Life or Death: The Liberal Agenda Edition

Life or death was determined by the answer to a single question: are you a Christian?

That was the question asked by an anti-Christian gunman who stormed into a classroom at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College.

Eyewitnesses say the shooter targeted Christians.

Well, at least he was a politically correct nutjob. 🙂 Imagine the outrage from the Liberal Media if he asked them if they “Homosexual or not?” before killing them. Wooo Doggie! It would be on 24/7 for weeks and he would have gotten even more of that fame he craved.

I guess he didn’t quite think his hatred through completely. 🙂

Kortney Moore was inside the classroom. She told the Roseburg News-Review that the shooter ordered students to get on the ground – and then told them to stand up and state their religion.

“And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,” Stacy Boylan said in a televised report. “And then he shot and killed them.”

Imagine if it were “Allah” and Islam, the “Islamophobia” headlines would be massive.

His 18-year-old daughter was struck in the back by a bullet – that traveled down her spine. She survived. Miss Moore, too, survived.

Davis Jaques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon News, said he received a text message from a student who said she was inside the classroom.

“The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christians,” the message read. “If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no or didn’t answer, they were shot in the leg.”

Christians were martyred for their faith — on American soil — a fact mostly ignored by most of the Mainstream Media and the White House.

Well, Christians are evil, oppressive religious psychos who just want to rule a theocracy in this country after all. They are politically incorrect and we aren’t supposed to have sympathy for the Politically Incorrect.

The New York Times only mentioned that the gunman inquired about people’s “religions” and one cable television news channel opined that the shooter’s motive was unclear.

The Agenda Narrative dial on their Thought Police filters was dialed up to “High”.

President Obama’s behavior in the aftermath of the massacre was quite frankly unpresidential. Instead of calling for religious tolerance — he delivered an unhinged tirade on gun control.

“Somebody somewhere will comment and say Obama politicized this issue,” the president said. “Well, this is something we should politicize.”

Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste, especially when it’s that Agenda!

faith

Liberals are delighted when there’s a mass shooting because as Rahm Emanuel famously said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Of course, they’d deny they feel that way, but before the blood even cools on the floor after a mass shooting, liberals are always working en masse to take advantage of the situation. After the shooting in Oregon, Barack Obama immediately took to the airwaves to declare that, “This is something that should be politicized.“

…and that’s what it is: pure politics because inevitably, nothing liberals ever seem to suggest would make mass shootings happen less frequently. In all fairness, that’s because what liberals really want is total gun confiscation, but taking that position would cement the Democrat Party out of power for a generation.

So, if you ask Democrats what gun control law would prevent mass shootings, they inevitably lock up the same way they do when they’re asked to name a noteworthy accomplishment of Hillary Clinton that would qualify her to be President.

Of course, there are policies that would help prevent these shootings and save lives, but liberals have no interest in discussing the trade-offs any of them would require because it doesn’t further their agenda. Worse yet, they don’t want to take any measures to prevent mass shootings because fewer deaths would undercut their ultimate goal of total gun confiscation.

Given that most shootings (including the latest one) seem to happen in gun-free zones, getting rid of gun-free zones would seem to be a smart first step in stopping these shootings.

After all, people having guns is evil. Only Government should have guns so that they can point them at you and demand you do as you’re told. How dare you want to defy that!

After the shooting in Charleston, people latched onto the fact that the killer took a picture with a Confederate flag and they speculated that might have had something to do with the shooting.

In this case, maybe we should ask whether the incessant hate rhetoric that liberals aim at Christians influenced the killer.

But I reckon it’s politically incorrect to address the persecution of Christians.

Absolutely. If a Gunman runs into a room and kills everyone and yells “Allah Ackbar” repeatedly, it’s “workplace violence” after all.

If a Lesbian orders a Pizza for wedding and they say “no” it’s hatred personified and that story will run for a month non-stop.

But shooting Christians, because they are Christians, is just “gun control”. Nothing more.

That could explain why the White House has expressed less than passionate outrage over the near-genocide of Christians in the Middle East. And that could also explain why his administration has failed to secure the release of an American pastor being tortured in an Iranian jail.

Christians are evil. And the “compassionate” “sensitive” Liberal only cares about those who are with or on approved list for the THE AGENDA and Christians most certainly are on their “Most Evil” naughty list so deserve nothing but their contempt and scorn.

Good riddance to bad politically incorrect rubbish.

“Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state.” – Rosie O’Donnell

And all Christians are “radicals” and no Muslim is ever “radical” in their eyes but moral equivalency is one of the Liberal’s favourite talking point hoaries.

In a country where the Boy Scouts are being persecuted out of existence, the Obama administration has gone to court to try to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their beliefs and liberals are sneering at Christians on a regular basis, no one should be surprised that someone responded to all that hate by murdering Christians for their faith.

Except the Leftists themselves. Remember, they are Holier than Thou, even though their sneer on religion, and smarter than you, at least in their own heads.

These days “lambs being led to the slaughter” is not exactly a politically correct narrative.

Unless you’re talking about what Liberals think Conservatives want to do everyone that is.

I cannot even begin to imagine the courage it took for our fellow believers to stand — knowing that to do so — would require the ultimate sacrifice.

Me either.

But their families can take comfort in knowing that after they took their last breath on Earth, they took their first breath in Heaven. (Todd Starnes & John Hawkins)

They deserve more than many.

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Why it is…

This guy Christopher Cook from Western Free Press nails it. It’s a great summation of what I have said over and over again in this blog for the last 5 years.

“Conservatives see liberals as misguided; liberals see conservatives as evil.”
—Original source unknown

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with a ferocity you didn’t quite understand? Have you seen it happen to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media establishment does it to a public figure?

Of course you have. At some point or other, nearly everyone on the political right has witnessed or been the victim of an attack designed not to elucidate facts, but rather to paint him or her as a villain.

My attention was recently drawn to a typical such calumny from a Facebook exchange:

Republicans hate anything that isn’t white, wealthy, and christian at least in appearance. They hate the poor, women, and minorities. They hate science and don’t believe that the global warming we clearly are experiencing is man made. They hate any government programs that help the poor and minorities, and the particularly despise immigrants, particularly the illegal kind. They love programs that line the pockets of oil companies, mining companies, and are willing to export jobs with wild abandon.

They hate public education, and they despise public schools and the public school teachers and public university professors. And since the do not respect the market place of ideas, they hate tenure (that gives teachers academic freedom) because it prevents them from firing teachers who are Democrats and who might infect some student with their liberal ideas. They want insurance companies to make a maximum of profit, and are perfectly willing for the health insurance companies to kill people by refusing service to anyone that might cost them a buck more than the median expense. They don’t care about clean food because it might cost the food corporation a little money, and they don’t care about clean water because cleaning up the waste will cost their precious corporate persons a little money.

This is not a recitation of facts; it is a series of smears. It is the construction of a giant cartoonish super-villain, made of straw and woven together with calumny. The giant straw villain is then publicly burned, in a narcissistic orgy of self-adulation. Of course, the torches of the “best” people burn the brightest.

Or one of my favourites: “you should stop watching Faux News” end of discussion.

Another way of looking at it is this: It is the modern-day version of a witch trial. The charges are utterly farcical and cartoonish. “I saw her dancing with demons in the pale moonlight.” “She looked at me and I sneezed, and the next day, I had a terrible cold.” “She turned me into a newt.” But they are stated with great conviction and repeated incessantly, and they establish the unassailable collective will of which the accused has run afoul. The witch is made into the auslander, and the good people of the community show how “good” they are by shouting their accusations the loudest.

Either way, whether the wicker man or the witch, the effigy goes up in flames and the community is purged—for the moment—of its evil. Moral annulment now achieved, the villagers walk away feeling good about themselves. Feeling superior.

Facts are also unimportant in this perverse passion play. Like the slavering, semi-psychotic Facebook rant above, most such assaults aren’t a series of accusations backed up by facts, they are a series of character assassinations, most of which are contradicted by the facts.

The most salient example today is the charge that people of the right (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers) oppose Obama out of pure racism—simply because he is black. Though this charge is easily refuted—by common sense, widespread evidence, and actual studies—it is repeated incessantly by the media, the left’s foot-soldiers . . . even the president himself.

Anything short of full Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants is therefore, racist. Anything less than full compliance with Global Warming fearmongering is “denial” and also Racist (according to the EPA Director).

Face it, disagree with a Leftist on basically anything, eventually you’ll be  a racist. Period. End of Discussion. 🙂

When actual studies are done (as opposed to just restating what the leftist imagines to be so as if it were actual fact), we learn that real racism is distributed fairly evenly among the population without regard to political affiliation.  In 2008, a survey was done that showed similar numbers of Republicans (5.7) and Democrats (6.8) would not vote for a black presidential candidate. Such a question gives us one of the clearest possible tests of raw racism. A loaded question like, “Do you feel blacks receive too much welfare?” might confuse attitudes about race with attitudes about government welfare programs. But this gives us apples to apples: All things being equal, would you refuse to vote for someone solely because of race?

In the 2008 survey, Democrats were slightly (1.1%) more likely to show racist thinking than Republicans, though this is well within the margin of error. A similar study on senatorial candidates was far more damning to Democrats. Bottom line: there is little evidence that Republicans oppose Obama or any candidate on the basis of race to any greater degree than Democrats.

But this should be obvious based on other facts and indicators as well. Take Mia Love. If you are on the political left, you may not have heard of her, but she is a rising star on the right. She quotes Bastiat, she believes in core principles such as subsidiarity—she is dynamic, successful, and hits all the right notes. She is a black woman, and I have not met or heard of a single conservative, Republican, or tea partier who wouldn’t be delighted to support her. (Deep down, many of the left know this, which is why they have been so vicious to her.) I have worked alongside or come in contact with hundreds of activists and partisans on the political right over the last 15 years, and I cannot think of a single one who would not exult at a Mia Love victory. If she were elected president, I myself would do the happy dance on top of the tallest mountain in my area every November!

The reason is obvious: we agree ideologically. Race is unimportant. Barack Obama is, it can be fairly argued, further to the political left than any previous president. And people on the right oppose him so virulently for that very reason—not because of his race, but because of the huge ideological gulf that lies between. Imagine that.

The other painfully incessant canard is the notion that people on the right “hate the poor.” In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals by fairly significant margins, even when you adjust for a variety of factors. Rich, middle-class, and poor conservatives are all more charitable than their liberal counterparts.  It’s not that conservatives are wealthier overall, either—liberal households are 6% wealthier on average. (I bet you never heard that little fact on MSNBC.) It is also not that conservatives are more religious: new data indicate that secular conservatives give more than secular liberals. These conservatives are voluntarily helping the poor with their own money, in greater numbers than their liberal counterparts in every cohort. Conservatism is a greater predictor of charity.

Leftists (they hardly deserve the term “liberal”), by contrast, are more “charitable” with other people’s money. Leftist A votes for Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C to give it to Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B, who continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and ever-increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get together and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But we are getting dragged into the weeds here. We could go on and on refuting fact after fact, but the facts are unimportant. The leftist is creating a narrative. As a marketing guru will tell you, Facts tell, but stories sell. It’s a lesson the leftist has learned well.

Even more disturbing, in recent years, this method of “argumentation” has increasingly become the first tool pulled out of the toolbox. No longer does the leftist feel as compelled to make real arguments. All he needs to do now is shout “Racist!” or “War on Women!” and his job is done. He walks away feeling smugly satisfied of his own politically correct superiority, and the untrained observer is left addled at best, and possibly even swayed by the narrative.

So why they are so vicious?  Why do people who self-describe as “compassionate” direct such vitriolic hate and assaults at their ideological opponents? How they can justify painting you as such a monster?

Simple: To them, you are a monster. You must be.

Reason #1: Utopianism
You’re in their way

Strip everything away, and the fundamental trait of all leftists is this: The believe that through the state, they can build paradise on earth. They believe that with enough tinkering, coercion, and rule by “experts,” they can eliminate all hard choices and competing goods, perfect human nature, and bring all good things to all people.

To someone of the political right—defined by our belief in human freedom, private solutions, and individual sovereignty—this is just the modern re-telling of the age-old story: that some men should rule over other men. Ancient despotism, monarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, modern progressivism—they’re all just different flavors, and different degrees of application, of the same basic philosophy. But the person on the left does not see it that way. He wants perfection. He believes it is possible. And by gum, he’s going to get it.

This utopian thinking quickly leads to an unavoidable conclusion, echoed from the French Revolution to Lenin and Stalin to Mao to the Progressives of the modern era: “On ne fait pas d’omelet sans casser des oeufs.” (You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) To the utopian statist, “process costs” are entirely acceptable. They are building paradise, after all.

That’s why you see so much more toleration by the left’s rank and file of corruption and bad behavior by their leaders. What’s a little lying here, a little corruption there? They are building paradise. What’s a little cheating in the face of all they intend to accomplish?

That is also why you see such a prevalence of cult-of-personality adulation for strong leaders. Strong leaders resolve contradictions and sweep away the opposition. Strong leaders have the will to get the job done. Strong leaders get the trains running on time. Next stop, paradise.

But most importantly . . . these utopians—both the leaders and the rank and file—are so convinced of the nobility of their intentions that they believe that anyone who stands in their way must, by definition, have evil intentions. After all, who but a monster would stand in the way of paradise? And what consideration do monsters deserve? Why none at all, of course—they’re monsters.

That is why they do not simply disagree with you. That is why they calumniate you and attribute the worst motives to you. That is why they hate you.

Reason #2: Utopianism
The WORLD is in their way

The world refuses to conform to their utopian vision. The world isn’t the neat and tidy place they want it to be. They still hold onto the childlike belief that there can be goods with no tradeoffs, and this world of endless tradeoffs proves them wrong every day, mocking their childishness in the process. That makes them very angry.

Someone once said, “Conservatives believe what they see; liberals see what they believe.” Leftists hate you for the fact that you see the world as it is, rather than as it should be. You accept the facts of reality as they truly are, and you try to make the best of it. They believe that they can make reality conform to their vision of it. (That this effort always requires massive application of force against other human beings doesn’t bother them. It’s just another process cost.)

Your acceptance of reality as it is is pedestrian and troglodytic. Their vision of how reality should be makes them noble and romantic. They hate you for not living in the same fantasy land that they do. They hate you for recognizing that life is filled with tradeoffs. They don’t see the tradeoffs, so when you point them out, it’s as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-La-La . . . I can’t hear you! Stop making bad things happen.

Your acceptance of reality makes them so angry, in fact, that they have convinced themselves that you must be suffering from some sort of psychological malady. Over the last century, dozens of self-reinforcing  junk-science books and studies have been published labeling “conservatism” (once called “classical liberalism”) as a mental disorder. Like the mental patient permanently lost in a psychotic world of his own creation . . . he’s normal, it’s the rest of you who are nuts.

Reason #3: Preening Narcissism
They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

The ideas of the political left produce failure at best and misery, oppression, and democide at worst. In spite of this, I had long clung to the belief that at least people on the political left “mean well.”

But do they? Or do they simply want to feel as though they mean well?

Author Robert Bidinotto asks (and answers) the same question:

Have decades upon decades of liberal policy failures deterred liberals from being liberals? Have the trillions of dollars blown on welfare-state programs since the “New Deal” and the “War on Poverty” made a damned bit of difference in curing poverty? And has that failure convinced “progressives” that there is something fundamentally wrong in their worldview and approach? Have the horrendous historical consequences of appeasement policies stopped today’s politicians from appeasing international thugs and terrorists? No?

Then why does anyone assume that liberals gauge the value of their worldview by the standard of its PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES?

Practical consequences are ALWAYS trumped by the advancement and protection of one’s core Narrative: the fairy tale that gives one’s life meaning, coherence, and moral justification. [ . . . ]

Doing that makes them feel good about themselves. And they would far rather feel good about themselves than actually achieve any of their stated practical objectives. It’s not about the objectives at all. It’s about THEM.

John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

If this is true, then for many, utopianism isn’t about what they think they can achieve, it’s about their own self-image.

So is it true?

The persistence of this vision in the face of centuries of evidence would seem to indicate that it may be. We know that maximizing human freedom is more moral and produces better results—the last two centuries have made that clear. And on the flip side, we know that maximizing government at the expense of the individual produces a parade of horribles. And yet, again and again, we are told that it simply wasn’t done correctly before, or by the right people.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?
Why you are, my dear—you are so compassionate and fair and noble in every way.

The leftist looks at herself in the mirror and sees that she is one of those “right people,” because that is how she wants to see herself.

And if she is so beautiful and noble and fair . . . then how ugly you must be for standing in her way.

 

The leftist—the utopian, the statist—sees himself as on noble quest. He is the embodiment of everything good, simply because that is how he sees himself. How he wants to see himself. In order to maintain this self-image, he must make you the embodiment of everything horrible. He must make you ugly.

To statists, you are just another process cost. Their willingness to accept process costs on the road to their utopia is limited only by national context. In the United States, an exceptional nation where we still have some rule of law, they will certainly calumniate you, and they may decide to harm your finances, career, or reputation. In less exceptional countries where there is less rule of law, the harm is often to people’s freedom or even their very lives, as more than 100 million poor souls discovered in the 20th century.

The typical leftist in America, ignorant of his own philosophical pedigree, will protest this characterization. Do not let their protestations sway you. The degree to which they will treat you—the monster standing in the way of their utopia—as a disposable process cost is limited only by the degree of power they have. For your own safety, do not let them get more.

You are in the way of the utopia they are trying to create. You are in the way of the power they need to do it.

You. Are. In. Their. Way.

utopia

“The conservative “thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the liberal ideologue is merciless.”― Russell Kirk

the Ministry of Truth It is an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete rising 300 metres into the air, containing over 3000 rooms above ground. On the outside wall are the three slogans of the Party: “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” There is also a large part underground, probably containing huge incinerators where documents are destroyed after they are put down memory holes. (Hard Drives crashing anyone?)

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

154418 600 Obamas Piece Prize   Reposted cartoons

Judgment Day: Damnation or Salvation

No, it’s not July 29, 2019 and Skynet is not going to destroy the world.

But it still might. Only Skynet is the Democrat Party.

Today, you either vote for the salvation of this nation (against the Democrats) or it’s Damnation at the hands of Progressive Ideologues who will do even more damage than they have if they retain power.

For Liberals are so full of their own superiority that lying, cheating and being completely amoral and unethical in their pursuit of their Progressive Utopia is all for your own good because you’re obviously not intelligent enough or enlightened enough to understand just how magnificent they are. How beneficent they are. How vastly superior in every way that they are.

So they have to win at any cost, by any means necessary.

It’s for your own good.

Now faced with that, that is what must be repudiated today.

Not that the liberals will understand that. Oh no, narcissism on this level will not understand the slap down they should get today.

That’s your fault, for not being as enlightened and as wise and wonderful as they are. You neandertal!

You racist. You bigot. You Teabagger!

You “enemy” (In an interview Monday with radio host Michael Baisden, Obama said he should have used the word “opponents” instead of enemies.– well that’s some progress…:) ) Obama said. “What I’m saying is you’re an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different.”

He changed in the middle of the paragraph again! He does that.

“I think I see a path, as clear and as direct as a ray of light, which leads to the attainment of that object,” George Washington wrote. “Nothing but harmony, honesty, industry and frugality are necessary to make us a great and happy people.”

Have we ever in American history seen a group of politicians for whom frugality is of less value than the Democrats now running Congress and the White House?

The region where an illegal immigrant murdered an Arizona rancher six months ago remains plagued by Mexican drug-cartel violence yet the Obama Administration has chosen to spend $52 million on restoring habitat damaged by the border fence rather than secure the area. (Judical Watch)

Want more? Vote Democrat!

With unemployment still at a severe high, a majority of states have drained their jobless benefit funds, forcing them to borrow billions from the federal government to help out-of-work Americans.

A total of 33 states and the Virgin Islands have depleted their funds and borrowed more than $38.7 billion to provide a safety net, according to a report released Thursday by the National Employment Law Project. Four others are at the brink of insolvency.(CNN)

But don’t worry, it’s George Bush, the Republicans, “Secret Money” and Corporate America’s fault! Vote Democrat!

Bromley illustration

Pollster Scott Rasmussen said it best in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.

This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.

That’s never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.

More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people.

Voters today want hope and change every bit as much as in 2008. But most have come to recognize that if we have to rely on politicians for the change, there is no hope. At the same time, Americans instinctively understand that if we can unleash the collective wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, there are no limits to what we can accomplish.

In this environment, it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn’t win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.

Elected politicians also should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.

And that’s the ideological opposite of the Narcissistic Progressive Liberal Democrat.

If you think that smart businesspeople will sit around and let our government tax them out of existence before they move their operations overseas — vote Democrat.
If you think it helps you if your boss gets hit with a huge tax bill — vote Democrat.
If you want the American government to be feared by the American people — but laughed at by Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — vote Democrat.
If you want to pay through the nose in taxes until you are 70 so union thugs in purple shirts can retire in security at age 50 — vote Democrat.
If you like the fact that people who actually know the Constitution get laughed at by people who are ignorant of it — vote Democrat.
If you want the entire country to be like Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, New Orleans, Chicago — vote Democrat.
If you think liberalism and socialism have done a good job of managing the incredibly beautiful and rich state of California, vote Democrat.
If you want a government bureaucrat, who can no doubt access your voter registration records, to determine whether or not you get a hip replacement or a cancer treatment — vote Democrat.
If you want electricity bills to “necessarily skyrocket” — vote Democrat.
If you think civil rights means that all white Americans are by definition guilty and all African-Americans are by definition innocent, vote Democrat.
If you want to vote the same way the dead are voting — vote Democrat.
If you want to vote the same way the felons are voting — vote Democrat.
If you want to vote the same way the Illegal Aliens are voting — vote Democrat.
If you like the fact that our military men and women are being disenfranchised — vote Democrat.
If you think Cuba is a success story — vote Democrat.
If you think insurance companies can lower rates, pay for every small medical item — and every preexisting condition — and every illegal alien — and stay in business — vote Democrat.
If you agree with the French union protesters upset about having to delay retirement for two years to age 62 — vote Democrat.
If you think a rally sponsored by Arianna Huffington, the SEIU, and the DNC is a non-political rally — vote Democrat. (American Thinker)

If you like George Soros, a foreign Billionaire socialist (giving money to a host of originizations including NPR,Huffington Post, Media Matters, ACORN, and many unions and other groups) running your media and your government by proxy– Vote Democrat.

I dare you!

But when you have no freedom and the government controls your every waking moment and your very existence from one second to the next because you voted for the Democrats in 2010 don’t whine to me.

Washington was convinced that Americans had devised the greatest political system ever. In discarded notes for his first Inaugural Address, Washington expressed certainty that senators and congressmen could never “exempt themselves from consequences of any unjust and tyrannical acts which they may impose upon others. For in a short time they will mingle with the mass of the people.”

And “besides,” Washington added, “their reelection must always depend upon the good reputation which they shall have maintained in the judgment of their fellow citizens.”

If through some crystal ball he could have seen today’s Congress, George Washington might have had second thoughts. But the father of our country would be proud to see what “the mass of the people” do today at the voting booth.

The Choice is yours. Choose Wisely. The Future itself hangs in the balance.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon