What Constitutes a Contemporary Liberal?

What, in the broadest terms, constitutes a contemporary liberal -- and why?

Liberals are almost uniformly defined by their hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. For example, the wealthiest U.S. senators -- among them Kerry, Kennedy, Corzine, Kohl, Rockefeller, Feinstein, and Rhode Island RINO Lincoln Chaffee -- fancy themselves as defenders of the poor, but they have no idea of what it's like to live without a bloated trust fund. Liberals speak of unity, but they appeal to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into dependent constituencies. Just who are these liberal constituencies? They support freedom of thought, unless your thoughts don't comport with theirs. They feign tolerance while practicing intolerance. They resist open discussion and debate of their views, yet seek to silence dissenters. They insist that they care more about protecting habitat than those who hunt and fish. They protest for nature conservation while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals, while ardently supporting the killing of the most innocent among us -- children prior to birth. They hate private-gun ownership, but they wink and nod when it comes to WMD in the hands of tyrants. They advocate for big government but want to restrain free enterprise.

Liberals constantly assert their First Amendment rights, except, of course, when it comes to religion. Here, they firmly impose the doctrines of secular atheism on everyone else. They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana smoke. They believe that one nut accused of bombing an Alabama abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than Jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They call 9/11 victims "Hitlerian" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They hate SUVs, unless imported and driven by soccer moms. They believe trial lawyers save lives and doctors kill people. They believe the solution to racism is to treat people differently on the basis of their skin color. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They promote peace but foment division and hate -- ad infinitum.

Why do liberals believe what they believe -- and act the way they act? Psychopathology dictates, or frames, worldview, and worldview manifests in such things as political affiliation. Liberal pathology is very transparent and, thus, well defined.

Generally, liberals tend to be mentally rigid and closed-minded because they are insecure, the result of low self-esteem associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families in which they were not adequately affirmed. (For Leftist over-achievers like Bill Clinton, see narcissistic boderline personality disorder.) They exhibit fear, anger, and aggression -- the behavioral consequences of arrested emotional development associated with childhood trauma (primarily rejection by a significant family member of origin as noted above).

Liberals display pessimism, disgust, and contempt for much the same reason. They focus on loss prevention because they have suffered significant loss. They fear death because they have little or no meaningful connection with their Heavenly Father -- often the result of the disconnect with their earthly fathers. They often come from socially and/or economically deprived homes, but those who are inheritance-welfare trust-babies (see Kennedy, et al.) manifest similar expectations about being helpless without external sustenance. Liberals reject individual responsibility and social stability because these were not modeled for them as children -- the generational implications of pathology.

Sound familiar -- apparently the profs at Cal-Berkeley and Maryland attributed their own pathological traits to their opposition. It's called projection -- or, yes indeed, hypocrisy.

While the aforementioned environmental and behavioral factors are not universally causal in the emergence of a liberal worldview, they certainly are predominant. Close examination of the early childhood of most liberals will reveal they were "victims" of many of these circumstances, which is, in part, the basis for their "victim mentality."

Of course, there are many conservatives who were raised by a single parent or in critically dysfunctional and impoverished homes. However, somewhere along the way, they were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God -- often in the form of a significant mentor who modeled hope and responsibility for them. As a result, they have the courage to internalize their locus of responsibility, unlike liberals, who externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others (read "conservatives") to blame for their ills, and bestowing upon the state the duty for arbitrating proper conduct -- even proper thought.

On a final note, it's no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban (see http://PatriotPost.US/map.asp). The social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings are the catalysts for producing generations of liberals. Many urbanites no longer have a connection with "the land" (self-sufficiency) and, thus, tend to be largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance -- "It Takes a Village" after all.

source:
From Patriot Post Vol. 05 No. 08; Published 25 February 2005

Tolerant Liberals? Hardly.

Today's liberals are always ready to pound their chests with their virtue of tolerance. But the facts show time and time again that liberals are really not tolerant at all, especially when it comes to being "tolerant" towards any one who does not agree with them especially in secularism, evolution, or politics.

Liberals are hypocrites, mouthing one thing and practicing another. When are thinking Americans going to wake-up and see that liberal "tolerance" is truly an OXYMORON?

Justice, American-Style

Finally, after 15 years of stalling in the legal system, over international objections, a foreign-born killer of American citizens was executed in Texas. Would this be allowed to happen in the administration of "citizen of the world" Barack Obama? Answer: NO.

Mexican-born Jose Medellin, who confessed to and was convicted of participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers in 1993, was executed August 5 after a four-hour delay while the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a final appeal based on the alleged denial of his right to contact the Mexican consulate for legal assistance under a 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.

The slime-ball liberal socialists did everything in their power to let this convicted killer live. Fortunately, Texas appears to be the only state that has the guts to follow American law.

In 1993, Medellin confessed to participating in the rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, who were sodomized and strangled with their own shoelaces. Medellin bragged about keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime. He and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to Texas' death row.

The International Court of Justice, formerly the World Court, ruled in 2004 that U.S. courts should review the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexican-born prisoners on death row because of the alleged treaty violation. The ICJ ordered — yes, ordered — the U.S. to "provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Medellin and the others."

Texas authorities argued that Medellin never sought Mexican consular protections until four years after he was arrested. By then, he had already been tried for capital murder and rape, convicted and condemned. The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals upheld the conviction on the grounds that Medellin hadn't complained of any violation of his consular rights under the treaty, and therefore had waived them.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court gave the final word on Medellin's appeal. Writing the 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, whose confirmation Sen. Obama voted against, said that a Texas court, or any American court, is not under any obligation to obey and be subservient to any foreign court.

"(N)ot all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in the United State courts," Roberts wrote. He noted that giving "the judgments of an international tribunal a higher status than that enjoyed by many of our most fundamental constitutional protections" was never a consideration of those who wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Ted Cruz, solicitor general of Texas, applauded the high court's decision. "The United States Constitution vests sovereignty in the Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the president, the 50 states, and ultimately, in We the People," he said. "Had Medellin prevailed, American sovereignty and independence would have been gravely undermined."

The type of justices a President Obama might nominate would defer to the ICJ and welcome the intrusion of foreign law and foreign entities into U.S. jurisprudence.

In a speech in South Africa recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that if judges can consult law review articles and such in the U.S., "why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights?"

Justice Stephen Breyer, another citizen of the world, recently said: "We see all the time . . . how the world really — it's trite but it's true — is growing together. The challenge (will be) whether our Constitution . . . fits into the governing documents of other nations."

Whether our Constitution fits?

For our part, we think that the Constitution and our laws belong to the American people, to be changed through and by our elected legislatures. And we think that those who assault, rape and murder American citizens should be tried in American courts under American laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court rightly decided that Medellin received full due process under American law for the rape and murder of these young Americans. But one or two Obama appointees to the Supreme Court and we could have a situation where the American criminal justice system becomes subject to an international veto. The very control that our Fore Fathers chose to separate our new country from English chains.

source: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303002151310508

Fireamrs Refresher Course

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~ Thomas Jefferson

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

"Killers and Traitors"

"It's not often that the U.S. Supreme Court is asked by a state and the federal government to reconsider a case it has just handed down because it missed key evidence. But that is what is happening now in Kennedy v. Louisiana. In that case, the court ruled in late June 2008 that Louisiana could not execute someone convicted of violently raping a child. Dividing along familiar 5-4 lines, the court held, speaking through Justice Anthony Kennedy, that the death penalty must be reserved for killers and traitors. To apply it to others, including the most reprehensible violators of young children, would constitute a "cruel and unusual punishment" violating the Constitution's Eighth Amendment."

It's nice to know how the death penalty will now be used according to the Court's majority vote, specifically for "traitors". That logically means that Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Frank, Dean, and all the other Democrat-Socialists (including mayor Newsom of San Francisco) are ELIGIBLE for it, because all of them are TRAITORS to the Constitution of the US. I can hardly wait until the elimination process begins! (Don't I wish...)

source: http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3726

1984 Has Finally Arrived in 2008 America

George Orwell's book "1984" while written in 1948, protrayed a world of mind and thought control by the government's "Big Brother".  Majority rule was stamped out, and the government declared what can be thought.

Fast forward to 2008 America.  The impossibility of this happening in America is now becoming reality, now with the state of Colorado, led by their Democrat-Socialist legislators and governor, are poised to dump onto the citizens of Colorado, via Senate Bill 200.  California already fell into this Pandora's Box with its passage of SB777, see my article: http://california95020.blogspot.com/2008/07/youve-got-to-be-kidding.html

 

This homosexual pushed and sponsored bill in Colorado, conceived and vastly over-written piece of legislation is designed to forcibly normalize all varieties of sexual orientation.  This pushed to the forfront the liberal's agenda to end all discrimination, for all reasons, in all places, erroneously equating perverse sexual orientation and practices with normalicy. With SB200, there is no longer two "sexes"; rather a brave new world with a myriad of "sexual orientations" is entered, a world in which there must be no sexual discrimination, upon pain of the substantial civil and criminal penalities contained in the bill.

The passage of this bill will indeed open wide the door of Pandora's Box for sociatal confussion. In the bill, "sexual orientation"is defined as "a person's orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person's perception thereof."  This latter term includes cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who are in the process of deciding exactly what they are.

Therefore, areas that specifically identified entrance based upon sex (e.g. restrooms) are now open to ANYONE.  In addition, a refusal to do business with someone based upon a sincerely held religious belief that homosexuality is wrong according to God's Law, would violate human law.  That threatens the religious liberties of every Christian, Jew or Muslim business owner who operates a business on faith-based principles. Colorado, in addition to civil fines and penalities, would under this bill prosecute small business owners under criminal law, and violators could spend up to one year in jail for tying to live according to their faith.

Thus the fruit of a secular American society continues to blossom forth with its spots of moral cancer. Once again, the tic on the flea on the tail of the dog is given the ability to wag the dog.  And once again, the political party that fully agrees with this abomination is the Democrats, showing again their true color as secular, progressive, socialistic, communists, void of all moral values.       

The Wake of the Red Witch

Pelosi, the Red Communist Witch is totally out of control, and thinks she is a political goddess. She consistently displays her disregard for the will of the majority of Americans, and her latest mandate of dismissing Congress for vacation while the nation suffers high energy prices is inexcusable. But, what can Americans expect from a Democrat Socialist who leans towards full-blown communism?

She serves on the executive committee of the socialist-leaning Progressive Caucus, a bloc of about 60 votes or nearly 30 percent of the minority vote in the lower chamber.

Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WorldNetDaily, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. Another officer of the Progressive Caucus, and one of its guiding lights, is avowed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.

The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.

"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."

Nevertheless, the goal of the Democratic Socialists of America has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Another song removed after WorldNetDaily's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."

And for all practical purposes, it appears America is sleeping!

source: http://www.tldm.org/news5/pelosi.htm