Monthly Archives: May 2017

TEAR THEM DOWN OR LEAVE THEM UP? – PART THREE

The first two parts of this series were very much emotionally driven by yours truly. Part 3 will conclude the series, and offer facts in support of my position that Confederate monuments and memorials should remain in place.

According to an article on townhall.com, written by Jack Kerwick, on May 24, 2017, many of his readers, including conservatives, called for the taking down of Confederate monuments. Their reasons boiled down to the following:

  1. The Confederates fought in defense of slavery.
  2. Slavery is immoral.
  3. Therefore, Confederates were immoral.
  4. Immoral behavior should never be publicly honored.
  5. Thus, by way of 3 and 4 above, Confederates should not be publicly honored.

According to Kerwick, while slavery was a major factor in the fighting of the War between the States, number 1 above is incorrect. Most Confederate soldiers, as well as prominent generals, including, most notably, Robert E. Lee, did not own slaves by the time that the war was raging. Kerwick also writes that both the laity and scholars realized that the complexity of the American Civil War defied all attempts to reduce it to such simple-minded, one-dimensional caricatures of the sort advanced by those who would attribute to Confederates, a single, nefarious motive: the love for slavery. Or the desire to do evil as I pointed out in Part 2.

Next, in his article, Kerwick gets rather analytical. The second premise that slavery is immoral is irrelevant. Without premise 1 above, you cannot reach premise 3. Thus, the immorality of the Confederates cannot be established through 1 and 2, 3 cannot be concluded, and thus, 4 and 5 cannot be adhered to.

For those folks who will have none of the above, those folks whose hatred has so overwhelmed them to the point that anyone who lived in the south at the time of the Civil War is, to an extreme, anti-American, immoral, and anti-people of color, are not going to listen to reason and will continue their barrage of hate. In fact, in some instances, I have read between the lines and have detected a hatred for the south and those of us who have lived in the south all our lives. While I can’t look into a person’s heart and interpret what’s in it, I can read their words and many of their words can be interpreted as overwhelming hate.

Kerwick asks us to assume the above, that every single Southern man and woman who took up the cause of secession was committed to perpetuating the institution of slavery, and that the Confederate symbols are monuments to “White Supremacy.”

If Confederate symbols deserve to be purged from the public, then so do virtually all the symbols of Western civilization.

The roots of what today is recognized as Western civilization are to be found in ancient Greece. Though they weren’t the first of the West’s philosophers, Plato and Aristotle enjoy the distinction of being among the greatest. Western philosophy, and even Christian theology would be inconceivable without these two. Yet even Plato’s ideal Republic included slaves, and Aristotle articulated a defense of “natural slavery,” the enslavement of those who by nature were suited to be slaves.

Since slavery is immoral, then the reasoning of the anti-Confederates demands that Plato and Aristotle be given the same treatment as Generals Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis, and every other prominent Confederates. Also, all public commemorations of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and many other Founding Fathers involved with slavery are immoral as well.

Thus, in addition to monuments and statues commemorating prominent Confederates, states, cities, schools, streets, and parks named after this nation’s Founding Fathers should also be removed or renamed.

Kerwick cites many other examples, and if those examples were followed, the United States of America would be transformed into something unrecognizable. The left, though, would probably like that because they hate this country and anyone living in this country who does not agree with them on the issues.

According to Kendall Will Sterling, in an article dated July 27, 2015, on richmond.com, the story these symbols tell is more nuanced than what we typically hear. It is said that the South seceded to perpetuate slavery, and yet six slave states sent men to die for the North, and the Southern states rejected an offer from Lincoln that would have made slavery permanent in exchange for their return to the Union. While many Northern states had ended slavery by 1860, many had also passed, “black laws,” a forerunner of Jim Crow, which placed tight restrictions on blacks and often forbade them from even living in the state. Furthermore, West Virginia was admitted to the Union as a slave state in 1863, and slaves in that and other Northern states had to wait until 1865, two years after the Emancipation Proclamation, for their freedom.

Sterling concludes that slavery was more than just a Southern problem; it was an American problem.

Instead of removing all vestiges of the Confederacy, Sterling suggests that we use these statues and memorials to start a new conversation, one that acknowledges the roles of everyone involved and offers hope for our nation and its people, both black and white.

Fat chance that any liberals are going to agree to implementing any such conversations. The left is not interested in solving problems, they just want to destroy the United States of America and all those people within it who don’t toe their line.

Most of us recognize Nathan Bedford Forest as a slave owner and the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. But are we aware that Forrest’s 45 slaves rode and fought alongside him as equals, and that their loyalty was such that they remained with him even after he gave them their freedom papers. Do people also know that the Klan’s original purpose was to serve as a volunteer police force against rampant crime in the occupied South. Also, in 1870, when the Klan morphed into a terrorist organization, Forrest resigned and ordered the group disbanded. Softened by an encounter with his God, Forrest spent his final years advocating for political and social advancement for black Americans. When he died in 1877, more than 3,000 blacks lined up to pay their respects as part of his funeral procession.

Sterling further suggests that we let the statue of Robert E. Lee, and the schools that bear his name, remind us all of a Sunday in 1865 at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, where Lee worshiped when in Richmond. That Sunday, with the wounds of the war still raw, a black man walked down the aisle of St. Paul’s and knelt to receive Communion. The whites in attendance weren’t certain if they could, or should, take Communion. For a moment, no one knew what to do. Then came a rustle, the scrape of boots on the floorboards, and the congregation looked up to see Lee walking down the aisle to kneel beside that black man, by his own example teaching those around him the way of respect.

The plight of men such as Nathan Bedford Forrest reminds me of the Apostle Paul. Paul, formerly called Saul, was a persecutor of Christians. On a journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, Saul was stuck down and blinded by God because God was calling him to do his work, the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world as it was known at that time. Saul became the Apostle Paul, revered and studied by Christians all over the world.

I’m against the taking down and/or the demolition of monuments and/or memorials erected to honor prominent Confederates. While I do acknowledge that there are two distinct sides, I don’t want this section of our history to be diminished.

The Civil War should be taught in schools and should be remembered, lest we ever again make the mistake of splitting up the great Unites States of America.

Will anyone on the left plus those conservatives who believe that these memorials should come down, read my three articles and attempt to examine both sides? Of course not. And if any liberals do take a chance and decide to read what I have written, will they acknowledge and respect my writings and my opinions? Of course not, once again. I will be subjected to the continued ridicule and hate that liberals have shown me in the past.

Why do I continue, you may ask? Because I like doing this. Simple, but true.

Note: Here are links to articles where the information outlined above was obtained.

In Defense of Honoring the Confederacy: A Response to the Cultural Cleansers.

Pro and Con, Should Confederate Monuments be Removed.

 

Facebooktwitter

TEAR THEM DOWN OR LEAVE THEM UP – PART TWO

In my introduction to what should we do with those pesky monuments commemorating heroes of the Confederacy, I laid out my feelings about the actions of a few folks with whom I’ve come in contact who have moved to the Southeastern United States (the South) from other parts of the country and the attitude that some, not all, have displayed toward southern culture and the southern people.

Since Dylann Roof entered a Charleston, S.C. church in June 2015 and opened fire, killing nine church members, all black, there has been a frenzy by the left to destroy anything relating to the United States Civil War. The reasoning: In some photo, Mr. Roof was seen holding a Confederate battle flag. The left and some members of the right immediately called for the banning of the flag because it was a symbol of hate. Everyone who owned a Confederate battle flag or something depicting the Confederate battle flag, even it was just a belt buckle, was automatically labeled a racist, a white supremacist, a hater, etc. No room for argument. Because the left said it was so, then it must be so. Conservatives from outside the south, and even from within the south were also piling on.

Did I own anything depicting the Confederate battle flag? If I did, it was packed away in some box in the back of the basement. I didn’t like the attitude of the left plus the attitude of some fellow conservatives. While it was determined that Dylann Roof was indeed a racist, white supremacist, and a hater, does that necessarily mean that everyone owning an object depicting the Confederate battle flag was also all of these things? Apparently the left and many conservatives thought so, though. Was explaining that owning a Confederate battle flag or an object depicting a Confederate battle flag, could mean the remembering of heritage, of history? According to the left and other conservatives, absolutely not. These folks wouldn’t even listen to the other side.

Of course, the left would never, ever listen to the other side, and the conservatives were too scared of being labeled a racist if they did listen to the other side and acknowledged the reasoning. In 2015, being labeled a racist by the left was one of the worst things that could happen to an individual.

In the South, there are many monuments in public places honoring Confederate heroes, plus many buildings, schools, streets, and towns are named after prominent southerners living in and around the time of the Civil War. Following the Charleston church tragedy, there has been a movement by the left, and yes, by some conservatives, to destroy everything that is a reminder of the Civil War.

The Alabama legislature has passed a statute indicating that monuments meeting certain criteria cannot be removed from their locations. Of course, this has the left and those sympathetic conservatives up in arms. But guess what, I don’t care, and I’m not the only one.

In New Orleans, a city run by Democrats, headed up by a Democrat mayor, the taking down of statutes honoring prominent Confederate military men and prominent southerners has begun. Earlier this month, a statute of Confederate Army General, Robert E. Lee, was recently brought down to the angst of many people, including me. As a frequent traveler to New Orleans, I have driven around Lee Circle many times. The statute is indeed impressive.

Robert E. Lee graduated with honors from West Point Academy. He was also a prominent general in the United States Army and was set to lead the Union Army in the Civil War. However, General Lee was from Virginia and loved his home state. Because of this, General Lee accepted the position to head up the Confederate Army. He couldn’t bring himself to fight against Virginia. Also, Robert E. Lee hated slavery and had freed his slaves years before the Civil War began.

Liberals have argued that even though Robert E. Lee may have been a “good guy,” he still chose to fight for the south and thus, he was “anti-American, anti-moral, and anti-non white people,” a quote from an individual who is in favor of taking down statutes honoring, in any way, the Confederate States of America.

I’ve also heard that the display of statutes honoring prominent members of the Confederacy is tantamount to Germany displaying statutes honoring Adolph Hitler and other notorious Nazis. But you can’t even compare the actions of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis to the actions of Adolph Hitler and other higher ups in the Third Reich. Robert E. Lee and other prominent southerners who served the Confederate States of America fought to preserve their homeland and their way of life. The president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, didn’t round up human beings who he hated and send them to concentration camps to be tortured, experimented on, and killed.

The following is a list of some of the more prominent Confederate Generals: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart, Nathan Bedford Forrest, James Longstreet, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, Bloody Bill Anderson, Albert Sidney Johnston, John Mosby, P.G.T. Beauregard, A.P. Hill, Richard Ewell, Joseph Johnston, Jubal Early, Kirby Smith, John Bell Hood, Barnard Bee, Lewis Armistead, and Porter Alexander. Also, there was Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy.

While it has been documented that Robert E. Lee was a good person and a fantastic general, I can’t say that I know much about the others listed above. I’m sure some of them were good and some of them weren’t. That’s true about the entire human race.

Slavery was legal, and an accepted practice in the first century of the United States of America. When you are born and raised to think something’s okay, you generally consider it okay until others may sway your thinking, or until you decide for yourself that it’s wrong based on research, observations, and ‘gut instinct.’ What I’m trying to say, and admittedly having a bit of a difficult time doing it, is that southerners or anyone else for that matter who owned slaves, and slavery was also common outside the south, and throughout the world, were not necessarily engaging in it because they wanted to do evil, whereas the desire of Hitler and the Nazis was to do evil and create a master race, thus eliminating all of those who they considered inferior. And as we have studied, many people with disabilities were executed for no other reason than that they didn’t fit the mold of the blonde haired, blue-eyed master race that was Hitler’s goal to create.

The Civil War is part of the history of the United States of America and a very important part. It represented a dark time for this country, and one that we certainly don’t want to repeat. One of the reasons that so much emphasis is placed on learning history is that history does repeat itself. In studying about the Civil War and reconstruction when I was in school, it was drilled into my head that we don’t want to ever ‘go there again.’ Secession from the Union was a terrible thing, and when I hear quips about the state of California wanting to secede from the United States, I wince.

Remember the novel, “1984,” by George Orwell? The party regularly destroyed and/or altered history. In our public schools today, and even in some of our private schools, what is taught has been altered or completely left out because it might offend some students. This is being driven by the liberals, including the teachers’ unions.

Liberals are advocating not only the destruction of statutes honoring prominent members of the Confederacy, but they are advocating changing the names of all buildings that are named after prominent Confederates. They are also advocating changing the names of schools, streets, and even towns that may have been named after anyone who had a part in the Confederacy.

Folks, that is going to be a nightmare. There’s a county in Alabama called Lee County. Will that have to be changed? Will all the towns and cities named Jackson and Jacksonville have to be changed because of General Stonewall Jackson? Will anything that has the name of Jefferson, such as Jefferson County in Alabama have to be changed? Or will anything with the common name of Davis have to be changed because it might relate back to Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy? Gives me a headache.

I’m hearing, though, that it might be okay to memorialize the Civil War in private museums. Well what if those museums are located where folks have to walk by them who might be offended by the contents of those museum?. Or maybe just knowing about a museum that illustrates the history of the Confederacy offends someone?

Do you really think that after directing the demolition of statutes, and changing the names of buildings, schools, streets, and even towns is going to stop the left, fueled by their overwhelming hatred for anyone who disagrees with their political philosophy, including southern white conservative Christians, from declaring war on private museums that house Confederate memorabilia? And after shutting down these private museums, do you think the left is going to stop and say, ‘job well done?’ Why stop there? Let’s force anyone who has in his or her name ‘Jackson,’ or ‘Davis,’ or ‘Lee,’ or ‘Smith’ (Kirby Smith was the name of a Confederate General), etc. to change their name because such names might be offensive to certain people.

Furthermore, I have observed from some of those who are in favor of the tearing down of the Confederate monuments, a hidden hatred for the south, even though they visit, and enjoy our food, our music, our beautiful beaches, and our weather. The hatred appears to be for the southern people who may or may not have had ancestors who owned slaves.

In other words, after accomplishing all of the above, will the left then advocate the persecution of those of us who are “southern born and southern bred?” Will they round us up and put us in internment camps?

YES! The last few paragraphs are Kabuki Theater, far-fetched, and perhaps ludicrous. But the left is currently advocating the demolition of statutes, changing street names, school names, building names where those streets, schools, and building names may relate back to the Confederacy. Making all of these changes will be a nightmare, in fact, this will be worse than a nightmare.

We have to stand up to the left now, we have to preserve our history, lest we repeat it. We have to ‘nip it in the bud.’

STOP THE LEFT AND THOSE CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE COWARDS AND ARE AFRAID OF BEING CALLED BAD NAMES! STOP THEM NOW!

And yes, I’m against the demolition of statutes and memorials honoring prominent leaders of the Confederacy.

Note: The phrase, “southern born and southern bred,” is a phrase in the Song, “My Home’s in Alabama,” performed by the country music artists, “Alabama,” and written by Teddy Gentry and Randy Owen.

 

Facebooktwitter

TEAR THEM DOWN OR LEAVE THEM UP – PART ONE

What should we do with those pesky monuments commemorating heroes of the Confederacy?

For disclosure purposes, I am “southern born and southern bred.” Except for the four years after graduating from the University of Alabama, I have lived in the state of Alabama. The four years, post-graduation, I lived in Atlanta, Georgia. Thus, I’ve lived in the south all my life. Business travels, though, have taken me to many other parts of the United States.

While I’ve never been one of those who really cared about the differences between the south and other regions of the United States (We’re all Americans, aren’t we?), I will get a little angry when folks come in here from other areas and proceed to imply negatives about the south and the people who live here.

They come here with negative attitudes toward the area and the southern people. But then they proceed to enjoy our climate, our beautiful beaches, our great food, our hospitality, our music, our values, etc. This is especially true of people who re-locate to the Birmingham area. They come with their usual attitude plus an additional layer of negative attitude because they’re coming to Birmingham. After getting here, they’re taken aback when they discover that we don’t mistreat minorities, particularly blacks. We don’t use the N-word in every other sentence, nor do we regularly turn fire-hoses and police dogs on blacks. In fact, we work together, go to school together, socialize together. In general, we get along.

Outsiders relocating to the Birmingham area usually become rather enamored with the fact that Birmingham is 2-1/2 hours from Atlanta, 2-1/2 hours from Chattanooga, 3 hours from Nashville, 4 hours from Memphis, 5 hours from New Orleans, and 4 to 5 hours from the beautiful beaches of the Alabama Gulf Coast and the Florida panhandle. Of course, full advantage is taken.

But still, they insist on poking fun at the southern people. For example, they just don’t understand our obsession with college football. Twelve of the last fourteen national championships have been won by college teams located in the south. The two exceptions were Southern California in 2004/2005 and Ohio State in 2014/2015. Fans of teams from outside the south tend to riot, destroy property, and injure people when their team wins and even when their team doesn’t win. Because we don’t act like that here in the south, other areas have been spared from destruction. Once again, many outsiders like our values, and reap the benefits of living in the south, but still insist on turning their noses up.

As indicated above, I’ve spent time in other parts of the country. If something’s a little different there, something’s just a little different there. No big deal. But if something down here is a little different to what an outsider is used to, such as the pronunciation of a common word or phrase, they insist on making a big deal of it and indicate that “it must be a southern thing.”

I had an outsider indicate to me that she had “never heard of putting coleslaw on a sandwich, it must be a southern thing.” I don’t really know if it is or not and don’t really care. But it seems like outsiders have to poke fun or turn their noses up at everything that’s deviates from what they’re accustomed to. And, of course, actually trying a sandwich with coleslaw to see if they might like it? Unthinkable!

A couple of years ago, I wanted to get a new handgun. I asked a friend who came here from outside the south and was alone a lot if she wanted to go with me to a gun shop to look at guns. This was during the Obama presidency when everything crime committed was blamed on gun owners, and movements to limit gun ownership were taking place. She replied in an emphatic tone that she wasn’t interested in such things. Because I also wanted a man to go with me, I asked if her husband, when he was in town, might be willing to go to the gun shop with me. “Well, I don’t know, you’ll just have to ask him,” she replied in a snotty tone. This person wasn’t liberal, but felt like owning guns was redneck. Has she ever thought about why she feels safe in her home, even when she’s alone? Could it be because it’s common for people down here to own guns? She takes advantage of what the south offers, particularly, feeling safe in many areas, but turns her nose up at gun ownership.

I was supposed to talk about the movement by the left to remove all statutes of generals and other prominent members of the Confederacy. Instead, I let my feelings be known about folks who move to the south from other parts of the country, take advantage of the many things we have to offer, but still insist on belittling the southern people and the southern culture.

Now that I’ve had my say, I’m ready to get to my thoughts on the actual removal of the statues and memorials in my next article. It’s coming.

Facebooktwitter

UNIMAGINABLE LIBERAL LUNACY

To my readers and followers, I’m writing this on the morning of May 17, 2017 after revelations by the liberal media that: (1) President Trump leaked classified information to the Russians, and (2) President Trump told former FB I Director James Comey that he hoped Comey could end the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn soon.

I’ve written much about liberal lunacy, but never in my lifetime have I seen a crazier bunch of people and crazier actions that what I’ve witnessed from the Democrats/liberals/progressives or whatever they want to call themselves these days.

With respect to number two above, according to the New York Times, President Trump’s exact words were: “I hope you can let things go.” With respect to number one above, National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, who participated in the meeting, has said, “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

The purpose of this article is not to elaborate about the above and the unfounded allegations by the left that President Trump somehow colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. Instead, as a political conservative writer, the left has made my head spin with all their talk of obstruction of justice, national security breaches, and possible impeachment…unimaginable liberal lunacy.

Since late yesterday afternoon (May 16, 2017), I’ve heard the word “impeach” thrown out loosely by those in the media, including Fox News which normally is respectful of conservatives and the conservative point of view. This takes me back to the Clinton presidency when George Stephanopoulos, and ABC news anchor, on the ABC News’ Sunday morning show, “This Week,” uttered the “I” word. People, especially liberals that the former Clinton advisor would say such a word. Now we’re seeing it thrown around with reckless abandon within the last twenty-four hours.

While the left continuously attempted to damage Donald Trump and his family during the campaign for president, the American people have never witnessed anything like the constant bombardment of the Trump administration by the left through the acts of lying, hating, injuring, and property destruction…unimaginable liberal lunacy.

There were rumors going around and maybe some of them were verified, that Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell stated, not in a public forum, that he and certain Republicans were going to do everything in their power to derail the Obama presidency. The liberals “quaked and shaked” over this calling anyone who would not assimilate to the former president’s policies a racist. But no sooner had the main talking head of every major media outlet announced that Donald Trump had been elected president, the left immediately let everyone know (via the public forum) that they were going to fight tooth and nail against anything the new administration attempted to do. The word, “Resist,” was used from the moment Trump was declared President Elect. It was posted on banners everywhere the left protested. The libs even reminded the rest of us that it was patriotic to dissent and dissent was what they were going to do, never mind that dissent during the Obama administration was considered racist by the left. Even Hillary has gotten on the “Resist” bandwagon by extending the slogan to “Resist, Insist, and Persist.”

Since the inauguration of Donald Trump, and the bombardment from the left has ratcheted up several notches, I’ve told myself repeatedly to get used to it. It’s an established fact that liberals are hypocrites, and don’t care if they are labeled hypocrites. It’s becoming increasingly evident that they not only embellish, but they “out and out” lie, making up their lies out of nowhere. While I have maintained for years that liberals are the real haters, even though they have consistently accused conservatives of being haters. I think everyone is agreement, even the liberals, that they are all-consumed with hate for anyone who does not agree with them politically.

After observing the last four months, and especially the last few days, I have no other choice than to conclude that liberals are “genuine, certified loons.” The lunacy displayed by the left is unimaginable, and while I knew there would be difficulties created by the lunatic liberals in their fight against anything Donald Trump would attempt to do as President of the United States, I never envisioned what is taking place today and will surely continue to take place tomorrow, the next day, and the next.

Having said the above about liberals, I may have some decisions to make soon. Should I disassociate with anyone who is a Democrat/liberal/progressive? No liberal who I know personally or through social media has disavowed the lies, the selective hatred, the destruction of person property, nor the inflicting of bodily injury that have become common, condoned actions of the left. I have chosen to cease being friends with one person who has consistently used social media to spread lies about Donald Trump and his supporters, including those of us who didn’t support Obama. There are more out there. Will I chose to drop friends and associates? I don’t know, but it pains me to think about it. Liberals destroy everything they touch.

Facebooktwitter

DEFINING LIBERALISM

A liberal Facebook friend posted a meme defining liberalism several weeks ago. This definition allegedly was from Webster’s Dictionary and stated the following: “1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart, bountiful. 2. Appropriate and/or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind. 3. Free from narrowness, bigotry or bondage to authority or creed. II.a.1. Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech, or action. “The liberal FB friend went on to comment that if this was defining liberalism, then she was proud to be a liberal.

definition-liberal-meme-facebook-mcclures-websters

My response back to her was as follows: “So, this is the dictionary definition of liberalism. The liberals I’ve been exposed to have anything but a free and generous heart. Their idea of helping those less fortunate is supporting mostly worthless government programs where the tax dollar goes up the ladder and then down the ladder where only 3 to 5 cents of that dollar actually makes it to the cause. A broad enlightened mine? Free from narrowness, bigotry or bondage to authority or creed? Don’t make me laugh. Liberals are the real racists, bigots, and hypocrites in today’s America. Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech, or action. Again, don’t make me laugh. Liberals have been fighting free speech and free thought for decades. I don’t know one liberal, not one, who stands for the above.”

In researching the above, I happened upon another defining liberalism meme from The Federalist Papers that states the following:”1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart with the earnings of others; very stingy with their own earnings. 2. Appropriate and/or fitting for a narrow and darkened mind. 3. Free or obligated to be narrow-minded, bigoted or bondage to unlawful authority or immoral creed. II.n 1. Any person who advocates anti-God/Life, pro-murdering, idiotic perversions, pro-tax redistribution of others wealth schemes, anti-American, anti-Family, pro-Marxist, pro-Communist propaganda and Big-Brother government.“

liberals-defined-750

Of course, the above definition was meant to be a spoof, but the meme is certainly defining liberalism in this, the second half of the second decade of the twenty-first century. It has been my observation that a typical liberal is most, if not all the above. Note: If former president Barack Obama can use the term, ‘typical white woman,’ I can use the term, ‘typical liberal.’

Liberals are not that generous, unless it is with someone else’s money. Statistics show that conservatives are more likely to donate to charitable causes and engage is hands-on community service than liberals. Until recently, I was a member of an international service organization. Within the United States, about ninety percent of the members of this organization were conservative/Republican. All liberals I know are extremely narrow-minded and bigoted, not open to new thoughts and ideas, only seeing things the way they want to see them. Furthermore, they have no tolerance for ideas, thoughts, philosophies, etc. unless those ideas, thoughts, and philosophies the same as their ideas, thoughts, and philosophies.

Most atheists and pro-abortion activists are liberal. In defining liberalism, the spoofy Federalist Papers indicates that liberals are ‘pro-murdering.’ Well, that’s not exactly true all the time. Liberals are for killing the unborn who have done nothing to anyone. On the flip-side, most liberals are against capital punishment, the putting to death of those who have destroyed other people’s lives.

Here is a quote by John F. Kennedy from the Good Reads website: “If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.’”

This, of course, took place over a generation ago and some of it’s not clear, but it’s certainly different from the dictionary definition quoted in the first paragraph of this article. I would probably be a liberal according to the JFK definition and so would most of my readers, I hope. We care about the welfare of the people, their health, housing, schools, jobs, civil rights, and civil liberties. Liberals say they care about these things, but we know differently. Liberals only want to control your lives…what you say, what you eat, what you drive, your thermostat setting in your house, etc. They think they know more about what’s best for you than you do.

I’m usually working in my office when Sean Hannity airs on Fox News, so I don’t often watch the show, except for snippets. During the last two weeks, though, I’ve watch the show in its entirety for the purpose of determining whether or not what liberals have been saying about his show, that it’s all about hate and vitriol with the segments coming only from far-right hate websites, is true.

Duh! Silly me! Do liberals ever tell the truth? Do they care about the truth? Do they care about facts? I’ve given you a few examples of liberalism defined. Still confused? Don’t be alarmed. It’s fact that liberals change the definition of racism to suit their needs of the moment and don’t hesitate to change it back if later, their needs change. They don’t know what they’re about. All they know is that they hate anyone who doesn’t agree with them and feel that it’s okay to destroy anyone who runs afoul of them, by any means necessary.

Facebooktwitter