9 posts tagged “liberals”
Below are a couple of comments left by Ellie (of Vox social network) concerning one of my many cross posts: “The Immorality of Homosexuality.”
Thank you for the link, I will have a look.
With all due respect, the parades are not proof of anything. It makes me sad (and a bit crazy, to be honest with you) that we liberals and secularists are painted as perverts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I, like many liberals, am pro-military, and pro-authority.
It makes me sick to see thongs in public. I don't want to see people's private parts - whether someone's gay or straight. But gays don't have a monopoly on perversion - not at all. It's the bad stereotype of gay parades that makes all sorts feel free to act like they're porn stars. My gay friends hate it even more than I do. They are perfectly proper citizens.
I'm not touching the Bible - I have no interest in reinterpreting it. I respect other's wishes, I just wish you guys would speak to us liberals before you judge us.
…
Way2K, are you kidding me? Craigslist? That is not a scientifc study.
The article says, "One study says this...and one study says that....". They are not mentioning what studies they refer to. That must be convenient to say the study is out there in the ether but to not actually reference which study it is.
Here is an example of a scientific study:
A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men
And to explain why such published studies are important references, here is my favorite scientist discussing evolution vs creationism.
Thank you for listening to me rant, I can't think of a better thing than for our polarized citizens to talk to one another.
So because a person finds some statistics and posts them to a Craig's List link, the statistics are invalid? Hmm...
Besides it was only a cursory Google search that I found this link. I did not realize you were going to use the statistics as a scientific reference. Probably Googling those statistics will lead to the origination.
I do appreciate genial dialogue as opposed to the epithets that I receive for my stand with Christian morality.
Incidentally, contrary to probably most of my fellow Conservatives (and probably a significant portion of my fellow Christian Right brethren) I am not closed minded about many Slanted Left concepts. However, I do filter everything through the Bible as it is viewed via Charismatic, Pentecostal and Word of Faith views. I am also aware that many Christians both toward the Left (i.e. more relativist than Biblical) and toward the Right (intolerant Protestant traditional view points often equated with fundamentalism) would consider me archaic (Left) or heretical (Right). Nonetheless, the Bible is everything for me.
In saying that I have to say there is a good argument for both Socialism and Capitalism in the New Testament:
· Socialism – Acts 2:40-47.
· Capitalism – Matthew 13:44-52; 25:14-29.
I personally could find more of the Scripture supporting Capitalism than Socialism but the point is both concepts are in the New Testament. I also realize that theologians would not view these Scriptures in economic terms; rather the Biblical scholar or student would find the spiritual Truth that is the direct meaning. Nonetheless, the spiritual Truth may be the point; however the principle can be surmised.
There is evil in Socialism. When all the altruistic good of the collective is looked at through who decides what is the greater good for the collective, then abuse begins to occur. Hence Socialism too often leads to godless authoritarian Communism in which the one human (or ruling human group) decides the good for the many.
There is evil in Capitalism. When the individual (or the influential group of wealth) places greedy gain to the detriment of the mass of individuals then people are exploited for the benefit of a few.
The key for either the Socialist Left or the Capitalist Right to be beneficial for humanity is the Golden Rule: Do to others as you would have them do to you. Or love humanity as God loved humanity enough to give His one and only Son, that all humanity may have the God-Kind (Zoe) life. I am ashamed to say too many Christians fall short of the Christian ideal which does include me. I do have a tendency to get steamed over social issues like homosexuality and abortion because they definitely are not in line with the Bible. I become so steamed that I sometimes fall into the ditch of harshness.
So Ellie the biggest problem I have with the Left and alternate lifestyles is the anti-Biblical Christian path they tend to take.
Ellie now I will try the “scientific” data to which you refer.
The link to the research of Dr. Simon LeVay is fascinating stuff. LeVay’s hypothalamic studies have led to the speculation of a “gay gene.” LeVay’s thinking seems to be if there is a “gay gene” than the lifestyle of homosexuality is a normal biological part of human life.
It is the old “genetics versus environment” argument with those believing homosexuality developing due to one’s social environment is a learned lifestyle and thus reversible and not normal.
As you can expect the “science” that is in the tank to validate homosexuality has been initially excited about LeVay’s research. And those scientists (although a minority) who are Christian or social traditionalists seem to be big on proving the environmental hypothesis.
When it has looked like LeVay and/or other like minded scientists was very close to identifying a “gay gene” the social traditionalists are quick to point out it has not been proven. (SA this narth.com article) Then someone woke up among the homosexual activists. If homosexual friendly LeVay indeed discovers a “gay gene” proving biology over environment, then heterosexual parents might take advantage with a little genetic social engineering to remove any possibility of a “gay gene” to exist via abortion or other methods. This would effectively bring the modern termination of homosexuals as their so-called genetic brethren (and sistren) would slowly decrease.
Of course the American Psychiatric Association admits there is no “gay gene”. Many on the Right believe this APA reversal was due to regain a better reputation of objectivity. I believe the APA reversal was due to the headaches that genetic engineering would cause for the homosexual community.
Let me end by saying that I do appreciate dialogue without profanity. My experience is that my intransient stand with the Bible irritates the Slanted Left, homosexual activists, the pro-choice crowd and other such ideologies. That is okay as long as the Left understands that their views are often offensive to me. But hey, we all live in America. We all have Constitutional Rights of Free Speech as long as it does not cause immediate harm (e.g. falsely yelling fire in crowded area).
Thanks for your time Ellie.
Here is a Facebook group letter from the Our Country Deserves Better (OCDB) group which is a pro-troop and Conservative Political Action Committee currently devoted to defeating the Leftist agenda for America.
I am sharing this letter because it is a pump up the Conservatives message.
JRH 5/3/09
********************************************
We step up our fight against liberalism/socialism
From: Joe Wierzbicki
Sent: May 1, 2009 at 4:51pm
OCDB Facebook
On Tuesday of this week, the Our Country Deserves Better Committee will unveil the big project we've been talking about.
The effort we are about to undertake is our first big step towards not just stopping, but reversing, the recent gains that liberals have made in America and in our government.
Sometimes I read comments by conservatives/libertarians/constitutionalists at Facebook or YouTube and I see a sense of despair and hopelessness. I can certainly understand why people might feel this way, but I have to tell you all that such an outlook is something we must each individually reject.
We live in the greatest land ever known by mankind, where individuals and families are blessed with bountiful opportunities, access to the world's greatest health care, and the freedom and liberty for the individual to thrive and succeed - without undue interference or restriction by government.
We all recognize that we will lose a bit of our American identity as to who we are, what ideals we cherish, and what freedoms we enjoy -- if those on the far Left can fully impelement (sic) their agenda and ideologies into law. And sad as it is, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi represent the most radically Leftist government our country has ever seen.
So we must fight back, and do so with the determination to win the day, by winning over the hearts and minds of the American people. That's how we do it in this democratic Republic.
You can do your part to help -- by growing our ranks here at the Our Country Deserves Better Facebook group. We're currently at 4,125 members. Please help us grow that number to 4,500 or more by Tuesday -- in time for our big announcement.
Our Facebook group can be found here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38833593456
Thank you for your time and your support. Now let's go take our case to the American people and show them that socialistic, big government, liberalism is not what America is about.
-Joe Wierzbicki
PAC Coordinator, Our Country Deserves Better Committee
http://www.OurCountryPAC.org
Based on interviews and conversations Dennis Prager writes of the potential that Leftists will stir anger and hatred by calling the American voters RACISTS if Barack Hussein Obama loses the election. Someone even told Prager there is a belief race riots may occur.
Ooh! Maybe American voters should vote for BHO to avoid a violent national crisis. NOT!
JRH 9/23/08
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
