Now that Planned Parenthood has had their panties exposed, kinda begs the question.....
WHAT ELSE ARE THEY DOING, THAT HASN'T YET BEEN REVEALED??
And, for that matter, what is being hidden in OTHER Liberal-controlled things....
...like Public Schools, environmental movement, etc?
My guess? Marxists do what Marxists do: whatever they want, in order to create fundamental inequality among humans....
.....and their idiot followers, like so many cows, just keep mindlessly chewing their cud, awaiting the slaughterhouse.....
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Lessons, thanks to "The Donald"
The Donald is, currently, double digits ahead of all his competitors for the GOP nomination. How long this will last is anyone's guess; the likelihood of ANYONE surviving the process from now 'til November 2016 is pretty much ZERO.
But, he's all the rage....RIGHT NOW.
And, the REASON he's all the rage is where some lessons can be found.
FIRST:
It's been my opinion that a REAL, outspoken Conservative can slam-dunk an election. Look at Reagan's two runs...sure, he whacked Carter the first time (Carter was his biggest help...), but in his second run......already confirmed as a strong Conservative....Reagan took 49 states.
FORTY NINE STATES!!! AS A PROVEN, STRONGGGGGGG CONSERVATIVE!!!
Yet, for SOME reason, Liberals in the political world and in the media keep telling us that "ONLY a 'moderate' Republican has a chance to win".
Well....that seemed to work out well for Romney and McCain....
Now, I'm NOT saying that Trump is a Conservative; he isn't. BUT, he HAS made some VERY Conservative statements, centering around a "TAKE BACK AMERICA" platform.
You can see the results.
SECOND:
Clearly, voters are tiring of rhetoric and parsed language. Those candidates who say it clearly will have an edge over those who do not. Period.
(This goes for both sides...)
THIRD:
It's ALSO been my long-standing opinion that there exists a "fifth column" in the GOP; Democrats.....Marxists, in practice and ideology....who have been planted as "sleepers" within the ranks of the GOP establishment. These "fifth columnists", at every critical opportunity, side with the Democrats.
These "fifth columnists", currently, are leading the effort, from within, to destroy Trump, along with Cruz and Walker. In a more broad sense, this "Fifth Column" is working to minimize the Conservative movement within the Republican Party (this includes "The Tea Party").
For further, historical, reading, go here: http://www.britannica.com/topic/fifth-column
As I said, The Donald will NOT likely survive to be the nominee for the Republican Party.
The candidate who WILL win is the candidate who can demonstrate strong, consistent Conservatism, who speaks plainly (you'll know this by how the media portrays him/her.....they'll be a "simpleton", "uneducated", "Bubba", "not nuanced"...), who's resume includes "...been a Governor...", who is able to prove that they actually CAN work with both sides and, perhaps MOST importantly, who's campaign is....
TAKE BACK AMERICA!
But, he's all the rage....RIGHT NOW.
And, the REASON he's all the rage is where some lessons can be found.
FIRST:
It's been my opinion that a REAL, outspoken Conservative can slam-dunk an election. Look at Reagan's two runs...sure, he whacked Carter the first time (Carter was his biggest help...), but in his second run......already confirmed as a strong Conservative....Reagan took 49 states.
FORTY NINE STATES!!! AS A PROVEN, STRONGGGGGGG CONSERVATIVE!!!
Yet, for SOME reason, Liberals in the political world and in the media keep telling us that "ONLY a 'moderate' Republican has a chance to win".
Well....that seemed to work out well for Romney and McCain....
Now, I'm NOT saying that Trump is a Conservative; he isn't. BUT, he HAS made some VERY Conservative statements, centering around a "TAKE BACK AMERICA" platform.
You can see the results.
SECOND:
Clearly, voters are tiring of rhetoric and parsed language. Those candidates who say it clearly will have an edge over those who do not. Period.
(This goes for both sides...)
THIRD:
It's ALSO been my long-standing opinion that there exists a "fifth column" in the GOP; Democrats.....Marxists, in practice and ideology....who have been planted as "sleepers" within the ranks of the GOP establishment. These "fifth columnists", at every critical opportunity, side with the Democrats.
These "fifth columnists", currently, are leading the effort, from within, to destroy Trump, along with Cruz and Walker. In a more broad sense, this "Fifth Column" is working to minimize the Conservative movement within the Republican Party (this includes "The Tea Party").
For further, historical, reading, go here: http://www.britannica.com/topic/fifth-column
As I said, The Donald will NOT likely survive to be the nominee for the Republican Party.
The candidate who WILL win is the candidate who can demonstrate strong, consistent Conservatism, who speaks plainly (you'll know this by how the media portrays him/her.....they'll be a "simpleton", "uneducated", "Bubba", "not nuanced"...), who's resume includes "...been a Governor...", who is able to prove that they actually CAN work with both sides and, perhaps MOST importantly, who's campaign is....
TAKE BACK AMERICA!
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Thought for the day....
Liberals should keep in mind that The First Amendment, along with all the others, is protected by The Second....
...which, of course, is why they want to abolish The Second.
They won't.
You see, The Second ALSO protects itself....
...which, of course, is why they want to abolish The Second.
They won't.
You see, The Second ALSO protects itself....
Monday, June 29, 2015
This is an example of how Liberalism (Marxism) works
Remember when I said this:
Liberals believe:
- A person is free to make any choice, irrespective of whether that choice violates the rights of others.
- A person may make any choice, free of personal responsibility and personal consequence.
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-reminder-conservatism-101.html
The SCOTUS ruling about "gay marriage" fulfills both traits of Liberalism:
1. With the "legalization" of "gay marriage", homosexuals relieve themselves of the responsibilities and consequences of their choice. Those responsibilities and consequences will now be shouldered by society.
2. Already, the war on The First Amendment has begun it's new phase:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/06/29/it-begins-new-calls-to-strip-churches-of-tax-exempt-status-after-samesex-marriage-ruling-n2018688
With this ruling, Liberals are now free to make any choice, irrespective of whether the rights of others are violated.
When the newly formed United States broke from the king, it took 3% of the population to take up arms and fight the war of that revolution.
Who are those "3%" today?
Liberals believe:
- A person is free to make any choice, irrespective of whether that choice violates the rights of others.
- A person may make any choice, free of personal responsibility and personal consequence.
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-reminder-conservatism-101.html
The SCOTUS ruling about "gay marriage" fulfills both traits of Liberalism:
1. With the "legalization" of "gay marriage", homosexuals relieve themselves of the responsibilities and consequences of their choice. Those responsibilities and consequences will now be shouldered by society.
2. Already, the war on The First Amendment has begun it's new phase:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/06/29/it-begins-new-calls-to-strip-churches-of-tax-exempt-status-after-samesex-marriage-ruling-n2018688
With this ruling, Liberals are now free to make any choice, irrespective of whether the rights of others are violated.
When the newly formed United States broke from the king, it took 3% of the population to take up arms and fight the war of that revolution.
Who are those "3%" today?
Sunday, June 28, 2015
The Supremes' supreme ignorance of....science
Yep, science.
Not unlike in '73, when the Supremes completely ignored the human rights issue in the abortion debate, the "gay marriage" decision also blatantly ignores science.
(Personally, I find it curious that Liberals....ever accusing the Right of being in "science denial", deny science on issues like homosexuality, reproductive genetics and historical global climate patterns.)
I digress....
With the blogosphere alight with "gay pride", one thing is PAINFULLY clear: most of the folks, on both sides of the issue, haven't a CLUE as to the nature of the debate. So, here we go:
1. The Human Genome Project was concluded in 2006, having mapped the entirety of the human genome. Before, during and since, Liberals have hoping to find "the gay gene". To date, no such gene has been found. The body of science is, ultimately, inconclusive. However, SOME science DOES seem to indicate a "genetic predisposition" to homosexuality, though this, too, remains inconclusive.
Therefore, based on current, relevant science, homosexuality remains a behavioral choice.
A behavioral choice, folks.
2. Throughout the history of our culture, "marriage" has been specifically defined and, although there have been those who have worked feverishly to redefine it, marriage remains unchanged in its definition. No Supreme Court decision will change that (just like no Supreme Court decision will redefine "homosexual". It's a definitional thing).
3. The Supremes' decision to legalize "gay marriage" in all states accomplishes two primary things:
First, relieves "gays" of the consequences of their behavioral choice and forces society to assume those consequences. Second, it violates states' rights sovereignty and makes "gay marriage" a federal issue (they did the same in Roe).
4. Although there is language....sort of....making allowances for "religious freedoms", in actual practice, the First Amendment's religious freedoms have been rendered meaningless. THAT battle is one we will see IMMEDIATELY and continually from this point forward.
So, in one decision, the Supremes have alleviated personal responsibility, taken on the role of Meriam-Webster, relegated states' rights to the trash heap and rendered the First Amendment meaningless.
But, there are FAR deeper issues here, folks.
Consider:
In 2011 (and far earlier than that, in other blogs and letters-to-the-editor), I've warned of the consequences associated with the legalization of "gay marriage":
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-did-you-expect.html
And repeated that warning many times since:
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/search?q=bestial
This IS the "slippery slope", folks. First "gay marriage", then multiple, incestuous, bestial, etc...
It is only a matter of time.
Check these out:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/
http://www.virped.org/
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/meet_pedophiles_who_mean_well/
https://knowitnextpsychicpredictions.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/movement-to-legalize-incestpedophilia/
ALL of this leads to the one thing essential to a Marxist state: the destruction of the family.
It is ABSOLUTELY clear, throughout history, that the destruction of the family, along with the destruction of the concept of God, the destruction of private property rights (hello "Kelo") and the confiscation of private firearms lead to one...ONLY...conclusion:
Communism.
This week, we witnessed two GIANT steps toward that end.
The only question that remains is this:
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Not unlike in '73, when the Supremes completely ignored the human rights issue in the abortion debate, the "gay marriage" decision also blatantly ignores science.
(Personally, I find it curious that Liberals....ever accusing the Right of being in "science denial", deny science on issues like homosexuality, reproductive genetics and historical global climate patterns.)
I digress....
With the blogosphere alight with "gay pride", one thing is PAINFULLY clear: most of the folks, on both sides of the issue, haven't a CLUE as to the nature of the debate. So, here we go:
1. The Human Genome Project was concluded in 2006, having mapped the entirety of the human genome. Before, during and since, Liberals have hoping to find "the gay gene". To date, no such gene has been found. The body of science is, ultimately, inconclusive. However, SOME science DOES seem to indicate a "genetic predisposition" to homosexuality, though this, too, remains inconclusive.
Therefore, based on current, relevant science, homosexuality remains a behavioral choice.
A behavioral choice, folks.
2. Throughout the history of our culture, "marriage" has been specifically defined and, although there have been those who have worked feverishly to redefine it, marriage remains unchanged in its definition. No Supreme Court decision will change that (just like no Supreme Court decision will redefine "homosexual". It's a definitional thing).
3. The Supremes' decision to legalize "gay marriage" in all states accomplishes two primary things:
First, relieves "gays" of the consequences of their behavioral choice and forces society to assume those consequences. Second, it violates states' rights sovereignty and makes "gay marriage" a federal issue (they did the same in Roe).
4. Although there is language....sort of....making allowances for "religious freedoms", in actual practice, the First Amendment's religious freedoms have been rendered meaningless. THAT battle is one we will see IMMEDIATELY and continually from this point forward.
So, in one decision, the Supremes have alleviated personal responsibility, taken on the role of Meriam-Webster, relegated states' rights to the trash heap and rendered the First Amendment meaningless.
But, there are FAR deeper issues here, folks.
Consider:
In 2011 (and far earlier than that, in other blogs and letters-to-the-editor), I've warned of the consequences associated with the legalization of "gay marriage":
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-did-you-expect.html
And repeated that warning many times since:
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/search?q=bestial
This IS the "slippery slope", folks. First "gay marriage", then multiple, incestuous, bestial, etc...
It is only a matter of time.
Check these out:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/
http://www.virped.org/
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/meet_pedophiles_who_mean_well/
https://knowitnextpsychicpredictions.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/movement-to-legalize-incestpedophilia/
ALL of this leads to the one thing essential to a Marxist state: the destruction of the family.
It is ABSOLUTELY clear, throughout history, that the destruction of the family, along with the destruction of the concept of God, the destruction of private property rights (hello "Kelo") and the confiscation of private firearms lead to one...ONLY...conclusion:
Communism.
This week, we witnessed two GIANT steps toward that end.
The only question that remains is this:
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Read this CAREFULLY, please. A lesson in Liberalism
I'm certainly NOT the first to point out the stories that Liberals make up in order to "prove a point"; Ann Coulter documents these things regularly.....and it happens, REGULARLY.
Between Lena Dunham's rape confabulation and Sarah Silverman's "wage gap" stupidity, Liberals...and, more importantly, CONSERVATIVES....will find important lessons.
For Liberals, the lesson can best be found in the wage gap lie, as explained by Sarah Silverman: (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416974/sarah-silverman-admits-she-made-wage-gap-story-then-calls-critics-maniacs-Katherine)
That Sarah has a tendency to say astonishingly stupid things is NOT news; this is SOP for her.
BUT, she does say something here that IS important.....
In her "apology", she states, "My regret is that I mentioned Al by name — it should have been a nameless, faceless anecdote and he has always been lovely to me."
So, first, she only apologizes for using Al's name. She DOESN'T apologize for making up a story.
BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, Sarah makes it clear that the NEXT time she makes up a story, she won't be using any names and, therefore, can't be called out as a liar. It'll be an anonymous name from an anonymous place, during an anonymous time.
For Conservatives, the lesson is this: if there is no name, no place or no time....it's a lie. It's made up. It NEVER HAPPENED. In fact, if you review ALL such cases, where a Liberal recounts a story of being wronged......you can rest comfortably in the knowledge that, in ALL likelihood, it's a lie. It never happened. It's made up.
Liberals: the best way to make sure that facts don't get in the way of your agenda is to NOT allow any facts into the narrative.
Conservatives: remember that old joke: how do you know when a Liberal is lying? Their lips are moving.
Between Lena Dunham's rape confabulation and Sarah Silverman's "wage gap" stupidity, Liberals...and, more importantly, CONSERVATIVES....will find important lessons.
For Liberals, the lesson can best be found in the wage gap lie, as explained by Sarah Silverman: (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416974/sarah-silverman-admits-she-made-wage-gap-story-then-calls-critics-maniacs-Katherine)
That Sarah has a tendency to say astonishingly stupid things is NOT news; this is SOP for her.
BUT, she does say something here that IS important.....
In her "apology", she states, "My regret is that I mentioned Al by name — it should have been a nameless, faceless anecdote and he has always been lovely to me."
So, first, she only apologizes for using Al's name. She DOESN'T apologize for making up a story.
BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, Sarah makes it clear that the NEXT time she makes up a story, she won't be using any names and, therefore, can't be called out as a liar. It'll be an anonymous name from an anonymous place, during an anonymous time.
For Conservatives, the lesson is this: if there is no name, no place or no time....it's a lie. It's made up. It NEVER HAPPENED. In fact, if you review ALL such cases, where a Liberal recounts a story of being wronged......you can rest comfortably in the knowledge that, in ALL likelihood, it's a lie. It never happened. It's made up.
Liberals: the best way to make sure that facts don't get in the way of your agenda is to NOT allow any facts into the narrative.
Conservatives: remember that old joke: how do you know when a Liberal is lying? Their lips are moving.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Doesn't make sense! Or does it?
Doesn't it seem rather bizarre that Obama, Hillary and all the Democrats support Islam (specifically: radical Islam, Muslim regimes)? After all, the "law" to which these groups claim to adhere, Shariah, seems in stark contrast to what Democrats claim to support: women's rights, homosexual rights, etc.
With Obama, specifically, this is often written off to "well, he's really a Muslim, so he supports Muslims, irrespective of their true nature". But this argument doesn't apply to the possibility that Obama is a Christian (which has also been claimed).
More odd is the fact that while they support Islam in it's most radical forms, Democrats condemn Christianity and Judaism.
So....this thing ISN'T about respect for the sanctity of religion and religious freedom.
There is a commonality with ALL Democrats (in power) and their bizarre support of Islam (radical).
That commonality?
MARXISM.
Radical Muslims, though they claim to be devoutly religious, are mere Marxists and, therefore, devoid of religious beliefs. (Sounds like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, doesn't it?)
But, it's Marxism that unites Democrats and Radical Muslims; and THIS is why they act in mutual support. And THIS is why they condemn Christianity and Judaism (Marxism requires that the only accepted 'religion' IS Marxism).
"But", you might say, "Democrats CAN'T be Marxists. Marxists, throughout history, have been quite unkind to women, blacks (and other races), homosexuals, etc. Yet, Democrats SUPPORT these groups!"
Sorry. Wrong. This, in fact, PROVES that Democrats are Marxists. How do Marxists operate? Let's use Marxists Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, believer in eugenics, hater of blacks). Sanger, in this quote, suggests using black ministers to draw support from other blacks, through religion, in order to force her agenda......to kill blacks:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Marxists and Marxists everywhere and everywhen. Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Syria.....all work to accomplish the same goals:
- Destroy the notion of "God"
- Destroy the notion of "family"
- Disarm the citizenry
In accomplishing these goals, they pave the way for population control. THEY will now decide who has the right to exist.
NOW does it make sense?
With Obama, specifically, this is often written off to "well, he's really a Muslim, so he supports Muslims, irrespective of their true nature". But this argument doesn't apply to the possibility that Obama is a Christian (which has also been claimed).
More odd is the fact that while they support Islam in it's most radical forms, Democrats condemn Christianity and Judaism.
So....this thing ISN'T about respect for the sanctity of religion and religious freedom.
There is a commonality with ALL Democrats (in power) and their bizarre support of Islam (radical).
That commonality?
MARXISM.
Radical Muslims, though they claim to be devoutly religious, are mere Marxists and, therefore, devoid of religious beliefs. (Sounds like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, doesn't it?)
But, it's Marxism that unites Democrats and Radical Muslims; and THIS is why they act in mutual support. And THIS is why they condemn Christianity and Judaism (Marxism requires that the only accepted 'religion' IS Marxism).
"But", you might say, "Democrats CAN'T be Marxists. Marxists, throughout history, have been quite unkind to women, blacks (and other races), homosexuals, etc. Yet, Democrats SUPPORT these groups!"
Sorry. Wrong. This, in fact, PROVES that Democrats are Marxists. How do Marxists operate? Let's use Marxists Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, believer in eugenics, hater of blacks). Sanger, in this quote, suggests using black ministers to draw support from other blacks, through religion, in order to force her agenda......to kill blacks:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Marxists and Marxists everywhere and everywhen. Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Syria.....all work to accomplish the same goals:
- Destroy the notion of "God"
- Destroy the notion of "family"
- Disarm the citizenry
In accomplishing these goals, they pave the way for population control. THEY will now decide who has the right to exist.
NOW does it make sense?
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Haven't you figured it out yet?
Such a flap about Indiana's RFRA! Who cares that no other state, in passing similar laws, went pretty much unnoticed! Who cares that the FEDERAL law, signed by BILL CLINTON.....the "first black President"...went pretty much unnoticed!?
ITS A DIVERSION.
Let's see......what could the media (and the rest of the Democrats) be "DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN" -ing about?
- The continuing Benghazi investigation, which KEEPS turning up evidence, damaging to both Obama AND Hillary Clinton.
- Hillary's personal server which has now been wiped clean.
- The Iran "deal" which, so far, has been a complete capitulation by the US.
- The new jobs numbers:
- Historic high number of Americans out of the workforce.
- Historic high black unemployment
- Historic high female unemployment
- Historic high working-age-teen unemployment
- "Obamacare" REAL numbers beginning to come out.....proving the disaster that Conservatives predicted.
- Historic high gap between wealth and poverty.
- Historic high number of Americans on Welfare and food stamps.
- Historic high number of Americans below poverty level.
I read a "Facebook" post yesterday, declaring Obama the Greatest American President in history.
I'm assuming the sender was trying to goad me into engagement because, for the life of me, I'm unable to accept the notion that ANYONE is THAT stupid!
ITS A DIVERSION.
Let's see......what could the media (and the rest of the Democrats) be "DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN" -ing about?
- The continuing Benghazi investigation, which KEEPS turning up evidence, damaging to both Obama AND Hillary Clinton.
- Hillary's personal server which has now been wiped clean.
- The Iran "deal" which, so far, has been a complete capitulation by the US.
- The new jobs numbers:
- Historic high number of Americans out of the workforce.
- Historic high black unemployment
- Historic high female unemployment
- Historic high working-age-teen unemployment
- "Obamacare" REAL numbers beginning to come out.....proving the disaster that Conservatives predicted.
- Historic high gap between wealth and poverty.
- Historic high number of Americans on Welfare and food stamps.
- Historic high number of Americans below poverty level.
I read a "Facebook" post yesterday, declaring Obama the Greatest American President in history.
I'm assuming the sender was trying to goad me into engagement because, for the life of me, I'm unable to accept the notion that ANYONE is THAT stupid!
A reminder: Conservatism 101
Since Spring is a time of renewal, I thought it might be appropriate to remind folks of what Conservatism is all about. Or, more accurately, what distinguishes Conservatism from Liberalism.
There are two fundamentals for each of the two largest ideologies. These fundamentals are most importantly demonstrated through legislation.
Liberals believe:
- A person is free to make any choice, irrespective of whether that choice violates the rights of others.
- A person may make any choice, free of personal responsibility and personal consequence.
Conservatives believe:
- A person is free to make any choice, except where that choice violates the rights of others.
- A person may make any choice, but is personally responsible for that choice and must personally accept all consequences of that choice.
An example: abortion.
Since 1973, and as defended by, promoted by and expanded by Liberals, a woman, engaging in behavior whose possible outcomes include pregnancy, may choose to terminate that pregnancy at will, for any reason. She, legislatively, is beholden to NO personal responsibility, NO personal consequence.....for butchering an unborn child. That woman makes a choice which directly violates the rights of another human being. No responsibility, no consequence and grotesque violation of the rights of another human being.
THIS, in all it's savagery, is the very nature of Liberalism.
Of course, there are other examples: Affirmative Action, "Gay Marriage", Embryonic Stem Cell research, etc......all of these, through Democrat legislation, alleviate the choice-maker of responsibility, and seek to grant rights unequally, or remove rights altogether.
And it is what separates Liberals from Conservatives.
....which is why I am a Conservative.
There are two fundamentals for each of the two largest ideologies. These fundamentals are most importantly demonstrated through legislation.
Liberals believe:
- A person is free to make any choice, irrespective of whether that choice violates the rights of others.
- A person may make any choice, free of personal responsibility and personal consequence.
Conservatives believe:
- A person is free to make any choice, except where that choice violates the rights of others.
- A person may make any choice, but is personally responsible for that choice and must personally accept all consequences of that choice.
An example: abortion.
Since 1973, and as defended by, promoted by and expanded by Liberals, a woman, engaging in behavior whose possible outcomes include pregnancy, may choose to terminate that pregnancy at will, for any reason. She, legislatively, is beholden to NO personal responsibility, NO personal consequence.....for butchering an unborn child. That woman makes a choice which directly violates the rights of another human being. No responsibility, no consequence and grotesque violation of the rights of another human being.
THIS, in all it's savagery, is the very nature of Liberalism.
Of course, there are other examples: Affirmative Action, "Gay Marriage", Embryonic Stem Cell research, etc......all of these, through Democrat legislation, alleviate the choice-maker of responsibility, and seek to grant rights unequally, or remove rights altogether.
And it is what separates Liberals from Conservatives.
....which is why I am a Conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)