Sunday, July 22, 2007

Leftists are fearful and cowardly

The real issue is simple: If Liberals admit there is a problem, they could be called upon to act. Liberals are blinded by the fear of action. They rest their hope upon the "reason" and "benevolence" of an enemy, an enemy who would slit their collective throats. Truly if they could understand, this adversary finds their existence useful but abhorrent---useful in that this enemy will support liberals' quest for power through their propagandist efforts; abhorrent in that liberals only seem weak and cowardly, which is detestable in these parts.

Liberals seek to destroy any institution of intrinsic value: God, country, family, honor, valor, courage, VIRTUE..Why? Because if such things exist, then they must be defended, which brings them back to their fear of action.

If foundations of a society capture the essence of a State---patriotism, faith--- they must be honored and defended, but this not a raison d'etre for a Liberal. That is why movies like "The Da Vinci Code" are so important to them, and the "Passion of the Christ" was so threatening..Why believe or fight for this thing called Christianity if it is based upon lies and deceit? If it is, then it does not need to be defended. Christianity becomes a target for them to be destroyed and in its place can be created a completely secular state, with no faith to hold dear to ones' heart. Legislation that permits the desecration of the American flag serves the same purpose, to destroy a symbol which, if honored, requires defense.

No, do not expect Liberals to analyze Islam and Mohammed. That requires action, which leads to fear, which leads to inaction. So do not ever expect the media to confront Islam and the problems of radical Islamic Fascism, theocracies/autocracies, and terrorism. It is far easier for Liberals to denounce our Judeo-Christian faith than to confront the truth that faces us all: that Islam is a religion of subjugation, submission and intimidation, whose teachings defend terrorism.

It is far simpler and easier for Liberals to say that Christians are terrorists, President Bush is a Nazi, Jesus Christ does not exist, and the defenders of their rights are "murderers". That way, they can hide behind free speech, a right provided by those who embody the very character traits and virtues which Liberals seek to destroy.

This concept is both puzzling and intriguing. Liberals hate those who defend them because they are afraid to be them. In doing so, they turn a blind eye to, and even celebrate, those who would destroy them because Liberals are afraid to confront them. In the long term, who really has the most to lose in this War on Terror? Liberals do, because we who defend them will never hate them. We will only pity them, while the Islamic fascist, theocrat/autocrat, and terrorist will slaughter them and take away any of the "rights" they have enjoyed.

More here



Dems lose Iraq vote: "Predictions of a Republican revolt against the White House on the Iraq war have proved wide of the mark as Democrats failed to win enough votes yesterday for a timetable to withdraw troops from the country. In what critics called a blatant media stunt to drum up more coverage of Democrats opposition to the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called an all-night debate on a troop withdrawal bill that had bleary eyed presidential candidates such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Clinton addressing a mostly empty Senate chamber in the early hours of the morning. But given President George W.Bush's adamant refusal to consider any change in strategy ahead of advice from military commanders, and certainly not one dictated by the US Congress, a predictable 24 hours of debate in Congress ensued in which just four Republicans crossed the floor to vote with Democrats. The 52-47 vote to set a timetable for withdrawal fell far short of the 60 needed to advance the legislation and stop a so-called "filibuster" from Republicans, in which they have the right to continue to debate the legislation."

Mere rage did not work: "This week, Reid launched a major offensive in the form of an all-nighter, designed to force the hand of wavering GOP senators. Here's Reid, compliments of the Washington Post: "Will the all-night session change any votes? I hope so." It did. It forced several of them right back into the Bush camp. Here are a couple of the wavering senators, compliments of the New York Times: "You wonder if they are more interested in politics than dealing with the substance of this," said Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio. Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, labeled the Democratic plan calling for a troop pullout to begin within 120 days vague and unenforceable. "If it did pass, it would lead to chaos in Iraq and a dramatic increase in casualties," said Mr. Gregg, who is backing an alternative plan that incorporates the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group."

Republicans smarter in the Senate: "A remarkable thing happened in the United States Senate earlier this evening, and it occurred over a rather unremarkable piece of legislation that was being debated. Conservatives, frustrated at the lack of a genuine leader of their party, may have finally found one in Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell. After Democratic leader Harry Reid's all-night session Tuesday night, a move that resulted only in helping unify the weak-kneed Republicans who were peeling away from continued support of the Petraeus surge in Iraq, McConnell, the Republican leader, served notice to anyone watching C-SPAN that he now runs the Senate..."

Turkey on the slide: "Turkish citizens go to the polls on Sunday for an important election. Will the vote reverse the course of Islamization or move it further down the road of becoming a more Islamic, socially conservative society and a foreign policy more attuned to Iran and Syria than to the United States? Barry Rubin, who is covering the elections for PJM, isn't optimistic"

Israeli oppression of the poor Palis? "One of the 256 terrorists slated for release Friday as part of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's "good will" gesture to the Palestinian Authority has said "Thanks, but no thanks" to the offer. The prisoner chose to remain in an Israeli prison, according to Pardons Department director Emmy Palmor, because he prefers to continue receiving free medication for arthritis"

The left lifts the veil on hatred of the military : "The decline of the leftwing netroots into one great, venomous snarl is far advanced, well-known, and much remarked upon by political observers from across the spectrum. But even given its deserved reputation for poisonous invective, the assault mounted against General David Petraeus surprises. General Petraeus made the unforgivable mistake in their eyes of appearing on my radio program and answering questions.... Both because he agreed to be interviewed by a journalist favorable to victory and supportive of President Bush and because his answers suggest progress is being made in Iraq, Petraeus has been savaged by leftist bloggers big and little.... Analysis of what the general actually said was in short supply among the critics. Even before he had read the transcript, Andrew Sullivan launched into one of his trademarks explosions of hysteria and slander"


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


"Why should the German be interested in the liberation of the Jew, if the Jew is not interested in the liberation of the German?... We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time... In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.... Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist". Who said that? Hitler? No. It was Karl Marx. See also here and here and here.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".


No comments: