It's on. The last episode of season 4 of The Walking Dead. And for me this episode may be the last one, period. Why? Because of gay character Tara Chalmers. Before you throw rocks at me, this isn't about being anti-gay, it's about being anti-propaganda.
When I started watching The Walking Dead three years ago I just wanted to watch a scary, suspenseful tale of people trying to survive a zombie apocalypse; I didn't want to be "agendaized". And Hollywood being what it is, you know a gay character was added to TWD only for propaganda purposes. Gay is good! Gays are normal! I don't want that.
Don't misunderstand me. If I go into a movie, book, or TV show knowing there's a message, that's one thing. Then I can prepare myself for it and choose to overlook it if the story is good enough. But if a show presents itself as one thing and then, later, slips "agenda stuff" in, that I don't like! Especially when it's left-wing, secular progressive agenda stuff. And that's what having a gay character on The Walking Dead is.
Think about it. What does Tara Chalmers' lesbianism add to the show? What makes it necessary? Nothing, except its propaganda value. Gay is good! Gays are normal! Gays are everywhere!
I'm a Bible-believing Christian. I believe homosexual behavior is a sin. I believe in traditional marriage. Those are my convictions, and if I'm going to live by them I can't support anything that actively opposes or undermines them. Is The Walking Dead doing that by adding lesbian Tara Chalmers to the cast? Most likely, though I really, really hope not. But if it is, goodbye The Walking Dead.
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Friday, January 04, 2013
An Omen for America
Blaer.
It means "light breeze" in Icelandic, and it's what a mother in Iceland has been calling her daughter for the past fifteen years. The problem? The government of Iceland didn't approve the name so, for her entire life, young Blaer has been identified as stulka or "girl" on all official documents. Now she's suing the Icelandic government for the right to legally use her name. What does this have to do with America? Why is this an omen? Here's why.
In the article on this story I was struck by a sentence which described Icelanders as being "comfortable with a firm state role" (emphasis added) in their lives and therefore not inclined to question the government's right to control what they can name their children. That is exactly the kind of submissive populace that Obama and the secular progressives want to create in America. They want and need a people "comfortable with a firm state role" because they believe state control is fundamental to realizing their version of a compassionate and just society.
Americans need to become comfortable with the government telling them what guns they can own, what light bulbs they can use, what kind of cars they can drive, even what size soda they can buy in a restaurant. Such comfort will make it easier for secular progressives and their president to concentrate more and more power in government, especially the federal government. As Americans become more submissive to and dependent upon the state, looking to it for their sustenance, they will give their votes to the party doling out the goodies, ensuring it permanent political power. And that's the end game; creating permanent power for the Democratic party and making America a one party dictatorship. All for the common good, of course.
But now there's little Blaer, daring to oppose the statist do-gooders in her tiny country. She's "prepared to take her case all the way to [Iceland's] Supreme Court" to protect her "basic human right" to have the name her mother, not the state, chose for her. A name she likes as much as she likes freedom. Her court case is an omen for America but also an inspiration. If a teenage girl can fight to keep the state at bay, so can we. So can anyone. Thank you, Blaer.
Are you listening, America?
It means "light breeze" in Icelandic, and it's what a mother in Iceland has been calling her daughter for the past fifteen years. The problem? The government of Iceland didn't approve the name so, for her entire life, young Blaer has been identified as stulka or "girl" on all official documents. Now she's suing the Icelandic government for the right to legally use her name. What does this have to do with America? Why is this an omen? Here's why.
In the article on this story I was struck by a sentence which described Icelanders as being "comfortable with a firm state role" (emphasis added) in their lives and therefore not inclined to question the government's right to control what they can name their children. That is exactly the kind of submissive populace that Obama and the secular progressives want to create in America. They want and need a people "comfortable with a firm state role" because they believe state control is fundamental to realizing their version of a compassionate and just society.
Americans need to become comfortable with the government telling them what guns they can own, what light bulbs they can use, what kind of cars they can drive, even what size soda they can buy in a restaurant. Such comfort will make it easier for secular progressives and their president to concentrate more and more power in government, especially the federal government. As Americans become more submissive to and dependent upon the state, looking to it for their sustenance, they will give their votes to the party doling out the goodies, ensuring it permanent political power. And that's the end game; creating permanent power for the Democratic party and making America a one party dictatorship. All for the common good, of course.
But now there's little Blaer, daring to oppose the statist do-gooders in her tiny country. She's "prepared to take her case all the way to [Iceland's] Supreme Court" to protect her "basic human right" to have the name her mother, not the state, chose for her. A name she likes as much as she likes freedom. Her court case is an omen for America but also an inspiration. If a teenage girl can fight to keep the state at bay, so can we. So can anyone. Thank you, Blaer.
Are you listening, America?
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Day 31
This started on October 1st but I just heard about it yesterday. And what is "it"? As of October 1st Medicare will fine hospitals for readmitting too many patients within 30 days. Yes, you read that right. If you've been discharged from the hospital but suffer a relapse or complications, your hospital will be penalized if it readmits you within a month. Up to 2200 facilities could be hit with fines as high as $125,000. This is one of Obamacare's cost-cutting measures. Some consumer advocates support this "reform" but critics say it could compromise health care for the elderly, the poor, and the chronically ill because they are the people most likely to be readmitted.
This isn't how Obamacare was sold to us. During the contentious fight to pass the legislation, Americans were told that it would insure the uninsured, improve health care, reduce costs, and even create jobs. Now we see that Obamacare extends government control over how hospitals handle their patients. And this control has the potential to harm the most vulnerable among us, the very people liberals claim to care about the most.
This provision of the Affordable Care Act has only been in effect for a few weeks. It remains to be seen how it will play out. For now, Medicare is fining hospitals for readmissions on just three medical conditions: heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia, but that could change in the future. The whole thing is frightening. What if you develop complications after treatment and need to go back to the hospital? Would you have to keep a record of how many days it had been since your discharge? What if only 30 days had passed? Would you have to wait until day 31 to be readmitted? That could be one day too late. Welcome to government health care, America.
This isn't how Obamacare was sold to us. During the contentious fight to pass the legislation, Americans were told that it would insure the uninsured, improve health care, reduce costs, and even create jobs. Now we see that Obamacare extends government control over how hospitals handle their patients. And this control has the potential to harm the most vulnerable among us, the very people liberals claim to care about the most.
This provision of the Affordable Care Act has only been in effect for a few weeks. It remains to be seen how it will play out. For now, Medicare is fining hospitals for readmissions on just three medical conditions: heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia, but that could change in the future. The whole thing is frightening. What if you develop complications after treatment and need to go back to the hospital? Would you have to keep a record of how many days it had been since your discharge? What if only 30 days had passed? Would you have to wait until day 31 to be readmitted? That could be one day too late. Welcome to government health care, America.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Be BOLD!
Tomorrow the first of the three presidential debates if scheduled to take place. Due to my early work schedule I will miss most of it so I can get much needed sleep. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I suspect this debate is going to be a nail biter and, frankly, I'm not sure I'm up for the suspense. Of course, I want Romney to win but I fear he won't. I fear that Romney will play it safe and be "civil" to Obama so as not to appear racist, elitist, heartless, out of touch, and whatever else liberals' accuse him of being. I think that would be a big mistake. If I could offer Mitt Romney one piece of advice about tomorrow's debate it would be: BE BOLD!!!!
Be bold in the defense of free markets. Be bold in the defense of limited government. Be bold in the defense of patriotism. Be bold in the defense of border security. Be bold in the defense of religious freedom. Be bold in the defense of traditional marriage. Be bold in the defense of the unborn. In short, be bold in the defense of the conservative principles Romney claims to believe in.
Romney should debate to win and convert, not to impress the unimpressible. He must not water down his beliefs in order to curry favor with liberals or appear "nice". A bold, spirited, and unapologetic defense of conservative principles is the best way to sway doubters to the cause as well as rally the choir. Smart, aggressive, unashamed, conservatism. It's about time for that. Mr. Romney, it's about to BE BOLD!!!
Be bold in the defense of free markets. Be bold in the defense of limited government. Be bold in the defense of patriotism. Be bold in the defense of border security. Be bold in the defense of religious freedom. Be bold in the defense of traditional marriage. Be bold in the defense of the unborn. In short, be bold in the defense of the conservative principles Romney claims to believe in.
Romney should debate to win and convert, not to impress the unimpressible. He must not water down his beliefs in order to curry favor with liberals or appear "nice". A bold, spirited, and unapologetic defense of conservative principles is the best way to sway doubters to the cause as well as rally the choir. Smart, aggressive, unashamed, conservatism. It's about time for that. Mr. Romney, it's about to BE BOLD!!!
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
School Daze
It's that time of year.
The end of August and the beginning of September is when America's children head back to school. Most of these children will be going to public schools, including most children of conservatives. And that bothers me.
For decades conservatives have sounded the alarm about the academic failings and leftist social engineering plaguing public education. And for decades conservative parents have kept sending their children to public schools. Why? If public schools have become liberalism's madrassas, as Ann Coulter called them, why do conservative parents blithely entrust their children to them? What kind of sense does that make?
Yes, I understand that the main alternatives to public education, homeschooling and private schools, aren't feasible for some conservative parents. But I suspect that a lot of conservatives could home school or private school their kids but just aren't willing to make the sacrifices that would entail. They'd rather take the easier and cheaper way out and send little Johnny to public school, convincing themselves that he'll somehow escape the secular progressive indoctrination endemic there. He won't.
Polls show that the majority of younger Americans, those 30 and under, support Obama, while the majority of older Americans don't. Why this generation gap? Public schools. They have been shockingly successful at inculcating the PC, liberal, big government ideology into their captive audience of children. Conservatives know this, yet they keep giving public schools their kids. It makes me wonder how committed conservatives really are to the survival of their own principles.
I believe that if conservatives want their beliefs to not only survive but flourish then private education must become the norm for them. Public schools are hostile to conservative ideals and that isn't going to change any time soon. Entrusting their children to public education when they don't absolutely have to is, in my view, a failure of conservative parenting. It's like Abraham Lincoln said. The political philosophy in the classroom in one generation becomes the political philosophy of the country in the next generation. Conservatives can stop that "prophecy" dead in its tracks. Don't send little Johnny to the little red school house. Teach him at home or use private education. Aren't conservative ideals worth the sacrifice?
The end of August and the beginning of September is when America's children head back to school. Most of these children will be going to public schools, including most children of conservatives. And that bothers me.
For decades conservatives have sounded the alarm about the academic failings and leftist social engineering plaguing public education. And for decades conservative parents have kept sending their children to public schools. Why? If public schools have become liberalism's madrassas, as Ann Coulter called them, why do conservative parents blithely entrust their children to them? What kind of sense does that make?
Yes, I understand that the main alternatives to public education, homeschooling and private schools, aren't feasible for some conservative parents. But I suspect that a lot of conservatives could home school or private school their kids but just aren't willing to make the sacrifices that would entail. They'd rather take the easier and cheaper way out and send little Johnny to public school, convincing themselves that he'll somehow escape the secular progressive indoctrination endemic there. He won't.
Polls show that the majority of younger Americans, those 30 and under, support Obama, while the majority of older Americans don't. Why this generation gap? Public schools. They have been shockingly successful at inculcating the PC, liberal, big government ideology into their captive audience of children. Conservatives know this, yet they keep giving public schools their kids. It makes me wonder how committed conservatives really are to the survival of their own principles.
I believe that if conservatives want their beliefs to not only survive but flourish then private education must become the norm for them. Public schools are hostile to conservative ideals and that isn't going to change any time soon. Entrusting their children to public education when they don't absolutely have to is, in my view, a failure of conservative parenting. It's like Abraham Lincoln said. The political philosophy in the classroom in one generation becomes the political philosophy of the country in the next generation. Conservatives can stop that "prophecy" dead in its tracks. Don't send little Johnny to the little red school house. Teach him at home or use private education. Aren't conservative ideals worth the sacrifice?
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Todd Akin And The Politics Of Hypocrisy
Everybody's talking about it. The "legitimate rape" statement made by Missouri Republican candidate for the Senate, Todd Akin. Democrats are salivating over his remark, believing it's given them
ammunition to defeat Akin and smear all Republicans as anti-women. Top Republicans, also scared of the impact of Akin's gaffe, are practically demanding that he withdraw from the Missouri race.
Yes, Todd Akin said something stupid, really stupid, but Democrats' sanctimonious furor over his statement is pure hypocrisy. Liberals are on the record belittling not just rape, but child rape. A little trip down memory lane will prove this.
Back in 2009 Hollywood movie director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and faced extradition back to America to face punishment for his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl. Polanski had fled the US to avoid imprisonment for the crime. When news broke of his arrest liberal Hollywood rallied behind Polanski. Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and other notable directors signed a petition demanding his release. Other Hollywood celebrities, including Adrien Brody, Debra Winger, and Sigourney Weaver, voiced their support for the director. The most offensive statements made in Polanski's defense came from his friend, Swiss director Otto Weisser, and Whoopi Goldberg, one of the co-hosts of The View. Weisser referred to the attack as "a little mistake" and Goldberg claimed the crime "wasn't rape rape". Mind you, Weisser and Goldberg made their dismissive quips about an act of drugging and sodomizing a child.
Hollywood embraced a child rapist yet Democrats, whom Hollywood staunchly supports, felt no need to distance themselves nor their party from that community. They weren't disturbed in the least by Tinsel Town's casual attitude toward child rape. But now, three years later, Democrats are outraged by a crude but essentially harmless rape comment from a little-known Republican. Gee, could the fact that this is an election year have anything to do with their indignation?
Todd Akin said something dumb, even weird, about rape, but he didn't rally around a child rapist or opine that such behavior wasn't all that bad. Hollywood liberals did do that yet Democrats happily continued their close relationship with them. And no one in the mainstream media called them on it. It proves the truth of a comment I read on the blog GayPatriot: "If it wasn't for double standards, [liberals and Democrats] would have no standards at all." Indeed.
Yes, Todd Akin said something stupid, really stupid, but Democrats' sanctimonious furor over his statement is pure hypocrisy. Liberals are on the record belittling not just rape, but child rape. A little trip down memory lane will prove this.
Back in 2009 Hollywood movie director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and faced extradition back to America to face punishment for his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl. Polanski had fled the US to avoid imprisonment for the crime. When news broke of his arrest liberal Hollywood rallied behind Polanski. Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and other notable directors signed a petition demanding his release. Other Hollywood celebrities, including Adrien Brody, Debra Winger, and Sigourney Weaver, voiced their support for the director. The most offensive statements made in Polanski's defense came from his friend, Swiss director Otto Weisser, and Whoopi Goldberg, one of the co-hosts of The View. Weisser referred to the attack as "a little mistake" and Goldberg claimed the crime "wasn't rape rape". Mind you, Weisser and Goldberg made their dismissive quips about an act of drugging and sodomizing a child.
Hollywood embraced a child rapist yet Democrats, whom Hollywood staunchly supports, felt no need to distance themselves nor their party from that community. They weren't disturbed in the least by Tinsel Town's casual attitude toward child rape. But now, three years later, Democrats are outraged by a crude but essentially harmless rape comment from a little-known Republican. Gee, could the fact that this is an election year have anything to do with their indignation?
Todd Akin said something dumb, even weird, about rape, but he didn't rally around a child rapist or opine that such behavior wasn't all that bad. Hollywood liberals did do that yet Democrats happily continued their close relationship with them. And no one in the mainstream media called them on it. It proves the truth of a comment I read on the blog GayPatriot: "If it wasn't for double standards, [liberals and Democrats] would have no standards at all." Indeed.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Using Liberal Logic...
...gunman Floyd Corkins isn't responsible for attacking the Family Research Council yesterday.
Corkins wounded security guard Leo Johnson in a shooting spree he committed at the conservative Christian organization's headquarters Wednesday. He was armed with a 9mm handgun and had two magazines, 50 rounds of ammo, and 15 Chick-Fill-A sandwiches. And therein lies the rub.
Corkins act of violence was apparently motivated by liberal politics. He sympathized greatly with the gay community (it's unknown at this time whether Corkins himself is gay). He recently volunteered at The DC Center for the LGBT Community and, according to a statement made by his parents, had "strong opinions" about people who opposed gay rights. As we all know, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fill-A, recently went public with his support for traditional marriage. The Family Research Council received a small donation from Chick-Fill-A a few years ago and has been certified a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That, apparently, was all Corkins needed to target the group.
Using liberal logic, the Southern Poverty Law Center and everyone else who indulges in "hate group" rhetoric are really to blame for Corkins' crime. Labeling an organization a hate group clearly sends the message that that group, and the people who comprise it, don't belong in society, doesn't it? The steady mantra of "Hater! Hater! Hater!" flung at supporters of traditional marriage creates a climate of intolerance towards those people, doesn't it? It sends, doesn't it, the message that traditionalists, especially the Christian ones, can and even should be treated with the utmost disdain. And it's a only a small step from disdain to gun violence, is it not? Using liberal logic, the answer is a resounding, yes!
So Corkins' political crime isn't really his fault. He was virtually forced to do it by the climate of anti-Christian hostility created by liberal "hate group" and "bigot" rhetoric. Who's to blame for the shooting at the Family Research Council? The Southern Poverty Law Center is to blame. The Human Rights Campaign is to blame. NOW is to blame. Dan Savage is to blame. Barney Frank is to blame. Hollywood is to blame. Everyone and every group who share Floyd Corkins views are to blame. Using liberal logic, you can't conclude anything else.
Corkins wounded security guard Leo Johnson in a shooting spree he committed at the conservative Christian organization's headquarters Wednesday. He was armed with a 9mm handgun and had two magazines, 50 rounds of ammo, and 15 Chick-Fill-A sandwiches. And therein lies the rub.
Corkins act of violence was apparently motivated by liberal politics. He sympathized greatly with the gay community (it's unknown at this time whether Corkins himself is gay). He recently volunteered at The DC Center for the LGBT Community and, according to a statement made by his parents, had "strong opinions" about people who opposed gay rights. As we all know, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fill-A, recently went public with his support for traditional marriage. The Family Research Council received a small donation from Chick-Fill-A a few years ago and has been certified a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That, apparently, was all Corkins needed to target the group.
Using liberal logic, the Southern Poverty Law Center and everyone else who indulges in "hate group" rhetoric are really to blame for Corkins' crime. Labeling an organization a hate group clearly sends the message that that group, and the people who comprise it, don't belong in society, doesn't it? The steady mantra of "Hater! Hater! Hater!" flung at supporters of traditional marriage creates a climate of intolerance towards those people, doesn't it? It sends, doesn't it, the message that traditionalists, especially the Christian ones, can and even should be treated with the utmost disdain. And it's a only a small step from disdain to gun violence, is it not? Using liberal logic, the answer is a resounding, yes!
So Corkins' political crime isn't really his fault. He was virtually forced to do it by the climate of anti-Christian hostility created by liberal "hate group" and "bigot" rhetoric. Who's to blame for the shooting at the Family Research Council? The Southern Poverty Law Center is to blame. The Human Rights Campaign is to blame. NOW is to blame. Dan Savage is to blame. Barney Frank is to blame. Hollywood is to blame. Everyone and every group who share Floyd Corkins views are to blame. Using liberal logic, you can't conclude anything else.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Raaaaaacist!
So, I heard today that former president Jimmy Carter severely criticized Barak Obama, accusing him if violating human rights in fighting the War on Terror. Now from the moment Obama was elected president liberals have promulgated the notion that it's racist to dare oppose him. No critic can possibly be motivated by genuine policy or ideological differences with the Anointed One. Oh, no. Racism is the only motive anyone can truly have for "disrespecting" Obama. So, now that Jimmy Carter has lashed out at Obama he will be in for stern, hysterical accusations of racism from liberals any minute now. This ought to be good. Waiting, waiting, waiting...
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Had This Been Michelle Obama...
...there would've been riots in the streets.
Ok, maybe not riots in the streets, but there would've been shrill accusations of racism by the usual suspects had any Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata to bits with a baseball bat. But let Donna Dewitt, Democrat-supporting president of South Carolina's AFL/CIO, whack a pinata with the face of South Carolina's Indian-American governor, Nikki Haley, and the self-appointed protectors of minorities are deafeningly silent. Hmmmm. Are we supposed to believe that Donna Dewitt's hateful antics were just an expression of political disagreement with Gov. Haley? Would liberals accept such an explanation if a Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata? Of course not. And we conservatives and Republicans shouldn't accept such an explanation for Ms. Dewitt's shameful "fun". It's time we started calling progressives out on their racism and their hypocrisy. If they get it thrown back in their faces often enough maybe they'll be put on the defensive for a change and will be forced to retreat from their favorite political weapon: yelling 'raaaaaacist!" And that can only be a good thing for the country, especially for successful non-white Americans like Gov. Nikki Haley whose triumphs reveal how much America has overcome the poison of racism. It's high time progressives were made to see that.
Ok, maybe not riots in the streets, but there would've been shrill accusations of racism by the usual suspects had any Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata to bits with a baseball bat. But let Donna Dewitt, Democrat-supporting president of South Carolina's AFL/CIO, whack a pinata with the face of South Carolina's Indian-American governor, Nikki Haley, and the self-appointed protectors of minorities are deafeningly silent. Hmmmm. Are we supposed to believe that Donna Dewitt's hateful antics were just an expression of political disagreement with Gov. Haley? Would liberals accept such an explanation if a Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata? Of course not. And we conservatives and Republicans shouldn't accept such an explanation for Ms. Dewitt's shameful "fun". It's time we started calling progressives out on their racism and their hypocrisy. If they get it thrown back in their faces often enough maybe they'll be put on the defensive for a change and will be forced to retreat from their favorite political weapon: yelling 'raaaaaacist!" And that can only be a good thing for the country, especially for successful non-white Americans like Gov. Nikki Haley whose triumphs reveal how much America has overcome the poison of racism. It's high time progressives were made to see that.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
"Slutgate" and the Uses of Fake Rage
Well, it's been going on for weeks now, liberals' well-timed outrage over Rush Limbaugh's insult of Sandra Fluke who, as a result, has become the darling of the Left. Liberals have declared that a full blown war is now being waged on women by Republicans because eeeevil Rush--who, of course, is the unofficial leader of the Republican Party--called a liberal woman a slut. Oh, the horror!
Don't get me wrong. I believe it was wrong for Rush to call Ms. Fluke a slut. However, it was also wrong for Ed Schultz to call Laura Ingraham a slut, and for Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a cunt–yes, I did write the word–yet, when that and other nasty, misogynist slurs were thrown at conservative women by liberal talking heads, no one on the Left had a nervous breakdown and declared that a “war on women” had been unleashed. That tells me that all the outrage being dumped on Rush by liberals now is 100% FAKE. They’re simply using this trumped up “attack” on the nation’s females to try and shut Rush down BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIKE OPPOSING SPEECH. That's what this is really all about: shutting down opposing speech.
The Left wants no opposition to their agenda. Freedom of speech? The right to protest? Liberals don't believe those are rights. Rather, they regard them as tactics in political warfare, tactics that are legitimate only when used by the Left to advance its agenda. When speech doesn't advance the goals of the Left, leftists want it stopped. Claiming that they're fighting runaway misogyny is just a cover for the real goal of suppressing opposing views. That's what's really going on here, and we conservatives must make that clear.
And as for the original contraceptive issue which started "slutgate" in the first place? It’s not about government giving women free birth control. Rather, it’s about the government mandating that a) insurance companies must provide free contraceptives in their policies, and b) private companies must provide such insurance policies to their employees, EVEN IF THE PRIVATE COMPANY IS RUN BY A RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION THAT OPPOSES CONTRACEPTIVES. It’s that mandate, and the complete disregarding of religious freedom, that conservatives are vehemently opposed to. If a private company chooses, of its own free will, to provide its employees with insurance that covers birth control, fine. But the federal government is overstepping its bounds to order them to do so. That is a HUGE power grab that we conservatives have no intention of letting the federal government get away with, no matter how many times we're accused of waging a "war on women".
And as for Sandra Fluke and all those who think like her? Well, not wanting to pay for her own contraceptives may not make a woman a slut, but I have to ask. If you don't want to pay for your own contraceptives, are you really responsible enough to be having sex in the first place? I'm just asking.
Don't get me wrong. I believe it was wrong for Rush to call Ms. Fluke a slut. However, it was also wrong for Ed Schultz to call Laura Ingraham a slut, and for Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a cunt–yes, I did write the word–yet, when that and other nasty, misogynist slurs were thrown at conservative women by liberal talking heads, no one on the Left had a nervous breakdown and declared that a “war on women” had been unleashed. That tells me that all the outrage being dumped on Rush by liberals now is 100% FAKE. They’re simply using this trumped up “attack” on the nation’s females to try and shut Rush down BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIKE OPPOSING SPEECH. That's what this is really all about: shutting down opposing speech.
The Left wants no opposition to their agenda. Freedom of speech? The right to protest? Liberals don't believe those are rights. Rather, they regard them as tactics in political warfare, tactics that are legitimate only when used by the Left to advance its agenda. When speech doesn't advance the goals of the Left, leftists want it stopped. Claiming that they're fighting runaway misogyny is just a cover for the real goal of suppressing opposing views. That's what's really going on here, and we conservatives must make that clear.
And as for the original contraceptive issue which started "slutgate" in the first place? It’s not about government giving women free birth control. Rather, it’s about the government mandating that a) insurance companies must provide free contraceptives in their policies, and b) private companies must provide such insurance policies to their employees, EVEN IF THE PRIVATE COMPANY IS RUN BY A RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION THAT OPPOSES CONTRACEPTIVES. It’s that mandate, and the complete disregarding of religious freedom, that conservatives are vehemently opposed to. If a private company chooses, of its own free will, to provide its employees with insurance that covers birth control, fine. But the federal government is overstepping its bounds to order them to do so. That is a HUGE power grab that we conservatives have no intention of letting the federal government get away with, no matter how many times we're accused of waging a "war on women".
And as for Sandra Fluke and all those who think like her? Well, not wanting to pay for her own contraceptives may not make a woman a slut, but I have to ask. If you don't want to pay for your own contraceptives, are you really responsible enough to be having sex in the first place? I'm just asking.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The God of Change
While listening to The Michael Medved Show the other day Medved played a soundbite from famous actor Robert Redford. Redford opined--and I'm paraphrasing--that change was good, accepting change was open-minded, and opposing change was narrow-minded. He was implying that liberals are enlightened for embracing change and conservatives are backwards for not.
Since I heard Redford's remark I've been pondering it, and I think he did hit on a key difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals are infatuated with change. You could even say they worship it. This can be seen in Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and Change". Liberals adore Obama in large part because he promised to "fundamentally transform", i.e. change, America. Liberals accept, as a matter of faith, that change is always good and progressive, therefore they look at conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for so often opposing change. But that is where conservatives differ from liberals.
Conservative, in fact, do NOT oppose change, certainly not change in and of itself. But unlike liberals, we don't worship change and don't adhere to the dogma that change is always good. A faithful and loving husband who starts cheating on and abusing his wife has certainly changed, but not for the better. Conservative keep that example, or a variation of it, in mind when people began talking about changing things, especially changing what Ann Coulter called the "load bearing walls" of moral values.
When change is proposed conservatives usually respond skeptically. We ask probing questions about the motives of the proponents of change. We ask probing questions about the possible unintended consequences of the proposed change and, if seeing no benefit from the change that justifies risking the unintended consequences, we will usually oppose the change. That doesn't mean, however, that we oppose solving the problem(s) the change was meant to address. On the contrary, after rejecting the originally proposed change, we'll often offer our own version, one that is usually less sweeping in scope than the original.
Conservatives aren't bigoted or narrow-minded. Our skepticism about change is rooted in the healthy and venerable desire to preserve what's best in our civilization, for the good of all. So, conservatives accept change, but only after thoroughly vetting it, or at least trying very hard to. We don't mindlessly embrace change out of the false belief that all change is good. Unlike as with liberals, change is not our god. Maybe one day Robert Redford will understand that.
Since I heard Redford's remark I've been pondering it, and I think he did hit on a key difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals are infatuated with change. You could even say they worship it. This can be seen in Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and Change". Liberals adore Obama in large part because he promised to "fundamentally transform", i.e. change, America. Liberals accept, as a matter of faith, that change is always good and progressive, therefore they look at conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for so often opposing change. But that is where conservatives differ from liberals.
Conservative, in fact, do NOT oppose change, certainly not change in and of itself. But unlike liberals, we don't worship change and don't adhere to the dogma that change is always good. A faithful and loving husband who starts cheating on and abusing his wife has certainly changed, but not for the better. Conservative keep that example, or a variation of it, in mind when people began talking about changing things, especially changing what Ann Coulter called the "load bearing walls" of moral values.
When change is proposed conservatives usually respond skeptically. We ask probing questions about the motives of the proponents of change. We ask probing questions about the possible unintended consequences of the proposed change and, if seeing no benefit from the change that justifies risking the unintended consequences, we will usually oppose the change. That doesn't mean, however, that we oppose solving the problem(s) the change was meant to address. On the contrary, after rejecting the originally proposed change, we'll often offer our own version, one that is usually less sweeping in scope than the original.
Conservatives aren't bigoted or narrow-minded. Our skepticism about change is rooted in the healthy and venerable desire to preserve what's best in our civilization, for the good of all. So, conservatives accept change, but only after thoroughly vetting it, or at least trying very hard to. We don't mindlessly embrace change out of the false belief that all change is good. Unlike as with liberals, change is not our god. Maybe one day Robert Redford will understand that.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
It's All About Power
A few days ago Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gave a struggling Black woman, Ruth Williams, some money to help her out. Romney's kind gesture was immediately denounced by some on the Left as racist. Huh? How is giving a woman of color some help, one human being to another, racist? It isn't, but one particular criticism of Romney revealed the real problem his critics have with his act.
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Clarence Thomas Redux
It seems that liberals just can't handle the existence of a Black Republican. Tearing down such a creature, especially if he is a popular presidential hopeful, is job 1 for them and that's what they're doing now to Herman Cain with this sexual harassment story. It's Clarence Thomas all over again.
Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.
Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.
The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.
No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.
Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.
Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.
The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.
No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
With A Friend Like This
While watching The O'Reilly Factor last I learned an interesting fact. David Duke is supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests. That's right. The far right-wing, white nationalist, and erstwhile KKK member, likes the left-wing, anti-capitalist movement.
Duke's support for the OWS protests isn't surprising when you consider his anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic sentiment has been part of this leftist protest movement almost from the beginning. In fact, when the protest first started and the protesters were shouting against bankers I immediately became suspicious of the movement. Why? Because "bankers" is and long has been a code word for Jews. My suspicions were confirmed when Fox News featured "Occupiers" denouncing "Zionist Jewish bankers" and accusing Jews of being behind most white collar crimes. But the anti-Semitic strain within the Occupy Wall Street crowd probably isn't the only reason David Duke supports it. Anti-capitalism is probably also playing a part.
Not fully known to most people is the fact that Naziism was a form of socialism and that today's neo-Nazis, including white nationalists like Duke, continue Naziism's anti-capitalist tilt. Neo-Nazis/white nationalists often criticize captitalism in terms very similar to those employed by the Left. Also, anti-Semitism is an added motivation for their anti-capitalist feelings since they tend to believe that the "international bankers" supposedly trying to dominate the world are all Jews. As a white nationalist David Duke almost certainly shares that belief. So, anti-Semiticism and anti-capitalism are most likely driving Duke's sympathy for the OWS protests. And maybe that's why the mainstream media has been pretty quiet about OWS's new friend.
The MSM is dominated by liberals who want big government to fix the "economic inequality" they believe is rampant in America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement claims that as its aim the mainstream media has been reporting on it very sympathetically. If David Duke had endorsed the Tea Party protests in any way the liberal media would've jumped on that as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party was racist and extremist. But since the mainstream media supports the OWS's anti-capitalist cause, it sees little problem with the movement getting support from the likes of Mr. Duke. So long as you hate capitalism and want a socialistic redistribution of wealth, you're ok with liberals. That's why the Occupy Wall Street protesters can have a friend like David Duke without liberals batting a proverbial eye.
Anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and now befriended by a right-wing extremist with no outrage from the mainstream media. That tells you all you need to know about Occupy Wall Street and the MSM. Thank God we have the Tea Party to really stand up for the 99%.
Duke's support for the OWS protests isn't surprising when you consider his anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic sentiment has been part of this leftist protest movement almost from the beginning. In fact, when the protest first started and the protesters were shouting against bankers I immediately became suspicious of the movement. Why? Because "bankers" is and long has been a code word for Jews. My suspicions were confirmed when Fox News featured "Occupiers" denouncing "Zionist Jewish bankers" and accusing Jews of being behind most white collar crimes. But the anti-Semitic strain within the Occupy Wall Street crowd probably isn't the only reason David Duke supports it. Anti-capitalism is probably also playing a part.
Not fully known to most people is the fact that Naziism was a form of socialism and that today's neo-Nazis, including white nationalists like Duke, continue Naziism's anti-capitalist tilt. Neo-Nazis/white nationalists often criticize captitalism in terms very similar to those employed by the Left. Also, anti-Semitism is an added motivation for their anti-capitalist feelings since they tend to believe that the "international bankers" supposedly trying to dominate the world are all Jews. As a white nationalist David Duke almost certainly shares that belief. So, anti-Semiticism and anti-capitalism are most likely driving Duke's sympathy for the OWS protests. And maybe that's why the mainstream media has been pretty quiet about OWS's new friend.
The MSM is dominated by liberals who want big government to fix the "economic inequality" they believe is rampant in America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement claims that as its aim the mainstream media has been reporting on it very sympathetically. If David Duke had endorsed the Tea Party protests in any way the liberal media would've jumped on that as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party was racist and extremist. But since the mainstream media supports the OWS's anti-capitalist cause, it sees little problem with the movement getting support from the likes of Mr. Duke. So long as you hate capitalism and want a socialistic redistribution of wealth, you're ok with liberals. That's why the Occupy Wall Street protesters can have a friend like David Duke without liberals batting a proverbial eye.
Anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and now befriended by a right-wing extremist with no outrage from the mainstream media. That tells you all you need to know about Occupy Wall Street and the MSM. Thank God we have the Tea Party to really stand up for the 99%.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Cheering A Black Man...Raaaaaaacist!
I'm watching Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News and he's talking to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain about his 9-9-9 tax plan, among other things. When Huckabee announced that Cain was coming up on the show his mostly white studio audience broke out in cheers. You would've thought that Herman Cain was a rock star. And you'd think that a white, conservative crowd bursting into spontaneous enthusiasm for a black candidate would show that (white) conservatives are NOT racist, and you'd be wrong.
Liberals have concocted a narrative that conservatives are racist. Period. Liberals believe this narrative so devoutly that they can't comprehend the world without it. Hence, they are now claiming that support for Herman Cain by white conservatives proves that conservatives are racist. That's right. If you're white, conservative, and you support a black candidate for president, that proves you're racist. This is what hardcore liberals like Janeane Garofalo, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and others are saying or implying.
If you can't believe this, you're not alone.
Anti-communist novelist George Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe adhering to two contradictory ideas simultaneously. That is what's on display here. What can be more contradictory than the idea that white people supporting a black man is proof that they're racist? Yet liberals make this claim with the proverbial straight face, totally uncomprehending that it utterly discredits them in the eyes of thinking, intellectually honest people.
Liberals are the losers here, though they don't know it. Herman Cain will continue to be a rising star in the conservative sky so long as his ideas resonate with conservatives. For that's what Herman Cain is being judged on, his ideas, not his race, and America is better for it. Cheering for a black man is proof of putting content of character above skin color, the very thing Martin Luther King wanted. Well, it's here. Conservatives are doing it. Get used to it.
Liberals have concocted a narrative that conservatives are racist. Period. Liberals believe this narrative so devoutly that they can't comprehend the world without it. Hence, they are now claiming that support for Herman Cain by white conservatives proves that conservatives are racist. That's right. If you're white, conservative, and you support a black candidate for president, that proves you're racist. This is what hardcore liberals like Janeane Garofalo, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and others are saying or implying.
If you can't believe this, you're not alone.
Anti-communist novelist George Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe adhering to two contradictory ideas simultaneously. That is what's on display here. What can be more contradictory than the idea that white people supporting a black man is proof that they're racist? Yet liberals make this claim with the proverbial straight face, totally uncomprehending that it utterly discredits them in the eyes of thinking, intellectually honest people.
Liberals are the losers here, though they don't know it. Herman Cain will continue to be a rising star in the conservative sky so long as his ideas resonate with conservatives. For that's what Herman Cain is being judged on, his ideas, not his race, and America is better for it. Cheering for a black man is proof of putting content of character above skin color, the very thing Martin Luther King wanted. Well, it's here. Conservatives are doing it. Get used to it.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
If A Republican Said This...
...he'd be pilloried, condemned, denounced, and maybe even burned in effigy. But if a liberal says it, he gets a pass. What is "it"? Take a look.
While trying to explain the Democrats' loss of Anthony Weiner's 9th Congressional District seat in this week's special election, NY Representative Henry Waxman opined that Jews vote Republican "to protect their wealth." What?! Can you say, "anti-Semitic stereotype"? I knew you could. If a Republican said such a thing he'd be roundly and shrilly condemned as a rabid anti-Semite, particularly if he were in any way affiliated with the Tea Party. But a liberal Democrat can play on foul, age-old prejudices and the bigotry hunters just shrug.
Some might argue that Waxman's statement isn't anti-Semitic because Waxman himself is Jewish, but that just makes what he said all the more offensive. As a Jew Waxman had to have known the negative concepts of Jews he'd be conjuring up with his remark. Jews vote Republican to protect their wealth? Waxman might as well have shouted, "Those damn greedy Jews!". I mean, that is pretty much what he did say.
Now, to be fair to Waxman, the Congressman also claimed that "misunderstanding of Obama's [Middle East policies]" helped the heavily Jewish 9th District go Republican. No duh. I'd say Obama virtually selling out Israel was the reason 9th District Jews elected Republican Bob Turner. Trying to protect their wealth? How about trying to protect their lives by voting for the party that staunchly supports the survival of Israel and, hence, of Jews generally? Congressman Waxman, and all Democrats, need to wise up. The policies of their messiah lost the 9th District and will lose the nation in 2012. The Democrats need to face that hard truth and stop dredging up racist stereotypes to explain their defeat. Jews support those who support their survival. It's that simple. Congressman Waxman, of all people, should know that. Now, I think, he does.
While trying to explain the Democrats' loss of Anthony Weiner's 9th Congressional District seat in this week's special election, NY Representative Henry Waxman opined that Jews vote Republican "to protect their wealth." What?! Can you say, "anti-Semitic stereotype"? I knew you could. If a Republican said such a thing he'd be roundly and shrilly condemned as a rabid anti-Semite, particularly if he were in any way affiliated with the Tea Party. But a liberal Democrat can play on foul, age-old prejudices and the bigotry hunters just shrug.
Some might argue that Waxman's statement isn't anti-Semitic because Waxman himself is Jewish, but that just makes what he said all the more offensive. As a Jew Waxman had to have known the negative concepts of Jews he'd be conjuring up with his remark. Jews vote Republican to protect their wealth? Waxman might as well have shouted, "Those damn greedy Jews!". I mean, that is pretty much what he did say.
Now, to be fair to Waxman, the Congressman also claimed that "misunderstanding of Obama's [Middle East policies]" helped the heavily Jewish 9th District go Republican. No duh. I'd say Obama virtually selling out Israel was the reason 9th District Jews elected Republican Bob Turner. Trying to protect their wealth? How about trying to protect their lives by voting for the party that staunchly supports the survival of Israel and, hence, of Jews generally? Congressman Waxman, and all Democrats, need to wise up. The policies of their messiah lost the 9th District and will lose the nation in 2012. The Democrats need to face that hard truth and stop dredging up racist stereotypes to explain their defeat. Jews support those who support their survival. It's that simple. Congressman Waxman, of all people, should know that. Now, I think, he does.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
If She Were Muslim
In recent weeks, Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann has come under fire from the Left for her beliefs about homosexuality and the role of women in marriage. Liberals are very upset that Ms. Bachmann accepts the Bible's teaching that homosexuality is a sin and that wives should be submissive to their husbands. They are fearful that the Tea Party favorite might try to impose her beliefs on the whole country if she should become president. So liberals have been asking Michelle Bachmann to explain herself.
I think this is very unfair.
I understand that to liberals, and even some conservatives, Michelle Bachmann's beliefs are threatening. But why are they threatening? Is it the nature of the beliefs themselves that liberals are fearful of, or is it the fact that they are rooted in Christianity that has liberals so upset? I believe it's the latter. If Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim things would be very different.
Muslim societies have a history of treating gays and women in ways that liberals claim to find abhorrent. However, since leftists have made Muslims collectively a member of the "coalition of the oppressed", their criticism of Mohammed's followers is restrained. Liberals portray peaceful Christian opponents of gay marriage as rabid bigots yet turn a blind eye to the actual execution of gays by Muslim regimes. Liberals eagerly blame the Bible for sexism, yet are deafeningly silent when Muslims commit honor killings, imprison rape victims, or practice a casual misogyny. It is, liberals seem to believe, their multiculturalist duty to defend or rationalize ALL actions by Muslims.
If Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim leftists would never question her beliefs. They would never ask her to explain herself. They would never imply that President Bachmann would impose her beliefs on others, and they would never nervously speculate that her presidency could violate the separation of church and state. No, if Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim, liberals would be defending her moral disapproval of homosexuality and her pro-submission view of marriage as valid parts of her culture. Any criticism of her would be denounced as Islamophobic fearmongering.
But Michelle Bachmann is not a Muslim, she's a Christian, so it's open season on her. She can be questioned, and her beliefs probed, however extensively liberals choose, and not one will yell, "Christophobe!".
I don't know if I'll vote for Michelle Bachmann in the primary, but she's earned my respect for helping, albeit unwittingly, to expose the hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry of the Left. Ms. Bachmann has a right to her beliefs. She has a right to act in the public square according to her religiously informed conscience. If a Muslim doing that doesn't terrify liberals, a Christian doing that shouldn't scare them, either. After all, that's only fair. And why would liberals be scared of a little fairness?
I think this is very unfair.
I understand that to liberals, and even some conservatives, Michelle Bachmann's beliefs are threatening. But why are they threatening? Is it the nature of the beliefs themselves that liberals are fearful of, or is it the fact that they are rooted in Christianity that has liberals so upset? I believe it's the latter. If Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim things would be very different.
Muslim societies have a history of treating gays and women in ways that liberals claim to find abhorrent. However, since leftists have made Muslims collectively a member of the "coalition of the oppressed", their criticism of Mohammed's followers is restrained. Liberals portray peaceful Christian opponents of gay marriage as rabid bigots yet turn a blind eye to the actual execution of gays by Muslim regimes. Liberals eagerly blame the Bible for sexism, yet are deafeningly silent when Muslims commit honor killings, imprison rape victims, or practice a casual misogyny. It is, liberals seem to believe, their multiculturalist duty to defend or rationalize ALL actions by Muslims.
If Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim leftists would never question her beliefs. They would never ask her to explain herself. They would never imply that President Bachmann would impose her beliefs on others, and they would never nervously speculate that her presidency could violate the separation of church and state. No, if Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim, liberals would be defending her moral disapproval of homosexuality and her pro-submission view of marriage as valid parts of her culture. Any criticism of her would be denounced as Islamophobic fearmongering.
But Michelle Bachmann is not a Muslim, she's a Christian, so it's open season on her. She can be questioned, and her beliefs probed, however extensively liberals choose, and not one will yell, "Christophobe!".
I don't know if I'll vote for Michelle Bachmann in the primary, but she's earned my respect for helping, albeit unwittingly, to expose the hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry of the Left. Ms. Bachmann has a right to her beliefs. She has a right to act in the public square according to her religiously informed conscience. If a Muslim doing that doesn't terrify liberals, a Christian doing that shouldn't scare them, either. After all, that's only fair. And why would liberals be scared of a little fairness?
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Mr. Buffet, Why Don't You Just Pay More?
He's at it again.
On Tuesday's edition of The O'Reilly Factor it was revealed that billionaire businessman Warren Buffet has written an op/ed piece once again calling for rich Americans to be taxed more. It's been asked before and I'll ask it again. If Warren Buffet wants Uncle Sam to have more of his money, why doesn't he just give it to him? There's nothing preventing Buffet from giving the government as much of his personal wealth as he chooses. So why does he persist in his campaign for more governmental confiscation of private income?
I think Mr. Buffet wants people to think his campaign is about a patriotic desire to bring America back to fiscal solvency. Yes, the US has an ASTRONOMICAL debt problem, but taxing the rich more won't solve it. There simply aren't enough of them and they don't have the amount of money needed to put even a dent in America's deficit. Warren Buffet is smart enough to know that and that brings us to what I believe is the second reason for Buffet's tax-the-rich campaign: "social justice".
The Left's economic creed is that the rich are avoiding income taxes and the government must rectify this injustice by seizing the rich's assets and redistributing them to the less fortunate. Sounds nice, but it's just not true. Wealthy Americans not only pay income taxes, they bear the brunt of the federal tax burden, with the top 1% paying about 40% of federal income taxes. The rich are paying they're fair share, contrary to the class warfare rhetoric of the Left. If Buffet and others like him really want to increase revenue for the federal government while also promoting tax "fairness", they should go after the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes. It's those people, NOT the rich, who are the real federal income tax freeloaders.
Imagine the revenue that would pour into Uncle Sam's coffers if the freeloading half of Americans was made to pay up. And wouldn't it be the height of fairness to make millions of people who take from the system contribute to the system? Warren Buffet would do his country a better service by supporting legislation taking away the lucky ones' free ride. After all, why should I, a lower-income person, have my money taken from me in order to support those who add nothing to the pot? Where's the social justice in that?
I think Warren Buffet suffers from "embarrassment of riches" syndrome. I believe he feels tremendous guilt not only for being successful but for enjoying his success. The mere thought of government confiscating his money assuages that guilt. Furthermore, I believe Buffet has projected his guilt onto his fellow rich, which is why he's pushing so hard for higher taxes on all the wealthy rather than simply asking for more charitable giving. Freely giving one's money away doesn't stigmatize it the way having it seized like contraband does. And being stigmatized is part of the rich's punishment for being rich.
So why doesn't Warren Buffet just give the government more, maybe even all, of his money in order to help the country? Because helping the country isn't really the endgame here. The endgame is to convince himself that he really is a good person in spite of enjoying all the perks his filthy lucre can buy. And I think that's a very sad goal, indeed.
On Tuesday's edition of The O'Reilly Factor it was revealed that billionaire businessman Warren Buffet has written an op/ed piece once again calling for rich Americans to be taxed more. It's been asked before and I'll ask it again. If Warren Buffet wants Uncle Sam to have more of his money, why doesn't he just give it to him? There's nothing preventing Buffet from giving the government as much of his personal wealth as he chooses. So why does he persist in his campaign for more governmental confiscation of private income?
I think Mr. Buffet wants people to think his campaign is about a patriotic desire to bring America back to fiscal solvency. Yes, the US has an ASTRONOMICAL debt problem, but taxing the rich more won't solve it. There simply aren't enough of them and they don't have the amount of money needed to put even a dent in America's deficit. Warren Buffet is smart enough to know that and that brings us to what I believe is the second reason for Buffet's tax-the-rich campaign: "social justice".
The Left's economic creed is that the rich are avoiding income taxes and the government must rectify this injustice by seizing the rich's assets and redistributing them to the less fortunate. Sounds nice, but it's just not true. Wealthy Americans not only pay income taxes, they bear the brunt of the federal tax burden, with the top 1% paying about 40% of federal income taxes. The rich are paying they're fair share, contrary to the class warfare rhetoric of the Left. If Buffet and others like him really want to increase revenue for the federal government while also promoting tax "fairness", they should go after the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes. It's those people, NOT the rich, who are the real federal income tax freeloaders.
Imagine the revenue that would pour into Uncle Sam's coffers if the freeloading half of Americans was made to pay up. And wouldn't it be the height of fairness to make millions of people who take from the system contribute to the system? Warren Buffet would do his country a better service by supporting legislation taking away the lucky ones' free ride. After all, why should I, a lower-income person, have my money taken from me in order to support those who add nothing to the pot? Where's the social justice in that?
I think Warren Buffet suffers from "embarrassment of riches" syndrome. I believe he feels tremendous guilt not only for being successful but for enjoying his success. The mere thought of government confiscating his money assuages that guilt. Furthermore, I believe Buffet has projected his guilt onto his fellow rich, which is why he's pushing so hard for higher taxes on all the wealthy rather than simply asking for more charitable giving. Freely giving one's money away doesn't stigmatize it the way having it seized like contraband does. And being stigmatized is part of the rich's punishment for being rich.
So why doesn't Warren Buffet just give the government more, maybe even all, of his money in order to help the country? Because helping the country isn't really the endgame here. The endgame is to convince himself that he really is a good person in spite of enjoying all the perks his filthy lucre can buy. And I think that's a very sad goal, indeed.
Monday, May 16, 2011
A Small Taste Of Obamacare
I'm opposed to Obamacare but I always kind of thought it wouldn't impinge on me personally for a few years. I know, that's a naive thought but I did think it...until today. Today I got what I think is a small taste of Obamacare.
Today at work we learned that some changes are taking place in our company health benefits. To put it simply, our health insurance is getting more expensive. Our premiums are going up, new surcharges will apply under certain conditions and, worst of all to me, the co-pay system has been abolished. Instead, we will have to pay the contract cost for doctor's visits and procedures until our deductible is paid. After that we will pay 20% of the cost of visits and procedures. Like I said, our health care is getting more expensive. Didn't Obama promise Americans just the opposite?
The costly changes that my company is making to its health benefits is an example of the unintended(?) consequences of government intervention in health care and the free market. Two Obamacare policies appear to be driving my company's health benefits shake up. Those policies are the requirements for health insurance companies to provide free preventative care and to let parents carry their children on their health plans until those children are 26 years old (and there are no restrictions on these adult kids; they can be married and have kids of their own and still be eligible for their parents' health coverage).
On the surface these policies seem compassionate. What's wrong with free preventative care? What's wrong with letting parents keep their twenty-something kids on their health insurance plan? What's wrong is that somebody has to pay for these "reforms". "Free" preventative care is free only to the patient; it still costs money to the doctors, clinics, and hospitals who deliver that care, and that costs money to the insurance company. Likewise, forcing insurers to take on droves of new customers will raise their cost of doing business. How will insurance companies pay for these new expenses? By passing them onto consumers in the form of higher premiums, new charges, and/or reduced services. Nothing very compassionate about that.
The Founding Fathers were right not to make social welfare the responsibility of the federal government. In almost every instance, government "help" winds up creating more problems than it solves. In the case of Obamacare, federal "compassion" means that my co-workers and I will end up a bit poorer and possibly a bit less healthy. And all because Barak Obama cares.
I really wish he didn't.
Today at work we learned that some changes are taking place in our company health benefits. To put it simply, our health insurance is getting more expensive. Our premiums are going up, new surcharges will apply under certain conditions and, worst of all to me, the co-pay system has been abolished. Instead, we will have to pay the contract cost for doctor's visits and procedures until our deductible is paid. After that we will pay 20% of the cost of visits and procedures. Like I said, our health care is getting more expensive. Didn't Obama promise Americans just the opposite?
The costly changes that my company is making to its health benefits is an example of the unintended(?) consequences of government intervention in health care and the free market. Two Obamacare policies appear to be driving my company's health benefits shake up. Those policies are the requirements for health insurance companies to provide free preventative care and to let parents carry their children on their health plans until those children are 26 years old (and there are no restrictions on these adult kids; they can be married and have kids of their own and still be eligible for their parents' health coverage).
On the surface these policies seem compassionate. What's wrong with free preventative care? What's wrong with letting parents keep their twenty-something kids on their health insurance plan? What's wrong is that somebody has to pay for these "reforms". "Free" preventative care is free only to the patient; it still costs money to the doctors, clinics, and hospitals who deliver that care, and that costs money to the insurance company. Likewise, forcing insurers to take on droves of new customers will raise their cost of doing business. How will insurance companies pay for these new expenses? By passing them onto consumers in the form of higher premiums, new charges, and/or reduced services. Nothing very compassionate about that.
The Founding Fathers were right not to make social welfare the responsibility of the federal government. In almost every instance, government "help" winds up creating more problems than it solves. In the case of Obamacare, federal "compassion" means that my co-workers and I will end up a bit poorer and possibly a bit less healthy. And all because Barak Obama cares.
I really wish he didn't.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
The Kingdom Builders
I read a great little Christian magazine called No Greater Joy, published by No Greater Joy Ministries, which is run by the Pearl family. NGJ magazine is my second favorite Christian magazine, the first being SALT Magazine. NGJ has insightful articles that make you think about what's going on not only in the church, but in the world, too. In the March-April issue there's an article by Michael Pearl that gives an excellent analysis of what motivates progressives. I've decided to reprint the article here on Sinistra's Bane. The article is titled, "Making Sense of It", which I think is non-descript and a bit lame. I'm calling this post "The Kingdom Builders", from a passage in the article, because I feel it better reflects the quasi-religious vision of progressives. They really do want to build a kingdom. Michael Pearl's article explains how and why. Read, learn, and understand. (I've highlighted in bold those parts of the article I found particularly illuminating.)
Making Sense of It, by Michael Pearl, first published in the March-April, 2011 issue of No Greater Joy magazine.
Lately I have come to understand that progressives are motivated by a conviction of their own righteousness. They attack Christianity and the Constitution of the United States because they stand in the way of their universal uotpia. They want to save us from ourselves and our delusions.
The average American knows our country is being driven to extinction, and it's demise is not far away. We cannot make sense of the decisions politicians make. "Stupid" comes to mind, but stupid is without pattern or purpose.
We see men and women who are highly intelligent and very well informed in political science, economics, business, and in history making decisions that are contrary to the best interests of the country and of the poor they claim to represent. And then there is the anti-Christian bias in the media, the courts, Hollywood, and in the public schools and the universities. Why? What is so threatening about the Bible and those who believe it?
The Constitution is held in as much contempt as the Bible. What is so menacing about a document that guarantees individual libery of conscience and action, free speech, free association, and ownership and management of one's property? The way the politicians are legislating and the courts are ruling, you would think faith and the founding Fathers are the most sinister evils ever to stand in the way of positive genetic mutations.
"Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; That put darkness for light and light for darkness; That put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."! (Isaiah 5:20)
For many years I observed the political theatre and wondered at the motivation of the American left. Lately I have come to understand that progressives are motivated by a conviction of their own righteousness. They attack Christianity and the Constitution of the United States because they stand in the way of their universal utopia. They want to save us from ourselves and our delusions. [Progressives] think they are more enlightened than the rest of us and believe their understanding requires them to take charge of the helm, even if they have to kill the captain and throw some of the crew overboard.
Human salvation is thought to be in the collective. [Progressives] seek the redemption and restitution of mankind in a way that assures our survival as a race. It is the Tower of Babel all over again. The kingdom builders get into politics, education, entertainment, rewriting history, and especially into the news media because that is where people are molded to a worldview that will cause them to be willing participants, or at least passive supporters in the New World Order.
The utopitarians are trying to establish what God has already promised to institute, a kingdom of peace and happiness in a paradise where all share in the bounty of a renewed earth. They too want that kingdom, but since there is no god to determine man's destiny, it is up to them to institute this kingdom. [Progressives] abort babies to prevent increased population from placing further stress on an already overtaxed planet. They must purge society of any religion that looks to the sweet by and by, for it prevents men from getting serious about the here and now. They are anti-American because the United States supports a divided world where American exceptionalism prevents us from entering into commune with the have-nots of the Third World. They must save every butterfly and lizard nearing extinction because they don't have a God that will create more.
If they had ten commandments they would read something like this:
1. Thou shalt have no other god above thy fellow man.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any absolutes that cannot be ignored for the sake of the common good.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of any religion in vain, for they are all created equal.
4. Observe the holy days of all religions with equal fervor.
5. Honor the state as your father and nature as your mother, that your days may be long upon mother earth.
6. Thou shalt not kill, even in self defense.
7. Thou shalt not call consensual sex adultery or sodomy.
8. Thou shalt not steal from the poor by accumulating to thyself wealth more than they neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not bear witness against thy government.
10. Thou shalt not covet the power that belongs to the elite.
The progressive/socialist has an anthropological world view that parallels theological doctrine. They believe in the fall of man and in depravity. Man, in oneness with mother nature, living in blissful harmony in a communal paradise of unbounded sexual license and village simplicity, fell into a selfish world of materialism and consumption, damaging mother earth.
In their confused anthropology, man is both evil and good. He is good as long as he is true to himself, following his own light and living his personal truth, not being judged by any outward standard. He is evil in that he is selfish and judgmental and therefore destructive to the collective good.
[Progressives] believe in temptation. Man is tempted by the lure of independent action. He is tempted to judge his actions and the actions of others on grounds of a supposed absolute good existing outside of human nature and independent of the material world.
To the progressives original sin is inherited by children from their parents who teach religion as a pie in the sky, sweet by and by, do it or be damned doctrine, inflicting crippling guilt.
[Progressives] believe in salvation. Their new birth is forgiving oneself and acquiescing to one's passions as normal, rejecting guilt as a foreign, dark force intruding upon their otherwise liberated souls.
[Progressives] believe heaven and hell are here now. Heaven is the new world order--the socialist's New Jerusalem, the utopia, where there will be no more war, or pollution, or bigotry, or hunger. Hell is fossil fuels belching out deadly gasses upon fragile Mother Nature, pollution caused by captialism. False doctrine is unbending religion that segments people. Demons are rich business owners and judgmental religious bigots.
Liberal Socialists/Utopitarians are crusaders for salvation. To understand these kingdom builders you must recognize that they are motivated by what they consider righteousness. They think the masses, especially the political right, are evil or, at the very least, out of touch and need to be pushed into the right path. You are self-destructive and they want to commit you for your own good, thus saving mother earth, the only eternal life the human race will ever know. Surely the survival of this planet is more important than the luxury of liberty. They know that if you are not with them you are against them, and they are willing to sacrifice the few to save the many.
To make sense of the present hour:
Why are our politicians, supported by the news media and Hollywood, seemingly trying to break our country economically. It is obvious that they are deliberately legislating so as to bring about high energy and food prices. With the certain increase in population and the limited resources on this planet, they want to create a worldwide commune where population is kept in check and resources are equally shared.
But they also know that this "sharing" will never come about through legislation. It will take a revolution where shortage is the enemy, not politicians. [Progressives] need crises so they are creating the biggest crisis this world has ever known. Why? Because the creation of a new world necessitates destroying the old one. They know we must fall and suffer before we will be willing to rise in a world with less liberty and more expensive goods and services.
No one will accept legislation that results in a 75% cut in wages and a great reduction in his consumption of goods and services unless he first loses everything and lives in abject poverty for a while; then he will be grateful to a government that puts him in a three hour food line and allows him to live in a two room apartment that has electricity for five hours every day. During times of stress and deprivation he will gladly receive a mark upon his hand or his forehead by which he can buy food for his family.
My final word:
Don't look to politicians to save you. Jesus will bring in the kingdom and He will be the Kings of kings and the Lord of lords, bringing in everlasting righteousness. Until then, pray for those in authority so we can live a quiet and peaceful life until God tires of men trying to take the kingdom by force. That is His job and He will do it soon enough.
There it is, friends. One of the best critiques of "Liberal Socialists/Utopitarians" I've read in a while. I hope, friends, that you find it as informative and illuminating as I did. Knowing what the progressives are all about, what their motives are, will help us defeat them and their innocuous sounding agenda. And defeat them we must, to keep the America we've always known and loved. So arm yourselves with the truths in this articles and zealously fight the good fight. Nothing less than our liberty and our lives are at stake.
Making Sense of It, by Michael Pearl, first published in the March-April, 2011 issue of No Greater Joy magazine.
Lately I have come to understand that progressives are motivated by a conviction of their own righteousness. They attack Christianity and the Constitution of the United States because they stand in the way of their universal uotpia. They want to save us from ourselves and our delusions.
The average American knows our country is being driven to extinction, and it's demise is not far away. We cannot make sense of the decisions politicians make. "Stupid" comes to mind, but stupid is without pattern or purpose.
We see men and women who are highly intelligent and very well informed in political science, economics, business, and in history making decisions that are contrary to the best interests of the country and of the poor they claim to represent. And then there is the anti-Christian bias in the media, the courts, Hollywood, and in the public schools and the universities. Why? What is so threatening about the Bible and those who believe it?
The Constitution is held in as much contempt as the Bible. What is so menacing about a document that guarantees individual libery of conscience and action, free speech, free association, and ownership and management of one's property? The way the politicians are legislating and the courts are ruling, you would think faith and the founding Fathers are the most sinister evils ever to stand in the way of positive genetic mutations.
"Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; That put darkness for light and light for darkness; That put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."! (Isaiah 5:20)
For many years I observed the political theatre and wondered at the motivation of the American left. Lately I have come to understand that progressives are motivated by a conviction of their own righteousness. They attack Christianity and the Constitution of the United States because they stand in the way of their universal utopia. They want to save us from ourselves and our delusions. [Progressives] think they are more enlightened than the rest of us and believe their understanding requires them to take charge of the helm, even if they have to kill the captain and throw some of the crew overboard.
Human salvation is thought to be in the collective. [Progressives] seek the redemption and restitution of mankind in a way that assures our survival as a race. It is the Tower of Babel all over again. The kingdom builders get into politics, education, entertainment, rewriting history, and especially into the news media because that is where people are molded to a worldview that will cause them to be willing participants, or at least passive supporters in the New World Order.
The utopitarians are trying to establish what God has already promised to institute, a kingdom of peace and happiness in a paradise where all share in the bounty of a renewed earth. They too want that kingdom, but since there is no god to determine man's destiny, it is up to them to institute this kingdom. [Progressives] abort babies to prevent increased population from placing further stress on an already overtaxed planet. They must purge society of any religion that looks to the sweet by and by, for it prevents men from getting serious about the here and now. They are anti-American because the United States supports a divided world where American exceptionalism prevents us from entering into commune with the have-nots of the Third World. They must save every butterfly and lizard nearing extinction because they don't have a God that will create more.
If they had ten commandments they would read something like this:
1. Thou shalt have no other god above thy fellow man.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any absolutes that cannot be ignored for the sake of the common good.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of any religion in vain, for they are all created equal.
4. Observe the holy days of all religions with equal fervor.
5. Honor the state as your father and nature as your mother, that your days may be long upon mother earth.
6. Thou shalt not kill, even in self defense.
7. Thou shalt not call consensual sex adultery or sodomy.
8. Thou shalt not steal from the poor by accumulating to thyself wealth more than they neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not bear witness against thy government.
10. Thou shalt not covet the power that belongs to the elite.
The progressive/socialist has an anthropological world view that parallels theological doctrine. They believe in the fall of man and in depravity. Man, in oneness with mother nature, living in blissful harmony in a communal paradise of unbounded sexual license and village simplicity, fell into a selfish world of materialism and consumption, damaging mother earth.
In their confused anthropology, man is both evil and good. He is good as long as he is true to himself, following his own light and living his personal truth, not being judged by any outward standard. He is evil in that he is selfish and judgmental and therefore destructive to the collective good.
[Progressives] believe in temptation. Man is tempted by the lure of independent action. He is tempted to judge his actions and the actions of others on grounds of a supposed absolute good existing outside of human nature and independent of the material world.
To the progressives original sin is inherited by children from their parents who teach religion as a pie in the sky, sweet by and by, do it or be damned doctrine, inflicting crippling guilt.
[Progressives] believe in salvation. Their new birth is forgiving oneself and acquiescing to one's passions as normal, rejecting guilt as a foreign, dark force intruding upon their otherwise liberated souls.
[Progressives] believe heaven and hell are here now. Heaven is the new world order--the socialist's New Jerusalem, the utopia, where there will be no more war, or pollution, or bigotry, or hunger. Hell is fossil fuels belching out deadly gasses upon fragile Mother Nature, pollution caused by captialism. False doctrine is unbending religion that segments people. Demons are rich business owners and judgmental religious bigots.
Liberal Socialists/Utopitarians are crusaders for salvation. To understand these kingdom builders you must recognize that they are motivated by what they consider righteousness. They think the masses, especially the political right, are evil or, at the very least, out of touch and need to be pushed into the right path. You are self-destructive and they want to commit you for your own good, thus saving mother earth, the only eternal life the human race will ever know. Surely the survival of this planet is more important than the luxury of liberty. They know that if you are not with them you are against them, and they are willing to sacrifice the few to save the many.
To make sense of the present hour:
Why are our politicians, supported by the news media and Hollywood, seemingly trying to break our country economically. It is obvious that they are deliberately legislating so as to bring about high energy and food prices. With the certain increase in population and the limited resources on this planet, they want to create a worldwide commune where population is kept in check and resources are equally shared.
But they also know that this "sharing" will never come about through legislation. It will take a revolution where shortage is the enemy, not politicians. [Progressives] need crises so they are creating the biggest crisis this world has ever known. Why? Because the creation of a new world necessitates destroying the old one. They know we must fall and suffer before we will be willing to rise in a world with less liberty and more expensive goods and services.
No one will accept legislation that results in a 75% cut in wages and a great reduction in his consumption of goods and services unless he first loses everything and lives in abject poverty for a while; then he will be grateful to a government that puts him in a three hour food line and allows him to live in a two room apartment that has electricity for five hours every day. During times of stress and deprivation he will gladly receive a mark upon his hand or his forehead by which he can buy food for his family.
My final word:
Don't look to politicians to save you. Jesus will bring in the kingdom and He will be the Kings of kings and the Lord of lords, bringing in everlasting righteousness. Until then, pray for those in authority so we can live a quiet and peaceful life until God tires of men trying to take the kingdom by force. That is His job and He will do it soon enough.
There it is, friends. One of the best critiques of "Liberal Socialists/Utopitarians" I've read in a while. I hope, friends, that you find it as informative and illuminating as I did. Knowing what the progressives are all about, what their motives are, will help us defeat them and their innocuous sounding agenda. And defeat them we must, to keep the America we've always known and loved. So arm yourselves with the truths in this articles and zealously fight the good fight. Nothing less than our liberty and our lives are at stake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)