Liberal Minded, Youve Been Blinded
If you’re familiar with old school hip-hop, you might recognize the title as being somewhat similar to the lyrics from “Criminal Minded” by KRS-One of Boogie Down Productions back in 1987. You might remember his comments a few years ago we cheered when 9/11 happened and also blamed conservatives for the World Trade Center attacks. I thought it would be the most appropriate title for today’s post. So please, read on.
I have been asked by a few readers of this blog (specifically Suburban Moderate) to explain what it means to be liberal minded. Of course, I am always up for a challenge; and this was a great research exercise for me as well. But before I go on, I have a disclaimer. From past experience and various conversations within the walls of previous employer, I know that every word I write in this blog is picked apart with a fine tooth comb. When I refer to a liberal, I am referring to ultra-left-wing-whack-jobs like Code Pink and their fanatical supporters; and George Soros types who want to change the social landscape of America. This group of people has infiltrated the Democratic party and have more power than most believe. I am not referring to all moderates or democrats, which I am often accused of. Not all Democrats are bad! I’ll do my best to remain respectful, well maybe…
Liberal minded people despise the Military
This is the “Blame America First” crowd. They have no regard whatsoever for the core values of this country. They despise military spending. They despise the pride that comes with wearing a uniform. They despise those that support the Military. They have absolutely no respect at all for the brave men and women serving in the Armed Forces, who are risking their lives to protect the very same freedoms which they despise and often take advantage of. If they had it their way, there would be no Military.
They are parasitic organizations like Code Pink that protest Military recruiting centers because they are against the war. They are the despicable vermin, like Ward Churchill that make vile comments at universities … “Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect” which is advocating the murder of Military officers. They are anti-war protesters that proudly march up and down the streets of San Francisco displaying signs that read “We Support Our Troops, When They Kill Their Own Officers”. It is the Hollywood left which last year, released several anti-military movies that exaggerate Military cover-ups and portrays veterans as deranged psychopath murderers, screwed up by this unjust war in Iraq. Instead these groups tout “moral equivalence” arguments in an effort to detract from our graces. In their view the profound and unmatched prosperity (yes even in our current economic state) and freedoms offered by this great nation are somehow suspect and most likely due to our exploitation of others.
Liberal minded people want forced income redistribution
They keyword here is forced! Why? Because they know they wont do it voluntarily.
For those who do no understand income redistribution, it can be either the act of an individuals voluntary charitable giving or a government mandated transfer of income from one group of citizens to another. Examples of this would include progressive taxation to support programs like welfare and Medicaid. The reality is that these liberals do not like the fact that some people are successful while others are not. They see this as being unfair and welcome government taxation to redistribute the wealth of America. It’s called socialism.
Speaking of charity, as part of a 20/20 special back in 2006, John Stossel wanted to test the hypothesis that liberals care more about the poor than conservatives do. To test this hypothesis, 20/20 went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco; and asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities to see which bucket would get more money?
Ironically, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier three times as many people were within reach of the bucket by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much coin. Sad but true.
In addition, John Stossel interviewed Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, who conducted a study which found that conservatives, while making slightly less money than liberals, actually contribute more:
John Stossel:
But it turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. These are the twenty-five states where people give an above average percent of their income, twenty-four were red states in the last presidential election.
Arthur Brooks:
When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about thirty percent more per conservative-headed family than per liberal-headed family. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.
So I wonder why liberals are in favor of income redistribution if they are so greedy with their cash. And, while I don’t think that Hillary is an extreme liberal, her universal healthcare proposal clearly displays that of extreme liberal tendencies.
Liberal minded people have no sense of right or wrong
Socialism has greatly influenced the thinking of todays liberals. One of the main doctrines of socialism is that of atheism. The reason for this is that atheism embraces moral relativism (standards of right and wrong based on time and culture). With no real or tangible God to determine what is right or wrong or to answer to, liberals are left with their own personal opinion about the behavior/laws/policies they exemplify. It is like playing Monopoly where the rules constantly change whenever the person(s) in power decides to change them. Socialist countries today like Cuba and Venezuela have governments that can do whatever the hell they want if they see that action as being beneficial to the entire community.
Okay, ‘nuff with the isms. Let me bring it down a few grade levels.
If they (the liberal Government) decide to kill a mentally deficient person like Terry Schiavo, an unborn baby at any stage or any other person seen as unacceptable in society, there is no moral commandment forbidding murder. They are not constrained by lying or by cheating or any other morally absolute restriction. This is why they believe that the woman’s right to choose is so much more sacred than a baby’s will to live. Instead they are only bound to the beliefs concocted and mandated by the state in which they live. I guess if the law says its okay, then I guess its okay. I wonder if they were forced to live in Iran, if they would have the same
Liberals minded people scream for tolerance, yet are intolerant
I thought tolerance is the golden rule of liberalism, is it not? Well…actually it is, as long as it is something only they happen to agree with. They worship freedom of speech for all groups and lifestyles, yet deny select groups from voicing their opinions.
There are numerous examples where high school and college students are suspended and/or expelled for wearing pro-life gear on campus (more examples here); and public high schools discriminating against various pro-life student groups by denying them the same rights as other student groups. There was even one incident a few years ago where a couple of police officers in none other than San Francisco demanded that two college students walking across the Golden Gate Bridge as part of a demonstration remove their pro-life T-shirts or be subject to a fine and jail time (sounds like intolerant fascism to me).
And, back in 2005 at Indian River Community College in Florida, Mel Gibsons The Passion of the Christ was banned from playing at the school, but a play called F****ng for Jesus was allowed.
Also in 2005, in San Francisco again, city officials proved that there is no room at all for tolerance of opposing principles. When two San Francisco Catholic women voiced their plan for a “Walk for Life” to mark the 32nd anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision, the liberal minded establishment that favors unrestricted abortion reacted with fear and concern.
Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League aggressively went to work with local politicians to combat this absurd “Walk for Life”. On Jan. 11, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution declaring Stand up for Choice Day and by supporting the pro- choice demonstrators effectively disenfranchising those San Francisco citizens (however few there are) who are opposed to abortion on demand; and proved once again that liberals in the government are intolerant.
Here are few more examples to read at your leisure:
- In Madison, WI, a swastika was burned into a Bush supporters lawn.
- In Orlando, FL, anti-Bush protesters ransacked a local Bush-Cheney campaign office, causing injuries.
- In Gainesville, FL, a local GOP Chief was attacked by a Liberal Professor.
- In Spokane, WA, a Bush-Cheney campaign office was vandalized and burglarized.
- Gunshots were fired into the Bush-Cheney campaign office in Knoxville, TN, and Huntington, WV.
- In Milwaukee, WI, the tires of more than twenty cars and vans meant to carry Republican voters to the polls were slashed on Election Day. It was no surprise when the perpetrators turned out to be liberal minded Democratic Party activists.
If you read between the lines from the above examples – and take a look around what’s being reported in the media; you should be able to extract a common theme. The only logical conclusion I get from these examples are that liberal minded people also despise Christianity.
Liberal minded people are uninformed about world issues, and at the same time are foreign policy experts
These are people who compare Bush to Hitler, yet have no idea who the Secretary of State is. These are people who protest Israel for the sake of protesting because everyone else at UC Berkeley is doing so. These are the same people that think Jews are Nazis. These are the same people that bitch and complain about the war in Iraq, call Bush a dictator, take photos with socialist thugs like Chavez, call for the destruction of Israel, yet have no idea who the Kurds are or of the atrocities that Saddam committed when he was in power, or how many millions of men, women and children were murdered at his hands. These are the same people who correlate fascism with the Bush Administration and call him a terrorist; yet support fascist organizations like Hezbollah that recruit young children to fight in their militia and Hamas who praise the cold-blooded murder of teenage students at a Jewish school. Where’s the Code Pink when you need them? I’d like to see them protest the Hamas Recruiting Station. (image at Conservative Liberal.com)
So, tell me Urban. Why are people liberal minded?
Well, I it’s been clinically proven that liberalism is a mental disorder; so this could be one reason. But I am guessing that in most cases, liberal minded folks have been spoon-fed their beliefs since childhood, so it’s not really their fault. Blame their parents who grew up in the 60’s and never came off the acid high. It’s sad that most of these people get their latest news from Oprah, the Today Show and by some over-weight red head on the View. I am no expert in politics or foreign policy, but I do spend considerable time researching topics before I form an opinion.
Go ahead; call me a right-wing war monger. I’ve been called worse. If you think my beliefs are that extreme, what are your thoughts on Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro and Kim Jong il? Are they all peace loving, Nobel Prize winning pacifists?
Subscribe to this awesome blog!
Like this post? Want to call me a jerk, neo-con, fascist or whatever? Please subscribe to my blog and you can receive all future posts delivered right to your inbox!
Technorati Tags: liberalism, liberal minded, liberalism is a mental disorder, socialism, military, anti military, anti war protesters, code pink, intolerant towards Christianity, pro-life, john stossel, 20/20
Share this post
you've been FARKED! You suck, BIG TIME!
NAZI.
Thank you, Alan, for proving Urban Conservative's point on how extremely intolerant you are.
But, Urban Conservative, you forgot to mention how the Democrats manage to generate hundreds of millions of dollars while the Republicans kick their butts with a minute budget that ranges from $1 mil-$10 mil in any given campaign year. I remember the 2004 Bush campaign...we were dirt poor. We had no signs, barely any bumper stickers, and the only reason we managed to win was because the people believed in us. That was all while Kerry was generating some $50 million for his campaign. So, how is it that the supposed "party of the poor" generates so much money for their campaigns? Hmm...
You also forgot to add to your list of ran-sackings the Miami Bush-Cheney Campaign in 2004. I remember it so well it gives me goosebumps, particularly because I knew 90% of the people in that office. The Democrats busted in to the office, and they vandalized EVERYTHING. They broke phones, they broke chairs, they injured volunteers, most of them old little women. I think it's disgusting, even to this day. Old people are so fragile; there has to be some respect for our elderly. Well, end of the story, the people across the street saw the whole thing, they called 911, and the police with a couple of ambulances came, and they took everyone. The Democrats spent their night in a cell, and the old ladies spent their night in a hospital, so everything worked out just fine.
So, how is it that the Democrat party is considered the "open-minded" and "party of the poor" when they do things like this? No, no one is going to convince me of that. I think I've seen enough in my lifetime to convince me otherwise, and I'll tell you right now, I've seen quite a few things myself.
I could respond to each point, but I'm not the blogger, so just the first:
Yes, I believe that Bush and Cheney are war criminals, but I do not despise our brave men and women in the military. I despise the lack of leadership (no exit plan, no real comprehension of the political factors in Iraq) and I despise the moral bankruptcy (lying to justify an invasion, torture, using cluster bombs on civilians in Lebanon, suspension of basic rights such as Habeus Corpus, etc.) that puts our soldiers, including my nephew who was just deployed, into unnecessary risk, and destroys the hard-earned respect and good will of the world community.
Your claim that liberals, although praising tolerance, are in fact intolerant, indicates that you use Oldspeak: "They worship freedom of speech for all groups and lifestyles, yet deny select groups from voicing their opinions."
In the current version of newspeak, the "opinions" of persons who engage in crimethink are generally referred to as "hate speech." Obviously, "hate speech" is not the same as "opinions," as anyone capable of doublethink would realize.
Persons with bellyfeel of today's liberal doctrines by and large also possess the blackwhite to accept this definition of "tolerance" without hesitation.
Since you clearly have an ungood attitude toward and goodthinkers and ownlife, I'll continue in oldspeak:
Your last paragraph starts: "Go ahead; call me a right-wing war monger. I’ve been called worse." I don't doubt it. However, in fairness, Let's point out that a Nobel Peace Prize did go to Yasser Arafat in 1994, along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East" ( http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1994/ ). So, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the illustrius trophy will go to, say, Ahmadinejad: for his peaceful efforts.
Although some goodthinkers have already made their bellyfeel known, I'll risk committing crimethink by saying that I really enjoyed this post: and think that you hit the nail on the head. I appreciate your careful definition of "liberal." There's quite a broad spectrum - one that I think isn't quite bipolar - out there.
Thanks for posting, and - keep writing, crimethinkwise!
UrbCon,
It's so nice to be listened to and to inspire! Thanks for taking the time to pull this together, even though I'm not really sure it tackles my main confusion.
From my perspective, it doesn't seem right to use a relatively moderate sounding term like "liberal minded" as a representation of what you have described (and acknowledged) to be the most extreme of the lefties.
At the risk of oversimplifying, I envision a 5 point scale. Extremists at points 1 & 5, moderates at 3, and the average liberal or conservative occupying 2 & 4 (I won't say which is which, so you won't accuse me of rating one with a higher number).
The problem I have found with some of your posts is that while from time to time you say you are only denouncing the extremists, the terms within individual posts don't make it clear that you only mean the extremists. Is that because you want to incite more intense debate? Or could it be that you dislike even more liberals than you realize?
Having had the benefit of more than one conversation with you I actually don't think you have it in for all liberal people, but it would be easy to think otherwise simply from some of these posts.
With regard to the post itself, I've got major beef with the tolerance section. Both sides are intolerant of the other. Are you suggesting that only the "left" is, or just that they incorrectly claim they are tolerant (and the "right" is open about its intolerance)?
I've also got a problem with the "right and wrong" section. I don't think that the "liberal minds" of which you speak, or the atheists (of which I am one) inherently lack an understanding of right and wrong because they resist a society structured around a specific religion. It's not a desire for everyone to live by their own rules, it's a desire for a society (constructed of many different people with many different views) to decide together what makes sense.
Also, to imply that atheists lack the understanding that lying or cheating is wrong, is absurd. There are plenty of people who don't need religion to make them aware of that, just as there are many people who are religious who cheat and steal. If you need to go to church to know that you shouldn't cheat, steal, or kill, I think it's clear you bigger problems to worry about.
First off, it's hard to deny that a percentage of liberals hate the military, want forced income distribution, and are uninformed about foreign policy issues. As someone who is more liberal than conservative, I'll be the first to admit that there are some liberals who think and act the way exactly as you describe. At the same time, it's hard to take all of your comments that seriously when even you admit that not all liberals are like how you describe. So when should people apply your generalizations? And what if the liberal you are targeting isn't the way you describe? Makes you look like a jerk with too many presumptions. But hey, you're letting off steam and you gotta do what you gotta do.
Secondly, I'm bringing some dissent for the purpose of boredom and insomnia:
I don't despise the military, but I'm not going to go around proving that I support the troops whenever my "patriotism" is questioned. Anyone who falls for that trap is a tool and anyone who demands proof is a douche. However, I despise how and why the military was used. More so, I am absolutely sickened by contractors to the point of vomiting and I don't see how anyone could possibly defend and support them (unless you are a shareholder).
As far as income distribution goes, I could really care less what people decide to do with their money, whether they are liberal or conservative. I have my opinions, but hey, good for you whatever it is you do.
I take issue with your whole athiests have no sense of right and wrong argument. That's a very ignorant assumption that assumes entirely too much. If you're putting a tangible "God" as the sole provider of a moral compass, are you saying that all would be "good" if everyone believed in God? The biggest problem I have with both liberals and conservatives is that these groups too often ascribe to be the moral authority, demanding that absolutely everyone believe in what they believe, and therefore the world would be better. That, my friend, is self-centered delusion.
I'm pro-choice because, well, have you ever forced a woman to do anything she doesn't want to? It's not pretty. In all seriousness though, if the government were to abolish abortion completely, what would you do, as a pro-lifer, with the baby that the mother never wanted to have in the first place? Put it up for adoption, you'd say? My question to you then, is how many adopted babies do you have? If you say zero, thanks for your meaningless words. If you say anything other than zero, all the power to you and I wish all pro-lifers were like you.
As for the whole tolerance bit, I'd be glad to see more activism in the form of dead fetuses. I'm not so sure my 3-year old and 5-year old cousins would though. That selective list you put up is pretty nice too. I'm not denying those instances happened, but I don't think that liberals are the only ones guilty of intolerance and I'm pretty sure you know that too. Cherry picking on only one side of the tree to form your "argument" proves absolutely nothing.
And lastly, on liberals considering themselves foreign policy experts, isn't Bush supposed to be one? Or at least have a staff full of these experts? Because hey, if they can get away with it, so can the liberals.
Thanks for the post!
Your comments on liberalism show the inherent bigotry that it seems all Americans, liberal and conservative alike hold. If you really think that liberals are destroying America, how would you explain that you have a Conservative President, and from 2000-2006, had a conservative congress. The likes of Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink have no control over the policy decisions of the United States. It is the government. The dollar is not getting less strong because of Code Pink. It is the government. The government is to blame for the housing crisis, and the botched wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. To blame such a minuscule organization such as Code Pink etc. for all these problems and the "destruction of America" is naive and bigoted.
If you really desire to make a point on the on the problems facing America, how about you own up. Americans are becoming more and more divide, and both sides are huge bigots. You proved that in your article. You proved that the Liberals are bigoted by being bigoted yourself. The idea that someone can be right or wrong on some of these issues is absurd. All of these issues are a matter of opinion. Higher taxes make sense if you hold certain priorities in your life, and lower taxes make sense if you hold other priorities.
Instead of sensationalizing the "idiocy" of the other side with opinions, it would be beneficial to try and actually address problems that face our society with your own. Stop saying Liberals are destroying America, because with your incredible bigotry, you are destroying America, and what it stands for, as well.
Freethinker
Proceeds will go to Conservative causes and you get to piss off a liberal:
www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com
Re Peter,
if you wouldn't mind segregating yourself from the internet I'd be much obliged.
Yours sincerly,
Seán
"When I refer to a liberal, I am referring to ultra-left-wing-whack-jobs like Code Pink and their fanatical supporters; and George Soros types ..."
Perhaps. But if it wasn't for a vast army of merely moderately-left-wing-whack-jobs -- the ones that populate every business and family -- the ultra-lefties wouldn't get any traction. Lenin called them useful idiots. Their numbers seem to be increasing.
'Useful idiots' is more apt today to apply to poor white trash conservatives who ignore the obscene disparity in wealth between the ultra-rich and themselves, the hijacking of their government by special interests (other than the NRA) and are led around by the nose by merchants in the temple' who push their buttons with wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion and the blatantly racist pandering against illegal immigrants.
Wow so thats an attempt to rationalize backwards thinking. News flash! the federal government doesn't care about you or your family. The people you vote into office are a part of the institutions designed to destroy America. You have a greater role in the destruction of freedom than any terrorist.
I appreciate the work put into this post UC, thank you -- very well put together. It's about time we talk about facts, and not just floozy opinions with no backup. Anyone's opinion without backup is worth ZIP - let's bring this past a high-school level kids.
For those that criticize the "harshness" of the post, get with the times. There are much worse things being said about conservatives and much more extreme things being done by far-left liberals to silence the conservative voice.
UC keep it up man
I agree with SHey....
boy do these libs need some serious prayer!
Great Post!
I consider myself a moderate and couldn't agree more with this post. I remember seeing that on 20/20 and the results really didn't surprise me. Even though I agree with basically everything in your post, I do have to say I am not a Bush supporter nor do I feel we should still have troops in Iraq. It pains me to think that families are losing their loved ones, and I just simply, even as a Christian, justify this war.
I'm no fan of Bush because I just don't think he has been an asset to the American community as a whole. I have some left leanings that I'm trying to abandon but some are rooted in me, and some I have concluded on my own.
Urban I have stumbled (literally) onto your page a few times and have kept moving. I always admired your masthead if anything. Now I'm def. going to subscribe via RSS and link you on my blog.
Great writing!
UrbCon loser, I quote you: "One of the main doctrines of socialism is that of atheism."
You claim that liberals are ignorant and blind, but your comment demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Communism (a political system) does promote atheism and is probably evil (but only because humans themselves are evil). Socialism, on the other hand, is an economic system that promotes an equal distribution of wealth - it has nothing to do with religion.
If anything, most major religions support socialism (in doctrine, although usually not in practice) through charitable giving and aiding the poor. The pope even (indirectly) advocated socialism by calling excessive wealth a deadly sin. Socialism is not a liberal theory, it is the basis of fairness in an evil world.
Now, as far as the comment about how liberals despise the military, let me just list a few of the names of people who advocated war: Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, George W Bush. Liberals appreciate the protection the military provides, but looking at the list above, it's no wonder that we dislike wars...
I won't deny that some liberals are violent (just like many - perhaps more - conservatives are), but the truth is that most liberals are pacifists (or at least good people). Being liberal or conservative has absolutely nothing to do with being pacifist or violent, so your claim is completely unfounded.
As far as why people are liberal, it tends to be because they are aware of the world around them. People with higher education levels tend to be more liberal than those with less education. You cannot claim that liberals are all stupid or deranged or whatever and expect to have a reasonably intelligent (and informed) person believe you. If anything, all the evidence supports that conservatives are closed-minded [they usually oppose change from their "perfect"(ly disgusting) lifestyle] and ignorant. Life is all about evolution; you have to wonder why people are opposed to improving the world around them...
Personally, I believe that conservatives have trouble accepting that others may be right sometimes and can therefore never make the world a better place.
I hope you open your mind eventually to how the world really works and realize that we need change - (controlled) liberalism is the answer.
@Tish
Wow, thank you for the kind words; you are welcome here anytime.
@Bob
I'll get back to you later.
- Loser
Nice response...
Hello;
One of the delicious benefits of our American culture is the diversity of thought, approach, and belief often referred to as "the melting pot". One should not be threatened by liberal or conservative views; basic emotional and intellectual intelligence requires us to posess the personal respect and dignity to leave room for people's differences. Good citizens make good neighbors. I submit slander (Anne Coulter, Ira Hansen,etc. ) makes conservatives appear intellectually inferior; in the long run, it is better to educate our nation with facts and avoid spite as a motivator. Such pundits are an embarassment to thinking citizens.
BKClark has a point.
Slander doesn't help intelligent discourse.
I noticed that the examples cited were conservative ("Anne Coulter, Ira Hansen,etc.").
I'm not sure if the message is that slander is primarily, or exclusively, a conservative habit. I'd prefer to believe that this is not so.
At the risk of being 'slanderous,' an observation:
In the long years I spent in and around colleges, it was a 'well known fact' that conservatives were narrow-minded people with no ability to tolerate any point of view but their own.
Liberals, on the other hand, were open-minded, and welcomed all points of view. (As long as the point of view included approval of some combination of civil rights, abortion rights, gay rights, animal rights, regulation of industry, regulation of commerce, regulation of emissions, Castro, Che Guevara, or any of a number of other 'correct' and 'intelligent' preferences.)
That experience has left me a little dubious about situations where the only examples cited are conservative - or liberal.
Wow, BobHelix knows his shit. I suppose in calling yourself "Loser" you admit that you did, in fact, lose that argument to him?
As for me... I really had to laugh at the "liberals have no sense of right or wrong" part.
Honestly, how can you seriously believe that? I don't recommend you continue saying that; you're actually insulting your own intelligence, and other conservatives like yourself, by attempting to spread bad Ann Coulter-like bullshit that has little basis in reality outside of your head.
Cruelty and spite are poor vessels for the health of our nation. Liberal bashing is so easy, but what does it accomplish? It would be far better to focus our energies on building an even better America.
Slightly off topic, but today is the 50th anniversary of the 'peace sign' (what you conservatives would call 'chicken tracks') and what is needed today more than ever!
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."
I love your site. Do a search and replace for "Do No". It should be "Do Not". Other than that, I agree COMPLETELY and will add you to my list of loved RSS feeds.