The liberals constantly claim that conservatives hate change. The liberal assumption is that their version of change is always superior to what preceded it. The liberal’s version of change is a dose of Ipecac to the rest of us. It is not a question of conservatives hating change, it is the fact that liberals hate tradition.
It is always strange when you encounter someone that you used to associate with but for whatever reason/s, you have not seen them for a number of years. The encounter invariably ends with, “Lets get together..” I suppose it is just a comfortable way to dismiss yourself from someone you dismissed yourself from years before. There are those who were and are still surprised by the “spendi-ness” of the Republican President and congress. I believe it is similar to those who have low self-esteem. Those with a low self-esteem convince themselves that by throwing a lot of cash around, they can “buy their friends.” It seems as though the Republicans are trying to “buy friends” away from the Democrats using my tax dollars. One of the primary reasons for the rise of conservatism is the concept of limited fiscal governmental spending. These “friends” are not worth having, besides they will disappear as soon as the handouts do. The power of ideas wins converts to conservatism, not the welfare mentality of the liberal left.
“Racism” is a word that is losing its weight. The consonants are filled with helium and the vowels are not that far behind.
There are too many liberals who specialize in attacking those who defend American and defending those who attack America.
A “famous” Muslim once said, “Americans worship life, we worship death.” The liberals believe death is a “right” when for example, pregnancy encroaches upon swim suit season or when your “quality of life”, as arbitrarily determined by the secular left, is viewed to be an inconvenience. I am trying to see how the terrorists and the liberals differ other than the terrorists dress better and bathe with greater frequency.
There is always talk of the “framers” and constant references to the constitution as a “living document.” (OK, here we go, 1. The document is “living” only because Planned Parenthood didn’t get to the mother in time. 2. How can the document be living when it can’t breathe under the glass at the National Archives? 3. You might want to double check to see if Sandy Berger didn’t stop by and “borrow it” on another one of his Clinton orchestrated document destruction field trips…) I believe the framers were “realistic idealists”, their document, an outline for a better society. The constitution was terse, but the ability to “amend” added ten amendments in 1791 which now serve as the legal cornerstones in every court in the land, the first receiving more air time than virtually all the others. The two words umbilically connected within the first amendment are “free speech.” Let us separate these words for a moment. “Free.” In relation to speech, how is it free? Because there have been those who have taken up arms to defend this right without hesitation when it has been threatened. Speech is not free simply because you say it is so. One of the biggest problems with the liberal left is their myopia as relates to the obvious Islamofascist threat to all that is free. This is stunning because of: A) The volume of materials made freely available by the fanatics stating unequivocally what their goals are and, B) The evidentiary value of “life” within the Middle Eastern paradise and their aversion to anything and everything that remotely resembles freedom. With all of this information, the liberals still cannot make this rudimentary equation and sign on to the war on terror. “Speech.” The liberals insist on the strictest parameters as relates to speech. Everyone else’s, that is. No one is more exclusionary and this is all done under the big pink banner of “inclusion.” The liberal’s idea of protected speech is to use the flag as a doormat, place Jesus into a bottle of urine and to throw feces upon the Virgin Mary. The liberals enjoy taking “actions” and interpreting them as “speech,” because “actions” aren’t as constitutionally protected as “speech.” The left, when cornered relative to absolutes, always seeks to blur the parameters of reality. Knowing this, please explain to the class how the liberal left is not a danger to civilized society. Talk amongst yourselves and be prepared to show your work.
If, in thirty five years time, some “law” had been vaguely interpreted by conservatives that brought about the violent deaths of twenty million “Blind Albino Snail Darters”, every liberal alive would cram themselves into their Prius, (Don’t for get to bring the Methadone, Zoe!) paint up a sign or a placard, and descend upon Washington. These people, who think that there is nothing wrong with chaining themselves to a tree, are baffled by anyone who would chain him or herself to the door of a modern day Auschwitz abortion mill. These same individuals are now clamoring over the lethal injection process, legally used to extinguish a criminal, calling it “cruel and unusual punishment”, but the vicious saline solution injected into a fetus (small person.) is absolutely fine. If you understand the liberal necromancy, you are entirely too under-medicated.
The teachings of the “religion of peace” instruct the Muslims that there are but three options when confronting “infidels” or non-believers. (AKA: the civilized world.) 1) Convert. 2) Pay a “poll tax” known as a “jizya.” 3) Die. Now I know why there are so many liberal Islamic apologists! 1) They want everyone to convert to their “religion,” secular satanic liberalism. 2) They enjoy collecting taxes as much as the Old World Muslims do. 3) Die? Well, most liberals are weaklings and they are having a hard time with the idea of personally enforcing this “non liberal, non believer must die!” stuff. They are working their way up to this by euthanizing the elderly, the infirm and the unborn.