  during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and  for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be  through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37

Eight months after securing independence (from the British), the Indian National  Congress outlawed passive resistance and made it a crime. It was one thing for  them to use the means of passive resistance against the previous Haves, but now  in power they were going to ensure that this means would not be used against  them. — P.43

All effective actions require the passport of morality. — P.44

And just to ensure that any true morality NOT be pursued by the left, Alinsky wrote:

With very rare exceptions, the right things are done for the wrong reasons. It  is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason — this is a  fight with a windmill. — P.76

So, the bottom line is that liberals acknowledge that they HAVE no “book of rules,” no true morality, and that “morality” for them is “a means to an end” to be invented and reinvented as it suits them in order to attack their enemies.  “Morality” and the Word of God become nothing more than a tool for hypocrites to attack those who actually TRY to follow morality and the Word of God.

That’s just a fact.

But you know what?  It doesn’t matter.  Because, as Saul Alinsky points out, unlike liberals, unlike secular humanists, yes, unlike Democrats, we DO have a “book of rules” that should be our guide to live by.  Unlike the Lucifer-Loving Left, we actually BELIEVE in morality and strive to be moral, decent people.

As I reflected upon the absolutely despicable example of “Reverend Cell Phone,” I had to face up to my own “issues.”  And yes, I tend to get very angry with hypocrites and slanderers who constantly hurt others with vile policies that they then want to exempt themselves from.  And just as one of MANY examples are the Democrat politicians and their staffs, the labor unions, the IRS workers, who – after fighting to impose ObamaCare on everyone else – now fight even harder to exempt themselves from what they just inflicted on everybody else.  I knew that this demonic piece of horror would hurt people.  And, yes, I am beyond LIVID that the very people who imposed this demon-possessed evil on everyone else would say, “Good enough to force on thee, but not good enough for me.”

I am angry at the people who are working so hard to do so much evil, who want to bring the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast upon the rest of us.

And in my anger, I sinned.  And I fell prey to the trap of the rules for radicals devoted to Satan.

I’m going to try from now on not to do that.  I’m going to try very hard to – unlike liberals, unlike secular humanists, unlike Democrats – to actually LIVE UP TO THE BOOK OF RULES.

The Bible says in Ephesians 4:26, “Be angry, yet do not sin.”  We’re not told NOT to be angry.  We’re told that JESUS was angry (Mark 3:5).  And anger can be positive when it is harnessed and controlled in righteousness.  Anger is a “stimulant” that can get you off your rear end DOING something rather than standing idly by gaping while terrible things are happening all around you.  But you can’t allow anger to master you even while hypocrites are actively trying to bait you into it.

I’m going to quit my name calling, even when I’m called so many names.

But I’m going to replace name-calling with HONEST and ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS of the people who are doing so much evil in these last days before the beast comes.

To wit, I’m no longer going to label Democrats and liberals as “turds” or “cockroaches.”  Because, very technically speaking, these people are neither insects nor are they composed entirely of fecal matter.  Rather, I’m going to call them what they truly technically ARE: government worshiping baby killing marriage-and-family murdering sodomy-lovers.  Because that is simply a fact.

I’m going to stop resorting to name-calling and start using the actual TRUTH to fight for the truth.

When you call somebody a name like a “turd” or a “cockroach,” you are no longer operating on factual grounds.  A liberal can respond, “I am not a turd.  I am not a cockroach.  You’re a liar and you’re hateful.”  But when you simply call these people what they truly ARE – and that is WORSE and more shameful than ANY name you can call them – well, they can call you “hateful” all day long, but that is only because they are people who find “truth” as “hateful.”  But given the facts that they ARE for government that replaces God; that they ARE for the continued holocaust of babies that has murdered more than 55 million children so far; that they ARE for a radical redefinition of marriage and family that has progressively eroded and undermined both marriage and the family; and that they ARE for homosexual sodomy along with numerous other perversions that are specifically condemned as “ABOMINATIONS” by the Word of God that Saul Alinsky wants us to follow, well, they can hardly call me a liar.

There’s a tactical aspect to this decision as well.  I’ll get one liberal who uses all kinds of terrible names on me and just dumps hate on me – literally wishing my death.  And I respond with my own anger.  Then comes the next liberal who is just shocked and appalled that any human being on earth could be so “hateful” as a conservative – conveniently (of course hypocritically) overlooking the liberals who wrote far uglier things.  And of course, given that this second attack from the liberals doesn’t employ such labels as “turd” or “cockroach,” they assign themselves the moral high ground when they call me “hateful.”

So on the one hand I am a) going to start trying to follow what the Bible teaches on hate and anger and b) just not give liberals an easy way to attack me literally about my religion (mind you, it would be a TERRIBLE thing according to secular humanist political correctness for me to attack someone of a different religion qua religion).  It’s never wrong when they do it; it’s always wrong when I do what they do.  But that doesn’t matter, because what matters is that I WILL TRY TO LIVE UP TO MY BOOK OF RULES.  The fact that liberals don’t HAVE a “book of rules” and the fact that they are hypocrites is immaterial.

Jesus famously guaranteed to His disciples that the world would hate them because they hated Jesus first (Matthew 10:22 cf. John 15:18).  And why does the world hate Jesus so?  Because (as Del Tackett so brilliantly pointed out in the Truth Project), Jesus came to testify to the Truth.  And that everyone – and only those – who would be on the side of truth would listen to Jesus (John 18:37).  And what is the truth about these people who hate us?   Their deeds are evil (John 3:19) and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:4).

Liberals can slander me any way they want to.  I don’t follow them.  They can label me as a “hater” because I declare the truth about them and they hate the truth.  And they hate the truth because they are children of the devil and enemies of everything that is right (Acts 13:10).

I’m going to declare the truth and ONLY declare the truth, and let the truth be my defense.  Which is why in hindsight I realized I should have got in that bogus pastor’s face and pointed out how incredibly rude he’d just been and what a lousy example of a Christian – let ALONE a “pastor” – he was and called upon him to either live like a Christian or at least to stop calling himself one.

Truth Among Murder Victims As Left Tries To Make Jared Loughner A Republican

January 11, 2011

Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”  Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” – John 18:37-38

Well, one thing’s for sure: the truth sure isn’t what the Democrat rhetoric is spouting in the aftermath of the Tucson, AZ shooting that resulted in the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords among 19 shooting victims, with six killed.

I was amazed to see the thousands of hits an old article I wrote had recently generated.  The reason?  Democrats who had demonized Sarah Palin for her “targeting strategy” – which Democrats themselves routinely do – are now demonizing her again because one of the vulnerable districts Palin identified well over a year ago was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ District 8.

As Democrats galore shrilly and viciously attack Sarah Palin for her “targeting,” what is conveniently ignored is that liberals not only targeted Gabrielle Giffords for defeat, but literally said “she’s dead.”

But “what is truth?” for these people?  An inconvenient obstacle to be overcome, at most.

I was also amazed that the White House literally used Fox News to pass off clear and demonstrable lies associating a conservative organization with Jared Loughner.

Incredibly, the Pima Country sheriff – elected as a Democrat – without a single shred of supporting evidence, has repeatedly denounced conservatives as being somehow to blame for the shootings in blatantly partisan and irresponsible manner.

“What is truth?”  Don’t ask Democrat Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

And then there are the “Jared Loughner Facebook accounts” which “have all right wing books, websites, and people that he points to.”  Just more false flag operations by Democrats to falsely associate conservatives with the psycho assassin.

This crap just never ends. It doesn’t matter to these lying propagandists one iota that if anything, Jared Loughner was a liberal, rather than any kind of conservative.

Here’s yet another depraved Democrat attempt to deceive:

Loughner “Republican” Voter Registration faked. Three points that demonstrate that.
Posted on 01/10/2011 6:14:13 AM PST by Lazamataz

This document is circulating, purportedly showing Jared Loughner is a registered Republican.

There are two reasons why the document is faked, and one official proclamation that undermines it:

  • TUCSON is spelled TUSCON. People who live in a city do not mispell it’s name.
  • If you go to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission website and put in the address listed on this “registration” it comes up in Senator District 26. This fraud voter reg says District 27. (Hat tip, Brytani)

A blatantly partisan ideologue Newsweek “journalist” isn’t one bit disappointed in the sea of lies that characterize the Democrat response to this tragedy.  Far from it:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

This little Joseph Goebbels minion basically wants Barack Obama to deliver a “State of the Reich” Address and demagogue this tragic shooting into a demand to round up all the conservatives and put them in camps.

The strategy that the little Newsweek rodent recommends has been successfully tried in the past – by one Adolf Hitler.  Let us hope that the “new bipartisan Obama” (although there is this caveat) is now getting his advice from more humans and fewer rodents.

Democrats and their media lackeys are decrying the “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric which caused this shooting en masse.  And, of course, they mean “conservative” and “Republican” “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric.

But why would anyone think that?  Apart from the fact that they are ideologues and propagandists, I mean?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that Jared Loughner EVER listened to “right wing talk radio,” or supported Sarah Palin, or was a member of the tea party, or even cared about charged political issues such as health care.  The evidence is, rather, that he was severely mentally sick and living in his own twisted world.

They make the prima facia claim (with little or no supporting argument) that the angry partisan political climate can set off the mentally unbalanced.  Which is itself a mentally unbalanced claim to make.

A few things, there.  First, if this is so, and they really believe that, then how do they justify the eight incredibly angry years of “Bush derangement syndrome”?  Why was it not true when Republicans were in power, but not true now that Democrats are in power?  The mainstream media is far too pathologically biased and dishonest to show you that the WORST “climate of hate” comes from the left.

Second, why do Democrats, if they really believe their own crap, continue to make such bitter and polarizing comments if such comments can push the already unhinged over the edge?  Take our liberal propagandist “sheriff, for instance:

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country, is getting to be outrageous,” Dupnik said Sunday.

It’s clear who the sheriff has in mind. As he told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country. … We as a country need to look into our souls and into our hearts and say is what we’re doing really in the best interest of this country, or is there something better we can do.”

Got that? The shooting was motivated by the rhetoric of “one party” — the Republicans — trying to stop the Democrats from making this “a better country.” Talk about “hate speech.”

Let me ask you, just for the sake of argument.  Suppose that there is some crazed liberal out there in the wings.  And said crazed liberal hears his law enforcement say, “We see [the Republican] Party trying to block the attempts of [the Democrat] Party to make this a better country.”  And, of course, he’s aghast.  What can be done to stop this evil Republican Party from keeping the Democrats from finally making this “a better country”???

Something must be done.  Someone must act.  By any means necessary.  Including – maybe even embracing – violence.

How does this not follow on their own rhetoric???

Didn’t Obama command, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?

The president beamed his command into my brain to bring a gun to the Republican congressman’s meet-and-greet.

Didn’t Obama command, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”?

“Yes!  YES!  Get in their face.  With a gun!  And then pull the trigger!”

Didn’t Obama tell his followers to “punish our enemies”?  With said “enemies” being Republicans?

“My client says he had to punish those Republican congressmen.  He says the president commanded him to kill those congressmen.”

Now, to set the record straight, having pointed out just a few of Obama’s comments, I don’t think Obama was calling for violence.  Because, apparently unlike Democrats, I possess the moral intelligence to understand that he was using the same sort of common metaphors as Sarah Palin has when she has said, “Don’t retreat, reload.”  And, on the flip side, I realize that if Sarah Palin is a disgrace, then the president of the United States is far more so, given the very office from which he has said these things.

A reasonable person can’t help but be confused at the constant double-standard that comes from Democrats.  If this kind of rhetoric is wrong, if it leads to violence, then why do they keep doing it themselves???  And why do they denounce Republicans even while they themselves are doing the very thing they say is evil to do???  And how do their skulls not explode from containing all the contradictions???

Let me offer something that happened to me a couple of years ago to show how political rhetoric – whether “angry” or “hateful” or not – has little if anything to do with setting off an unhinged mind.

A very sweet lady in my church asked several of her friends to help her with a big garage sale she wanted to have.  Being a sweet lady, she asked the police if it was okay to put out signs around town notifying drivers of her yard sale.  Which most people just do.  And, being a sweet lady, when the police told her people weren’t supposed to put out such signage, she didn’t do it.  Which meant that her yard sale – with all the effort that went into it – was twisting in the wind.

So I made a nice, big sign that said “Yard Sale” along with the address, drove to the main drag in town, and waved that darned thing around to first the northbound traffic, then the southbound traffic, and so on and so forth.  And when I came back a couple hours later, I was assured that my incredibly soul-numbing boredom had not been in vain: a lot of people suddenly started showing up.

I love sweet little old ladies.  And don’t you dare mess with one while I’m anywhere nearby, if you like your teeth.

Well, all that was to bring up something that happened while I was holding that sign that merely said “YARD SALE” with a house address.  A woman walking on the sidewalk came up to me, took a look at the sign, and screamed, “Yard Sale!  YARD SALE!”  And just went off on me in an uncontrollable rant for two or three minutes.

I never said a single word to her.  There was no point.  She was clearly not in her right mind, and there’s no point trying to argue with or reason with deranged people.

And the point is, anything can set these people off.  Absolutely anything.  Even the words “Yard Sale” on a cardboard sign, accompanied by the probably wide-eyes of a helpless man staring into the bulging eyeballs of the insane.

It’s not a matter of “avoid the anger.”  Avoid everything.  Shut down the economy.  Close the stores.  Stay in your homes.  Shut off all the television and radio stations.  Make tinfoil hats.  Because even your very thoughtwaves can set these people off.

So this notion that Republicans and conservatives must “tone down the hate” – while of course Democrats may continue to feel free to unleash hell – is so paranoid and so unhinged that I can’t help but watch these Democrats and these reporters and see the face of that whacked-out woman going off on me about my yard sale sign.

Sheriff Dupnik saying that what people hear on the radio and on television makes them do the things they do could well come right out of the brain of Jared Loughner, who merely replaces “radio and television” with “government.”  It’s equally insane.

I can easily picture the “sheriff,” and liberals like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow cringing in lead-lined bunkers hoping that their tinfoil hats are thick enough to prevent Sarah Palin – who already lives rent-free in their heads – from taking over that final molecule and forcing them to do her evil bidding.

That’s basically the message of the left right now: “Put on your tinfoil hats, people!  Because your all in danger of having your minds commandeered by rightwing hate!”

And, at risk of boring you, that was precisely what Jared Loughner’s disturbed and paranoid brain feared: mind control.

This Jared Loughner guy wasn’t livid over ObamaCare or the stimulus or anything based in reality; he was frothing at the mouth over the government being behind the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, he was furious over the government taking over our brains by controlling grammar, he was enthralled with his bizarre dreams, that sort of thing.  He was as disconnected from politics as he was from the rest of reality.  Loughner once confronted Rep. Giffords with a question that made no sense.  And when she basically ignored it, his warped mind apparently fixated on her.

To make the Democrats’ despicable argument all the more so, based on their view, you could reasonably blame Gabrielle Giffords for the shooting.  Jared Loughner was listening to her, and she clearly didn’t say the right thing – which incited him to violence.

Every single journalist and every single politician who demands that people – and particularly conservative people – tone down their political views should be immediately discredited as nothing more than despicable ideological hacks.

What we are seeing is the murder of seven victims.  Not just six.  The seventh is truth, which is now being contorted and ripped beyond the breaking point for the sake of partisan political ideology.

And I’ll end by saying this: the record of history could not be more clear: the worse monsters in political history have without fail been those who have demanded that their opponents be silent.  The last thing we should ever want to follow is the political rationale that says, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Katie Couric Demonstrates How Moral Idiot Left Will Surrender America To Sharia

January 6, 2011

Glenn Beck (and yes, I know I’ve already lost most liberals, who believe that no matter how factually true something is, if it comes from Fox News or a Glenn Beck, it can be demonized and disregarded) had the following to say about renowned profoundly progressive journalist Walter Lippmann from his book Phantom Public:

In fact, the media is engaged in open propaganda for this administration. Not merely bias — what are you, nuts? They’re following a proud heritage of propagandists before them that began, as you might expect, if you’re a regular watcher of the show, around the time of — oh, I don’t know — what is his name? Woodrow Wilson.

One of Wilson’s close advisors was this guy, Walter Lippmann. He is a journalist who considered himself an icon among the liberal media, and the liberal media agrees. His methods and ideas are taught in college to our journalism students to this today.

You should read some of his books. I wonder if the people in his college that love him so much have actually read — oh, I don’t know — this is an original. This one is “Phantom Public.” You should read it. Spooky!

But what they teach in college is public opinion. These are things that these journalists are taught as a good thing. Quote, “News and truth are not the same thing.”

And quote, “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.”

In other words, you’re just too stupid. You don’t know it’s bad for you so we need a group of guys like this. Who has a big head and he can explain everything so we know it’s all for our own good.

Thank you very much. In fact, he believes that most citizens — and you’re going to love this, quote, “are mentally children.” Did you say that? Or barbarians. I can’t imagine why the journalists don’t just think this is guy is awful.

Things are starting to make sense now, aren’t they, about why you see journalists report the things that they do and treat the American people the way they do. Yes, they needed to be guided by intellectuals such as Walter Lippmann.

And hence the origin of the mainstream media class of journalistic snobbery; they’re better than you, they’re liberal as hell (and hellish as liberals), and whatever they think is right merely because they think it.  And of course they’re better than the 80% of the country who don’t share their values.

Katie Couric And Mo Rocca Show Us Why We’re Going To Lose Our Freedom To Sharia
Posted on January 1, 2011 by John L. Work

With thanks to Doug Powers over at Michelle Malkin’s site Hey.  Want to know why we’re headed toward losing this War against the forces of Islam – the same ones that declared eternal war on the World of Infidels way back in the 7th Century?  Watch this CBS video clip, featuring Katie Couric as the host, with Mo Rocca as a guest, in a discussion on the alleged terrible bigotry and hate that Katie says America has exhibited toward Muslims (I removed their stuttering in my transcription):

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/31/katie-couric-maybe-we-need-a-muslim-version-of-the-cosby-show/

KC:  I also think sort of the chasm between, or the bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface this year.  Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic center – mosque down near the World Trade Center.  But I think there wasn’t enough sort of careful evaluation of where this bigotry toward one point five billion Muslims world-wide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected and so wrong, and so disappointing.

MR:  And you know one thing, I don’t know about you or either of you guys, but I’m pretty smart, and I cannot tell you…

KC:  (interrupts) We’ll be the judge of that, Mo.

MR:  …I mean I went to really fancy schools.  I cannot tell you five things about Islam.  I know almost nothing about a major world religion that sits at the intersection of so many issues that are undeniably relevant to all of us.  And I’m embarrassed.  I mean I know nothing about Islam.

KC:  Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show.

MR:  Interesting.

KC:  I know that sounds crazy, but the Cosby Show did so much to change attitudes about African Americans in this country and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don’t understand.  Like you, Mo.  You know, you’re saying you don’t know that much, your not afraid of it, but that you’re sort of, don’t have enough knowledge about it, but maybe if it became more part of the popular (inaudible)…

MR:  (interrupts)  Well, I think that religion should just be taught as an academic subject in public schools…

KC:  (interrupts)  I totally agree with you.

MR:  …much more.  The fear of it, it’s so misguided and the interpretation of separation between church and state

KC:  Alright.  Let’s change the subject in something a little less heavy.

End of clip

I rest my case.  For years this is what we’ve been force-fed by our media and by our elected officials about Islam.  Mindless apologist pabulum.  Ignorance.  Abject denial of reality.  Obstinate refusal to do a little homework and study.  If these so-called media icons had any real grip on the actual doctrines and practice of Sharia in Muslim states, they’d be damned afraid of it taking over here in the U.S.A.

Better to die free than to submit to Sharia.

It doesn’t really matter what the issue is; the mainstream media is waaaayy to the left of the rest of the nation’s values in its “reporting.”

So, for example, we can take the very issue that Katie Couric is lecturing America on – the Ground Zero mosque – and we can take her own CBS network’s polling.

From CBS:

NEW YORK (CBS 2) – Most Americans are against building a controversial mosque near Ground Zero, a CBS news poll has found.

According to the poll results,  only 22 percent of Americans surveyed think it’s appropriate to build the mosque and cultural center two blocks away, on Park Place.

On the other hand, 71 percent who responded said they think it’s not appropriate for the facility to go up so close to the World Trade Center site.

But, don’t you see?  “Most Americans” are QUOTE “mentally children,” and  so your beliefs and values can be disregarded.  And if the Katie Courics of the world simply have to flat-out lie to you, well, you’re too freaking stupid to understand the truth anyway.  And, as the great progressive big government bureaucrat Pontius Pilate famously asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), anyway?*

And public opinion needs to be managed by that “specialized class” of liberal elites.  Because, after all, liberal progressives have replaced God with themselves and with their superior ideas.  Just ask them.

Fellow progressive elitest “god-complexer” Bill Maher put the mindset well:

MAHER: Right, right. Uh, but, yeah, I mean, you know, they’re talking about 60 votes they need. Forget this stuff, 60…. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything 60 percent. Sixty percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country.

He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this.  Get health care done, you know, with or without them. Make the Gang of Six an offer they can’t refuse. This Max Baucus guy? He needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern’s head in his bed.

That’s the amazing thing about liberals.  They are totally fascists; but they are such complete moral idiots that they don’t KNOW they’re fascists.

It would actually be funny, if these people weren’t so dangerous, and hadn’t amassed so much power and control which has enabled them to decide who wins and who loses.

And so they constantly lecture the right even as they do the above, and even as they try repeatedly to impose their oxymoronically-named “Fairness Doctrine,” and even as they now impose their again oxymoronically-named “Net Neutrality” to gain control over the internet.

But getting back to Sharia: it’s not that the left hates religion (atheism itself is a religion, you know, and “state atheism” is the religion of communism); it’s that the left despises Judeo-Christianity and everything it stands for.  And the left agrees with radical Islam that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Hence the left is all but openly aligning itself with radical Islam and sheltering the movement by demonizing anyone who would criticize it.  Why?  Because Islam becomes another device by which the left can demonize their more hated enemy, Judeo-Christianity, by depicting it as “intolerant” and “hateful.”   And after Christianity is undermined, liberals believe (naively and stupidly) that they can somehow reason with or appease the Islamists.

Which, again, is something only a true moral idiot would think.

I’m certainly not the only one who has perceived a liberal love affair with radical Islam; and I’m not the only one who has seen a liberal-Muslim axis.  And while liberals are too morally moronic to see themselves in this violent power-worshiping movement, all I have to do is say things like “Weather Underground,” “Black Panthers,” “Students for a Democratic Society,” all I have to do is name liberal icons such as “Che Guevara” or Charles Manson (as I once demonstrated to a particularly rabid liberal jerk once).

The fact of the matter is that liberals love violent revolutionary movements.

It’s funny.  General Eisenhower very prominently used the term “Crusade” – that came right out of Christendom – to describe the Allies’ war with and defeat of the evil forces of socialism (Nazi = National Socialist German Workers Party).  The fact of the matter is that Christendom has been the backbone that has allowed the West to stand up and fight its enemies since the first Crusade.

Which is to say that the day “progressivism” supposedly “wins” in its war on Judeo-Christianity, it will lose itself and all the values such as individual liberty that it never deserved in the first place.  And then progressives will get the totalitarian-tyrant they have always truly deserved.

As I’ve pointed out before, the beast is coming.

Fake Job Creation: What’s Good For The Goose Is Good For the Obama

October 16, 2009

When Obama forced and rushed his stimulus through Congress by fearmongering down the economy and predicting catastrophe if his $3.27 stimulus porker wasn’t passed, he offered a carrot: pass his stimulus, his administration promised, and he would be able to keep unemployment under 8%:

The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today’s unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.

And Zero has created zero jobs ever since, as the unemployment rate climbed, and climbed to near 10% – and is expected to keep on climbing.  But don’t let that stop the Obama White House for figuring out creative ways to pat itself on the back for a job done wonderfully.

A sticky little situation that New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine got caught in is very illustrative.  It appears that Corzine decided to embark on the same tactic his president has used.

Corzine aides told to ‘stretch’ truth

TRENTON, N.J. | New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s Cabinet has been told to orchestrate events to showcase job creation, even if it’s “a stretch.”

Mr. Corzine, a Democrat, is locked in a tight race for re-election with Republican Chris Christie and polls show the economy is a major issue.

The Star-Ledger of Newark obtained an Oct. 5 e-mail from Mr. Corzine’s deputy chief of staff, Mark Matzen.  He asked the heads of several departments to come up with events that “get our message out” that Mr. Corzine’s economic policies are working.

Mr. Matzen went on to say that while many programs might not create jobs directly, they do have some connection through “training, giving money to sustain employment or create demand for workers.”

Corzine spokesman Steve Sigmund says the effort doesn’t have anything to do with the campaign.

Yeah, Steve.  And every article I’ve written has actually been plugging for Obama.

We get a profound sense that we are being governed by weasels.  Here are just a few of my own articles from May and June pointing out just how deceitfully “Corzinesh” the Obama White House has been:

Obama Wreckovery Act And Stimulus ‘Employment’: The Pathetic Reality

Obama And Unemployment: Just So You Know How Pathetically Incompetent Dear Leader Is

Obama Reveals His Porkulus Was Bogus In His Own Bogus Claims

Biden Falsely Claims 150,000 Jobs Created By Stimulus: And Never Mind Those 2.6 Million Jobs LOST

Those were yesterdays ridiculous lies.  Today’s lies are even more ridiculous:

Vice President Joe Biden delivered a rousing review of the government’s economic stimulus plan in a conversation with the nation’s governors. “In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well,” he said. “Thank you, thank you.”

The actual unemployment rate is now at 17%.  From the AP:

More than a half-million unemployed people gave up looking for work last month. If laid-off workers who have settled for part-time work or have given up looking for new jobs are included, the unemployment rate rose to 17 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.

Things couldn’t be going better, could they?

Meanwhile, even liberals are now beginning to realize what a pathetic bust Obama has been at creating jobs.

And only 43% of the voters would vote to re-elect Obama.

Some Thoughts On The Russian Invasion Of Georgia

August 12, 2008

Vladimir Putin – who is most likely as much in control of Russia as he ever was – has said that the collapse of the U.S.S.R. ranks as “the greatest political catastrophe in history” and claimed that its reintegration was a matter of “historical destiny.” And he has been working for years toward reunifying and synchronizing the former Soviet empire under Russian rule.

But this was an empire that Ronald Reagan described as evil. The great and just passed Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn provided the intellectual and moral grounds for that assignation in his Harvard address, “A World Split Apart.” Solzhenitsyn began by saying, “Harvard’s motto is Veritas” (i.e., truth). And then he proceeded to launch into a sobering examination of Veritas.

It was a speech that excoriated not only the Soviet Union, but also the West for its immorality, materialism, and godlessness. It provoked outrage among liberal academia and sparked indignant editorials in the liberal media. “He believes himself to be in possession of The Truth,” the New York Times editorialized in what amounted to the ultimate postmodernist condemnation, “and so sees error wherever he looks.” But other columnists, such as Michael Novak, called the address, “The most important religious document of our time.”

Solzhenistsyn’s address raised postmodern issues and examined history in a distinctly Christian way. Its very title alluded to the postmodern condition: “A World Split Apart.” He affirmed traditional cultures against the all-encompassing mass culture of Western secularism. He dissected the West’s materialism and concern for comfort and pleasure, which he argued had drained away our capacity for courage and sacrifice. he deplored the way our laws had been disconnected from morality. “Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror,” he said. He blasted the irresponsibility of the news media and the West’s “TV stupor.” Your scholars are free in the legal sense,” he said, “but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad.” He attacked “humanism which has lost its Christian heritage,” and cited the obsolescence of the “ossified formulas of the Enlightenment.”

Solzhenistsyn’s point was that the West had largely forfeited the moral and intellectual resources needed to confront genuine evil. With no absolute canons of objective truth, the moral and even the rational is replaced by the aesthetic. We believe in what we like. Today, people unused to thinking in terms of absolute, objective truth still have opinions and strongly held beliefs. In fact, their beliefs prove to be even more difficult to dislodge, because they admit to no ultimate external criteria by which they can be judged and be shown to be wrong. Since their beliefs are a function of the will, they cling to them willfully. Since their beliefs will tend to have no foundation other than their preferences and personality, they will interpret any criticism of their beliefs as a personal attack. Engage practically anyone in a discussion of some controversial issue today, and this problem will show itself.

As evil rises on the march, how do we confront it, when we do not even believe that it exists or know what it is? How can we unify to stop it when we are fractured into this identity group or that? How do we rise up and sacrifice to stop such evil when we are focused on our immediate comforts and environments?

Russia under former KGB officer Vladimir Putin has largely eradicated the fledgling democracy that had slowly been building and embracing a totalitarian state.

We are in a malaise. And I believe that it is the outrage over that malaise that prompted Paul Zannucci to write what he described as “an unadulterated rant.”

It sounds like the Russians are ceasing their military operations. Whether they will now consolidate their gains, or withdraw, is an open question. Very likely they will do the former, and the democratically elected government will give way to a Russian-installed puppet government. Certainly the two Georgian provinces that were leaning toward Russia will be seized from Georgia.

But this is very likely not the end of Russian maneuvers in their former satellites. Ukraine is very likely next. After the dust-up from Georgia begins to settle, I believe we will see Russia begin to exercise the same under-the-radar political strong-arm tactics that it used against Georgia prior to the shooting.

Ultimately, I believe that a coalition based on mutual self-interests will form between Russia and Islam. Russia wants its former satellites back; Muslims want Israel to be wiped off the map. And the large Muslim populations of eastern Europe may agree to Russian headship if Russia helps them annihilate the state of Israel.

We can already see this alliance forming, as Russia increasingly forms a military alliance with the rogue Islamic state of Iran.

And that is probably a major part of the America hesitation in dealing with the Russian invasion of Georgia: if we alienate Russia, they won’t help us reign in the nuclear ambitions of Iran.

My view is this: if we are counting on Russia – which has actively been aiding Iran’s nuclear ambitions by providing equipment and expertise – to help us dissuade Iran from doing what it has repeatedly asserted that it is intent upon doing, then we might as well be waiting for a cold day in hell.

Do we have the moral will to prevent these frightening scenarios from unfolding?

If we look back to Hitler’s Nazi Germany, we see Hitler boldly moving on one of his neighbors (e.g., Czechoslovakia, Poland), and then waiting to see what the international reaction would be. When he sensed the reaction was weak, he moved again. And he kept moving in bolder and bolder fashion until a pacifistic West finally woke up to a global conflagration that it had failed both to prevent or even to prepare for.

Most of the world – including our “allies” in the West – have succumbed to a malaise that is frighteningly similar to that of their ancestors. Our European allies have come to believe that we can appease evil by compromising and bargaining with it. Military action is to be avoided at all cost.

Meanwhile, our enemies feel no such similar constraints about using military action and/or terrorism to obtain their ends.

We can no longer count on our allies to truly stand with us. It is up to the United States to realize that evil can no more be contained than cancer, that cancer spreads unless destroyed, and that force must be met with force. Meanwhile, more and more of our enemies and former enemies are beginning to take steps that will lead to terrifying consequences in the years to come unless they are stopped.

Let me say, by way of a political observation, that the United States cannot prevent or stand against evil by becoming more like our European allies. Both the history of human civilization and a study of the great religious systems of man tell us that we cannot compromise with evil. Winston Churchill did not argue that we should be like Europe when it surrendered and compromised and ignored the storm that was overtaking it; he argued that Britain had to stand against Nazi fascism with everything it had. We must stand against evil. Even if that means standing alone.

It’s going to be up to the United States and Israel to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And it’s primarily going to be up to the United States to contain Russia’s ambition to restore its former Soviet-era territorial greatness.

Can we mobilize the awareness, the courage, and the willingness to sacrifice to prevent these things from happening?

Only if we begin by listening to the warning of the late, great Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Fighting For Survival Means Fighting For Truth – by Newt Gingrich

May 9, 2008

Sleepwalking Into a Nightmare: Newt Gingrich’s Remarks to a Jewish National Fund Meeting at the Selig Center

“Good evening.

I just want to talk to you from the heart for a few minutes tonight, and share with you where I think we are.

I think it is very stark. I don’t think it is yet desperate, but it is very stark. And if I had a title for tonight’s talk, it would be ‘Sleepwalking Into a Nightmare’, because that’s what I think we’re doing.

I gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute recently, at which I gave an alternative history of the last six years, because the more I thought about how much we’re failing, the more I concluded you couldn’t just nitpick individual places and talk about individual changes because it didn’t capture the scale of the disaster. And I had been particularly impressed by a new book that came out called ‘Troublesome Young Men’, which is a study of the younger Conservatives who opposed appeasement in the 1930s and who took on Chamberlain. It’s a very revealing book and a very powerful book because we tend to look backwards and we tend to overstate Churchill’s role in that period. And we tend to understate what a serious and conscientious and thoughtful effort appeasement was and that it was the direct and deliberate policy of very powerful and very willful people. We tend to think of it as a psychological weakness as though Chamberlain was somehow craven. He wasn’t craven. Chamberlain had a very clear vision of the World, and he was very ruthless domestically.

And they believed so deeply in avoiding war with Germany that as late as the spring of 1940, when they are six months or seven months into the war, they are dropping leaflets instead of bombs on the Rohr, and they are urging the British news media not to publish anti-German stories because they don’t want to offend the German people. And you read this book, and it makes you want to weep because, interestingly, the younger Tories who were most opposed to appeasement were the combat veterans of World War I, who had lost all of their friends in the war but who understood that the failure of appeasement would result in a worse war and that the longer you lied about reality, the greater the disaster.

And they were severely punished and isolated by Chamberlain and the Conservative machine, and as I read that, I realized that that’s really where we are today. Our current problem is tragic. You have an administration whose policy is inadequate being opposed by a political Left whose policy is worse, and you have nobody prepared to talk about the policy we need. Because we are told, ‘if you are for a strong America, you should back the Bush policy even if it’s inadequate’, and so you end up making an argument in favor of something that can’t work. So your choice is to defend something which isn’t working, or to oppose it by being for an even weaker policy. And this is a catastrophe for this country, and a catastrophe for freedom around the world. Because we have refused to be honest about the scale of the problem.

Let me work backwards. I’m going to get to Iran, since that’s the topic, but I’m going to get to it eventually.

Let me work back from Pakistan. The dictatorship in Pakistan has never had control over Waziristan. Not for a single day. So we’ve now spent six years since 9/11 with a sanctuary for Al-Qaida, and a sanctuary for the Taliban, and every time we pick up people in Great Britain who are terrorists, they were trained in Pakistan.

And our answer is to praise Musharraf, because at least he’s not as bad as the others. But the truth is Musharraf has not gotten control of terrorism in Pakistan. Musharraf doesn’t have full control over his own government. The odds are even money we’re going to drift into a disastrous dictatorship at some point in Pakistan. And while we worry about the Iranians acquiring a nuclear weapon, the Pakistanis already have them. So why would you feel secure in a world where you could presently have an Islamist dictatorship in Pakistan with a hundred-plus nuclear weapons? What’s our grand strategy for that?

Then you look at Afghanistan. Here’s a country that’s small, poor, isolated, and in six years we have not been able to build roads, create economic opportunity, wean people off of growing drugs. A third of the Afghani GDP is from drugs. We haven’t been able to end the sanctuary for the Taliban in Pakistan. And I know of no case historically where you defeat a guerrilla movement if it has a sanctuary. So the people who rely on the West are out bribed by the criminals, outgunned by the criminals, and faced with a militant force across the border which practiced earlier defeating the Soviet empire and which has a time horizon of three or four generations. NATO has a time horizon of each quarter or at best a year, facing an opponent whose time horizon is literally three or four generations. It’s a total mismatch.

Then you come to the direct threat to the United States, which is al-Qaeda. About which, by the way, we just published polls. One of the sites I commend to you is AmericanSolutions.com. Last Wednesday we posted six national surveys, $428,000 worth of data. We gave it away. I found myself in the unique position of calling Howard Dean to tell him I was giving him $400,000 worth of polling. We have given it away to Democrats and Republicans alike. It is fundamentally different from the national news media. When asked the question “Do we have an obligation to defend the United States and her allies?” the answer is 85 percent yes. When asked a further question “Should we defeat our enemies?” – it’s very strong language – the answer is 75 percent yes.

So the complaint about Iraq is a performance complaint, not a values complaint.

When asked whether or not al-Qaeda is a threat, 89 percent of the country says yes. And they think you have to defeat it, you can’t negotiate with it. So now let’s look at al-Qaeda and the rise of Islamist terrorism. And let’s be honest: What’s the primary source of money for al-Qaeda? It’s you, re-circulated through Saudi Arabia. Because we have no national energy strategy, when clearly if you really cared about liberating the United States from the Middle East and if you really cared about the survival of Israel, one of your highest goals would be to move to a hydrogen economy, and to eliminate petroleum as a primary source of energy

Now that’s what a serious national strategy would look like, but that would require an actual change.

So then you look at Saudi Arabia. The fact that we tolerate a country saying no Christian and no Jew can go to Mecca, and we start with the presumption that that’s true, while they attack Israel for being a religious state, is a sign of our timidity, our confusion, our cowardice, that is stunning.

It’s not complicated. We invited Saudi Arabia to come to Annapolis to talk about rights for Palestinians when nobody said, “Let’s talk about rights for Christians and Jews in Saudi Arabia. Let’s talk about rights for women in Saudi Arabia.”

So we accept this totally one-sided definition of the world, in which our enemies can cheerfully lie on television every day, and we don’t even have the nerve to insist on the truth. We pretend their lies are reasonable. This is a very fundamental problem. And if you look at who some of the largest owners of some of our largest banks are today … they’re Saudis.

You keep pumping billions of dollars a year into countries like Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Russia, and you are presently going to have created people who oppose you, who have lots of money. And they’re then going to come back to your own country and finance, for example, Arab study institutes whose only requirement is that they never tell the truth. So you have all sorts of Ph.D.’s who now show up quite cheerfully prepared to say whatever it is that makes their founders happy — in the name, of course, of academic freedom. In this context, why wouldn’t Columbia host a genocidal madman? It’s just part of political correctness. I mean, Ahmadinejad may say terrible things; he may lock up students, he may kill journalists, he may say, “We should wipe out Israel,” he may say, “We should defeat the United States,” but after all, what has he done that’s inappropriate? What has he done that wouldn’t be repeated at a Hollywood cocktail party or a nice gathering in Europe?

And nobody says, ‘this is totally, utterly, absolutely unacceptable’. Why is it that the number-one threat in intelligence movies is always the CIA? I happened the other night to be watching an old movie, ‘To Live and Die in L.A.’, which is about counterfeiting. But the movie starts with a Secret Service agent who is defending Ronald Reagan in 1985, and the person he is defending Ronald Reagan from is a suicide bomber who is actually, overtly, a Muslim fanatic. Now, six years after 9/11, you could not get that same scene made in Hollywood today.

Just look at the movies. Why is it that the bad person has to be either a right-wing crazed billionaire, or the CIA as a government agency? Go look at the ‘Bourne Ultimatum’. Or a movie like the one that George Clooney made, which was an absolute lie, in which it was implied that if you were a reformist Arab prince, the CIA would kill you. It’s a total lie. We actually have SEALS protecting people all over the world. We actually risk American lives protecting reformers all over the world, and yet Hollywood can’t bring itself to tell the truth, because (a) it’s ideologically opposed to the American government and the American military; and (b), because it’s terrified that if it said something really openly, honestly truthful about Muslim terrorists, they might show up in Hollywood, and somebody might be killed as the Dutch producer was killed. They’re cowards.

And so we’re living a life of cowardice, and in that life of cowardice we’re sleepwalking into a nightmare.

And then you come to Iran. There’s a terrific book. Mark Bowden is a remarkable writer who wrote ‘Black Hawk Down’, has enormous personal courage. He’s a Philadelphia newspaper writer, actually got the money out of the Philadelphia newspaper to go to Somalia to interview the Somalian side of ‘Black Hawk Down’. It’s a remarkable achievement. Tells a great story about getting to Somalia, paying lots of cash, having the local warlord protect him, and after about two weeks the warlord came to him and said, “You know, we’ve decided that we’re very uncomfortable with you being here, and you should leave.”

And so he goes to the hotel, where he is the only hard-currency guest, and says, “I’ve got to check out two weeks early because the warlord has told me that he no longer will protect me.” And the hotel owner, who wants to keep his only hard-currency guest, says, “Well, why are you listening to him? He’s not the government. There is no government.” And Bowden says, “Well, what will I do?” And he says, “You hire a bigger warlord with more guns,” which he did. But then he could only stay one week because he ran out of money.

But this is a guy with real courage. I mean, imagine trying to go out and be a journalist in that kind of world, OK? So Bowden came back and wrote ‘Guest of the Ayatollah’, which is the Iranian hostage of 1979, which he entitled, ‘The First Shots in Iran’s War Against America.’ So in the Bowden world view, the current Iranian dictatorship has been at war with the United States since 1979. Violated international law. Every conceivable tenet of international law was violated when they seized the American Embassy and they seized the diplomats. Killed Americans in Lebanon in the early ’80s. Killed Americans at Khobar Towers in ’95 and had the Clinton administration deliberately avoid revealing the information, as Louis Freeh, the Director of the FBI, has said publicly, because they didn’t want to have to confront the Iranian complicity.

And so you have an Iranian regime which is cited annually as the leading supporter of state terrorism in the world. Every year the State Department says that. It’s an extraordinary act of lucidity on the part of an institution which seeks to avoid it as often as possible And you have Gen. Petraeus come to the U.S. Congress and say publicly in an open session, “The Iranians are waging a proxy war against Americans in Iraq.”

I was so deeply offended by this, it’s hard for me to express it without sounding irrational. I’m an Army Brat. My dad served 27 years in the infantry. The idea that an American general would come to the American Congress, testify in public that our young men and women are being killed by Iran, and we have done nothing, I find absolutely abhorrent So I’m preparing to come and talk today. I got up this morning, and a friend had sent me yesterday’s Jerusalem Post editorial, which if you haven’t read, I recommend to you. It has, for example, the following quote: “On Monday, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said, ‘The problem of the content of the document setting out joint principles for peace-making post-Annapolis has not been resolved. One of the more pressing problems is the Zionist regime’s insistence on being recognized as a Jewish state. We will not agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined.’

What truly bothers me is the shallowness and the sophistry of the Western governments, starting with our own. When a person says to you, “I don’t recognize that you exist,” you don’t start a negotiation. The person says, “I literally do not recognize” and then lies to you. I mean the first thing you say to this guy is “Terrific. Let’s go visit Mecca. Since clearly there’s no other state except Israel that is based on religion, the fact that I happen to be Christian won’t bother anybody.” And then he’ll say, “Well, that’s different.”

We actually tolerate this. We have created our own nightmare, because we refuse to tell the truth. We refuse to tell the truth to our politicians. Our State Department refuses to tell the truth to the country. If the President of the United States … and again, we’re now so bitterly partisan, we’re so committed to red-vs.-blue hostility … that George W. Bush doesn’t have the capacity to give an address from the Oval Office that has any meaning for half the country. And the anti-war Left is so strong in the Democratic primary that I think it’s almost impossible for any Democratic presidential candidate to tell the truth about the situation.

And so the Republicans are isolated and trying to defend incompetence. The Democrats are isolated and trying to find a way to say, “I’m really for strength as long as I can have peace, but I’d really like to have peace, except I don’t want to recognize these people who aren’t very peaceful.”

I just want to share with you, as a grandfather, as a citizen, as a historian, as somebody who was once speaker of the House, this is a serious national crisis. This is actually 1935 or 1936, and it’s getting worse every year.

None of our enemies are confused. Our enemies don’t get up each morning and go, “Oh, gosh, I think I’ll have an existential crisis of identity in which I will try to think through whether or not we can be friends while you’re killing me.” No; our enemies get up every morning and say, “We hate the West. We hate freedom. We will kill them all.” They would not allow a meeting with women in the room. I was once interviewed by a BBC reporter, a nice young lady who was only about as anti-American as she had to be to keep her job. Since it was a live interview, I turned to her halfway through the interview and I said, “Do you like your job?” And it was summertime, and she’s wearing a short-sleeve dress. And she said, “Well, yes.” She was confused because I had just reversed roles. I said, “Well, then you should hope we win.” She said, “What do you mean?” And I said, “Well, if the enemy wins, you won’t be allowed to be on television.”

I don’t know how to explain it any simpler than that.

Now, what do we need?

We need first of all to recognize this is a real war. Our enemies are peaceful when they’re weak, are ruthless when they’re strong, demand mercy when they’re losing, show no mercy when they’re winning. They understand exactly what this is, and anybody who reads Sun Tzu will understand exactly what we’re living through. This is a total war. One side is going to win. One side is going to lose. You’ll be able to tell who won and who lost by who’s still standing. Most of Islam is not in this war, but most of Islam isn’t going to stop this war. They’re just going to sit to one side and tell you how sorry they are that this is happening.

We had better design grand strategies that are radically bigger and radically tougher and radically more honest than anything currently going on, and that includes winning the argument in Europe, and it includes winning the argument in the rest of the world.

And it includes being very clear, and I’ll just give you one simple example because we’re now muscle-bound by our own inability to talk honestly. Iran produces 60 percent of its own gasoline. It produces lots of crude oil but only has one refinery. It imports 40 percent of its gasoline. The entire 60 percent is produced at one huge refinery.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan decided to break the Soviet empire. He was asked: ‘what’s your vision of the Cold War?’ He said, ‘Four words: we win; they lose.’ He was clearly seen by The New York Times as an out-of-touch, reactionary, right-wing cowboy from California who had no idea what was going on in the world. And eleven years later the Soviet Union disappeared, but obviously that had nothing to do with Reagan because that would have meant he was right. So it’s just a random accident the Soviet Union disappeared.

Part of the war we waged on the Soviet Union involved their natural gas supply because we wanted to cut off their hard currency. The Soviets were desperate to get better equipment for their pipeline. We managed to sell them, through third parties, some very, very sophisticated American pipeline equipment, which they were absolutely thrilled to buy, and thought they had pulled off a huge coup. Now, we weren’t playing fair. We did not tell them that the equipment was designed to fail; to blow itself up. It was in the software that ran the equipment, and they never detected it. One day in 1982, there was an explosion in Siberia so large that the initial reflection on the satellites looked like it was a tactical nuclear weapon. One part of the White House was genuinely worried, and the other part of the White House had to calm them down. They said, “No, no, that’s just our own equipment blowing up.”

In the 28 years since the Iranians declared war on us, in the six years since 9/11, in the months since Gen. Petraeus publicly said they are killing young Americans, we have not been able to figure out how to take down a single refinery. Covertly, quietly, without overt war. And we have not been able to figure out how to use the most powerful Navy in the world to simply stop the tankers and say, “Look, you want to kill young Americans, you’re going to walk to the battlefield. You’re not going to ride in the car, because you’re not going to have any gasoline.”

We don’t have to be stupid. The choice is not cowardice or total war. Reagan unlocked Poland without firing a shot, via an alliance with the Pope, with the labor unions, and with the British. We have every possibility, if we’re prepared to be honest, to shape the world. It’ll be a very big project. It’s going to require an effort much closer to the effort we put into World War II than it is to anything we’ve tried recently. It will require great effort, real intensity and real determination. We’re either going to do it now, while we’re still extraordinarily powerful, or we’re going to do it later under much more desperate circumstances after we’ve lost several cities.

We had better take this seriously, because we are not very many mistakes away from a second Holocaust. Three nuclear weapons is a second Holocaust. Our enemies would like to get those weapons as soon as they can, and they promise to use them as soon as they can. I suggest we defeat our enemies, and create a different situation long before they have that power.

Thank you.”

— Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 1)

May 1, 2008

It is hard to talk to talk to people who believe that truth is relative. And there are more and more such people all the time.

C.S. Lewis described the fallacy of any theory that rejects the connection between thought and truth. In his book Miracles he said “All possible knowledge … depends on the validity of reasoning,” and developed his argument thus:

No account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, itself be demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound – a proof that there are no such things as proofs – which is nonsense.

To disbelieve in truth is patently self-contradictory. To “believe” means to think that something is true; and to say, “It is true that nothing is true” is fundamentally meaningless nonsense. The very statement, “There is no absolute truth,” is a statement of absolute truth. In the past, this pseudo-intellectual exercise was little more than a parlor game for the vacuous and simply not taken seriously. But it is very serious today, indeed. Today these views are held not only by much of academia, but by the average man on the street.

The rejection of absolutes is not merely a fine point of philosophical debate. Relative values accompany the relativism of truth. Today, we are a morally velocitized culture. What was unthinkable decades ago is openly practiced today; and what is unthinkable today will surely be openly practiced within a few years’ time.

What we have today is not merely immoral behavior by virtually all previous standards of conduct, but an abandonment of moral criteria altogether. More, we have an abandonment of meaning itself; and so today, we look for meaning in ways that would have bewildered, saddened, and shocked our forefathers.

The intellect is being replaced by the will. Reason is being replaced by emotion (which is one reason our kids are falling so far behind in math and science, and why so many are so passionate about a political candidate whose positions they cannot even begin to articulate). Morality is replaced by relativism. Reality itself is becoming viewed as little more than a mere social construct that can be manipulated by language. It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

Today, I frequently encounter people who hold mutually inconsistent ideas. I literally wonder how their heads do not explode from the contradictions they spout. It might simply be ignorance or confusion, but it really doesn’t matter: holding to mutually inconsistent ideas is a sure sign of believing that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Where did all this come from?

Postmodernism as any form of coherent intellectual discipline largely developed from the field of literary criticism, especially from deconstructionism. So it is no surprise that postmodern scholars stress the importance of “contextualizing,” putting an author or an idea in the context of the times and showing its connections to all of the other “texts” that constituted the culture. But it turns out that one can deconstruct this deconstructionism to see where this thinking has been before, and where it will surely go again unless we turn away from these ideas. It is revealing, for instance, to contextualize Martin Heidegger, who originated the anti-humanism of both the academic theorists and the environmental movement that is so significant in the postmodernist academic circles of today. David Levin has written that Heidegger criticized humanism for tolerating totalitarianism. But Levin was quite disingenuous; the fact is, we now know that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi (see Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, tr. Paul Burrell (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989), p. 253).

Heidegger’s active involvement in the Nazi party and his shameless promotion of its ideology puts a very different light on his rejection of the individual, his repudiation of traditional human values, and his glorification of nature and culture. We find that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these postmodernist concepts were central tenets of fascism. It should be no surprise that the deconstructionist critic Paul de Man has also been revealed as an apologist of Nazism (for the connection between Heidegger’s Nazi ideology and his philosophy, see Tom Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism and Philosophy (Berkeley: U of California Press, 1992). The fact is, postmodernism as a philosophy shares the same underlying concepts as fascist thought.

Postmodernists of today and the fascist intellectuals of the 1930s BOTH embrace a radicalism based not so much on economics but on culture. They BOTH reject identity in favor of cultural determinism. They BOTH reject moral values in favor of the will to power. They BOTH reject reason in favor of irrational emotional release. They BOTH reject a transcendent God in favor of an impersonal, mystical nature.

In Gene Edward Veith’s book, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, he discusses in detail fascist ideology, its intrinsic opposition to the biblical worldview, and its survival in contemporary culture and postmodernist thought. He demonstrates that the irrationalism, the cultural reductionism, and the anti-human values of the postmodernists have already been tried once, and the result was catastrophic. Fascism is coming back. Communism has fallen, but throughout the former Soviet empire democracy is opposed by a new alliance of ex-Marxists and nationalists, who are trying to forge a new National Socialism (witness Vladimir Putin’s shutting down a newspaper for publishing his secret divorce and remarriage to a young Russian gymnast). American academics see themselves as pro-Marxists (or neo-Marxist, or post-Marxists, or however they sell this utterly failed system to themselves), but their desire for a government controlled economy, their cultivated irrationalism, and their reduction of social issues to questions of culture and race are actually more similar to Mussolini (i.e. fascism) than to Marx. If Marxism is modern, fascism is postmodern. And, as per the title of another of Veith’s books on the subject, we are living in Postmodern Times.

In addition to Gene Edward Veith’s insightful works, a further excellent reference is the book The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism by Richard Wolin (whose study substantially agrees with this paper). A review of Wolin by George Crowder available online is also very much worth reading. Although Crowder disagrees with the conclusion that fascism is implicit in postmodernism, he nevertheless acknowledges that the philosophical premises between the two ideologies are virtually identical. There is a genuine interrelatedness between fascist and postmodernist thought that simply cannot be denied.

For all their earnest championing of the oppressed, and their politically correct sensitivities, postmodernist intellectuals, no doubt without realizing it, are actually resurrecting the ways of thinking that gave us World War II and the Holocaust. Perhaps the postmodernists think their good intentions will mitigate the implications of what they are saying. But intellectuals thought this once before, with terrifying consequences. David Hirsch has warned, “Purveyors of postmodernist ideologies must consider whether it is possible to diminish human beings in theory, without, at the same time, making individual human lives worthless in the real world.” Ideas have consequences.

The Tenets of Postmodernist Ideology and The Political Implications of Postmodernism (Understand that this is a presentation of what postmodernists believe and the corresponding implications of these beliefs):

  • Existentialism. Existentialism provides the rationale for contemporary postmodernism. Since everyone creates his or her own meaning, every meaning must be equally valid. Religion becomes merely a private affair, which must not be “imposed” on anyone else. The context of one’s meaning makes no difference, only the personal commitment – to give otherwise meaningless life some subjective degree of meaning. Jean Paul Sarte chose communism; Martin Heidegger chose Nazism; Rudolf Bultmann chose Christianity. Everyone inhabits his or her own private reality. Thus, “What’s true for you may not be true for me.” In today’s youth culture (and video/computer games are a classic example), we find a growing dark side to this existential subjectivism; we see a growing cynicism, pessimism, and dislike for reality as more and more people elect to create their own private realities and “tune out” to the world around them.
  • Moral Relativism. Moral values, like all other kinds of meaning, are created by the self. The best example of this existential ethic can be found in those who call themselves “pro-choice” in their advocacy of abortion. To them, it makes no difference what the woman decides, only that she makes an authentic choice (whether or not to have her baby). Whatever she chooses is right – for her. “Pro-choice” advocates are astonishingly disinterested in any objective information that might have a bearing on the morality of abortion or the status of the unborn. Data about fetal development, facts about the despicable ways abortion is performed, philosophical argumentation about the sanctity of life – all such objective evidences from the outside world are meaningless and can have no bearing on the woman’s private choice. As we can see in the “One child per family” policy of forced abortion in China, however, this view of individual choice cannot stand for long in a larger community that accepts the premises of abortion. Ultimately, as we shall see, one’s will must be subsumed into the will of the majority.
  • Social Constructivism. Meaning, morality, and truth do not exist objectively; rather, they are constructed by the society. The belief that reality is socially constructed is nothing less than the formula for totalitarianism [as David Horowitz pointed out in “The Queer Fellows,” American Spectator, January 1993, pp. 42-48. For a similar discussion applied to Hollywood values in K.L. Billingsley, The Seductive Image: A Christian Critique of the World of Film (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1989), pp. 112-113)]. Democracy presumes that individuals are free and self-directed. They are capable of governing themselves. But postmodernism holds that individuals are NOT free and in fact are directed by their societies. If the members of a society are passively and wholly controlled by societal forces, then self-governance would be impossible. Furthermore, if reality in fact is socially constructed, then the power of society and those who lead it becomes unlimited. We see this carried out to its logical extreme in Orwell’s 1984, in which the all-powerful state totally shaped the culture and controlled the very thoughts of the masses.
  • Cultural Determinism. Individuals are wholly shaped by cultural forces. Language in particular determines what we can think, trapping us in a “prison house of language.” Whereas Christian religion teaches that God constructs reality and creates man in His image to comprehend that reality, to see society as the creator (of reality) is to divinize culture. With these postmodern assumptions, every problem must have a societal solution, and nothing would escape the control of those who direct such a society. “Totalitarian” means that the state controls every sphere of life, which is exactly what postmodernism implicitly assumes in its presuppositions!
  • The Rejection of Individual Identity. People exist primarily as members of groups. The phenomenon of American individualism is itself a construction of American culture with its middle-class values of independence and introspection, but it remains an illusion. Identity is primarily collective. Postmodernism minimizes (even subsumes) the individual in favor of the group. This can only result in a collectivist mentality in which the claims of the individual are lost within the demands of the group. An ideology that that believes that personal liberty is an illusion can hardly be expected to uphold, allow, or tolerate human freedom. Subscribing to the former view ultimately must rule out the latter.
  • The Rejection of Humanism. Values that emphasize the creativity, autonomy, and priority of human beings are misplaced. There is no universal humanity since every culture constitutes its own reality. Traditional humanistic values are canons of exclusion, oppression, and crimes against the natural environment. Groups must empower themselves to assert their own values and to take their place with other [human as well as non-human] planetary species.
  • The Denial of the Transcendent. There are no absolutes. Even if there were, we would have no access to them since we are completely bound to our culture and imprisoned in our language. Moreover, excluding transcendent values places societies beyond constraints of moral limits. There is no God outside, above, or transcendent to society that holds a society accountable. Society is not subject to the moral law; it makes its own moral law.
  • Power Reductionism. All institutions, all human relationships, all moral values, and all human creations – from works of art to religious ideologies – are all expressions and masks of the primal will to power. If there are no absolutes, the society can presumably construct any values that it pleases and is itself subject to none. All such issues are only matters of power. Without moral absolutes, power becomes arbitrary.
  • The Rejection of Reason. Reason and the impulse to objectify truth are illusory masks for cultural power. Authenticity and fulfillment come from submerging the self into a larger group, releasing one’s natural impulses such as honest emotions and sexuality, cultivating subjectivity, and developing a radical openness to existence by refusing to impose order on one’s life. Since there is no ultimate basis for moral persuasion or rational argument, the side with the most power will win. Government becomes nothing more than the sheer exercise of unlimited power, restrained neither by law nor by reason. One group achieves its own will to power over the others. On the personal level, the rejection of all external absolutes in favor of subjectivity can mean the triumph of irrationalism, the eruption of raw emotion, and the imposition of terror.
  • A Revolutionary Critique of the Existing Order. Modern society with its rationalism, order, and unitary view of truth needs to be replaced by a new world order. Scientific knowledge reflects an outdated modernism, though the new electronic technology holds great promise. Segmentation of society into its constituent groups will allow for a true cultural pluralism. The old order must be swept away, to be replaced by a new, as yet undefined, mode of communal existence.

(Note: Although I do not provide citations, and my own ideas are interspersed throughout this paper, much of this three part series emerges directly from the influence of two works by Gene Edward Veith, Jr.: Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, and Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. At some future time I intend to add page references. Veith’s penetrating analysis of culture needs to be considered as we enter into what are incresingly perilous times.)

See How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 2)

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 3) is available here.