The disgrace that is the Democratic party

If ever there was an example of total and utter disgrace, it is the Democratic party. They have completely gone overboard in their hateful hyperbole towards conservatives, especially Gov. Sarah Palin. The other day, a congresswoman said that the only qualification Gov. Palin had was that she had not had an abortion. What a complete outrage.

The bigger issue here is that the Dems, the "Femi-Nazis," and liberals in general, are completely threatened by Gov. Palin. They have not seen the likes of her in years. Everything that they supposedly stand for is represented by Gov. Palin, but unfortunately for them, she is a Republican. Liberals talk all they can about empowering women, and breaking the glass ceiling, and women's strengths and women being able to work and raise a family, and blah, blah, blah. And one of the finally shows up, it is a Republican woman who has all of these characteristics.

The Femi-Nazis are besides themselves. They can't stand that this is happening to them. It proves that their motives are strictly self-serving, have no real basis or purpose in life, and all is simply done for show.

As much as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race pimps or hustlers, the NOW Gang is nothing but a bunch of feminism pimps or hustlers. The more they rant and chant and rave, the more they slip into the sewer -- the gutter of complete irrelevancy. The more the liberals complain about Gov. Palin and her experience and family and other matters, the more they expose themselves for what they have become -- complete FRAUDS.

Why is it that the Dems sent 30 (THIRTY) lawyers to fan out across Alaska? One reason: to dig up all the dirt they could find or manufacture about Gov. Palin. Did the Republicans send in 30 lawyers to Chicago to sneak around looking for Obama factoids? No. Of course, since most of his dirty laundry is already out there -- and it is really very dirty (but not exposed much by the liberal media) -- there was not a whole lot of snooping needed.

I wish someone would explain to me why they think that a Fascist, Socialist, Marxist, quasi-Communist, totally inexperienced, most-liberal-in-the-Senate, "community organizer" junior Senator from Illinois should be the leader of the free world. What sense does this make? There is simply no explanation, no plausible reason, no logic at all to explain how the Dems came up with just about the worst choice they could have made, other than selecting Saul Alinsky, were he not dead.

Feelings vs. Common Sense

Neal Boortz, the Atlanta-based conservative radio host, recently gave the commencement address at Texas A&M University. His speech probably took many by surprise, as he proceeded to make dramatic comparisons between the phoniness of liberalism vs. the "factualness" of conservatism. He also bashed the liberal faculty, and all of their hypocrisy, including their group mentality, rather than their individualism.

His most important points to the graduates had to with the basic differences between liberalism (fascism, socialism, Marxism) and conservatism. First, liberalism is based on feelings vs. conservatism is based on thinking. Liberalism is about emotions and intentions whereas conservatism is about facts and common sense.

Furthermore, liberalism is about group identities, such as Rich, Poor, Blacks, Less Fortunate, etc., while conservatism is about individual identities, period. In college, the students learned about group behavior, but in the real world, it will be all about individual behavior.

He added that if the students have not changed to conservatism by age 30, then they should apply to be a teacher at a college, where they will fit right in with the liberal-fascist professors.

This goes right back to an earlier post about how impossible it is for the Democrats to unite the country; it is fundamentally against their philosophy to unite since they are all about groups. Meanwhile, Republicans talk about individualism, which is far more able to unite people, as they are all for the common goal of getting the government out of the way and letting people have the freedom to do what they want.

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.