The Squamata Report: The Leftist Vision pt I

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

The Leftist Vision pt I




When the leftists of America and those abroad have an image of the kind of place they strive to mold us into, they think of a place with no borders and no possessions. A place with no morality and a place with no God.

They will say they want a world without religion but that's just a 'pc' cover. What they really want to do away with is Christianity and all Judaism.
Other religions pose no threat to their vision of utopia. Only Christians and Jews live by the truth that there is a single omnipotent and omnipresent God who is the creator of all things.

You see, because our beliefs are nearer to the truth they are felt and practiced more ferverently than any others. This is a threat to the left. This certainty in a God who also sets rules and lays boundaries angers those who hold to a Humanist/Marxist ideology. They have been fighting to transform our government and rewrite our history for a long time now.

So what are some examples of this war against the foundations of American society?

THE ANTI WAR LEFT

You needn't look any further than those who took semi-control of Congress a couple short months ago. Reid, Pelosi, Dean and others wish to block (fat chance) Bush's ability to boost troop strength in strategic areas in Iraq. They want to bring this war to an end not to save innocent lives, those lives lost are simply fodder in their strategies against America. What they want to do is reduce the perception of strength America is presenting to the rest of the world.


WWII CONSERVATIVES
To a Conservative the greatest war and the one used most to support arguments in debate is hands down WWII. We refer to it often and try to learn from it . WWII represents good accomplishments and a victory against the father of modern totalitarianism. A mad man who did not share the exact vision of radical liberalism and radical Islamism but because he opposed America, they deem him defensible. The enemy of my enemy is my friend!
To a Conservative WWII was the shining victory over tyranny and a leftist vision of world domination and a win for America. It validated our beliefs in a strong and noble America.
VIETNAM LIBERALS

The war true Liberal activists refer to and revere most is Vietnam. Because it represents to them
America's weakness. Vietnam was a victory for the left because leftist appeasement pushed back Democracy and heaped scorn on those who they hatefully labeled baby killers and fascist Nazis. To a Marxist loving leftist, America and it's Judeo-Christian, morality based people and government, is a greater threat than Nazis, Communists, Socialists and radical Islam combined. To leftists Vietnam was their shining victory over Democracy and America. It ended America's superiority and evil domination of the world. It was validation to them that America was weak and corrupt. Nothing worth fighting for.


THE ANTI STATE'S RIGHTS LEFT
The war on Terror is but a small portion of the left's struggle towards world dominance. They are also using our judicial system to erode our government's foundations, our morality based society and our resolve. I've spoken at length about their use of Roe vs. Wade to attack our morality and circumvent the Constitution. But what a lot of people do not realize about Roe vs. Wade is how it worked to erode another aspect of our foundation. STATE'S RIGHTS! The decision meant that the Federal Government assumed the say in a private matter previously entrusted to the States. Remember, the closer the government is to the people (i.e. City Government, State government etc) the more our voice counts. Also, no one in Texas should have to adhere to laws passed in Massachusetts. But when anti border / anti state Liberals have their way states lose rights. Roe vs. Wade was a perfect example of unelected Liberal activist judges thwarting the will of the people and deciding issues based on their own ideology.

THE ANTI UNITY LEFT




America is a nation built on a simple principal. It's on the back of our money. It is simply, "E Pluribus Unum" Latin for "out of many one".
The concept is immaculate and it drives Liberals mad. It means that each individual part remains a distinct individual part but the whole of them coinciding as one brings forth unity and freedom.
The left hates true unity. When Christians are unified and speak with a loud voice on matters pertaining to liberty and freedom they seek to silence us and shield the public or 'sheeple' from hateful Christian dogma.

SV1 SEC 220
Just this past week the Democrats began pushing SV.1 the first business of the Democrat's quasi-rule. It's a Bill that would do little good in curbing lobbyist/Congressional corruption. But Sec.220 of the proposal seeks to silence organizations like Focus on the Family, your local church, ACLJ, Radio and TV programs and many others.

These are people and organizations we rely on for news and rely on to provide us with petitions to Congress. For instance we petitioned the President and the Republican Congress when we did not want Harriet Myers or the Dubi Ports deal to go through. We petition the Congress through these 'grass roots' organizations because we alone cannot do so. We cannot go and stand in front of the Capitol's steps and chant or hold signs when we want to voice our opinion. So we have organizations do that for us.
The NRA supports our right to protect ourselves. Yet with out the petition of the people the NRA and others have no lobby power.


So this bill will fine more than $100,000 to any of these groups who do not cross every 't' and dot each 'i'. It limits their ability to gather signatures and it limits our ability to be heard.


If you decided to launch a grass roots effort to... say, stop same sex marriage or voice your opinion on partial birth abortion. You would be required to register as a lobbyist and pay these fines if the rules of the bill are not followed. Your church pastor would be forced to register and be regulated by the government. One of the stipulations in Sec. 220 is that you must provide an opposing view. Fair and Balanced! Thank the capitulating FOX News for that one. Yes, people like Rush Limbaugh and Al Frankin, Chuck Swindoll and Cindy Sheehan would be forced to present the opposite opinion when broadcasting to the public! The ACLU will be affected by Sec. 220! If this passes you can bet internet regulation and Blog monitoring will be counted among those restricted!
To read this portion of the bill (Do so HERE) you'd think these people don't understand what the First Amendment means. Oh no, they understand it completely! They seek to rewrite it.

The message being sent by Liberal Democrats (and some Liberal Republicans) is that they do not want to hear from the people anymore. We are too stupid, only they know what is best. The left knows if we, a Conservative majority nation, have our say, we will not allow some of the terrible things they have in store for us this year. So they are using this Bill to shut us up!
Please go HERE and sign the petition, and then go HERE to place calls to the Government and join Focus on the Family's James Dobson in his efforts. While you are there, think about the fact that if this bill passes you could lose this very ability.

They don't want the states to decide on their own in matters of morality and they don't want us as individuals to decide what's best either. The left's plan to remove all borders, to remove God (and replace him with the Government) and to remove individualism is in full swing.

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

27-Nov-06 09:13 pm by claimpro2004@yahoo.com – His profile states “Steve Steele” of Islip, NY. This man claims to be a “Christian” UnumProvident ....................
(Moderated by site owner)

1/17/2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Hey Anonymous.
This is not your advertising board for anti Christian propaganda.
Thanks but no thanks. Argue your point or move along!

1/18/2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey! Atleast we get things done! The "Marxist / Socialist" agenda of the "100 hours" deal that Congress intitiated was done in 42 and half hours. You know, those ungodly issues, like increasing pay for poor people, more affordable medicine for people who actually alive and exist, things like that.
Top that, you do nothing, "vacation" George lovers!
(Fun fact; President George W. Bush has spent more time on vacation than any other president in the history of the United States. Gee, what a shock.)

1/19/2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't believe that a smart, seemingly sane person can believe all this crap you're sputtering. You're wrong, Ken.
This post was the most distorted lump of bologna I've read in my entire life.

1/19/2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

So go on Dave. What is it specifically that you think is crap or bologna.

If you disagree with my opinion lets discuss it. If you disagree with the facts we have nothing to talk about. We can't argue facts because there is only one version of truth.

You know if you feel like the post is condemning you unfairly, you may consider whether or not you can continue labeling yourself as a leftist. Perhaps if you disagree with the leftist's vision, you need to shed the cloak of liberalism and stop fighting to support an ideology you don't truly adhere to.

1/20/2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken: The Leftist Vision pt I
When the leftists of America and those abroad have an image of the kind of place they strive to mold us into, they think of a place with no borders and no possessions. A place with no morality and a place with no God.

Dave: All right, you want facts? Here are some facts! When you start a paragraph with an immediate accusatory sentence, suggesting that “leftists” are trying to mold” you into something, you sound paranoid and wrong. This opening thesis statement contains no facts or specific references what so ever.
Just the fact that you have the right to address these issues means you’re free and protected by the first amendment. No one will ever take that away from you.
Counter point ; And when “rightists” of America and those abroad have an image of the kind of place they strive to mold us into, they think of a place with re-enforced concrete walls to keep out all the brown people and mansions and tons of possessions and oil and pollution and money, where everyone is forced to believe what they believe.
Now doesn’t that strike as broad and kind of overly general? Not to mention heinous, offensive and accusatory?

Ken: They will say they want a world without religion but that's just a 'pc' cover.

Dave: Who says this Ken? I want names. I think you made this up. I’ve never heard any one I know, left or right, say that they want a world without religion. You’re attempting to create a phantom enemy. Now that we are the world’s sole super power, you and all the neo cons (post cold war) wanted desperately to create a new threat to frighten the public into thinking that they need them to protect them from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And you guys got that power back after 9/11 and exploited it to the point of gross negligence, and the people finally have realized that. That is why the democrats won in 2006, because they realized that their Republican leaders failed them.
You seem to use fear to isolate the people into thinking that they are constantly under attack. If not the Soviets or Communists, then by terrorists and Muslims, if not Muslims then Socialists and those low down and dirty liberals! You’re just looking for enemies to live out your blood lust Mel Gibson-esque vengeance fantasies and to control the people with fear. I’m not dismissing the threat of terrorism; I’m simply dismissing your “oversight” as presumptuous and reckless
(i.e.; [terrorists attacked us on 9/11 and they’re] “in Bagdad and Tecret and north, south, east and west.” – Don Rumsfeld).
Just like the Republican Party has behaved for the past decade.
I find this behavior to be disgusting and beyond immature.

Ken: What they really want to do away with is Christianity and all Judaism.

Dave: Actually, from a personal stand point, I can tell you that I would love for REAL Christianity to come back. What I want to do away with is fundamentalist extremist fanatics who bear no resemblance to the teachings of Christ, Buddha, Mohammad, or Moses. Anyone who favors an offensive, preemptive war (which is clearly outlined in many PNAC documents that you sent me yourself…one was titled “A case for war”) in the name of God or the Almighty, is not what God intended. You can argue that until you’re blue in the face, but I don’t ever recall Jesus advocating violence. And further more, if the left wants to do away with Christianity and Judaism, they’re doing a horrible job, because Christianity and Judaism are two of the most popular religions of the world, and continuing to grow at exponential rates. This is why I say you sound paranoid. There doesn’t seem to be much of a threat, here.

Ken: Other religions pose no threat to their vision of utopia. Only Christians and Jews live by the truth that there is a single omnipotent and omnipresent God who is the creator of all things.
Huh? What about Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists?
Okay, I lost you’re here. Well, actually I lost you a couple of paragraphs ago. It sounds like you’re making up the rules as you go.
First you say that “other” religions pose no threat “their" vision of utopia. Then you go on to claim that only Christians and Jews live by the “truth” (which is actually a metaphysical philosophy, not universal truth. It can be PERSONAL truth) that there is a single omnipotent and omnipresent God who is the creator of all things.

Ken: You see, because our beliefs are nearer to the truth they are felt and practiced more fervently than any others. This is a threat to the left.

Dave: Don’t you mean FUNDAMENTALISM is a threat to the left (and the right)? I think if we still all subscribed to the mentality in which you are referring to, we’d still be killing Jews and Muslims in crusades and burning “witches” at the stake.

Ken: This certainty in a God who also sets rules and lays boundaries angers those who hold to a Humanist/Marxist ideology. They have been fighting to transform our government and rewrite our history for a long time now.

Dave: On the contrary, sir, it is YOU who is in fact attempting to rewrite history by saying that America was founded by Christians, and is for Christians. This is false, and I will not even attempt to point out the historical facts of the matter, as you have already dismissed my research as “hogwash”.

Ken: So what are some examples of this war against the foundations of American society?
THE ANTI WAR LEFT

You had needn't look any further than those who took semi-control of Congress a couple short months ago. Reid, Pelosi, Dean and others wish to block (fat chance) Bush's ability to boost troop strength in strategic areas in Iraq. They want to bring this war to an end not to save innocent lives, those lives lost are simply fodder in their strategies against America. What they want to do is reduce the perception of strength America is presenting to the rest of the world.

Dave: Wow, what a bunch of Orwellian, rhetorical, double speaks. My, my, you certainly have learned a lot from your commander in chief. This war has been a catastrophe from the beginning. This war is a botched effort by the right wing, war mongering neo-cons who attack sovereign nations as if they were in a school yard sandbox. There are piles of evidence to support the fact that Iraq was always on the table, ever since the 80’s, and that once the neo-cons (PNAC) had placed all of there chess pieces in the right spots, they would then chip away at the American ideal of diplomacy. Instead of war crimes tribunals, they want to torture our enemies, and forcibly dominate the middle-east instead of engaging in peace agreements and trying to reach a more humble solution. Time after time tested time, history will always show that even if you do eventually dominate a culture or peoples, those peoples will always harbor deep seeded resentment for you and will eventually rebel from your forcibly imposed policies. Good examples of this would be Spartacus and the slave rebels, Moses and the Egyptians, etc.

Ken: WWII CONSERVATIVES
To a Conservative the greatest war and the one used most to support arguments in debate is hands down WWII. We refer to it often and try to learn from it . WWII represents good accomplishments and a victory against the father of modern totalitarianism. A mad man who did not share the exact vision of radical liberalism and radical Islamism but because he opposed America, they deem him defensible. The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

Dave: What the hell are you talking about? If you’re attempting to compare Hitler with Saddam, you’re sadly overshooting your area of expertise, my friend. Hitler and Saddam had nothing in common.
It is true that both dictators enslaved and killed their people. There are plenty of dictators and government’s world wide that have horrible human rights violations against them, including the Bush family’s beloved Saudi Arabia.
But the difference is that Hitler planned to attack us, first of all.
Second, this administration has gone against everything America stands for by killing countless numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians in order to “liberate” them. In multiple studies, information that has been collected strongly suggests that over 70% of Iraqis actually felt safer under Saddam’s rule than of America’s occupation today, and that 100% of all suicide terrorism has arose out of the result of our invasion. Yes, I’m telling you that according to these Iraq study groups, the info suggests that there were NO recorded documents of suicide bombing radicals while Saddam was in power. America’s involvement and occupation of this country increased its terrorism by 100%. Now who says we’re there to fight terrorism? We created the terrorism in that state! Hello? And nine times out of ten, it’s the Iraqis who say they just want America to get the hell out so they can take back the power of their country. I say we clean up as much of our mess as humanly possible, get the hell out and phase to redeployment status, like (our patriot war hawk, decorated 30 year Vietnam war hero and senator) John Murtha has been suggesting for at least a year now. I think he might know a bit more about war and sound military tactics than you, I or that dip shit George W. Or even Cheney, Wolfa-twitz or King of PNAC, Billy Kristol.
I’m proud of what my country can do, but we need to stop putting our soldiers in unnecessary situations and harms way unless we absolutely have to, and further more, stop acting like world police. That makes us look like totalitarian fascist assholes, wouldn’t you agree?
And if we have to act like world police, what about North Korea? What about Iran? And what about taking out Saudi Arabia while we’re at it? Saudi Arabia is notorious for their human rights violations and public executions. Just like Saddam, if not worse. Saddam was about the lowest on the totum pole as far as corrupt dictators, too. Not to mention, WE PUT HIM THERE! Can you say Iran Contra? I want all of your readers to look up Iran Contra right now. Google it! Look it up! Don’t believe me, just read it for yourselves and decide!

Ken: To a Conservative WWII was the shining victory over tyranny and a leftist vision of world domination and a win for America. It validated our beliefs in a strong and noble America.

Dave: If you seriously believe WW2 was a shining victory over a “leftist vision of world domination”, I highly encourage you to go back to your room and hit the books on history. WW2 was a victory over FASCISM, which you have obviously failed to recognize or purposefully so because there’s a stigma attached to the word and it often applies to the authoritarian mind set, which you often exhibit behavior of. If not everyone thinks like or similarly to you, you label them as tyrants, Marxists, socialists or secularists. You amaze me, time after time after every bungled article of your compulsive rhetoric. And just FYI; The term fascism was first used by Benito Mussolini, and it comes from the Italian word fascio, which means "union" or "league", and from the Latin word fasces (fascis, in singular), which means rods bundled around an axe.
And America was almost headed in that direction, via what Eisenhower specifically warned us about in the post WW2 era as “the industrial military complex”. Look it up. This is not a leftist conspiracy. After all, wasn’t Eisenhower a Republican?

Next up; Dave’s response to “VIETNAM LIBERALS”!

1/22/2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Ok, in response to
# 1:
You decided to attack my style, that's ok. I never write for style points, I write to express my views and educate those who are not able to pay as close attention to events as I am, and lastly I write to spur-on debate such as you have so appropriately engaged in.
You say you are going to give me a fact and that fact is that opening with statements of truth, that you disagree with, is offensive. Ok, I accept that, I am not trying to avoid hurting people's feelings or offending anyone. It is inevitable if I am going to speak freely. Anyone can be offended, it's not my job to avoid that it is he who is offended's job to come to terms with it. What I said is not painting with a broad brush. When I use the term Liberal or some other label (that fits perfectly) I am speaking of those in power and those leading the cause. I am also talking about those who are unaware that their ideological group stands for these things. As for the disparaging comment you made about Conservatives, you truly believe that. You have made some of those very same comments in correspondence with me on other issues.
As for what I said, "....they think of a place with no borders and no possessions. A place with no morality and a place with no God."
Everything I said was backed up in the article. Read about those who support 'No Borders', they are not Conservatives! Socialism which is the template of the left, and especially Marxism which is revered exclusively by the left promotes Egalitarianism (ultimate equality). There is no way to be ultimately equal and have ownership of anything. The common good is the left's and Socialist's mantra. Morality is counted as relative to most leftists. When morality is relative it doesn't exist. If it is immoral for me to stone to death a woman because she was raped but it is totally acceptable to do in Dubai simply because of their tradition, where does the moral certainty go? Out the window. They call it 'zina' Islam, it means that the woman has had sex outside of marriage. The only way she can claim rape and substantiate it is if she has four or more men come forward as witnesses. So are they immoral? If you hold true to leftist beliefs you must answer 'no' because morality is relative. If you disagree, you might begin to question your adherence to liberalism. Perhaps you are not as left as you think you are. If I agreed with Moral Relativism I too would question my Conservativism. But I don't and I am secure in my Conservative nature.


Ok on to the next point.
You want names of those who believe or say that religion should be abolished and they really mean Christianity or Judaism. Or those who want an America without Christianity.
Well that is a long list and I don't have time to list them all.
But here are some:

Rosie O'Donnell: (not exactly a Conservative) "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state."

Austin Cline: (liberal author: 'Southern Cross' ) "Evangelicalism as a Threat to Public Order"

Chris Hedges: (liberal Author: 'The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism') When fondly remembering what his professor told him, he said: "The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors had found a mask for fascism in the pages of the Bible."


Roger Baldwin: (founder of the ACLU)
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
Compare that with Karl Marx's comment: " The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property”
So was Roger Baldwin a Conservative? Is the ACLU a right-wing organization?

Peter Sagal: (NPR liberal host) Called American soldiers " Weak Christian Aggressors"
and berates Christians continuously on his so called 'Game Show'.
I have heard him state that Christians are "What's wrong with America".

I am not going to dig for the rest but you can check anti-Christian quotes by Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersol, Mark Twain, George B Shaw, Richard Dawkins, Gloria Steinem, Derek Bok (Harvard President),Chapman Cohen, G.K. Chesterson, George Carlin, Charles Dickins, Carl Sagan, Sigmund Freud, The Freedom from Religion Foundation, Stephen King, Christopher Marlow, Gene Roddenberry,Oscar Wilde, Steven Wright....... etc. They are ALL anti-Christian and they are all Liberals. When you have a huge portion of popular culture denigrating God and Christians and promoting an America or a world without Christianity you have leaders who convince people to strive for such. Don't even try to tell me there are none who would like to see Judaism wiped from the face of the Earth, and don't say they are not 85 to 95% Leftists. Sure there are sick twisted people who don't claim to be liberal and still hate us, there is a whack job in every camp. But when you speak of those who want an America devoid of Christianity and Judaism you can bet they are overwhelmingly Leftists.

Next,
You dismiss George Orwell as if he is some kind of nut? I don't think you can argue with his assessment of the world he escaped from. As for what I say being classified as Orwellian.... GOOD! George Orwell was on target and the story he painted fits into the vernacular of today.
(Separate issue)
You say Iraq was always on the table..... again.... GOOD! It should have been! They were seeking Uranium from North Africa, they were sponsoring Terror, oppressing their people, murdering their people, attacking weaker nations to take their oil, violating peace agreements you are so proud of.
He refused inspections and believed as did EVERY other nation on Earth that he had a Nuclear weapons program. Saddam was a tyrant and a threat to other civilizations including our own! No majority of Iraqis want Saddam back! Only our and Iraq's enemies want that. As for forcefully imposing our policies on them.... what in the hell are you talking about? We are fighting for their freedom and democracy! If they don't take hold of it and fight for it that's their loss at least we gave them the chance. Are you saying that our insistence that they not support terrorism and be governed by the principals of democracy is a bad thing?
Check YOUR history Dave, American colonists often in great numbers wanted to keep the laws and jurisdiction of Great Briton. You like to reference Moses, how about this. Most of those led out of Egypt cursed Moses and said they were better off under tyranny at least they had a little food and a sense of purpose. Mankind's propensity to want to stay in a bad situation to avoid the unknown which they fear most is paramount. Are you saying that Moses was wrong for freeing them?

We are not dominating a culture! Get your head out of those twisted websites and books and away from Liberal activists who say this. They are wrong and enemies of America! They know we are not dominating Iraqi culture or people. We say, "We are here to give you a chance to live in peace and liberty, who's with us?"
Those who are not with us stand against America and or Iraqi allies. If that sounds too harsh for you I am sorry, but it's a fact!

About your retort of the section 'WWII CONSERVATIVES'.
What are you talking about? I never made the argument that WWII was like Iraq. Or Hitler was like Saddam. I said that Conservatives support and use analogies that support WWII. That's all! It is meant to be compared to the section below that shows how the left supports and draws analogies to Vietnam while in debate. Conservatives respect a war in which America was victorious while liberals cling to and analogize Vietnam. Most referrals to America at war, made by the left, are spawned from a comparison to Vietnam. That was my point. If you would like to argue that I am wrong about that I would be happy to defend it.

You said, "this administration has gone against everything America stands for by killing countless numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians in order to “liberate” them."

We are not the ones killing Iraqi civilians terrorists are! Those from neighboring nations and the remaining Al Qaeda and Baathist sympathizers are killing innocent Iraqis.
Are you proud of that statement? Do you realize how big a lie that is? Americans (Bush or otherwise) are seeking out Iraqi civilians to kill so we can liberate them? How sick! We are not and have not ever deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians! NEVER! I know the example you are going to offer and don't try it. The men of Haditha are innocent and so are our other men and women in uniform. That is a hateful thing to even think muchless repeat. You really should watch the people you support. They are blinding you with the hatred you label me with.

You said, "NO recorded documents of suicide bombing radicals while Saddam was in power."
Really! That's neat. So while Saddam was training terrorists and Iran was training terrorists no one bombed themselves? Wow what a stunning find! So when Iran nukes Israel can we blame Israel because before they fought back against Hezbollah and Hamas attackers Iran never nuked themselves?
How backwards! Of course those who are fighting us in Iraq are increased now. THEY ARE FIGHTING US THERE! Of course there are going to be more of them there.
You said, "Now who says we’re there to fight terrorism? We created the terrorism in that state!"
That has to be the most irrational thing you've said. we created terrorism in Iraq?
Ok how about Zarqawi's Al Qaida training camp in Baghdad and Jordan? It was supported by Bin Laden's proxy Abu Zubaida.

You support John Murtha? I knew you were left of center, I did not know you were that radical! John Murtha is less credible that John Kerry. They are both twisted pacifists with one goal in mind, America's defeat! Pulling out of Iraq will mean their demise. Iran and Syria will flood the country and all will be slaughtered in the name of a much sought after Caliphate. Do you really buy this crap that America can just peacefully surrender and waves of peace and love will flow in? We have a job to do, how about if you try supporting the effort to win so we can leave there peacefully!
Also, when did Buddha teach Christian doctrine? You said, "I can tell you that I would love for REAL Christianity to come back. What I want to do away with is fundamentalist extremist fanatics who bear no resemblance to the teachings of Christ, Buddha, Mohammad, or Moses." got a little carried away there didn't ya. I know you want to impose Buddhist doctrine on Christians but it just won't fly. Leftists try and try but it just won't work. You infer that I am a Fundamentalist? GOOD by proper definition that is exactly what I am. I believe in the fundamental teachings of the Bible and not some watered down interpretation meant to pacify those who find God's commandments too restrictive and biased or unfair. You infer I am an extremist so you can equate me and my site to terrorists and fascists. That is un called for and slanderous.

The real Christianity? Just what is that to you, and why is it that those who hold to fundamental teachings of the Bible are not a part of this 'Real Christianity'?

you said, "stop acting like world police. That makes us look like totalitarian fascist assholes, wouldn’t you agree?"
Absolutely not! We are not acting like the world's police we are a responsible nation with great power and ability. With that ability comes responsibility to our own nation and others. We do not attack other evil nations we are pacifists much as you would like. So when we step out of character and come to Iraq's aide you guys label us fascists.
Iran Contra? OK, so we knew we would want to attack and kill some Muslims and figured the best way was to put an evil tyrant in power and sit by and wait. When the time is right we will use him to slaughter innocent civilians, blame it on the poor innocent terrorists then steal all their oil! YEAH!!!!
You are so right on that one David! Right on! Reagan never thought we would figure it out but you have busted the case wide open.... Those evil Republicans.

You said, "WW2 was a victory over FASCISM, which you have obviously failed to recognize or purposefully so because there’s a stigma attached to the word and it often applies to the authoritarian mind set, which you often exhibit behavior of. If not everyone thinks like or similarly to you, you label them as tyrants, Marxists, socialists or secularists"

Hmmm, Fascism is akin to Conservatism. Hmmm, I know I've head that somewhere..... I just can't place it...... OH! That's right, every Liberal in the world who wants to distance themselves from the ideology Hitler shares with them says Conservatives are Fascists. So your definition of fascism is any thing that is Unified and everything that resembles rods bundled around an axe? OoooooK
Maybe a little context is in order but I don't have that kind of time. But your vast knowledge of Latin is impressive.

So you say “the industrial military complex” is comparable to Leftist's quest for a one world unified government? That it is like Liberal's vision of a world without Conservative values, God, or liberty? I don't think so. And Eisenhower was not a text book Conservative. He grew the welfare state exponentially, that is why he was re-elected so easily.
As for his diplomatic stances they were more Conservative and less pacifist and that is why the modern left hates him. The left actually agreed with him then..... a lot more than they do now.
So let's look at The Industrial Military Complex.
Eisenhower said, "
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." Malcolm Moos wrote that but it was not his idea. It has been around for centuries, and just like the idea, the pacifists have always denigrated it as a totalitarian idea. Such as Charles Trevelyan and his UDC. They released a Pacifist manifesto in 1914 that stated, " National armaments should be limited by mutual agreement, and the pressures of the military-industrial complex regulated by the nationalization of armaments firms and control over the arms trade." Military might has always been a threat to liberals and a means of security that promotes liberty to Conservatives.

The argument is the same and it all comes back to the fact that you as a liberal still choose to talk down the victory in WWII. I now await your glorification of America's loss due to pacifism in Vietnam. I just can't wait.


Finally, You said, "You amaze me, time after time after every bungled article of your compulsive rhetoric."
And by the way if my columns are so bad why do you read them? Why do you find it nessisary to attack me? If my 'rhetoric' is so compulsive and my site bungled why are you spending an hour responding? If you want to argue oppinions I will gladdly oblige. if you just want to tear me down and belittle me, find another evil Conservative Fundamentalist extreamist who warps Christianity as you see it, and poke fun at him. I constantly get emails from leftists who just call me names and make fun of me, I don't need any more!

1/24/2007  
Blogger KC said...

The problem with discussing this issue or any politics at all is it turns into a left right things instead of an issue thing!

Im am neither left or right and I see points in both your arguments!

2/01/2007  
Blogger bigwhitehat said...

Ken, I will never understand why you suffer these fools. I pity them. Stupidity is terminal.

2/01/2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Thank you BWH,
The urge to defend what's true and right.... that's why I beat my head against the wall with these guys.
I know it makes for boring reading for most readers but I do it anyway because it may help someone down the line and it helps me to hone skills I will need later in more a more pertinent forum.
Thanks for stopping in anyway. I love your site and I love the way you write about life on both the micro and macro level. I wish I could do that. Perhaps when I am done with politics I will begin posting at 'Carpenter's Bluff' again. Your site reminds me of 'CB' and makes me want to drop this and do more writing on the micro.
See ya bud.

2/02/2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken,
Why don't you stick with the micro?
It seems your 'macro' resistance is futile.
To wit ; 2006 elections.

2/20/2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

LIVE AMBER ALERTS