My proposition is that liberalism — or Statism — is inherently immoral. It is inherently immoral. Any philosophy that has, at its core, the belief that thievery is a virtue — is immoral.
If you steal from a bank, that is, you rob a bank but you intend to use that money to feed the homeless — the act of robbing is still immoral. You’ve taken somebody else’s money. Perhaps taken it from people of modest means to advance a belief that you have.
A liberal may be moral in his or her own life, of course. They may be honorable and ethical in all they do personally, of course.
But then to support a political philosophy that seeks to do that which is immoral when done outside the realm of government — that is, stealing— then what is that?
How can that be moral? To vote to put people in office who campaign on stealing — who campaign on stealing — to oversee such an agenda, which promotes a fundamental power-grab, to confiscate somebody else’s property and to assign to some other use, is that not an immoral act? Whatever that use may be? I’m not done: Liberalism is inherently immoral.
When you run up deficits — and I don’t just mean Democrats, liberal Republicans too — when you run up deficits that are so massive, that you create a crisis and that crisis gets worse and worse and could destabilize our society someday soon… and could destroy the opportunities for our children and our grandchildren one day, is that moral?
No, that’s immoral.
If you keep telling people that pay into Social Security that they’re paying into a non-existent trust fund, and if you keep voting time and time again to use the money that’s supposed to be put aside for Social Security to pay for every-expanding programs and spending for other things… then is not the act of lying — not just lying once, but lying repeatedly, lying as a matter of philosophy, is that not immoral?
Yes, it’s immoral.
Liberalism is inherently immoral. And there’s no getting around it.
You can hear this debate around Obamacare. Look at the statistics that have been knowingly used to promote a lie: that adding 30 million more people to health care, massively increasing the federal government’s role, massively increasing subsidies, will cut the deficit?
That’s a lie. And it’s immoral. And it’s immoral to keep saying it.
My proposition is that liberalism — or Statism — is inherently immoral.
It is inherently immoral. Any philosophy that has, at its core, the belief that thievery is a virtue — is immoral.
If you steal from a bank, that is, you rob a bank but you intend to use that money to feed the homeless — the act of robbing is still immoral. You’ve taken somebody else’s money. Perhaps taken it from people of modest means to advance a belief that you have.
A liberal may be moral in his or her own life, of course. They may be honorable and ethical in all they do personally, of course.
I was invited to be the opening speaker at Saturday’s CPAC session. I had accepted but then, to my amazement, I learned that the John Birch Society would be one of many co-sponsors. This takes the big-tent idea many steps too far for me. So, I withdrew. Apparently, others were not so moved. That’s fine. But it wasn’t for me. Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater, among others, chased the Birchers from the movement decades ago. And they’re not a part of the movement. So, to give them a booth at CPAC was boneheaded. Read the rest of this entry »
UPDATE: Right on glenn But again why are you supporting a jihadi?
I have to admit that I was a big Glenn Beck fan. I like what he has done to expose ACORN and other terrible groups that want to destroy freedom for everyone. I recomend Mark Levin. He gives out his show commercial free for free too. Does Glenn Beck know that he is supporting a Jihadi? Why has he not denounced that loser yet? Supporting a jihadi makes him a big hypocrite IMHO. I am going to try to return his new book unless he denounces the support for that jihadi today. It looks like there are some great books from non terrorist supporters.
One of the most agonising and tragic aspects of the current global wave of Jew-hatred is the prominent part played in this by Jews. This is not a new phenomenon. Throughout the centuries of Jewish persecution, from the medieval ‘conversos’ to Karl Marx and beyond, there have always been Jews who, for a variety of reasons, have been ready and willing to advance the agenda of the persecutors of the Jewish people. Today, the west is teeming with their successors – almost always on the left, very often but not always highly secularised and with a tangential or deeply conflicted relationship with their Jewish identity, they are in the forefront of the movement to demonise, delegitimise and destroy Israel. They do it to no other country; only the expression of self-determination of their own people inspires in them such frenzied and obsessive loathing. Read the rest of this entry »
Mark Levin in his May 29th show talks about how it is import to use the term “The War on Terror” Mark Levin explains why terminology is important he says call the war on terrorism by its name. He explains how semantics is important and how they are trying have a war on words to destroy us. He also suggest to call it “the war on Islamo-Nazis”. He starts talking this 3 minutes into his great show. I totally agree with him.
He responds to the comments made by the Home Land Security worker Charles Allen. He talks about how CAIR is for the terrorist. He give the great remark “The more terrorist bastard we kill the better I feel.” He illustrates the point with more clarity then I have read else where. You can download it here. It is free. It is great. You should check it out.
UPDATE: Mark Levin Fansite has more and a more direct link to the audio, which now bellow.
Dumb:
During his commencement address to Air Force Academy graduates on Wednesday, President Bush made a fairly uncontroversial declaration. “The war on terror,” he said, “will dominate your military careers.”
But will it always have the same name? This morning in Financial Times, the Homeland Security Department’s top intelligence official became the latest prominent leader to say that the phrase should be dropped. “It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam and we don’t need this,” Under Secretary Charles E. Allen said, adding that it spreads “animus” far beyond the enemy.
And dumber:
The global war on terror has become a thinly veiled excuse to wage a global war on Islam with increased arrests of Muslims, calls for regime change in Muslim countries and racial profiling, according to a leader with a national Islamic organization. “The tactic of terrorism—and yes it is a tactic, not an ideology—has been deployed by a multitude of groups of different religions, ethnicities and ideologies and yet the Islamic faith, unlike any other, is erroneously and incessantly associated with terrorism,” said Dr. Parvez Ahmed, a national board member of the Council on American Islamic Relations. “The association of a faith practiced by 1.2 billion people worldwide to terrorism creates the perception that the GWOT is a war against Islam.”
Here is Mark Levin tonight responding to the DHS’ Charles Allen, CAIR’s Parvez Ahmed, and all the fools whose “war over words” undermines our fight against the global jihadists:
