Liberalism

After a one sided conversation with and subsequent blocking by an old friend, I just had to vent.

To those it may concern,

The fact that we are Facebook “Friends” does not entitle you to post on my wall without discretion. That is doubly true if you decide to post derogatory things about myself or my acquaintances. Nor does it give you license to force me into endless circular “debates” of which you and I know there will never be an end. I know, you have nothing better to do than poke away at your Cheetoes encrusted keyboard and entertain yourself with your own banter but frankly, I can’t be bothered. Spare yourself the time and me the boredom.

What’s he on about?

It’s come to my attention via private message that some of you are discussing my apparent  irreconcilable sadness of being, my malaise of discontent, that I’m surely circling life’s drain ala some giant Pirates of the Caribbean maelstrom while praying for the Kraken to end my misery as evidenced by the fact I’ve de-friended some and been de-friended by others. Trust me. Such is not the case. In fact, my life has been quite clearer of purpose and much less hectic now that I don’t feel the need to argue endless leftist talking points with people who choose not to place even a modicum of value in the US Constitution or consider it to be some living document ready and willing to be transformed to fit the leftist mold. Such folks do not deserve my attention except to keep watch on their evil agenda masquerading as social justice or wealth redistribution or free contraception or government health care or gun registration and confiscation. Simply put: I won’t play well with Communists, even if you’re in denial about that definition.

I am flattered, however, that some of those folks feel the need to discuss my apparent break from the fold. If I in fact have gone off your particular reservation, perhaps the point you should take from it is that I probably never belonged on that piece of land in the first place, or I possibly have had a change of heart about the way I look at the world in general and as such, now refuse to associate with those whose views are diametrically opposed to mine and I consider to be of ultimate detriment to the country and civil society. Or perhaps your version of a discussion is to lob smarmy remarks over the wall while hiding from the fray behind the coattails of another; a trait I find to be tediously childlike at best and disrespectfully dishonest at worst. I also find it interesting some folks find it necessary to come to the defense of said de-friended ass wipes without first asking for my side. After all, didn’t WE used to be friends? You can’t pick up the phone? My number hasn’t changed. Same old double standard is all I see. The rules can change in an instant because you make them up as you see fit. Well guess what, I quit playing your game. Sorry if you don’t like it. Just because we were once friends doesn’t force us to always be friends. In fact, it would do me and others a disservice if I continue to give a forum to those I adamantly disagree and especially those who choose to post false accusations on my wall or play cheerleader for those who do. And guess what, YOU wouldn’t either.

I’ve just about had it with Facebook trolls and bulletin board debates anyway. Either you’ve chosen a side by this point or you haven’t. Those in the latter are much more deserving of my time than the former and I can spot a pretender a mile away.

We have a language barrier, an impasse to communication born from necessity of the left to continually deny their penchant for the utopian dream. Or, in some instances, if not deny the wish for utopia, to deny they are leftist at all. For them, the confusion of terms must ever remain a fog of understanding; for once the curtain is drawn back, once the light of reality shines upon the mind of an independent, the spell is broken. Because the truth is that socialism must, by design, segregate the individual into classes and factions in order to divide and conquer, must infuse distrust, dissent and hatred for our fellow men to subjugate a free and civil society to those who know better, to the elite, and once that realization dawns on a person, their argument for socialist solutions for an improving society breaks down. It is for the greater good, we are told. And it is the greatest lie ever propagated on a free people.

The free individual must, under leftist thought, subjugate himself unto such a regime for their plan to work. It is not compatible with America as founded and so America must be transformed.

I am ever reminded of this lie masquerading as language barrier when conversing with some who are offended to be labeled a leftist but ascribe to policies that are clearly socialist and it causes me to ponder – At what point on the line between left and right can one legitimately be labeled a leftist? Even if no such line exists, say their philosophy is so scattered across the spectrum as to defy category, what positions must they support to attain the Leftist label?

How many leftist policies would someone have to agree with in order to legitimately earn the “Leftist” label?

Do any carry more Leftist weight than others?

To help answer this question, please take this entirely scientific and utterly meaningless poll.

Consider the policies in the list below. Please choose only the ones that, when put in combination, would place the person who ascribes to them in the category of Leftist. But pick only as many as required to qualify. If only one will break the leftist barrier, then choose only that one.

The question also arises; can a leftist be absolved of the label by supporting some other libertarian or conservative principle? Can one cancel the other out?

What combination might that be?

Feel free to discuss in the comments.

Note: Image found at Flopping Aces – It’s Time for Leftists to Get Real About Taxes

Self explanatory:

It’s the economy, stupid.

Thanks to Bobby for the email.

…in denial?

Rep. Allen West (Right On – Fla.) recently accused half the Democrats in Congress of secretly belonging to the Communist Party.

I think that is a conservative estimate. I also wonder about the secrecy of it. After all, most democrats openly support the Progressive agenda and Progressive is just a friendly name for Communist.

Anyone who doesn’t see the similarities between the 10 tenets of the Communist Manifesto and the objectives of the modern Democrat Party is most assuredly ignoring the facts or lying.

Hat tip – Weasel Zippers

Marxists in our Congress? How does this happen?

Here’s a recent example:

Portland State University Offering ‘Revolutionary Marxism’ Course

Need further proof?

Yuri Bezmenov (ex KGB Agent) Discusses Psychological Warfare Techniques. Subversion & Control of Western Society in 1983 Lecture:

Blog note: Originally posted on 4-11-12.

Remember the Socia.List?  That menagerie of miscreants comprising the 1000 State Legislators who signed the PSN letter urging passage of Obamacare? Don’t think for a minute they’ve been eradicated. In fact, they’ve recruited quite a few more to their ranks. See, these new recruits recently signed on to be surrogates for Captain Apology under the guise of…

[Queue ominous, badly played, western diminuendo...]

“The Texas Truth Team”

Inspires confidence, doesn’t it? I guess maybe it could, if one ignored the party affiliation and the fact they are propaganda ministers for Dear Leader.

Hey. Guys. Seriously. Next time you decided to form a new band, for heaven’s sake call me for some name suggestions.

Here’s a few off the top of my tin-clad head:

Social Justice League

Reparation Station

The Projectors

Tools of the Tirade

Death Cab for Baby

Marxed-Out

The Keystone Keynesians

Foetus Non Esse

No Borders

Of course, you’re encouraged to add your own suggestions in the comments.

As an example of the dangerously misguided, wacked-out messianic complex the Dem’s have for their chosen one, I offer their own national Truth Team logo, spotted by Glenn Beck’s personal truth team, who astutely point out:

Usually a capitalized ‘He’ or ‘His’ would be reserved for 1) the first word of a sentence or 2) God so what is Obama saying…?

So, just for fun, what say we pay a visit to the Texas leader of these truth-telling vestiges of virtue, shall we?

Texas Democrat Party Chairman, Boyd Richie:

Mr. Richie recently announced his decision not to seek another term as TDP  chair in order to run for another office, or something. While making that announcement, Richie had no qualms issuing a few histrionic comments disparaging those with opposing viewpoints and encouraging his fellow lemmings to unite…

“…because a Republican political agenda that threatens to shut down government, schools and nursing homes is one that has turned its back on the people.”

Interesting wording, Mr. Richie. except for the fact that it’s hyperbole, innuendo and lies.

With all due respect sir, you’re a shameless demagogue and thus, accurately represent the rest of your party.

Leadership, indeed.

I submit that your statement does however, accurately describe the Democrat party and the Obama regime’s record.

Can you say projection? Sure you can.

It is the democrats who had control of both houses for the first two years of the Obama regime and it is with them that any blame lies for not passing a budget for the past three years. Three more “historic” firsts for those of you at home keeping score.

It was also the democrats who threatened to shut down government, withholding of Social Security checks, withholding of pay from active service troops, cutting healthcare services to veterans, cutting healthcare funds, and more. And they do so out of fear mongering.

The tools of tyrants and dictators throughout history is writ large in the democrat playbook and wielded against the people who’s rights they claim to protect, enslaving us all to exorbitant debt while the party panders ever more to their cronys, barely challenged by the sycophantic media.

Like Obama, Pelosi and Reid, these truth team surrogates must go. If for nothing but the fact they’ve turned the definition of truth on it’s head. They’ve jumped aboard yet another demagogue wagon instead of engaging in meaningful discussion about the constitutional restoration that Texas and America so desperately need.

The members of our merry band of misfits is as follows. Those with an asterisk are included on the Socia.list page. The 11 others are awarded spots on that list as well.

The Texas “Truth” Team:

TDP Chair Boyd Richie, (Good riddance)

US Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Dallas),

Sen. Jose Rodriguez (D-El Paso),

Rep. Alma Allen (D-Houston), *

Rep. Roberto Alonzo (D-Dallas), *

Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas), *

Rep. Carol Alvarado (D-Houston),

Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth),

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-San Antonio),

Rep. Garnet F. Coleman (D-Houston), *

Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin), *

Rep. Joe Farias (D-San Antonio),

Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston),

Rep. Roland Gutierrez (D-San Antonio),

Rep. Eric Johnson (D-Dallas), *

Rep. Marisa Marquez (D-El Paso), *

Rep. Elliott Naishtat (D-Austin), *

Rep. Mark Strama (D-Austin),

Rep. Mike Villarreal (D-San Antonio),

Rep. Armando Walle (D-Houston).*

Note: I’ll do my best to update this list with opposing conservative candidates for the upcoming election, just not today, it was too pretty outside and my tin can needed a tan.

For Liberty,

‘bot

UPDATE: Linked @DougRoss. Thanks!

UPDATE II: Linked @Theo Spark. Thanks!

Prayers for the Breitbart family.

Godspeed, Andrew. You will be sorely missed.

I sincerely hope the folks at Breitbart.com and Big Government.com carry on his great legacy and release those tapes. Soon.

I recently saw an image of President Obama exchanging a high-five with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from the black and white beyond.

After considering the image and what it represents, I think the photo-shopper got a couple of things wrong, so I fixed it.

There.

That’s more accurate.

Here’s the original.

While I’m sure that Dr. King would be happy to see a man of color inaugurated President, I cannot believe he would condone much, if any, of the actions of this unconstitutional president. Judging by content of character, I think he would be ashamed of the legacy Barack Hussein Obama leaves behind.

Happy President’s Day.

UPDATE: Awarded “Blog O’the Day” by the Jedi Princess! – Thanks! *blush*

Not that it would have done any good, but…

Every step in the right direction,

is a step in the right direction.

“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” ~ Ronald Reagan

If one of the duties of government is to safeguard the individual liberty of it’s citizens, then a number of our Texas State Representatives missed a golden opportunity with regard to (82) HJR 135, and in doing so, thumbed their noses at religious freedom and individual sovereignty.

The decision not to offer the amendment for a public vote is unfortunate in light of Obama’s recent dictatorial demands that religious affiliated hospitals or their insurance companies provide birth control or abortion pills. Indeed, a House Research Organization committee reported that the opposition to the amendment voiced concerns that the amendment would in fact, work as intended to protect a religiously affiliated hospital or institution from being required to perform procedures or provide services against their religiously held beliefs!

Examples might be [snip] religiously affiliated hospitals using the constitutional amendment to challenge requirements that they provide certain procedures.

We the people of Texas were not allowed to vote on this amendment because even though the committee voted unanimously to send the bill for a vote, it did not gain the 2/3 majority required to present it to the people. Sadly, some of our Representatives failed to protect religious freedom from the growing federal leviathan.

I received news of this dereliction of duty from Daniel Miller, a small businessman running in a local Republican primary in Texas who gave a brief synopsis of the bill and provided a handy list of the representatives who voted to deny your opportunity to vote on the amendment.

Handy indeed.

Here is Daniel’s take on the issue:

ObamaCare, Texas & Religious Liberty

In the waning hours of the 82nd session of the Texas Legislature, a bill quietly wound its way through the political machine in Austin that was, perhaps, one of the most important bills in the session.

Introduced by Representative Larry Phillips, HJR135 was a proposed constitutional amendment that seemed like a “no-brainer” and under a Texas House of Representatives with a supermajority of Republicans, should have passed with no problems.

The bill would have corrected what has been a glaring oversight in the Bill of Rights in our state constitution – the mandate of protection of religious liberty.

It would have amended the Article 1 Section 6 of the Texas Constitution that currently reads:

“All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.”

However, with continual attacks from the Federal Government on the religious liberties of Texans, HJR135 would have placed before the voters an opportunity to strengthen the protection by adding the following language to Section 6:

“The government may not, directly, indirectly, or incidentally, substantially burden an individual’s or a religious organization’s conduct that is based on a sincerely held religious belief, unless the government is: acting to further a compelling governmental interest, and using the least restrictive available means to do so. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.”

However, this proposed amendment did not appear on the ballot for Constitutional amendments this past November. With a Republican supermajority in the House, it failed to receive the support of 2/3rds of the members necessary to be placed on the ballot and, therefore, Texans did not get a chance to vote for it.

The session closed and this bill to protect your religious liberty died a quiet death.

However, this bill, its death and the responsibility of purported “conservatives” who voted to kill it are all roaring back to the surface.

The consequences of the death of this bill are now being felt at this very moment by Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and virtually all other religious denominations throughout Texas.

As Texans everywhere prepare for the disastrous implementation of ObamaCare, Christians and all people of faith are now at a decision point. “Do we obey God or government?”

A provision of ObamaCare mandates that all health-care plans in the United States cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including “Plan B” and others that cause abortions.

Religious hospitals, universities and charitable organizations would not be exempt from the regulation, nor would individual Christians, business owners, or insurers.

This ObamaCare provision forces those who are opposed to abortion to violate their conscience and participate in support of those actions.

However, had every Republican in the Texas House voted for HJR135 then the Legislature would have been forced to take action against this Federal attack on religious liberty and the Attorney General would have firm, unambiguous Constitutional grounds to fight for the rights of Christians in Texas.

We teach our children that actions have consequences. This is why. The actions of those who killed HJR135 will have far-reaching and long-lasting consequences.

Rather than standing for religious liberty their lack of courage opened the door for those who would seek to take it away. Rather than allowing the people of Texas to raise their voices in support of religious liberty, they robbed us of that right. Rather than giving us concrete protection of our “natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of our own consciences”, they force us to answer the question, “Do I obey God or government?”

Here is a list of State Representatives who voted against religious liberty in Texas:

Nays — Allen; Alonzo; Anchia; Anderson, C.; Burnam; Davis, Y.; Farias; Gallego; Geren; Giddings; Gonzales, V.; Gonzalez; Hernandez Luna; Hopson; Howard, D.; Johnson; King, T.; Lucio; Lyne; Mallory Caraway; Martinez; McClendon; Pickett; Quintanilla; Raymond; Reynolds; Ritter; Rodriguez; Sheffield; Smith, W.; Strama; Walle.

This is just one example of why local and State elections have large consequences.

Vote wisely, my friends.

Daniel Miller is a true Conservative running in the Texas D21 Republican primary against a former Democrat with one of the most liberal voting records in the state (who incidentally changed party affiliation to Republican just after the 2010 election).

Please consider donating to Daniel’s campaign to unseat a life-long liberal and certified RINO. We need to remind Austin of Texas’ duty to protect it’s people from the intrusion of the federal government into decisions which aught to be entirely personal.

Donate to Daniel Miller’s campaign here.

Daniel Miller’s website: TexansforMiller.com

Don’t bet the farm on it.

This video from 2009 tells us all we need to know about Newt’s brand of conservatism.

Video after the page break:

And the root of Western thought.

Here’s the latest Afterburner:

Video after the page break:

Bill Whittle dismantles the Progressives’ (Marxist/Socialist/Statist’s) convoluted interpretation of a “living constitution.”

Video after the page break:

Texas Conservative News

Site Meter
Twitter
Categories
Larwyns Links
Bad Blue
Subscribe via email
October 2014
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031