6 posts tagged “liberals”
This post is awesome! It is excellent! It is whatever superlative beyond “good” one can think of.
JudgeRight’s post hopefully will enable me to reach a higher plain of blog/comment exchange.
The problem is I have to admit in the intellectual realm I get steamed with Liberal provocative comments based on inaccuracy and downright deception. I have to admit I have fallen into the low brow tit for tat exchanges JudgeRight has described.
To see how to be a better Conservative read JudgeRight’s post entitled, “Liberals Redefining Hatred.”
JRH 4/7/08 (Hat Tip to Humbled Infidel)
I believe Senator McCain would be an awesome leader to guide America toward a victorious resolution on the Global War on Terror (GWOT); however my enthusiasm stops there.
I am deeply invested on turning social issues in America away from a Left Secular Humanist slant back to a Conservative Christian Values slant.
John McCain has consistently bucked Christian Values as a foundation for a standard of life in America and sided with Secular Humanism.
Also McCain is invested in limiting free speech during a period of time just prior to an election. That is the legacy of McCain/Feingold. Thanks to the diligence of the Wisconsin Right to Life organization the Supreme Court ruled in their favor in June 2007, grassroots broadcast advertisements are allowed during the election prohibition period specified in McCain/Feingold; however it still applies to corporate entities and Unions. The design of McCain/Feingold is to squelch criticism of political candidates over broadcast waves during a period of time prior to an election.
There is an organization that is exposing both Mitt Romney’s and John McCain’s past voting record as being Socially Liberal. Both McCain and Romney are running campaign advertisements proclaiming that they are Conservatives. RoeGone.org has exposed that does not line with past voting records in a series posts.
ChristianNewsWire reports that RoeGone.org is beginning to run ads exposing McCain’s leanings toward Left Slanted Social Issues. Left Social Issues is an agenda that is nearly had success in transforming America into a society that accepts hedonistic social relativistic moral values as the norm. For my point of view that is reprehensible.
The femme fatal of the Conservative Right Ann Coulter has come out and said she would vote for Hillary before she would vote for McCain. Now that is a harsh assessment from a gal I love to read. Coulter seems to be a Romney person in the sense that he is the best (her opinion) of the Republican front runners. Coulter also has venom for Huckabee who has the appearance of a Social Conservative but a fiscal Liberal. Huckabee’s biggest black mark is inexperience in foreign affairs at a time when America needs a leader to stand up and buck conventional wisdom and aggressively confront Islamist terrorism around the globe.
Who is the current candidate I am leaning toward? Frankly I waver daily back and forth between McCain and Huckabee. Coulter would be a fool to campaign for a Leftie like Hillary even if she is more moderate than McCain of which I do not agree.
I like Huckabee now purely because he is a Conservative Christian on Social Issues; however the Global War on Terror is the first item of business that needs addressed for America. There might be the problem of electability for Huckabee too. The Lefties will hammer on the false concept of “Separation of Church and State” to influence deceived voters that a vote for Huckabee is an endorsement of government supported religion. This is a concept that is not looked fondly upon by the Left or the Right in America.
So once again I am back to committing myself to whoever wins the Republican nomination and pray the Hand of God is in the choice.
I like Ann Coulter because she is Conservative who is not afraid to rock the Politically Correct boat. In her latest column Coulter not only takes on the hypocrisy of the Left’s tendency to promote an image of multicultural tolerance while disdaining Conservatives as all things evil and Christianity as an old myth which only the unintelligent still follow; Coulter makes a stab at the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as a Leftist organization.
The launching pad for Coulter’s venom toward the ADL is because the ADL has attacked Dennis Prager (a Jewish individual) for his anti-Islamist stand.
The only criticism I have of Coulter’s column is the appearance of sympathy for the implied criticism of the ADL of Senator Robert Byrd’s racist past. Byrd was a card carrying and recruiting member of the Klu Klux Klan in old West Virginia. (Read a Conservatives view of Byrd’s KKK past HERE and the Slanted Left View of Byrd’s KKK past HERE.) Coulter may be expressing tongue-in-cheek however it is odd even in that way to show sympathy for a slanted Left aged Democrat with a racist past.
Otherwise Coulter’s analogies are right on piercing of Leftist hypocrisy with the reality of truth. Apparently the ADL has become so Left wing it is more concerned with Leftist ideology than with the survival of the existence of the Land of Israel, a Land that owes its modern existence to the butchery of Hitler’s Nazi/Fascist Holocaust.
Can you name the primary goal of Islamofascism? Its goal is the execution of a second Holocaust of Jews, particularly the ones living Israel.
Ann Coulter’s “Pretend to Be All You Can Be” article is one of the best I have read from her.
The lift off point is the Democratic Party in Congress wishing to publicly censure Rush Limbaugh for his “phony soldier” comments about veterans that are liberals or veterans that Democratic Party Office holders and are hatriots of the War on Terror.
The real theme though is the ACTUALITY that there is a long dirty laundry list of phony soldiers that are protesting the War on Terror. Coulter aptly and generously makes her case – it is awesome! READ IT!
Peter Schweizer is a Slanted Right person’s favorite thorn in the neck of hypocritical Liberals. He is the noted author of “Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.” That book is a documentation of Liberals and Democrats that advocate altruistic causes yet violate the end game of the altruistic cause constantly.
I guess the latest Liberal hypocrisy is similar to Papal Indulgences used in the Middle Ages. The Papacy used the practice of Indulgences to sell Grace/Forgiveness to the buyer or for a dead person a buyer wanted assurance to score Heaven as a revenue venture.
This practice became so blatantly outrageous by Martin Luther’s day that he became emboldened to nail the famous “95 Theses” on the Chapel door of the University whence Luther taught in 1517. This marked the beginning of the Reformation and a separation of protesting Roman Catholic Christians from the Papal Authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Hence the emergence of multi-dimensional articles of faith that all had one thing in common – divestment of the authority of the Pope and the appellation of Protestant. The Protestants were calling Papal practices hypocritical because of divergence from forgiveness of Sins by repentance and accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. The Protestant accusation is that obvious sinners and unsure Christians could buy Salvation apart from the Redemptive Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This was pretty bold stuff for the day.
Twenty-first century Liberals have embarked on a similar path of hypocritical indulgences. It is called “Offsetting.” For example when a Liberal living in the real world drives a car or flies a Jet that pollutes the environment of the earth, they can offset their environmental sin by planting a tree or donating money to environmental activist organizations. Thus they have neutralized their environmental sin – over and over again as they participate in the reality of life. In this way a Liberal can delude themselves of their goodness and publicly heap shame on those who choose work in the real life and dream their goodness by self-made illusions.
Peter Schweizer hammers this home in an essay written in an USA Today Opinion Column. I sense a Liberal would dread to read the essay because it might dash the illusion under the light of reality. A Slanted Right person should read the essay to confront the hypocrisy the next time a deluded Liberal attempts to embarrass you in front of friends, family or co-workers with facts they themselves participate daily.
I am afraid I am not as articulate as I should be, therefore when I find powerful writing that exactly expresses my thoughts I become extremely excited.
This is for all my Liberal friends (probably not) that wish to be subservient to collective socialism and radical Mohammedanism:
*********************************************************************
Europe's Anti-American Blinders
By Pamela Meister
January 19, 2007
needs to hate us for its own reasons having nothing to do with American behavior. In an essay adapted from his forthcoming book Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America, Andrei S. Markovits writes:
Anti-Americanism has already commenced to forge a concrete, emotionally experienced - as opposed to intellectually constructed - European identity, in which Swedes and Greeks, Finns and Italians are helped to experience their still-frail emotive commonality not as "anti-Americans" but as Europeans, which at this stage constitutes one sole thing: that they are "non-Americans."
In other words, Europeans are building a common society not as Europeans, but as non-Americans, much in the way that John Kerry ran for president in 2004 - not on any solid Democratic plan, but as a non-George Bush.
As John Kerry lost his 2004 presidential bid, will Europeans fail in their bid to become a solid European community?
Markovits is correct in saying that the unification of is a very ambitious political project. Creating a cohesive community out of nearly 30 different countries (with others hoping to be accepted into the fold) can be likened to searching through your refrigerator and throwing various ingredients into a casserole dish, popping it into the oven, and hoping the combination will make a delicious and nutritious entrée.
For almost the entirety of their histories, various European countries have been at one another's throats: invading, conquering, and overthrowing one another. The concept of a European Union (EU) has only been in existence for the past fifty years or so. It's no surprise that the road to unification has not been a smooth one.
For example: although it has been an EU member since 1973, has yet to give up its currency, the pound (£,) for the euro (€), which was launched in 2002. Part of the reason is that many influential British business concerns feel that the independent Bank of England is helping to contribute to 's lower unemployment and higher productivity than its EU counterparts, and that a move to the euro would prove unstable. And in 2005, rejected the newly-crafted EU constitution, which would further erase political and economic borders among the sister states. As is a charter member of the EU, this was considered a big blow by those who wish for to the capital city of the European continent. The constitution would allow the central EU government to set foreign policy, regulate housing, and more.
The main reasons for the formation of the EU were political and financial: to heal the region after two devastating world wars and to create an economy that could rival that of the . Yet by relying on anti-Americanism as the mortar for their dream state as Markovits posits, the European chattering classes paper over many of the real problems they face: a climbing crime rate, high unemployment, escalating taxes to pay for endless social programs, and rising problems with radical Islam.
It's convenient indeed to point fingers at and blame her for all the problems in the world. Americans are blamed for a myriad of issues, from global warming to cultural decay. As Jean Francois-Revel puts it:
The fundamental role of anti-Americanism in Europe in general, and particularly among those on the Left, is to absolve themselves of their own moral failings and intellectual errors by heaping them onto the monster scapegoat, the United States of America. For stupidity and bloodshed to vanish from Europe, the must be identified as the singular threat to democracy (contrary to every lesson of actual history). Thus, during the Cold War, it was dogma among Europeans from Sweden to Sicily, from Athens to Paris, that the "imperialistic" power was America, even though it was the USSR that annexed Eastern Europe, made satellites out of several African countries, and invaded Afghanistan, even though it was the People's Republic of China that marched into Tibet, attacked South Korea, and subjugated three Indochinese countries. A similar dynamic applies today in the war on terror.
After a short "we are all Americans now" moment in the aftermath of 9/11, Europeans quickly went back to criticizing , this time for daring to buck world opinion by invading to topple the evil regime of Saddam Hussein. No matter that Hussein had consistently defied the UN and its resolutions, which many Europeans (and a distressing number of Americans) feel should be the be all and end all of world policy. No matter that, in the days and months following 9/11, it was folly to ignore the despotic ruler of an unstable country who was thought by many (including Jacques Chirac) to have WMDs. No matter that Saddam Hussein was known to have used such weapons, in the form of nerve gas, on his own citizens.
America decided to do something about it, so the knee-jerk reaction of Europeans was to condemn it.
Twice in the twentieth century, nearly committed suicide. Both times Americans jumped in to bail them out, at huge personal and national cost, something which must eat at their psyche - the colonial upstarts who dared to create a new world had to come to the aid of the old. Those classless, cultureless, money-grubbing Americans had to go in and do a managed intervention, keeping Europeans safe from themselves and a now-collapsed Soviet threat. (That American money, while considered to be dirty capitalist spoils, also comes in handy, too.) Guilt in their complicity in the mass murder of European Jews who contributed so much to their culture and the world at large - Albert Einstein, Marc Chagall, and Niels Bohr, to name a few - keeps them from admitting to the fact that the bias is still there, ready to boil over at any moment. 's steadfast support of , therefore, is another bone of contention.
Europeans, weary after centuries of warfare, want to believe in utopia. So their governments created cradle to grave social programs to keep the people happy, to keep them from asking too many questions. In a sense, not much has changed since the days of the lord and serf. They downsized their militaries, putting all their stock in diplomatic solutions, forgetting their past success with negotiations with Hitler. Criticizing American policies and American missteps allows them to forget their own. Squealing about the "torture" of terrorist detainees at Abu Ghraib allows the French to ignore their alleged involvement in the killing spree, in which 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus died in only 100 days. It allows the Dutch to bestow honors to troops who failed to protect nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys, killed by Serb forces that overran Srebrenica in July of 1995. And Belgian and Italian soldiers, sent to protect under the umbrella of the U.N. in the late 1990s, were said to have raped and tortured those wretched people - facing only fines and dishonorable discharges for their crimes.
Radical Islam is a growing threat. Rather than assimilate, many Muslims have chosen to keep to themselves. Until a few years ago, it didn't seem to pose much of a problem, as native Europeans preferred to think of the immigrants as second-class citizens. The latest of many unpleasant reminders that all is not well is 's Channel 4 broadcast special entitled Undercover Mosque, showing that the moderate face of Islam in shields a darker, more sinister purpose: that of jihad and the establishment of an Islamic state.
By going into and , is trying to contain the menace of radical Islam. Blinded by their burgeoning disdain for Americans, Europeans either cannot or will not acknowledge this. And they ignore radical Islam in their own backyard at their own peril.
Anti-Americanism may be the glue that holds the EU together in its infancy. That glue, however, is a toxic substance. Like the schoolyard bully who seeks to make himself feel better by putting others down, Europeans continue to sneer at and heap scorn on the descendants of their own outcasts, who fled across the in the hopes of a better life. They accuse the of imperialism and greed in the shadows of their own collapsed empires and struggling economies. The chattering classes demand an end to American world dominance.
Thus the question begs to be asked: if withdraws from the world stage, who will fill the void?
Pamela Meister writes about politics and world events on her blog. She can be contacted here.
© American Thinker 2007
