Hate evil, love good, And establish justice in the gate! Perhaps the LORD God of hosts may be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
Some of you have noticed how often I sarcastically describe Liberals as, “better” than we, “more compassionate”, “more evolved”, “intellectually superior”, etc., and you’ve gotten mad at me for it. Too bad. I do that because they believe themselves to be so and there’s lots of evidence to back up that claim.
Absolutely critical to understanding Liberals and Liberalism is understanding what they believe about themselves, about their Faith (Liberalism in all its various forms – Socialism, Communism, etc.) and about the rest of us. If you don’t get them, you won’t understand what they’re trying to do to you. Yes, that’s *to you* not *for you*. If you don’t understand what they’re trying to do *to you* how can you decide (when you’re offered the choice) whether you wish it to be done or not?
We know Liberals believe themselves intellectually superior to the rest of us via, as one of many examples of non-transparency, the now famous commentary by Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, when he freely admitted that transparency during the crafting of the bill was impossible due to the “stupidity of the American people”. Liberals couldn’t afford to allow the rest of us to know the truth because Liberals knew the people would rightly object to the provisions therein contained. Therefore, because the continued furtherance of the Faith, this time in the form of Obamacare was better for us than allowing we the people to decide on our own, Liberals had to lie.
You, as an individual, just aren’t quite smart enough to understand what’s good for you, therefore in order to ensure the goals of Liberalism are achieved within society it is acceptable for Liberals to withhold the truth to prevent your objection.
We know Liberals believe themselves morally superior to the rest of us via, as one of many examples, the behavior and reasoning of the lie told by Harry Reid regarding Mitt Romney and whether or not he paid taxes for the 10 years prior to the 2012 campaign:
“The word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes because he hasn’t.”
When it was determined that the lie was deliberate and Reid was called on it, his response was:
“Well, they can call it whatever they want. Um…Romney didn’t win, did he?”
It’s rational to conclude then that Liberals believe themselves morally superior to the rest of us in-so-far as they’re able to justify lying to the rest of us in order to further their Faith. Notice there’s a carbon copy of that principle contained within Islam, i.e., the doctrine of taqiyya:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”
There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
Those of us who are non-Liberals, e.g., Conservatives, Independents, the a-political, etc., are the equivalent to the “non-believers” described above. My definition of “Liberal” (note the capital “L”) is the jack-booted, authoritarian Statist type we find in 98% of the Democrat party today. The so-called “Reagan Democrats” are gone folks. Conservative Democrats are gone. Don’t doubt me on this! JFK would be booed off the stage at the 2016 Democrat convention this year. I’ll provide evidence for that assertion in another article soon.
So, along with intellectual and moral superiority, what else can we rationally conclude Liberals believe about themselves?
I would argue the Liberal believes himself blameless for anything he chooses to do in the name of Liberalism. Have you noticed, for example, how Liberals excuse thieves and murderers in the inner cities due to their economic status? It’s not that an individual is a thief and should be punished because they looked upon their neighbors property with covetousness or became jealous of their neighbors prosperity. Nay rather it’s because the individual was poor. If only the individual had more money he wouldn’t “have to” steal, therefore we should take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his means.
Comically, the Liberal contradicts himself when he inconsistently blames the likes of Bernie Madoff for his thievery. Now the principle becomes both true and false at the same time. It’s not that Madoff didn’t have enough money, rather, Madoff had too much money and therefore his thievery is due to him being a greedy bastard who just wanted more. So we see that within Liberalism many of the same conclusions are held as both true and false at the same time. We see how Liberalism both justifies and condemns thievery on the basis of economics at the same time. But something cannot be both true and false at the same time!
Back to point, I conclude a Liberal will not hold himself or other Liberals responsible for anything considered objectionable, e.g., rioting, when done in the name of Liberalism. When the Liberal riots, it is not the Liberal’s fault. Like the thief, the Liberal only riots because the Liberal is forced to riot by whomever or whatever situation has been placed in front of the Liberal’s self-interested, egoistic goals and objectives.
Let’s take the most recent riots in San Jose as an example:
San Jose’s Democratic mayor didn’t mince words after his city was convulsed by a riot outside Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s rally Thursday night. Trump himself was to blame for the violence, he said, and needed to take “responsibility” for it.
With the California primary scheduled for next Tuesday, Trump was holding a campaign rally in San Jose to fire up supporters. San Jose is an overwhelmingly Democratic city, and Trump’s appearance attracted a huge crowd of anti-Trump protesters, many of whom turned to violence.
But, in a statement to The Associated Press, Mayor Sam Liccardo said Trump was to blame for the attacks even though his supporters were the main victims.
“At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,” Liccardo said.
Liccardo also offered praise for San Jose police, saying they “have done an extremely courageous and professional job so far,” although some witnesses criticized police for failing to intervene to stop protester violence.
The “irresponsible behavior” of Trump’s campaign is simply the fact that he speaks anywhere. In order for Trump to stop “being irresponsible” Trump will have to stop speaking.
But shouldn’t I go and beat people at a Bernie Sanders rally instead of the Liberals who actually are? Yes, thug Liberals are even attacking other jack-booted Liberals! Twice! (These fools are afflicted with madness from their heads to their toes friends)
Bernie Sanders significantly threatens the Capitalistic way of life to which all of us should partly attribute the nation’s strength and success. If he were to be successful in implementing Socialism, the nation would eventually fail like Venezuela’s failing right now and like every other experiment in Liberalism that’s been tried.
All that’s happening with Trump is he’s ticked off a few Liberals. He’s not trying to transform our economy into a command and control failure.
So why can’t I go and beat Sanders’ supporters?
Because it’s uncouth, that’s why. Because it’s dishonorable, that’s why. Because people who behave in such a manner *AND* for such a reason…are just so much human debris that’s why. Because I *would be held responsible* for my actions both by myself, my God and I’m sure, the State and rightly so on all three counts.
Because I’m not a Liberal, *that’s* why.
If you believe the San Jose mayor is an isolated case with his opinion, don’t. My good friend, TheLiberal, allows the following:
And you want to spend the next 4 years with crazy protesters in the streets denouncing your bigot candidate. Trump has already pissed off every Mexican, Muslim, black and poor person in America, and he’s not even elected yet. Nothing to do with liberalism.
“Nothing to do” with Liberalism? Who are the rioters, Trump supporters perhaps? Trump supporters are beating themselves up I guess?
“Take that you Trump supporter of-whom-I-am-one-of-you-as-well-also!! I’ll show you for your support of my candidate!!”
Notice how we fix the problem. If you don’t want the riots don’t vote for Trump. Liberals don’t have to remain calm. Liberals don’t have to be rational. Liberals don’t have to follow the law. Rather, that which offends Liberals must go away.
For all of you who believe you can negotiate with the Liberal I urge you to reconsider your assumption. You do *not* negotiate with Liberals. The Liberal will have his way or there will not be a way. There will be riots.
Remember Bill Ayers? The New Black Panthers? Black Lives Matter? The Ku Klux Klan? Greenpeace? Think you can negotiate with these Liberals?
It’s not the Liberal’s fault that Trump is lawfully making a speech in San Jose. It’s not the Liberal’s fault that innocent individuals desire to hear Trump speak and this regardless of whether they agree with him or not. Some might be going just to get a picture, some might be going just to see what all the hubbub is about. Some might be going to stump for Bernie Sanders inside. Some might be going to display a John 3:16 poster inside. Some might be going just to take his girl out on their first date. All are going under the guise of Freedom of Assembly are they not?
Well no, no one except the Liberals.
Those who attend the speaker’s rally have no right to freedom of assembly. The attendee has only the right to be beaten and his property damaged and by the way, it’s the speakers fault, not the Liberal’s.
These are Thug Liberals. This is Thug Liberalism.