You
know, I've about had it up to here with liberals. I'm not talking
about the rank and file Democrat, mind you, though they're annoying
enough. I'm talking specifically about liberals in elected office.
They go far beyond annoying.
A certain amount of “bleeding heart” can be attributed to altruism. Feed the hungry, help the poor, and similar objectives may be noble ideals but liberals and conservatives have different ideas about how to address them. The problem with liberalism is that, the more committed one is to the idea, the more irrational he must be. A quest for tolerance, for example, virtually drives liberals to be intolerant. It's unavoidable. So I've resigned myself to the fact that, if I wish to contend in the arena of ideas, I will have to suffer listening to the hypocrisy of liberals. Oh well.
However,
when we're talking about elected liberals, we're talking about
something else all together. Because of their political office, they
are in a position to force their ideology onto people. They're not
just annoyances, they're despots!
Just
recently, Dan Cathy, the President of Chick-fil-A made some comments
about how he supported the biblical definition of marriage and
expressed his concerns that America's attitudes toward gays might
bring a judgment from God. Whether or not anyone agrees with Mr.
Dan's comments is not the point. No one can argue that Mr. Dan has a
first Amendment Right to say them. The First Amendment not only
protects his free speech, it also protects his right to hold his
religious beliefs. And just in case you haven't read the First
Amendment lately, I will remind you that it specifically forbids the
government from infringing on our freedom of speech or
prohibiting the free exercise of our religion. In other words, the
First Amendment doesn't restrict what I can do – it restricts what
the government can do.
Of
course, liberals politicians will never let something like the
Constitution stand in the way of their particular brand of justice.
In response to Mr. Cathy's comments, Boston Mayor, Thomas
Menino said the following:
“I
was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about
your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for
discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your
company alongside it.”
Isn't
that strange? I mean, what would liberals be saying if a
conservative mayor said something like, “Because of their favorable
view of gay marriage, Starbucks is not welcome in our city”? No
doubt they'd be protesting that mayor just like they are now
protesting Chick-fil-A. Liberals are blind to their own intolerance.
Other
liberal politicians have made similar remarks. One Chicago alderman,
Joe Moreno said, “There
are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the
consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing
restaurant in Chicago."
Gee. How much more blatant can they be? Do I need to remind the
alderman that free speech specifically means that one can express his
political or religious views without
consequences?
I suppose I must because he doesn't seem to get it. If a private
citizen suffers political reprisal for expressing his political or
religious views, he
doesn't have free speech!
Would
liberals dare say the same thing of black owned businesses? What about a
Muslim owned business? Never mind. The hypocrisy of liberals in this case is an
ancillary issue. What concerns me more is the blatant attack on
religious liberty. Democrat mayors and other elected officials are
specifically abusing the powers of their office to exact punishment
on a privately owned company because of the religious beliefs of its president. This should be grounds for their impeachment.
These
people should be ashamed but they're not. They remind me of the
Democrats of old who stood on the steps of schools in the segregated
south and refused to let black students enter. The Mayor of Boston
might as well post a sign at the city limits: “No Christian Owned
Businesses Allowed In Boston!”
Bigots!
Tyrants! Bullies! Despots! Did I mention how they annoy me?
2 comments:
The reason you feel frustration, is because you use logic. I am an immigrant, and during the past 12 years I came to realize how the “Republicans” and “Democrats” here in the USA reason.
GENERALLY speaking, the first group seems to reason in a logical fashion, and the latter in a socialist emotional fashion.
It’s almost as if it’s a men versus woman kind of reasoning – as in the ‘old’ days when men reasoned logically and woman emotionally.
Let me start with a ‘logical statement’ of what I mean with GENARALLY: usually; commonly; ordinarily, more than 50%
Now, my statement above may seem insulting to people who reason emotionally, and that just proofs my point, which brings me to my next point.
“Republicans” and “Democrats” reason past each other because of the difference in views.
For example:
Democrats may say : “we have to help people who cannot help themselves, and we cannot just leave people to die when they visit a hospital, even if they did not contribute” – they reason using “emotion”
Republicans respond : “It is not sustainable, we cannot afford it, it’s simply not possible”
The democrats do not key on this, since they (generally) do not grasp the ‘logic’ and implications of the statement and realize that nobody will have it, if it fails.
Instead, the republicans should post a return question based on “emotion” : “Do you not care about citizens that cannot be helped because foreigners who are not US citizens are helped INSTEAD”
This is just an example, but you get the idea. I feel your pain, and I was surprised when I moved to this country to see democrats reason (generally) like woman.
It’s not a derogatory statement on my part, since woman are (generally) better at social issues, aka family/groups of people issues – and it’s a needed skill in that regard.
Since the US seems to become more socialistic, taking care of groups of people as if it’s a family, the logic that was once needed, during industrial age, seems to fade and shift more towards how people ‘feel’.
I suspect that if the US would become a manufacturing country again, it would become a less socialistic country and the focus would shift again – but I do not see that happening.
If you look at the jobs in the market, then you will notice they are more suited for socialistic views, service contracts, etc.. and less for manufacturing which would have driven it more to logical side of the spectrum.
The same comes down to where thing originated from, ‘logic’ would dictate that big explosions do not create universe’s if there is nothing to explode.
Logic and observation indicates things deteriorate over time, which is the opposite of evolution.
Logic requires a creator, outside of creation itself, to create.
-jjk
.
JJK,
Nice to hear from you again. Thank you so much for your comments.
I agree with your point that liberals are driven more by emotion than logic. This is the very point Ann Coulter made in her book, Demonic. Liberals are “mobs.” They think in soundbites. They don't reason – they riot.
In the Chick-fil-A episode, the response of liberals is typical. They don't like what someone says so they try to shut them down. There is no “tolerance” for the religious views of Mr. Cathy. The response of conservatives is also typical. They support and encourage. It was peaceful. They didn't storm the office of Boston's mayor and burn his furniture in the streets.
I also liked your point that logic requires a Creator. I've said many times that any view not founded on the Bible is ultimately irrational and self-defeating.
Please continue visiting and commenting.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment