The Hopeless Moral Confusion of the Left.

With the recent botched execution in our fair state two things will undoubtedly happen.

1.  Everyone who is opposed to capital punishment will use this case as canon fodder to outlaw the death penalty.  Get ready Oklahoma for the legions of liberal activists, ACLU hacks, attorneys, college kids, ivory tower professors,  and those just plain morally confused.

2.  It, if you pay close enough attention will expose the moral bankruptcies and confusion of today's Left.

Without getting into a drawn out argument on capital punishment (FYI this blogger has no trouble with CP as long as it's administered as impartially and humanely as possible, notice I didn't say completely free of pain, fear etc. ) let's look at what drew the condemed to the gurney.  Was he jaywalking?  What about petty theft?  Assault?, domestic battery?  No on all; what got him to the death chamber and in the middle of an international story was simple.  He raped, shot, and BURIED ALIVE a teenage girl who just graduated from high school  

And when you forget this, or elevate the criminal to martyr  status as today's Left has, not only are there dangers to our rule of law, but it shows the moral confusion and hopeless bankruptcy of today's left.   

To understand where I am coming from when I say "moral confusion" and such, one must understand the basic tenant thinking of your average left winger.  Theirs is the usually optimistic view of man.  To the liberal, man is basically, at heart, good.  To reform mankind, one need only spend more on education, government programs, abortion, healthcare, etc.  That modern liberalism i.e. Progressiveness has been tried and failed does not enter the liberal's mind as results are based on intentions.  To the liberal, it is entirely within mankind's sphere of influence to change the world and completely transform society.  With this high view of one selves and the education many receive in college, the average liberal, especially, but not limited to those higher educated, will then begin to see their views as more "progressive" exalted, more educated etc.  One who, say believes (as do I) that as much as we may help the poor but humans are what they are and until Christ returns and transforms the world Himself, perfection is nothing short of a fantasy, or holds differing views than the liberal will begin to be looked down upon.  If a conservative or other non liberal is lucky, they will be branded a racist or looked down upon.  If one is not, get ready for charges of "hate speech"  That liberals have to resort to such childish (one reason I refer to them as "liberal children") measures infers the complete lack of ideas or substance on their part is completely lost on them.   That the views expressed by today's Left go contra to reason, human expreience, both human and natural history never seems to enter the Let's mind.  Were it to, their view on such hot button topics as abortion would change overnight; not to mention complete abandonment of our "War on Poverty" started by well intentioned but flawed liberal thinking.  

And here's where we get to the moral emptiness of today's Left.  You see, these liberals have no trouble defending somebody who was caught, tried, convicted and spent a total of FIFTEEN years on death row but utters nary a word defending the rights of the unborn doesn't make much moral sense.  Where are the outcries for justice for the victims.  And there is the trouble.  When the victim is brought into the argument liberals have to either make a token gesture towards the victim or simply ignore to continue their lack of morel clarity.   Were the plight of the victim to enter into liberals' thinking, their entire theology of moral relativism would crumble like a house built on sand.  You see, fact is, there is a moral difference between executing a criminal tried, convicted, and sentenced to death and the wanton murder of the unborn.  The lives, whereas created in God's image, are not equal as in protection under the law. The criminal had his day in court and to not execute justice sends a morally confused message.  The same is true with our society's failure to defend the innocent.  When a society fails to defend the helpless, whether a child, unborn baby, disabled, etc. it shows the moral rot of said society.  

And if there are no moral differences between the lives of the innocent and guilty, what moral standard do we have to administer justice?  Liberals, having removed moral absolutes, in truth, have none.  Before long a society will become like the Hebrew nation during the time of the Judges where "every man did what was right in his own eyes"  

And the funny thing is, the liberal fails to see the utter double standard and absurdity of their thinking.  Spend a minute listening to liberal's arguments and you will quickly discover, like the fools gold, their speech and arguments may sound good but scrape off the emotion and good sounding speech, the thinking and rationale behind them is worthless.  

Either They're Agenda Driven or Just Plain Stupid

I've heard the usual murmurings from the Left that seem to occur anytime a Conservative Grown Up wants to do anything remotely close to reigning in spending, cutting waste, and/or limiting the scope of government.

With the copious amounts of examples not only form human experience, but history as well as examples from our own day, and common sense, it should come to no surprise to anybody remotely willing to think the Welfare State does not work. On the contrary, not only does it fail those it claims to help, but has adverse affects on society at large. Allow me to site an example.

At my previous job, I was an adjuster for Illinois work comp. It was my job to review claims, and pay those deemed work related. As part of my job, I was also responsible for paying those whose doctors took off of work; this was called Temporary Total Disability or TTD. There was only one problem. IL, as other states is very liberal in its work comp policy. The claimant can choose their own doctor, so long as they don't go over two choices, and unless the company sends the claimant to an Independent Medical Evaluation, which we almost always did, we had no choice but to pay the claimant for being off of work.

Many times, the IME would tell us the so called injured person could work, at which time, they almost always hired an attorney, which meant us paying a settlement, even though they could work with little lasting affects.

Which leads us to the problem. Those who abused the system were given no reason to not do so, while those who were rightfully injured and owed settlement were forced to have their cases drawn out while we were investigating possible bogus or exaggerated cases.

With so many companies having to pay little more that what could be called shakedowns, said companies left IL in droves. Per the attorneys we hired, IL's economy is in shambles since no industry will go there to do business. Those who do, are subject to draconian Work Comp regulations.

This was something I saw everyday where I worked, and led me to the obvious conclusion. If you make it easy for people to sit on their rear ends and not work, people will do so. Again, I'm not talking about actually hurt, I'm talking about those abusing the system.

This is but one example and with it and others, I am left with only two conclusion about the Left.

1. Either they are completely stupid, devoid of learning from the mistakes of other countries around the world who so foolishly bought into the Socialist lie, history, common sense, or human nature or.....

2. Beginning with Barrack, and his Merry Band of Marxists, the Left doesn't give a rat's butt about the "poor" but instead is wiling to allow more and more people to become slaves to the government so advance their agenda of more government.

Not many other options.

Liberal Childishness

This last weekend, I (again) discovered a truth in life.

Liberals do not like to argue issues. Not in the way gorwn-ups do anyway.

My second brother (I am the oldest of three, the liberal I'm blogging about is 21 mos younger, the other who seemed to just recite what he was told is 14 years younger) is almost as liberal as I am conservative. Of course with all his liberalism comes all the liberal hang ups. Let me explain.

Now, let me state for the record I do love both my brothers. If they were in need, I'd be at their side in a New York minute, but younger bro (the liberal) and I are as different politics wise as night and day.

Saturday the family gathered at my father's and went out to celebrate his birthday. The talking soon went to politics where, of course, I offered my opinion. while I was talking with my little brother (14 years younger) he recited the same liberal speak about Bush screwing up the country, we don't need to be fighting terrorists, the war is a losing cause, etc. I asked him to qualify his comments, that is, do something liberals can't stand, provide facts. My other brother, the liberal, then jumped in saying I parrot everything Bush tells me to say. Not once in our conversation did he ever offer to refute my points. The closest he came was when youngest brother and I talked oil. After blaming Bush for the high gas prices, I corrected him giving him facts that, no little bro, it's the Eco loons that have driven up oil by not letting us drill or build refineries. My other (liberal) brother countered that if we did that "all it would do would increase our addiction on oil" I think I might've asked him what his solution was. That or was amazed at the thinking of that comment. Of course, it did not address the issue of higher gas prices. I asked both what their solutions were again. Liberal brother could do nothing but accuse me of not thinking for myself and/or parroting everything I hear. This brings me to two observations about liberals I noticed in my younger liberal brother.

1. Liberals have a condescending attitude to anybody who does not share their enlightened way of thinking. It doesn't matter that their ideas don't jive with history. (more on that) To lefties, you are no better than a child if you hold different views, especially conservative ones. Doubt me? Watch the evening news or read our daily paper. To my younger, uninformed brother, I was a simpleton, devoid of thinking for myself.

2. Liberals can't or won't argue facts. Of course this is impossible because anybody studying history will see how Liberalism is one big failure. If one starts arguing from the lessons of history, their religious convictions, or pointing out liberals ideas of "rights" (e.g. killing one's baby, gay "marriage" "gun control" or giving rights to terrorists) are nowhere in the Constitution, they will answer with scorn. You will either be branded a right wing nut job, religious bigot, just plain stupid, or all the above. It doesn't matter if the liberal is in government, a collage kid reciting what his professor told him to think, or church leader. Liberals are the same. I confirmed with WW, not once did my liberal, uninformed younger brother offer any counter points to my positions.

That's why I titled this post "Liberal Childishness" An adult realizes the discussion can't move forward when one side either does not argue facts or is reduced to calling the other side names. To any adult, that's child's play. It's "Liberal Childishness"

Of course, I got mad, challenging both brothers to do just that. Start thinking and acting like adults. That didn't go over too well but my point was made.

I don't appreciate my younger brother thinking I'm an idiot, but, then I just have to sit back and laugh, knowing it's just a product of him being a liberal.

It's his (and theirs) liberal childishness.

Silver Platter

A couple of stories on KFAQ this morning. If handled correctly, these are sure to hand the election to the Republicans on a silver platter.

The first story involves oil. President Bush (about time) is going to lean on congress real hard to get them to approve drilling off shore for oil. For those unaware, oil is what is used to make gas. You know? The stuff that's hovering close to $4.00 a barrel; in other places much higher.

Not to be outdone, Nancy Pelosi is coming out against the measure saying it sounded like more rewarding the oil companies.

If I were a Republican, I'd jump all over this story. For once, hold the libs feet to the fire. Make them accountable for refusing to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, especially during a time of war. Put it real simple to the American people. Those not voting for domestic drilling and petrol production are putting the agenda of radical environmentalists above the needs of families striving to make ends meet. Even Amnesty John is warming up to the idea of off shore drilling. Come on Republicans, stop playing nice with the libs and make them answer for their votes or lack thereof.

The second story involves Barack Obama's view on Public Terrorist #1 Osama Bin Laden. If captured, he states, OBL should be brought to the United States to receive a fair trial in our civilian justice system. I guess military justice and a hanging OBL from a gallows wrapped in pig skin is too much for Mr. Obama/Chamberlain.

I hope Republicans use this story to show the obvious lack of experience the Democrat candidate has on foreign policy. Somebody please remind Senator Obama our enemies aren't a gang of misunderstood youths needing correction. These terrorists, who murdered three thousand Americans on 9/11, are possessed by a satanic hatred of all things western. Theirs is a violent, bloodthirsty religion who will stop at nothing in conquering the entire world for Islam. If we put OBL on trial here in the states, we might as well paint a bull's eye on our country for every homicide bomber. My gosh, we've already put ourselves in enough danger with the stupid SCOTUS ruling giving constitutional rights to terrorists, how much more danger would our country put itself in bringing their leader here for trial?

These are issues real Republicans need to take note of. Real conservatives need to push the RINOS out of the way and work hard showing a difference between liberals and themselves.

But, in the past, Amnesty John has shown a disregard for conservatives. I honestly would not put it past him to, even with these issues handed to him on a silver platter, put his dislike of real Republicans above winning the White House therefore making these two issues missed opportunities.

I sure hope I'm wrong.

What the Hell are we Fighting For?

Why are we fighting in Iraq? What's the point?

This isn't some anti war screed but my question remains. Also, why are our service men and women putting themselves in harm's way killing or capturing ememies of our country only to see them awarded "rights" by the Supreme Court of the United Stated?

Thursday in a 5-4 decision SCOTUS declared terrorists had the same constitutional rights you and I enjoy as American citizens. For the first time in our nation's history, not only do we have to Mandaraize captured combatants, we have now bestowed certain rights to enemies of America. Rights, I might add were NOT bestowed on captured Nazi and Japanese POWs and war criminals

I can't believe I would see the day where members of our highest court would deal such a blow to our war effort. Furthermore I can't believe SCOTUS would simply discard not only rulings from other courts (including their own) but our Constitution as well. but, hey, they have been doing this going on forty years.

I guess if we lose the War on Radical Islam, it won't be because we were outfought, it was because of the liberal elites at home.

God only knows how this will affect the security of our country.

My question remains. If we have no support from leaders sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, what the hell are we fighting for?

Proud of the President

I can say the President did something I am proud of.

In Israel, President Bush blasted the appeasement crowd equating their ideas with foolishness. He then went on to cite examples from history talking about the situation pre World War II.

What have Democrats, particularly those in the Barrack (Husein, that's his middle name after all) Obama camp done? Have they countered Bush's statements with explanations and rebuttals denying Obama will NOT dialogue with terrorists; he's serious about prosecuting the War on Radical Islam? Not at all. In a sound bite on the news this morning, Obama, Clinton, and Kerry all claimed Bush was taking a cheap shot. It was a political dirty trick they say.

When a side refuses to defend its position and immediately accuses those holding different opinions of playing dirty, that ought to send up red flags. This is a favorite trick of the Left. You know, when a minister calls certain behavior sin, liberals call him a "bigot" or "hate monger" When a conservative speaks out against killing unborn babies, they are accused of "denying a woman's right to choose."

I question Obama and the rest of the Democrats who, instead of defending their position, heap accusations on Bush for telling it like it is. It makes me think they are either not being sincere with the American people, or cannot defend their indefensible position. (They can't by the way, history has proved this time and time again)

Kudos to President Bush for telling the truth about appeasement. Keep it up Mr. President.

Proven Right again

I don't mean to sound like a braggart, but I was proven right today at work.

This afternoon, I stumbled upon a conversation between a liberal and conservative. I was asked who I'd vote for and when I responded Amnesty John, the liberal came undone. When presented with the facts that, yes, liberals do raise taxes, and no, don't believe them about only the "rich" (which is a relative term because somehow the amount that makes you "rich" keeps getting lower and lower) paying taxes, she resorted to little more than name calling.

I tell you, I've said it before, liberals can't handle facts. When presented with them, they will run like the wind like my co worker did this afternoon. That is, after calling you a couple of names.

Liberals

Last night I was listening to The Patriot a radio station dedicated to Conservative talk. I didn't catch the background but what sounded like a twenty-something college age kid was interviewed. The question was asked "What is the most important issue for you during this election year?" Based on her answers, I knew she was a lefty. Who could be this ignorant but liberals.

Answer: "We need to completely withdraw from Iraq without condition. This war is costing us too much money".

When asked if there was anything else, she said she wanted a more "Constitutionalists" government. She was upset that Bush was abusing the Executive office and wanted a president who would respect the office. (Like Clinton did with his girlfriends I guess?) When asked about Gun Control and the case before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the DC Gun Ban. (For those unaware, it is illegal to own a handgun in DC; one can purchase a permit for a rifle or shotgun but it must be disassembled and locked up at all times) her response about floored me.

Answer: "I don't see anything wrong with banning certain handguns.....Despite what statistics may say, I don't believe gun ownership curbs crime; those statistics can be twisted....." After awhile, she went on to talk about how guns hurt people, especially children.

This goes to show liberals know about as much about history as I know how to see 20/20. (For those unaware I'm legally blind)

As for the war costing too much money, when did liberals suddenly become concerned about spending? Are we spending too much on their "War on Poverty"? How about Government Schools? What about the Government Health care liberals are touting? nuff said.

Also, If we withdraw from Iraq without condition, we give the terrorists a victory which will embolden them. Remember Vietnam? What happened after we withdraw from South Vietnam? The North marched in and took that country over and our country was demoralized for years to come. How about Munich 1938? Did Hitler stop invading countries after appeasement? Nope, it took a very bloody World War and the murder of millions to stop him. Did the Ruskies fear us while Carter was playing nic? (answer, NO) Regardless of what the left thinks, based on facts, the surge IS working. Granted, I think we ought to be fighting this war more like we fought WWII, but regardless, cutting and running isn't an option. If we do that, we will have multiple September 11ths. Bottom line: The left can't wrap it's collective head around the fact we were attacked and regardless of what you may think of Bush, we're at war. They also can't come to the realization if we give in to dictators, it sends the wrong message.

It also goes to show you liberals know NOTHING about our Constitution. As much as I disagree with President Bush on certain issues (amnesty for illegals, reckless spending, kissing up to Mexico, his love affair with outsourcing American jobs) how has he abused the Executive branch? I doubt this lefty could provide facts proving her point. My Sister in Law is a Democrat and she tried to tell me the same thing without providing evidence. Sorry libs, I need concrete facts, not the latest screed from Moveon.org.

I also wonder what part of the Second Amendment this liberal doesn't understand? For somebody who wants to a "Constitutionalists" president, she's sure willing to play fast and loose with it. When cities try to ban handguns, that is infringing on some body's right to own a gun. Sound pretty unconstitutional to me. Truth is liberals want "Selective Constitutionalism" Simply put, if it's not in there (like abortion, protection for gay marriage, absurd "rights" given to criminals, protection for sodomy and limiting expressions of religion because of "Separation of Church and State, not to mention race quotas etc) they add it. If there is an amendment they don't like (the First and Second Amendments for example) it's ignored or stupidly interpreted.

I got a kick out of her statement "facts can be manipulated" Her statement can be translated....."We know if we argue facts, you right wingers will demolish us in the arena of ideas, so we'll just revert back to the your-facts-are-twisted argument and call you names like sexist, racist, homophobes etc"

If I don't laugh I'll cry.