Former NPR employee Juan Williams admits he instinctively becomes queasy at the sight of men in Muslim garb boarding the plane on which he sits awaiting takeoff. "Will their actions lead to the demise of everyone on board?" he asks himself.
Not me. I long to fly on planes where every other passenger, as well as the pilot, is a Middle Eastern man dressed in Muslim garb. I don't think of how the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in recent years were perpetrated by men of similar appearance. I am so politically correct that I'm adroitly able to suppress chemical reactions that often occur within the body of less enlightened people, such as former NPR employee Juan Williams.
The reason it's okay for TSA agents to strip search five-year-old boys is because five-year-old boys are equally likely to blow up commercial airliners as Middle Eastern men dressed in Muslim garb. After all, five-year-old boys clearly hate us for our freedom. While they're stuck inside cleaning their room, or finishing their veggies, we're out supersizing our value meal at the local burger joint.
No, as a matter of fact I do not wish to hear statistics that make it seem as if five-year-old boys aren't a huge threat to our safety. If Peyton Manning completes twenty consecutive passes it doesn't guarantee he will connect on a twenty-first!
By being forced to remove their artificial limbs in the name of national security, it's okay those with prosthetic body parts are humiliated at airports because Al-Qaeda has threatened to use such devices in future attacks and therefore the same instinctive feeling of fear will well up within former NPR employee Juan Williams after he notices a fake-legged Methodist lady from Indiana sitting across the aisle while en route to the new vacation home he likely purchased after signing a lucrative contract with Fox News.
Don't tell me you're going to say I should question President Obama's sincere claim that forcing a Methodist housewife from Indiana to remove her prosthetic leg at a security checkpoint makes air travel much safer, and that, by asserting such nonsense, the Commander in Chief insults the intelligence of every American!?
You're probably going to add that you wouldn't feel safe sharing a plane with a limping Middle Eastern man dressed in Muslim garb had he not been randomly selected to pass through a full body scanner or receive an intense pat down. Then you're probably going to tell me that, even after receiving a pat down oozing with intensity, you're still not crazy about the idea of flying on the same plane as a limping Middle Eastern man dressed in Muslim garb because the patter-downer was an employee of the United States Government and, if getting your license to drive, registering your car with the motor vehicle department, or mailing anything of any size has taught you anything, it's that employees of the government are horrifically incompetent.
What kind of monster are you!?
Then, I have a strong feeling you're going to tell me that it's okay to yell at TSA employees who have their latex-covered hands down your underwear even though rational individuals understand they're just following orders!
You will probably argue that the "just following orders" argument holds no water because if every company and governmental body told its employees they must molest certain customers then each and every subsequent molestation would be justified, and, as a result, we'd live in a country full of molesters.
Next you'll probably say something asinine like, "Despite the struggling economy, TSA agents forced to sexually assault law-abiding citizens should take the high road and resign their post in the name of decency."
Then you'll probably have the audacity to say that this article is all over the place and makes no sense. That I'm throwing words against the wall hoping some kind of rational argument will stick and that my putrid attempt at persuasion parallels Janet Napolitano's habit of implementing random policies in hopes that, when combined, they will somehow make us safer.
You've got to be one of the stupidest people on the face of the earth and I can't wait to laugh in your face when the TSA apprehends its first terrorist. And don't you dare ask, rhetorically, "How much damage could a terrorist, stupid enough to get caught by the TSA, really do?"
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to jury duty.
America has Moved to the "Right"!?
I've heard more than one raging leftist claim they were fairly moderate until George W. Bush moved the country to the extreme right.
The only thing middle-of-the-road George W. Bush did, by starting two unpopular wars, was make it socially acceptable to call our president names that would make a sailor blush.
Despite a center-right population, the country is more liberal today than it was yesterday. Yesterday we were more liberal than the day before.
Beg to differ?
During World War II we threw Japanese-Americans into internment camps as if they were carpet-soiling animals. Today we fondle upstanding American citizens because we're too sensitive to ask TSA agents to peruse pictures of the men who committed 1,000 of the previous 1,001 terrorist attacks and then instruct, "When you see men of similar appearance, do whatever is necessary to make certain they're unable to harm anyone on the plane they wish to board. In fact, instead of randomly patting down passengers, we'll be randomly selecting TSA agents to accompany planes containing terrorist look-alikes government screeners were charged with searching."
School children once proudly pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, now they are forbidden from displaying our flag on their bicycle because school administrators worry showing pride in the country on which everyone is freely standing will offend foreign minority groups that demand the rules of their homeland apply to whatever location they illegally travel. How would you feel if someone broke down your door, entered your house, said, "The rules of my dwelling apply within these walls!" and then demanded you remove your family crest because they found it highly offensive?
To prepare meals their customers thoroughly enjoy as measured by repeat visits, restaurants can no longer follow recipes perfected over time because certain ingredients are no longer legal. The next time you plan to slave over a succulent meal made from scratch, pretend you own a Manhattan restaurant by verifying you're lawfully permitted to use every ingredient called for by the recipe contained in what basically amounts to a mixing manual for deadly poisons on which your evil family has bestowed the euphemism, "Grandma's Down-Home Southern Family Fixins". I bet the altered food won't taste like you're living in a far-right bastion.
Republican George H.W. Bush won the state of California in the 1988 Presidential Election. Today residents of the Golden State happily reelect Democrats who've financially ruined the once proud home of Ronald Reagan. The first Tuesday in November of 2012, do you think most Californians will actually think about the burning cars and boarded-up buildings, where businesses operate today, they passed on their way to the polls? Or do you think they'll pull the lever for everyone with a "D" beside their name, because, despite the scarcity of food, they’re still convinced green jobs are the key to economic prosperity?
Though it's currently politically correct to call a black person "African-American", I recently witnessed a black man inform a television host that he didn't appreciate being referred to as an "African-American" and is in the habit of correcting people who address him that way. America is so far to the right, when speaking about a person of color we must first discover which description he or she prefers. If you return to a store and ask to speak with the African-American sales associate who helped you purchase a product, the conversation would go something like this:
Store Manager: Can you describe the salesperson with whom you dealt?
You: Not until I talk to him first.
Store Manager: Yes, but a description is needed for the purpose of locating him.
You: If it were only that simple...
Because leftists control the media, as well as most academic institutions throughout the United States, we'll forever be moving leftward.
Due to the emergence of the Tea Party, there is some hope we can reverse course.
However, knowing the violent lengths radical left-wingers will go to expand their reign of terror, a move to the right is far from certain. Of course I'm speaking of the conservative man whose finger was bitten off by a liberal wacko at an ObamaCare rally, as well as the "African-American" or "black" gentleman who was brutally beaten by SEIU thugs while attempting to sell paraphernalia at a peaceful Tea Party function. This begs the question: If a union beating leaves a black man incapable of speaking, do we refer to him as "black" or "African-American"?
This country is so far to the right that conservatives are literally beaten and eaten for the horrible crime of publicly supporting traditional values they hold dear. Despite the horrific nature of these crimes, the perpetrators get off scot-free.
America is so extremely conservative that left-wingers are allowed to chomp off digits, threaten voters, and senselessly pummel conservatives without fear of prosecution.
Yep, exactly what our forefathers envisioned.
The only thing middle-of-the-road George W. Bush did, by starting two unpopular wars, was make it socially acceptable to call our president names that would make a sailor blush.
Despite a center-right population, the country is more liberal today than it was yesterday. Yesterday we were more liberal than the day before.
Beg to differ?
During World War II we threw Japanese-Americans into internment camps as if they were carpet-soiling animals. Today we fondle upstanding American citizens because we're too sensitive to ask TSA agents to peruse pictures of the men who committed 1,000 of the previous 1,001 terrorist attacks and then instruct, "When you see men of similar appearance, do whatever is necessary to make certain they're unable to harm anyone on the plane they wish to board. In fact, instead of randomly patting down passengers, we'll be randomly selecting TSA agents to accompany planes containing terrorist look-alikes government screeners were charged with searching."
School children once proudly pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, now they are forbidden from displaying our flag on their bicycle because school administrators worry showing pride in the country on which everyone is freely standing will offend foreign minority groups that demand the rules of their homeland apply to whatever location they illegally travel. How would you feel if someone broke down your door, entered your house, said, "The rules of my dwelling apply within these walls!" and then demanded you remove your family crest because they found it highly offensive?
To prepare meals their customers thoroughly enjoy as measured by repeat visits, restaurants can no longer follow recipes perfected over time because certain ingredients are no longer legal. The next time you plan to slave over a succulent meal made from scratch, pretend you own a Manhattan restaurant by verifying you're lawfully permitted to use every ingredient called for by the recipe contained in what basically amounts to a mixing manual for deadly poisons on which your evil family has bestowed the euphemism, "Grandma's Down-Home Southern Family Fixins". I bet the altered food won't taste like you're living in a far-right bastion.
Republican George H.W. Bush won the state of California in the 1988 Presidential Election. Today residents of the Golden State happily reelect Democrats who've financially ruined the once proud home of Ronald Reagan. The first Tuesday in November of 2012, do you think most Californians will actually think about the burning cars and boarded-up buildings, where businesses operate today, they passed on their way to the polls? Or do you think they'll pull the lever for everyone with a "D" beside their name, because, despite the scarcity of food, they’re still convinced green jobs are the key to economic prosperity?
Though it's currently politically correct to call a black person "African-American", I recently witnessed a black man inform a television host that he didn't appreciate being referred to as an "African-American" and is in the habit of correcting people who address him that way. America is so far to the right, when speaking about a person of color we must first discover which description he or she prefers. If you return to a store and ask to speak with the African-American sales associate who helped you purchase a product, the conversation would go something like this:
Store Manager: Can you describe the salesperson with whom you dealt?
You: Not until I talk to him first.
Store Manager: Yes, but a description is needed for the purpose of locating him.
You: If it were only that simple...
Because leftists control the media, as well as most academic institutions throughout the United States, we'll forever be moving leftward.
Due to the emergence of the Tea Party, there is some hope we can reverse course.
However, knowing the violent lengths radical left-wingers will go to expand their reign of terror, a move to the right is far from certain. Of course I'm speaking of the conservative man whose finger was bitten off by a liberal wacko at an ObamaCare rally, as well as the "African-American" or "black" gentleman who was brutally beaten by SEIU thugs while attempting to sell paraphernalia at a peaceful Tea Party function. This begs the question: If a union beating leaves a black man incapable of speaking, do we refer to him as "black" or "African-American"?
This country is so far to the right that conservatives are literally beaten and eaten for the horrible crime of publicly supporting traditional values they hold dear. Despite the horrific nature of these crimes, the perpetrators get off scot-free.
America is so extremely conservative that left-wingers are allowed to chomp off digits, threaten voters, and senselessly pummel conservatives without fear of prosecution.
Yep, exactly what our forefathers envisioned.
Blame America
I recently learned the best fate that could possibly befall a Palestinian man caught blogging against Islam is a lifetime behind bars.
In America, television shows are allowed to make millions by depicting Christian figures as buffoons.
Liberals, who are adamant no religious symbols reside near governmental institutions, are notoriously pro-Palestinian.
The same people, who wet themselves at the sight of a single commandment displayed on public property, openly root for execution-happy authoritarians who murder citizens for openly opposing the religion everyone is required to follow. In order to survive in these lands, many people pretend to worship a god in whom they don't believe.
Standing up for a foreign government usually indicates a desire to be ruled by likeminded leaders. Liberals praise socialist icons like Hugo Chavez while desperately hoping a similar man or woman one day controls America with an iron fist.
That means liberals would love to live in a land where they're forced to follow the uber-strict rules of a specific religion, right?
Instead of having a core set of values, most liberals automatically turn their anger against America, particularly American conservatives, while heaping credit upon international leaders who stifle the only freedom liberals appreciate as Americans.
Because those on the left believe they know what's best for persons of every age, they have a burning desire to control all aspects of our lives. Which religion we follow, if any, is one of the few decisions they graciously allow us to make sans governmental influence.
Liberals praise Palestinians despite the fact that they inhibit one of the few freedoms leftists cherish.
Why? Because America is traditionally pro-Israel; and liberals can't bring themselves to side with America.
Because America achieved superpower status through capitalism, liberals will always view her as evil and corrupt. America simply can do no right.
Were Hitler in power today, liberals would undoubtedly assert America's oppressive actions left him with no other choice but to loathe Jews.
It's clear my argument carries water for the simple reason liberals will forget about everything they hold dear in order to bash America. They say, "A man living in a Muslim country will literally die for posting internet messages that criticize the government mandated religion. Though I would falsely claim a willingness to perish in order for such action to remain free in America, with all my heart I will back the oppressive executioners in their fight against America-backed Israel. It doesn't matter how many non-compliant Arabs die in their quest to follow the religion they deem true, as long as America sides against the executioners, I will side with them."
And it's not like liberals refuse to turn against their heroes because of a simple unwillingness to grant their citizens the freedom necessary to select a religion. No, these religious zealots are actually killing people who've said, "You know, Islam just isn't my cup of Qamar Eddine."
To reiterate, liberals go ballistic over Nativity Scene sightings on public property in America, yet constantly side with regimes that murder religious dissidents. These liberals do realize that in lands where leaders hang those who follow the wrong faith, they also erect religious symbols on public lands?
I can't imagine a leftist saying, "Palestinians executed an atheist for blogging against Islam: that's fine. Palestinians had the audacity to place a Rub el Hizb where!?"
In America, television shows are allowed to make millions by depicting Christian figures as buffoons.
Liberals, who are adamant no religious symbols reside near governmental institutions, are notoriously pro-Palestinian.
The same people, who wet themselves at the sight of a single commandment displayed on public property, openly root for execution-happy authoritarians who murder citizens for openly opposing the religion everyone is required to follow. In order to survive in these lands, many people pretend to worship a god in whom they don't believe.
Standing up for a foreign government usually indicates a desire to be ruled by likeminded leaders. Liberals praise socialist icons like Hugo Chavez while desperately hoping a similar man or woman one day controls America with an iron fist.
That means liberals would love to live in a land where they're forced to follow the uber-strict rules of a specific religion, right?
Instead of having a core set of values, most liberals automatically turn their anger against America, particularly American conservatives, while heaping credit upon international leaders who stifle the only freedom liberals appreciate as Americans.
Because those on the left believe they know what's best for persons of every age, they have a burning desire to control all aspects of our lives. Which religion we follow, if any, is one of the few decisions they graciously allow us to make sans governmental influence.
Liberals praise Palestinians despite the fact that they inhibit one of the few freedoms leftists cherish.
Why? Because America is traditionally pro-Israel; and liberals can't bring themselves to side with America.
Because America achieved superpower status through capitalism, liberals will always view her as evil and corrupt. America simply can do no right.
Were Hitler in power today, liberals would undoubtedly assert America's oppressive actions left him with no other choice but to loathe Jews.
It's clear my argument carries water for the simple reason liberals will forget about everything they hold dear in order to bash America. They say, "A man living in a Muslim country will literally die for posting internet messages that criticize the government mandated religion. Though I would falsely claim a willingness to perish in order for such action to remain free in America, with all my heart I will back the oppressive executioners in their fight against America-backed Israel. It doesn't matter how many non-compliant Arabs die in their quest to follow the religion they deem true, as long as America sides against the executioners, I will side with them."
And it's not like liberals refuse to turn against their heroes because of a simple unwillingness to grant their citizens the freedom necessary to select a religion. No, these religious zealots are actually killing people who've said, "You know, Islam just isn't my cup of Qamar Eddine."
To reiterate, liberals go ballistic over Nativity Scene sightings on public property in America, yet constantly side with regimes that murder religious dissidents. These liberals do realize that in lands where leaders hang those who follow the wrong faith, they also erect religious symbols on public lands?
I can't imagine a leftist saying, "Palestinians executed an atheist for blogging against Islam: that's fine. Palestinians had the audacity to place a Rub el Hizb where!?"
Professor Obama is Not Happy with Our Progress
On November 2, 2010 we conservatives proved once and for all that we're simply not picking up what President Obama is putting down.
You see, Mr. Obama isn't of the opinion big government, massive entitlements and universal healthcare are right for America, rather it's an undeniable fact that all three are supremely moral, while every single conservative idea originated in the loins of Satan.
One day all of us will have that, "I get it!" moment, but, until then, we remain in the back of the class, desperately trying to catch up with the progressives seated in front.
President Obama is trying to convince conservatives that only his policies are worthy, just as we would attempt to convince a communist that only democracy leads to prosperity. In such a situation, we wouldn't assert we have a simple difference of opinion; we'd insist a communist government would cause the topic of conversation in America to turn from professional sporting results to length of bread line.
The difference, of course, is that conservatives have the history of the world on our side and can say with certainly that communism has led to scores of brutal deaths while Obama and his ilk can't point to one prosperous civilization and scream with joy, "Massive entitlements are the reason those people dance in the streets!"
History professors aren't hired to teach a class in hopes they can convince their pupils that the Allies were victorious in World War II, but will happily acquiesce if the majority of students are adamant the Axis powers now rule the world, just as Mr. Obama wasn't elected in hopes he could convince the American people that his progressive policies are both moral and sound, but will happily acquiesce if his fellow citizens believe they reduce freedom and lead to chaos.
The history professor has done his or her job only if students walk out of that classroom at the conclusion of the school year with knowledge that the Allies possess the trophy.
Mr. Obama has done his job only if the American people eventually believe progressive policies alone are acceptable for a civilized nation.
To Mr. Obama, universal healthcare is undeniably right for the United States and he must convince us of this fact just as a history professor must convince his pupils that the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on the morning of December 7, 1941.
So don't act surprised to see Mr. Obama on television insisting he's going to press forward with his radical agenda because you wouldn't think twice about a history professor saying he'd never stop trying to change the mind of a student who claimed with certainty that breaking news coverage of the attack on Pearl Harbor preempted an episode of Two and a Half Men.
You see, Mr. Obama isn't of the opinion big government, massive entitlements and universal healthcare are right for America, rather it's an undeniable fact that all three are supremely moral, while every single conservative idea originated in the loins of Satan.
One day all of us will have that, "I get it!" moment, but, until then, we remain in the back of the class, desperately trying to catch up with the progressives seated in front.
President Obama is trying to convince conservatives that only his policies are worthy, just as we would attempt to convince a communist that only democracy leads to prosperity. In such a situation, we wouldn't assert we have a simple difference of opinion; we'd insist a communist government would cause the topic of conversation in America to turn from professional sporting results to length of bread line.
The difference, of course, is that conservatives have the history of the world on our side and can say with certainly that communism has led to scores of brutal deaths while Obama and his ilk can't point to one prosperous civilization and scream with joy, "Massive entitlements are the reason those people dance in the streets!"
History professors aren't hired to teach a class in hopes they can convince their pupils that the Allies were victorious in World War II, but will happily acquiesce if the majority of students are adamant the Axis powers now rule the world, just as Mr. Obama wasn't elected in hopes he could convince the American people that his progressive policies are both moral and sound, but will happily acquiesce if his fellow citizens believe they reduce freedom and lead to chaos.
The history professor has done his or her job only if students walk out of that classroom at the conclusion of the school year with knowledge that the Allies possess the trophy.
Mr. Obama has done his job only if the American people eventually believe progressive policies alone are acceptable for a civilized nation.
To Mr. Obama, universal healthcare is undeniably right for the United States and he must convince us of this fact just as a history professor must convince his pupils that the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on the morning of December 7, 1941.
So don't act surprised to see Mr. Obama on television insisting he's going to press forward with his radical agenda because you wouldn't think twice about a history professor saying he'd never stop trying to change the mind of a student who claimed with certainty that breaking news coverage of the attack on Pearl Harbor preempted an episode of Two and a Half Men.
America as an Underdeveloped Nation
The liberal "solution" to all the problems of the world is to reduce the quality of life for those of us who reside in America. In other countries, liberals don't wish to see the implementation of policies that have directly led to unprecedented prosperity in the United States.
Were they to achieve their goals, indoor plumbing would soon be the exception in Enid, Oklahoma. Families having the ability to serve their children three squares a day would be considered elite in Effingham, Illinois.
Had liberals reached their dreams years ago, thousands more would have died from natural disasters in America and around the world. People in Haiti are alive today because liberals have failed to achieve their goal of tearing down America on a widespread scale. Thanks to the prosperity and generosity of their fellow countrypersons, folks in New Orleans, who otherwise would have almost assuredly perished, now live comfortably in homes they were able to rebuild after Katrina.
Liberals criticized the Bush Administration for not doing enough to aid the victims of Katrina, yet, if those same leftists had their way, no president would have the resources to do anything other than recite a sympathetic statement. After all, in order to distribute money, the government must confiscate funds from people with the ability to generate profits.
In other words, liberals want massive funding for those in need, yet implement policies that will eventually make it impossible for the government to obtain such funding. Liberals want you to believe increasing taxes will mean the amount of cash available to Bill Gates will drop from $50,000,000,000 to $49,998,999,999, while thousands of hungry children will receive adequate food and shelter. But that's simply not the case. Bill Gates and his peers will stop hiring workers while the party in power will squander the money on loyal backers and expensive studies that primarily benefit shrubbery.
When you pull the lever for a liberal candidate, remember that you are greatly increasing the chances innocent people will suffer.
As a massive hurricane approached a third world country, can you imagine how much greater the sensation of dread in the pit of your stomach would be were America also a third world nation?
Knowing America, in its current form, will quickly mobilize to assist those in need brings an unmatched sense of relief, because, regardless the quality of sleeping bag offered by other countries, an overwhelming majority of governments lack the resources needed to save lives.
Were liberals successful in tearing down America, I suppose you would never have a sensation of dread in the pit of your stomach because you likely wouldn't possess the electronic devices necessary to learn a hurricane was approaching a third world country. Persons in certain parts of the world aren't heartbroken over the earthquake in Haiti because they aren't aware the Haitians suffered an earthquake.
No matter how much the DNC spins, it's not opinion that liberal policies lead to suffering on a massive scale. And the future looks even bleaker. The healthcare bill will lead to the suffering of people who fail to show a member of their death panel adequate respect. The stimulus package will lead to the financial suffering of future generations. As they talk about retail stores not making a profit until after Thanksgiving, parents are now forced to say, while holding their newborn for the first time, "He has his entire life ahead of him after he’s tirelessly finished working off his share of the massive debt accumulated by our generation."
Just think of it like this; customers wouldn't ultimately benefit if the CEO of a dreadful company declared, "The only way we can compete with our successful rival is by unscrupulously tearing them down. Therefore, instead of improving our entire operation from top to bottom, we'll sabotage theirs."
Would soft-drink fans benefit if Generic Brand Cola Company was somehow able to successfully complete their sinister, "We can't make our drink taste as good as Coke, but we can make Coke taste as bad as Generic Brand Cola," plan?
Were they to achieve their goals, indoor plumbing would soon be the exception in Enid, Oklahoma. Families having the ability to serve their children three squares a day would be considered elite in Effingham, Illinois.
Had liberals reached their dreams years ago, thousands more would have died from natural disasters in America and around the world. People in Haiti are alive today because liberals have failed to achieve their goal of tearing down America on a widespread scale. Thanks to the prosperity and generosity of their fellow countrypersons, folks in New Orleans, who otherwise would have almost assuredly perished, now live comfortably in homes they were able to rebuild after Katrina.
Liberals criticized the Bush Administration for not doing enough to aid the victims of Katrina, yet, if those same leftists had their way, no president would have the resources to do anything other than recite a sympathetic statement. After all, in order to distribute money, the government must confiscate funds from people with the ability to generate profits.
In other words, liberals want massive funding for those in need, yet implement policies that will eventually make it impossible for the government to obtain such funding. Liberals want you to believe increasing taxes will mean the amount of cash available to Bill Gates will drop from $50,000,000,000 to $49,998,999,999, while thousands of hungry children will receive adequate food and shelter. But that's simply not the case. Bill Gates and his peers will stop hiring workers while the party in power will squander the money on loyal backers and expensive studies that primarily benefit shrubbery.
When you pull the lever for a liberal candidate, remember that you are greatly increasing the chances innocent people will suffer.
As a massive hurricane approached a third world country, can you imagine how much greater the sensation of dread in the pit of your stomach would be were America also a third world nation?
Knowing America, in its current form, will quickly mobilize to assist those in need brings an unmatched sense of relief, because, regardless the quality of sleeping bag offered by other countries, an overwhelming majority of governments lack the resources needed to save lives.
Were liberals successful in tearing down America, I suppose you would never have a sensation of dread in the pit of your stomach because you likely wouldn't possess the electronic devices necessary to learn a hurricane was approaching a third world country. Persons in certain parts of the world aren't heartbroken over the earthquake in Haiti because they aren't aware the Haitians suffered an earthquake.
No matter how much the DNC spins, it's not opinion that liberal policies lead to suffering on a massive scale. And the future looks even bleaker. The healthcare bill will lead to the suffering of people who fail to show a member of their death panel adequate respect. The stimulus package will lead to the financial suffering of future generations. As they talk about retail stores not making a profit until after Thanksgiving, parents are now forced to say, while holding their newborn for the first time, "He has his entire life ahead of him after he’s tirelessly finished working off his share of the massive debt accumulated by our generation."
Just think of it like this; customers wouldn't ultimately benefit if the CEO of a dreadful company declared, "The only way we can compete with our successful rival is by unscrupulously tearing them down. Therefore, instead of improving our entire operation from top to bottom, we'll sabotage theirs."
Would soft-drink fans benefit if Generic Brand Cola Company was somehow able to successfully complete their sinister, "We can't make our drink taste as good as Coke, but we can make Coke taste as bad as Generic Brand Cola," plan?
Christians Killed Us on 4/19/95
When people say, "Muslims" attacked us on 9/11, liberals freak out because the word, "extreme" wasn't placed in front of "Muslims." Leftists argue, "Because Timothy McVeigh was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, we can claim that, 'Christians killed us on 4/19/95.'"
When you take a look at the terrorist attacks of the past 50-years, you'll see that their argument is bogus because the overwhelming majority of cowardly offenses were perpetrated by Muslims. If one Muslim committed one terrorist attack over a decade ago, not a sole would even bring up religion when discussing the attack. Not to mention the fact that Christians everywhere immediately condemned the Oklahoma City bombing, whereas many Muslims throughout the world took the "I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of learning how to fly an airplane for the express purpose of committing jihad against America, but can understand why they did it" attitude. It's very similar to Chris Rock suggesting it was the fault of Nicole Brown Simpson for getting murdered by OJ due to the fact that she was spending his money and allegedly having physical relations in the home he still owned. Mr. Rock said, "I'm not saying he should have killed his wife... but I understand."
Christians aren't flying planes into full mosques. If a few did, the remaining wouldn't say, "We're not saying they should have used those planes as missiles... but we understand. After all, it was primarily the fault of those inside the mosque."
The reason liberals argue that you must claim, "Christians attacked Oklahoma on 4/19/95" if you have the audacity to assert, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11," is because they can't say what they really believe for risk of losing their livelihood.
Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg recently walked out of an interview on their dreadful morning talker because moderate TV personality Bill O'Reilly said, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11."
Ms. Behar and Ms. Goldberg were likely upset they couldn't respond to Mr. O'Reilly's assertion with, "No, Bill, due to an oppressive foreign policy, we attacked us on 9/11."
"I'm not saying OJ should have killed his wife... but I understand."
Unless you make your living shocking people, liberal figures can't say what they really believe. They must rely on the ignorance of the American people, most of who don't care enough to learn the truth.
It's why President Barack Obama still has a few supporters remaining who aren't raging leftists. Because they buy his official stance that states he loves his country, they don't understand Mr. Obama implements policies that punish America.
That's the worst part of America's decline. Were liberals honest...Were President Obama to publicly say every American making a decent living is part of the problem... Were he to repeat with vigor, "redistribution of wealth and social justice are the keys to making amends for the many crimes of America."... Were Joy Behar to say America is to blame for every terrorist attack we have suffered... If they were simply to be honest, they would be shunned by most Americans.
But sadly, most Americans don't care enough about the future of their country to think critically. They don't care enough about the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to do anything more than catch five minutes of a debate and choose a candidate based on his or her speech pattern. Because the last time I checked, Barack Obama's oratory skills had yet to put food on anyone's table, whereas his policies have forced thousands to seek government assistance in order to secure a hot meal.
You can't rely on the righteousness of the liberal to "tell you like it is;" you must discover for yourself if their words are true. You can't assume, because you are always truthful about your intentions, everyone else must also say what they mean and mean what they say. If liberals want to get elected, they must lie, and because their only desire is forcing you to live a certain way, don't have the integrity to admit they're in the minority and bow out gracefully.
Liberals must tell you that they don't want to control your life in order to gain control of your life. Joy Behar must tell you to include "extremist" after the word "Muslim" when describing our attackers on 9/11 because it's an absurdity that won't get her fired, whereas honestly saying, "The extreme policies of America left the freedom fighters no other choice but to attack us on 9/11," would mean her days frightening children on daytime television would immediately end.
Never believe a liberal, and understand that they almost always mean exactly the opposite of what they say. I'll give you one example. Sure, I could offer up thousands, but will go with one I find particularly chilling.
"After healthcare reform passes, you can keep your doctor," means, due to the policy of the man you elected because you were 100% certain he would make your life better, you must say goodbye to the only physician you feel comfortable treating your children.
When you take a look at the terrorist attacks of the past 50-years, you'll see that their argument is bogus because the overwhelming majority of cowardly offenses were perpetrated by Muslims. If one Muslim committed one terrorist attack over a decade ago, not a sole would even bring up religion when discussing the attack. Not to mention the fact that Christians everywhere immediately condemned the Oklahoma City bombing, whereas many Muslims throughout the world took the "I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of learning how to fly an airplane for the express purpose of committing jihad against America, but can understand why they did it" attitude. It's very similar to Chris Rock suggesting it was the fault of Nicole Brown Simpson for getting murdered by OJ due to the fact that she was spending his money and allegedly having physical relations in the home he still owned. Mr. Rock said, "I'm not saying he should have killed his wife... but I understand."
Christians aren't flying planes into full mosques. If a few did, the remaining wouldn't say, "We're not saying they should have used those planes as missiles... but we understand. After all, it was primarily the fault of those inside the mosque."
The reason liberals argue that you must claim, "Christians attacked Oklahoma on 4/19/95" if you have the audacity to assert, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11," is because they can't say what they really believe for risk of losing their livelihood.
Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg recently walked out of an interview on their dreadful morning talker because moderate TV personality Bill O'Reilly said, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11."
Ms. Behar and Ms. Goldberg were likely upset they couldn't respond to Mr. O'Reilly's assertion with, "No, Bill, due to an oppressive foreign policy, we attacked us on 9/11."
"I'm not saying OJ should have killed his wife... but I understand."
Unless you make your living shocking people, liberal figures can't say what they really believe. They must rely on the ignorance of the American people, most of who don't care enough to learn the truth.
It's why President Barack Obama still has a few supporters remaining who aren't raging leftists. Because they buy his official stance that states he loves his country, they don't understand Mr. Obama implements policies that punish America.
That's the worst part of America's decline. Were liberals honest...Were President Obama to publicly say every American making a decent living is part of the problem... Were he to repeat with vigor, "redistribution of wealth and social justice are the keys to making amends for the many crimes of America."... Were Joy Behar to say America is to blame for every terrorist attack we have suffered... If they were simply to be honest, they would be shunned by most Americans.
But sadly, most Americans don't care enough about the future of their country to think critically. They don't care enough about the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to do anything more than catch five minutes of a debate and choose a candidate based on his or her speech pattern. Because the last time I checked, Barack Obama's oratory skills had yet to put food on anyone's table, whereas his policies have forced thousands to seek government assistance in order to secure a hot meal.
You can't rely on the righteousness of the liberal to "tell you like it is;" you must discover for yourself if their words are true. You can't assume, because you are always truthful about your intentions, everyone else must also say what they mean and mean what they say. If liberals want to get elected, they must lie, and because their only desire is forcing you to live a certain way, don't have the integrity to admit they're in the minority and bow out gracefully.
Liberals must tell you that they don't want to control your life in order to gain control of your life. Joy Behar must tell you to include "extremist" after the word "Muslim" when describing our attackers on 9/11 because it's an absurdity that won't get her fired, whereas honestly saying, "The extreme policies of America left the freedom fighters no other choice but to attack us on 9/11," would mean her days frightening children on daytime television would immediately end.
Never believe a liberal, and understand that they almost always mean exactly the opposite of what they say. I'll give you one example. Sure, I could offer up thousands, but will go with one I find particularly chilling.
"After healthcare reform passes, you can keep your doctor," means, due to the policy of the man you elected because you were 100% certain he would make your life better, you must say goodbye to the only physician you feel comfortable treating your children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)