Archive for March, 2007

Sayet and Modern Liberalism

March 31, 2007

Think about this for a moment.

They used to be called communists. But that soon became a pejorative and so they didn’t want to be called communists anymore.

Then they wanted to be called socialists. That too became a pejorative and they didn’t want that title.

Now they are called liberals. This too has already become a pejorative and they don’t like being called liberal.

Now they want to be called progressives. Do you see a pattern here?

Compare with the (erstwhile pejorative) “mormon”. Yes, it used to be a pejorative, in the same way the N-word or the new F-word (with 6 letters meaning a bundle of sticks) are pejoratives. And yet, there is a whole group of millions of people running around calling themselves “mormon” today. Why did this pejorative become a badge of honor, and “communist” become a pejorative?

It is because the people grow to learn the true meaning of the words we use. They learn that communist, socialist, liberal, and soon progressive are all another word for evil–not the kind of evil you imagine when you are a child in Sunday School, but the absolutely terrifying and disturbing kind of evil that exists in the heart of murderers, rapists, and traitors. It is so evil and so terrible that they actually think they are doing good.

That’s why the names we use to label them become pejoratives. No one would ever want to be labelled a communist, socialist, liberal, or progressive in the same way you don’t want to walk around with a shirt that says, “I rape and murder little boys secretly.”

Evan Sayet gives a fine, 45 minute lecture on the modern liberalism, what it is based on, and what it all means. (link) He knows because he lived among them. He understands things I can never understand because I have never been more than arm’s length to a real liberal.

The story that struck me was about the man who claims to hate his wife. You kind of laugh about it, thinking deep down inside that he can’t possible be serious and it all must be some kind of joke. But then you see a mugger beating up his wife and he stands by, nodding in approval. It is then that you realize that he really does hate his wife, and he wasn’t joking.

That’s the way the modern liberals are. They are more than willing to tell you what they are and what they stand for, but you find it is difficult to believe them. “They can’t really want these things–it’s suicidal,” you think. But events in these times prove that you are wrong–they really do want to see America destroyed, they really do want babies slaughtered, they really do want good, honest men thrown in prison and evil men set in positions of power.

It is so evil that they walk around wearing their evil on their shirt as if it was a badge of honor or a mark of goodness. This is the kind of evil you would expect Satan to whisper to the masses to lull them to sleep, except it comes from their mouths.

I can write here about how not just some, but every issue modern liberals stand for are evil. It is as if they pull out their moral compass, find which way points toward “good”, and then choose to walk in exactly the opposite direction.

The problem is you would read my arguments the same way you would listen to your friend go on about how he hates his wife. You wouldn’t, you can’t believe that it could all be possibly true. But the truth is the truth–they are evil in the most evil way possible.

To my friends who are “casually” liberal, that is, who think they are liberal but don’t really understand why, I wish you would start asking why sooner rather than later. Why is it okay to slaughter a child before they are born and not after? Why is it okay for two perverted men to get “married” to each other and adopt children to raise them to be as perverted as themselves? Why is it okay to kill an innocent, crippled woman but not a hardened murderer? Why is it okay to attack our commander in chief in the middle of a war as if he were the enemy?

The answers will surprise you. You will know you have found them when you start calling yourself “conservative.”

Advertisements

Were is the War on Terror?

March 30, 2007

Where are we fighting terrorists? In Afghanistan, Iraq, or here at home?

That’s an important question. If the real war is in Afghanistan, and we leave Afghanistan before we thoroughly defeat the enemy, then we have lost the war in the eyes of our enemies, for instance.

Jules Crittenden quotes a Washington Post article talking about this very question. The answer will surprise those who want us to pull out of Iraq.

Gen. McAffrey (Ret) Reports on Iraq

March 30, 2007

Reading this report at Michael Yon’s site, I almost felt like I needed to find the nearest recruiting station and sign up. (Hat tip, American Thinker Blog.) Bottom line: War is tough, this war in Iraq is really tough, but we are winning despite the democrat’s efforts to make us lose.

I expect most anti-War in Iraq folks to disregard this report the same way Global Warming Kool-Aid drinkers disregard any scientific report that throws water on their fires. That’s because the truth hurts.

Sen. Feinstein, Will You Resign?

March 30, 2007

Democrats accused republicans of being corrupt. Of course, the Republican Party sent any politician of their party who was corrupt packing away for their corruption. If they were guilty, they got no mercy from republican prosecutors and judges.

Heck, when there were even allegations of impropriety, they had the guys resign. Tom DeLay, despite the fact he was accused of breaking a law that didn’t exist at the time he apparently broke it, resigned rather than hold his seat through the trial.

Now that the democrats are in power, do you think they will be responsible like the republicans? When one of their own is charged with corruption, will they investigate and hold them accountable?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein from California is involved in such an allegation. You haven’t heard it on the nightly news because, well, she’s a democrat and they get a free pass on corruption.

Because of this, she resigned from one of the many committees she sits on. That’s a nice start, senator. But if you’re corrupt,  YOU SHOULD RESIGN FROM YOUR OFFICE. If you don’t respect your office or your country enough to resign when you are corrupt, then at least your party should drive you out, like the republicans did.

I’m still waiting for other corrupt democrats to leave their posts–like Rep. Jefferson (who get caught with $90,000 in bribes) and Rep. Murtha (who refused to take his own bribe money but was willing to enter into more negotiations.)

I’m not holding my breath. In order to be a democrat, you have to look at the sun and claim it is as dark as night.

New Mexican Democrats Indicted

March 30, 2007

What is it with democrats and corruption? Why are they attracted to it like moths to a fire? Several leaders of the Democratic Party in New Mexico were indicted on charges of corruption. (Article) Of course, the reason why President Bush fired the US attorney in New Mexico was probably because he refused to prosecute cases like these. (And they call the president corrupt!)

I thought the democrats were intent on winning in ’06 so they could clean house. Why would they fuss when their guys get caught with their hands in the cookie jar and President Bush wishes to punish them for it?

The Great Divide

March 24, 2007

There is a mountain range, the Rockies, that divides our country. If rain falls on one side, it will flow to the Atlantic. If rain falls on the other, it will flow to the Pacific.

There is a political divide in our country as well. However, the sides of this divide are not morally equivalent.

If you live on one side of the divide, you tend to ask for more government power and control. If you live on the other side, you ask for less.

One side is the side of tyranny. The other is the side of freedom.

I wonder frequently why socialists believe that the same people who make corporations corrupt and greedy make government pure and benevolent. Is there some magical spell that is cast on people once they gain employment for a government institution that causes them to be morally just and clean?

I, and people on my side of the divide, look at government as pure evil. We live in a world where people should only interact with persuasion and never force. But we live in a world where, from time to time, force is justified. Government is that institution in which we bestow the rights of the people to act with force against other people. That makes government’s power inherently evil if misapplied.

Force is justified if it is used to secure liberty from those who would take it, or destroy those who would use their liberty to destroy others. And so we have setup a government that is restricted in how it can use its force.

Socialists, however, would like to see the role of government and that application of force expanded beyond what rights the people originally had. For instance, I have no moral right to club my fellow man and take his property for my use. Yet socialists use government to do just that, throwing people in prison and punishing them for refusing to pay taxes that are used to feed those who will not work.

This is the great divide. On the one hand, a group of people who believe force should be limited to a few clearly defined roles, and on the other, a group of people who wish to use force to break the laws of morality by stealing and enslaving people.

It’s really that simple.

Party of Pork and Treason: The Modern Democrats

March 24, 2007

What the Democrats did yesterday in the house was beyond excusable.

While our men are fighting, bleeding, and dying for our freedom and for the hope of setting up a Middle East that won’t murder our citizens, the Democrats are spending BILLIONS of our tax dollars buying votes to support a bill to give victory to the enemy.

There is a story from the Book of Mormon about something like this. It is all too similar to ignore.

Moroni, a chief captain on the eastern frontlines of a brutal war, ran out of supplies. His men were starving, the enemy was amassing, and they were losing city after city in devastating battles. Victory didn’t just seem distant, it seemed impossible.

Helaman, a chief captain from the western frontlines, wrote a letter to Moroni. Helaman was able to drive out the enemy from that quarter in a miraculous victory, but he too was short on men and supplies. Helaman faced the same terrible circumstances. If the enemy attacked again, they would lose that quarter.

In this desperate situation, Moroni wrote a scathing letter to the chief judge back at the capitol. Summarized, “If you do not supply the men and food we need to fight this enemy, we (including you!) will lose this war. If you would rather sit on your thrones in a stupor than do your duty and support these warriors who fight for your freedom, we will glady relieve you of your authority and put government in the hands of those who will keep their duty. I will march on the capitol and overthrow your government if you do not immediately send supplies and men to Helaman and myself.”

Moroni received a letter back from the chief judge along with limited supplies and men. In these dire times, a group of people who would rather be ruled by kings than law had taken the capitol and entered into an alliance with the enemy. At the moment of weakness, they proved themselves disloyal to their brethren.

The chief judge wasn’t certain whether God would support a war against treasonous brothers. However, Moroni’s letter made the situation clear, and he asked Moroni to assist him in taking back the capitol from the kingmen.

We live in a country where we tolerate the treasonous among us because we are strong enough that we can. We tolerate them, but we do not allow them to go unanswered!

President Bush has made it clear that the Democrats in congress have crossed a line from mere dissent to aiding the enemy. He has made it clear that their actions do not support the troops but undercut them. No longer is President Bush going to play nice with the Democrats–their loyalties do not lie with the American people and so cooperation is impossible.

As long as this war is distant, as long as the enemy we face is as pathetic as they are, the Democrats don’t really represent a true threat to our freedom. One day it may come to a point where the Democrats or people who think like them do challenge us in a critical time. Then we will take up arms, march on Washington D.C., and relieve the government of their duties in order to establish a new government that can defend our freedoms and liberties. That’s what the first and second amendments are there for. That time is not now, though.

I want my Democrat readers to think carefully about what they do in the future. We do not elect governments to serve themselves but the people. We do not want kings, we want servants in the nation’s capitol. Those Democrats in the house have shown themselves to be selfish. They put their own politics ahead of the needs of the people, they spend the people’s treasure on buying votes, and they do it all despite the fact that we are winning this war.

We Don’t Care

March 23, 2007

My friend on the school board, Director Hoff, has been complaining loudly about the single biggest problem we face as a community: we don’t care about the poor and undereducated. We don’t care enough to do anything more than throw money at a problem.

He attended a hearing on truancy. It’s apparent the judges don’t care either. Rather than condemn those who have been complacent ineducation, they are excusing them. The last thing a child needs is to learn that there is no reason to learn, and yet that is the lesson taught by these judges.

I used to be schocked to hear that so many people don’t care about education. But I’ve matured and learned that it can’t be any other way. After all, how can we expect tens of thousands of people in our city to care about education when they all have tens of thousands of problems of their own to worry about each day?

I am left to wonder why we, as a community, decided to take the duty of educating the poor and undereducated when we knew that we don’t care enough about it to do it anyway? Why did we relieve the burden from those who truly did care, the charities and churches? Did we expect that we, the uncaring masses, could do better than a few dedicated individuals?

Now that we know that we are incapable of inspiring our government to do anything meaningful to help the poor and undereducated, should we continue to bear the burden of a problem we don’t care about? Or should we let go of that burden and put it back on the shoulders of those who truly do care and would commit their lives to it?

I believe that President Reagan was right, and will always be right. The solution to our problems is not in government–government is the problem. The solution to our problems lies in our people and in our society. We are perfectly capable of solving our own problems without government’s so-called “help”.

I am not against education. I am against government-financed and government-regulated education. I believe that we cannot ever hope to see promising results in education until we remove government from the equation. The reason is simple. It is because we the people don’t care about education, and neither can our government.

Freedom

March 15, 2007

Thanks to Michelle Malkin, I have discovered Lisa Ling’s report on North Korea. (link)

What is most surprising is  some of the comments on Lisa’s blog at National Geographic.

Some are claiming that by reporting the truth, Lisa is putting her North Korean minders in danger, as well as making it that much more difficult for aid programs to get in North Korea.

That may be true. These things may come to pass.

But it will never be blood on Lisa’s hands.

It is an indictment of the evil that exists in North Korea, and the real price people pay who do not live in freedom.

I pray that North Korea will fall, that Kim Jong-Il will be held accountable, and that the people of North Korea will be freed from their terror camps and from their terrorist leaders.

This should be required viewing for anyone who thinks socialism is a good idea.

Got ‘Im

March 10, 2007

Apparently we just captured the top terrorist in Iraq.

Note to democrats: the top terrorist in Iraq is not President Bush or Vice President Cheney, nor is it any marine or soldier. See, we’re the good guys in this conflict because we don’t go around decapitating reporters and blowing up children.

The terrorists are the ones who strap bombs onto retarded children and hold entire villages hostage and don’t blink an eye when they murder their own children. The terrorists are the ones who hide in women’s clothing and among peaceful people, knowing full well that they are endangering innocent people by doing so.

Of course, the surge isn’t supposed to work, so the fact that we just caught the commander in chief of our enemy doesn’t mean we’re winning. At least, that’s what liberals are telling themselves right now. I imagine we can power a small city with the spin we shall hear over the weekend.

I, however, who gladly embraces the reality of reality, am quite glad at the news. I shall order a cake with the words “God Bless the USA” on it. I shall enjoy it immensely, with a side of ice cream.

I shall also enjoy telling my children that another very, very wicked man is caught and shall be tried for his crimes against the innocent women and little children of Iraq. I shall delight in telling them that our great God lives, and that He is supporting us in our fight against evil in this hour and this age, just like He supported us in the past.

And all you liberal, terrorist-loving, America-hating atheists out there can go ponder for a moment the meaning of life and the fairness of a Christian country kicking the crap out of a bunch of evil terrorists. Go ponder it, and tell me how exactly there is no God in heaven, there is no freedom in America, and there is no evil in terrorism.