Well, maybe. Just barely…
Are Liberals Actually Human?
By Burt Prelutsky (Archive) · Thursday, May 26, 2011
Two questions that often plague me are what planet do liberals hail from, and why don’t they go back?
For instance, Michael Moore, who looks more and more like Helen Thomas every day, along with many of his fellow leftists, has insisted that, morally, there was no difference between Osama bin Laden’s killing 3,000 people on 9/11 and our killing him. Just how fatheaded do you have to be to even suggest such a thing?
But it’s not uncommon for liberals to cite moral equivalence where there isn’t any. They do it when it comes to equating cold-blooded murder of innocent people with the state’s execution of the murderer; they do it in regards to the Middle East not only when they condemn Israel for defending itself against Arab and Muslim terrorists, but when they equate Christian martyrs with the blood-thirsty Egyptian mobs who burn down their churches and slaughter them in the streets.
The reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden was interesting on many levels. To begin with, people argued whether the proper term was assassinate, kill, execute or even murder. I think the appropriate word was exterminate, which is generally the way we refer to rodent and pest control.
Then we had the problem inherent in Barack Obama, a liberal who not only opposes capital punishment, but who campaigned for terrorists to be tried like common criminals in civilian courts, serving as judge, jury and executioner, of a man who was never Mirandized, provided with an attorney or given the opportunity to face his accusers; and, for good measure, whose fate was Seal-ed without the okay of the U.N., the World Court or Rosie O’Donnell.
Can you imagine the stink that would have been raised by the MSM if George W. Bush had green-lighted the operation? At the very least, the environmentalists would have gone berserk, comparing the dumping of bin Laden’s carcass to BP Oil’s contamination of the ocean.
Finally, if any additional proof of the Left’s intellectual dishonesty were needed, we have Nancy Pelosi stating, back in 2006, that, “Even if Osama bin Laden is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late…the damage he has done is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.” But five years later, she has the gall to announce: “The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against Al-Qaida. I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. The death of Osama bin Laden is historic.”
You would have thought Mrs. Pelosi might at least have squeezed George W. Bush in there at some point, perhaps in place of those anonymous “other nations.” Come to think of it, which nations do you think she had in mind? Luxembourg? North Korea? Pakistan, perhaps?
But that’s the sort of embarrassing thing that’s bound to occur when, as is all too typical of liberal politicians, one values partisanship above principles, and make a practice of rewarding the vainglorious and the abysmally ignorant, people such as Mrs. Pelosi and Harry Reid, with leadership positions.
Filed under: Liberalism, Progressivism | Tagged: al-Qaida, Arab, Barack Obama, BP, Christian martyrs, civilian court, Egypt, Egyptian, George W. Bush, Helen Thomas, Israel, Middle East, Mirandize, moral, moral equivalence, murder, muslim terrorist, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Oil Spill, Osama Bin Laden, Rosie O'Donnell, trial, U.N., world court | Leave a comment »
As always, when a liberal says he wants to do X, the Y is what will really happen. This sometimes by accident, but increasingly by design as the war against freedom and liberty kicks into high gear.
There are so many hypocritical examples dealing with the left and gun control that you couldn’t name them all if you tried. Here are a few. The left say that guns are dangerous and kill people. Cars kill many times the number more people than guns kill in this country every year, yet there is no campaign to ban cars. The left say that guns kill people. Following their logic spoons made Michael Moore fat, yet there is no campaign to ban spoons. Baseball bats and knives kill more people every year than guns, yet there is no move to ban them either.
The other blatant hypocrisy from the anti-gun left that I simply can not stomach is the “do as I say, not as I do” mentality. They look down their noses at the American people who are constitutionally allowed to have guns and tell us that “you people shouldn’t have those guns.” Yet they own them and actually shoot people with them. I present as exhibit-A, North Carolina state senator R.C. Soles. He is a long time die-hard anti-gunner who has voted for every anti-gun bill to come down the pike for many years. Yet when someone invaded his home, he picked up a gun shot the intruder. This is as bad as the Rosie O’Donnell who says we shouldn’t have guns and that she doesn’t have them either. What she neglects to say is that she doesn’t have guns because she is rich enough to afford body guards who have them.
Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.
It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety are far more valuable than yours or mine, which of course HE DOES. But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, manage our money, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.
Sex and Guns
“…When it comes to guns, liberals and anti-gun groups, are unwilling to discuss how educating children can lead to a decrease in these very type of accidents….”
by Gerard Valentino
When abstinence is floated as a way to keep teenagers from having unwanted pregnancies the left is openly scornful of the idea. (The only approach to stopping pregnancy or STD’s that is effective 100% of the times it is tried) Liberals claim that sex-education and familiarity with contraception are the only viable ways to teach teenagers to practice safe sex. They argue that kids are going to have sex so it is important to teach them how to avoid the pitfalls involved with irresponsible behavior. (With the liberal approach, you might not catch an STD, and the number of unplanned children won’t be as high as if you simply started breeding your children at age 13. With the abstinence approach, when both responsibility and consequences are taught, if followed completely eliminates both. AND IT’S FREE. But liberals can’t control your life or your wallet with an approach like that.)
Liberals preach education as the answer for a host of other social ills as well, including discrimination, sexism and environmental issues.
Funny, however, that the only problem liberals refuse to attack with so-called education are accidental gun deaths among children. When it comes to guns, liberals and anti-gun groups, are unwilling to discuss how educating children can lead to a decrease in these very type of accidents. (Sex ed, driver’s ed, cultural diversity training, sensitivity training, education on “trafficking in human persons,” fire extinguisher training, etc. are just a small list of “approved” training that the liberal establishment has decided to repeatedly fill my days, and the days of my coworkers with, in some cases wasting countless man-hours (excuse me, PERSON hours) on training that would and should be covered at home, and was before liberals destroyed morality in America. Yet teaching children how to SAFELY handle a gun is off limits. Has anyone thought about the reason why? Is it that liberals don’t want children to be safe? Even I don’t think they are THAT heartless. But the reality in their mind is that if you teach children how to shoot, they will grow up to be adults who can shoot, and can resist their tyranny. It is an insidious piece of the gun control puzzle.)
Several times in the recent past, Ohio has considered a bill that would offer gun safety training as part of the high school curriculum. While pro-gun groups are quick to praise such a move as a way to decrease gun accidents through education, anti-gun leftists are already using their tired propaganda in opposition of the bill.
They claim that teaching gun-safety in schools will push a pro-gun culture on unsuspecting students. Yet, at the same time liberals claim that teaching sex-education with mentioning abstinence won’t teach a culture of promiscuity among high-school students. (Isn’t this hypocrisy obvious to even the most casual observer? Maybe I give the general populace too much credit. The dumbing down of America has apparently been more effective than I thought.)
The question at hand isn’t whether people agree with how sex-education is being taught in schools. It is simply a useful example of how the liberal anti-gun movement continues to fight their losing battle against guns with blinders on, completely unaware that they are becoming a political laughing-stock.
Pro-gun advocates have for years claimed that groups like the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence are not interested in pushing gun-safety and decreasing gun accidents, but instead have only one goal–total gun confiscation.
Their decision to oppose a current proposal to teach gun-safety in high schools proves that pro-gun advocates are correct.
Liberal anti-gun groups, and their cohorts in the establishment media, are blinded by an emotional hatred of guns to such an extent that they would oppose a program designed to achieve their claimed goal of making kids safer. They won’t admit that if gun accidents are reduced it takes away their biggest public relations bonanza.
The liberal anti-gun reaction to such programs is actually a public relations win for the pro-gun movement because the American public is smart enough to see that anyone who truly wants a decrease in accidental gun deaths should support teaching gun-safety in schools.
Only the help of the establishment media keeps the anti-gun movement afloat by giving credence to the otherwise discredited studies and statistics bandied about by groups determined to confiscate guns. The establishment media also fails to point out the hypocrisy of how liberals recommend sex-education as a way to stop teen pregnancy, but refuse to accept gun-safety education as a way to stop teens from accidentally shooting each other.
The anti-gun movement has seen its power and credibility wane as gun-control laws have failed to bring about a violence free nirvana as promised. Legal concealed-carry put more guns on the street without a corresponding increase in crime which further damaged the argument that guns are at the root of crime. Now, in desperation they steadfastly refuse to accept that properly educating children about gun-safety is just another example of how far they will go. They are quick to exploit a tragic gun accident, but refuse to educate to prevent them.
They are terrified because they know that as people become educated about guns, and the gun issue, it will further expose their duplicity. A great example is how the anti-gunners use the absurd assertion that the definition of children includes anyone to the age of 25 when it comes to statistics on gun deaths, including suicides. But they are unwilling to care for children when it would really matter due to the fact that it would hurt their message.
Gun-safety programs in schools will save lives, and to steal a line from the anti-gun movement, if only one life is saved by such a program they are worth implementing.
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Education, Guns, Media Bias, Self Defense | Tagged: 2nd Amendment, anti-gun, break in, cars, concealed carry, crime, driver's education, drunk drivers, gun confiscation, gun control, gun safety, gun safety training, Guns, home invasion, hypocrisy, hypocrite, hypocritical, Michael Moore, North Carolina, promiscuity, propaganda, R.C. Soles, robbery, Rosie O'Donnell, safe sex, Second Amendment, self-defense, sex education, STD, STD's | 1 Comment »