Current News Hypocrisy

I read the other day where San Francisco wants to name a sewage treatment plant in "honor" of President Bush. Well, since the plant is in San Francisco, and they want to put Bush's name on it, I think it would actually be appropriate because all of San Francisco is such a sewage dump, then for Bush to actually be able to clean it up (treat it), then that would be perfectly fine. Since the U.S. has enjoyed seven years of a strong economy, which has certainly benefited San Francisco, despite its best efforts to deter it with its liberal mandates on businesses, then it makes sense for Bush to be honored for cleaning up S.F.

In all seriousness, the treatment plant should be named the Willie Brown & Gavin Newsome Memorial Liberal Phoniness Sewage and Garbage Dump for the years of ever-growing insane liberal policies that they have thrown down the throats of the residents. Somebody stop me next time they find me heading to San Francisco.

Also, regarding the Second Amendment ruling on Thursday, what's the first thing the liberal, fascist mayor of D.C. had to say? "This will lead to an increase in handgun violence." Funny thing is, though, when the ban was enacted in 1976, the rate of handgun violence went UP, not down, as all of the so-called intelligent liberals thought would happen. So, as usual, it was just more of the same liberal nonsense talking points that people can't be trusted to protect themselves, and the nanny-state government must do it for them. I submit that the handgun violence rate will fall once the citizens start to arm themselves again.

Race Pimp Hypocrisy

The black so-called "leaders" are nothing more than race pimps, using every "racial" situation to further their agenda. If they were so concerned about civil rights, then shouldn't they be so regardless of the race of the victim? But instead, only when blacks are aggrieved do the race pimps show up.

Furthermore, the liberal hypocrites are always pointing out this or that about race, yet conservatives say comparatively far less about race, and they are labeled the racists. I remember studying racism in social studies classes, and the definition of racism was when you do something special or different simply because of someone's race. That something could be good or bad. If a white man makes an extra effort to hold the door for a black woman, or a white man makes an extra compliment to a black woman, then he is, by definition, committing an act of racism. Even though he was showing kindness, he made a special effort because of the person's race, and therefore that fits the definition.

But the liberals love to point out everyone's differences, put people into groups, classify them, and then advocate for their perceived grievances. Conservatives try to avoid putting people into groups and classifications, and instead advocate for all people, regardless of who they are. Why then are conservatives the racists? The real racists are the liberals, because again, by definition, they are doing something special or different because of someone's race.

Liberalism and Fascism

There is an excellent new book by National Review Online journalist Jonah Goldberg called Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning: See the Liberal Fascism Blog. As much as it is an excellent political book, it is frankly an even better history book. Buy Liberal Fascism.

Starting in the early 1900s, he details the parallelism of Progressivism & Liberalism with the rise of Fascism in Europe. And while "fascist" has been a label thrown about regarding conservatives, its roots and growth clearly show that Liberalism is a "friendly" version of Fascism. Descriptions of conservatives as fascist, or in the case of President Bush as Hitler, are unmistakeably incorrect, inaccurate and disingenuous.

For example, it is hard to believe how fascist our government was during World War I under Woodrow Wilson. The extent to which people were prosecuted (persecuted) during the War for free speech is unfathomable, and certainly bears no relation to the accusations that liberals to try to lay at the feet of President Bush today during the current war effort.

From the early 1900s through World War II and to today's extreme liberals such as the Bill & Hillary, Goldberg does a masterful job of laying historic facts at the doorstep of liberal hypocrisy. The only tricky part of the book is keeping up with all the "isms" that he uses to describe the various movements, groups, etc. I highly recommend this fascinating, thoroughly researched book.

So while liberals continue to talk about feelings, intentions, beliefs and hope, conservatives deal with facts, truths, and common sense. Liberal Fascism spells out the facts clearly, and dispels almost all of the commonly held assertions that liberals love to make in the absence of any truth.

Liberal nonsense

Barack Hussein Obama declared the other day that new drilling won't lower the price of gas today, tomorrow, next week, next year or even in five years. So his alternative is to find new sources of energy, tax the oil & gas companies, etc. None of those will lower the price of gas today, tomorrow, next week, next year or even in five years. Should we wait five more years, and then start drilling? Then that new oil won't come on line for another five years according to him, which puts us ten years out; does that make any sense?

Why does he (and most liberals) think that taxing oil & gas companies will immediately lower gas prices? Please someone explain how that works. The oil & gas companies will simply pass the tax hike through to the consumer, which means higher gas prices. 76% of oil & gas companies' profits are spent on research & development. Why do we want to curtail that? We should be encouraging them (read: lower taxes) to do more research on current energy sources and other sources. Taxing them even more simply makes that impossible.

Liberals are opposed to offshore drilling; why? Is it simply the environmental concern? They talk about "no offshore drilling," but have absolutely no solution for anything to be accomplished in the near term -- except taxing. Why not drill offshore, huh?

While we're talking about it, liberals love to bash and demonize "Big Oil"; did they ever think that first, roughly half of the employees who work for these companies are Democrats, most likely, and second, that millions of employees have mutual funds with oil & gas stocks as part of their portfolio, and that roughly half of those employees are Democrats? So liberals are bashing the companies that many of their constituents either work at or are invested with, which simply hurts those very same people. What common sense does this make? I submit that it makes no common sense.

Changing gears: Liberals, especially Obama, talk about how they are unifiers. They are going to unite the country. How can liberals promote unification, when in fact they do the exact opposite? Liberals are the kings of class warfare, victimization groups, segregating people into groups (blacks, Hispanics, GLBT, poor, working class, rich, children, etc., etc.) and pitting them against one another. Meanwhile, conservatives talk about individualism, people's individual liberties, etc. Liberals talk about collectivism, classes of people, group power, and so on. Who are all these people who are being duped by the liberals into thinking that liberals will unite the country? There is physically no way for that to happen with liberals.

Liberal hypocrisy

Liberal hypocrisy; how much more of it will we tolerate?

Why don't people realize that liberalism in the U.S. is nothing more than a prettied-up version of Fascism, Marxism and Socialism?

So Obama's campaign won't allow two Muslim women to sit in a prominent spot at his speech, because of politically sensitive matters; who's the racist? Who's the hypocrite?

Do blacks realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was a registered Republican?

Do blacks realize that the North, during the Civil War, was primarily Republican and that the Republican North liberated the black slaves? The South was mostly Democratic and that Democrats were responsible for the majority of slavery? The Dems sought to maintain slavery while the Reps sought to end slavery -- and succeeded. This never seems to get pointed out.

Why doesn't this make the national "drive-by" media? Because it does not fit their agenda, that's why.