Liberals Revealing Themselves: Sometimes It's a Good Thing

Not only are my journals a bit of a mess, and in need of some major cleaning, the same could be said of this nation, and this world, and the people in it.  That even includes me.

Someone I know - a liberal - is very upset now with Obamacare, and has been seriously considering jumping ship and joining the republicans!  Of course this person -I'll call him or her "Pat" - is not really serious, I'm sure, though he or she isn't even aware that (s)he's not serious.  Pat's number one candidate on the republican ticket is Chris Christie, and Pat loaned me an article about him in Time magazine; you know, that paragon of objective journalism that, like most other media out there, has no political bias what-so-ever (Darn, I just can’t say things like that with a straight face, now can I!)  Now some people may be thrilled with Chris Christie, but if he’s the one the hard line leftist liberals are looking at in the face of disillusionment over their darling democratic and socialist healthcare fiasco, then you know he’s not really my front-runner!  “Oh, for Heaven’s sake,” Pat scolded me, with nearly the same breath (s)he used to tell me that Hillary Clinton isn’t running for the Democratic ticket and had little or nothing to do with Benghazi, “it’s not socialist healthcare in the first place."  Then Pat proceeded to outline why it’s not, using those ridiculous talking points (s)he picked up from Chris Matthews and Rachel Madcow, no doubt.  Pat wants to support Christie, and said (s)he may jump ship and cross that political aisle, but it’s quite clear to me that Pat’s about as much a conservative republican as I am a free-love hippie!  And what does that say about Christie as a candidate?  The writer for Time, of course, took great pains to show just how non-Conservative Ronald Reagan really was, and to compare Christie to Reagan.  And I’ll even admit that he may be somewhat right – all politicians have to "play ball" and soften their politics and work with the other party.  Reagan had to make concessions just like everyone else, and concede certain things to Tip O’Neill and the liberals.  That may water down his conservativism, but everyone has to make some concessions... except, apparently, Obama and the current Democratic administration.  (Hey, look!  My writing is getting a bit snarky, just like Ann Coulter!  I’m so proud!)  My fear is that Christie is another John McCain or John Boehner – a liberal secret weapon – and that Marco Rubio waiting over there in the wings, who I usually like, may also have more in common with the likes of them than with the likes of Paul Rand and Ted Cruz after that “let’s excuse all the illegal immigrants” fiasco he and McCain were involved in this year.  ‘You can’t deport 11 million illegal immigrants, and we can’t have guards every few feet at the border,” Pat informed me.  Does Pat sound conservative to you? 

            Anyway, I digress.  My question is:  How many of our values are we going to have to forsake in order to elect an actually electable republican candidate in this completely moral-less society that sees nothing wrong with, and in fact will fight for the right for, killing babies in the womb, but comes unglued when a gay couple is refused a wedding cake at a privately owned bakery?  How many of our Christian, God-breathed morals are we going to have to forsake in order to bring someone into the White House who appeals not only to the right-wing conservatives, but also most of the libertarians, the liberals who are not so far left, and the social liberals like Pat who have momentarily become fiscal conservatives because of the travesty of Obamacare?  It is starting to seem like more and more of an impossibility that anyone further right than McCain and Chris Christie stands about the same chance as an icicle in Death Valley of becoming the next President of the United States.  And if you don’t think there’s a possibility of a President Hillary Clinton in 2016 America, then you must be more asleep than the sheep that would vote her in, ‘cause this nation is nowhere near what it once was.  This nation under six years of Obama, and two more to go, is a complete mess (and they’re STILL blaming Bush Jr.!).  Four or eight more years under another freakin’ liberal and it will be irretrievable, and will probably go down in flames, and become just another socialist country, no better than any other – just the way the liberals have always wanted it: Weak and blasé.  

That's not to say they don't reveal themselves sometimes, like Barbara Walters did recently when she said "they" were expecting Obama to be "the next Messiah"(!)  I always knew, but I'm shocked to actually hear one of them admit it out loud on national television.  But then, give them time and they will eventually be revealed for the America-bashing, Christian-hating, Obama-worshiping socialists they always were at heart, and they only bring it on themselves.  I can’t wait to see who else is going to run their mouths just a little too much!  On MSNBC, it could be somebody every week!  They’ve already worked their way through Keith Olberman, Martin Bashir, and Alec Baldwin.  Could Rachal Maddow, Chris Matthews, and that sanctimonious, biased Andrea Mitchell be all that far behind?  People would have to be about as dumb as a rock not to see the obvious bias these supposedly objective news reporters have, but then, MSNBC does have their loyal followers.  That’s right, I’m implying stupidity in the fan base here.  I just finished reading 1984, and the devout MSNBC viewers, or anyone who refuses to see the obvious bias there or in most of the rest of the media, remind me of the brainwashed minions who work for the Party, distorting history and then actually believing the new history they distort due to some sort of weird mind-game called Newspeak that warp their view of reality and truth, or they are the idiotic “proles” from that same novel, who are not a part of the Party, but are so dumb that they will never become a real threat to them.  Who knows, if we didn’t have conservative radio and Fox News, how many more of us would be asleep like they are?

     I can certainly see the liberal bias, and I don’t understand how the party that claims to be so freakin’ tolerant and loving can say the things they do.  Oh sure, they eventually pay the price; Alec Baldwin for making gay slurs, Martin Bashir for stating that Sarah Palin is an idiot and then implying that she should have someone defecate in her mouth, or Keith Olberman for, well, just being himself.  The funny thing is, all the liberal hard liners (who don’t even realize that they are, in fact, liberal hardliners) would all excuse them, just as they do the President.  If I brought any of this up to Pat, who I talked about above, and who is probably allergic to the label "liberal" (like all true liberals are), my guess is that Pat's first response would be to question Sarah Palin comparing our current economic crisis to slavery, and would probably excuse Martin Bashir’s comment since he made it in such an articulate way.  “He went too far,” I’m sure Pat would say, “but that doesn’t mean his comments don’t have merit.”  I understand what Sarah Palin meant.  Our current economy is holding our kids hostage.  They will have to pay tomorrow for the freebies we get today.  In a way, that is a form of slavery, which is defined on the website Dictionary.com as “involuntary subjection to another or others,” and its synonym “bondage” means “a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome or degrading labor.”  That definition still fits here, and if you can’t see the correlation, you must be a devout MSNBC watcher. 

     I’m also fascinated by the thing going on right now between A&E and Duck Dynasty.  Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson, as just about everyone knows, said some core Christian biblical truths in a rather rough way during an interview with GQ.  The gist of what he said was from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which states (NLT), “Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.”  Well, the liberals were up in arms, and GLAAD came unglued, shooting off an agitated letter to A&E because they were so offended.  So then A&E, in its infinite wisdom, decided to suspend the patriarch of its biggest hit show of their entire existence.  When the expected backlash occurred, with thousands – perhaps tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands - of angry Christians threatening a boycott for A&E’s dumb decision, they backed down.  It’s all business anyway.  Because of free speech, Robertson had a right to say what he said.  Because of free speech, GLAAD and the liberals had the right to be offended.  A&E had the right to suspend Robertson.  The Christian right had the right to boycott their show and make their voices heard.  The Duck Dynasty clan has the right to take their hit show elsewhere.  Why Cracker Barrel would want to wade into the middle of this is beyond me, but they also have the right to voice their opinion, and to relent when the Christians give them a “what for” warning.

     I’m glad to see the voice of Christians is still heard loud and clear in this country.  I’m sure Nancy Pelosi, Barak Obama, and GLAAD would like nothing more than a bunch of brainwashed Party members and idiotic “proles” to control, but it’s not at that point… yet.  But don’t think for one second that it can’t become that way eventually.  Most of our young people are being brainwashed right now, even as I write this, to see nothing wrong with homosexuals, abortion, premarital sex, or drug use, and are, right now, being taught that all news media is fair and balanced except Fox News and conservative talk radio, that President Obama is their friend, and that those Christian right hooligans are nobody’s friends, and that God doesn’t exist.   

     Right now, we are a divided nation, divided up by right and left politically.  I wouldn’t say I’m on the extreme far right, but I’m pretty far over with my views on gay marriage and the belief knowledge that the life inside the womb is a living human being, and I stand with Phil and those like him who know the bible believes that practicing homosexuality is a sin (notice how it is the act that is a sin, not the people), and that it is only one of many sins, and that we all commit sins, even those of us way over on the right, but that God does want us to judge right and wrong and repent of these sins, which means “try not to commit them.”  (So while we're on the subject, so called gay Christians either aren’t repenting or refuse to see homosexual acts as sinful.)  

     Those on the far left don’t seem to have any problem with anything, and even invoke the name of Jesus when they stand for love of everything and all the acts that the bible itself says are sinful.  You’ll hear them say things like “The Jesus I believe in is a God of love,” and “The Bible says you shouldn’t judge,” and “the bible was written by people.”  They turn Jesus into a compromising Mr. Rogers type, prancing around preaching nothing but peace and love for everyone, no matter who they are or what they do, and they think that loving our enemies, as Jesus taught, means also accepting all they do.  They try to turn us into compromising milquetoasts, and the bible into a flawed ancient manuscript dreamt up by flawed humans.  These people may think they are Christians, but they are not Christians.  Christians believe what the bible says, warts and all, and they don’t try to distort it.  This world, and this nation, has major problems with what the bible says, and if you follow along with what the world thinks of Jesus, Christians, and the bible, than you are not a Christian.  Jesus warns us of this very thing in the bible when He says the world will hate us because of Him.  If they can’t see that, and side with the world, and turn Jesus into someone he definitely wasn’t or isn’t or will be, then they are not Christians.

     In between these two extremes is all the various shades of grey leading up to the middle of the political line, including some with various viewpoints that may not even be on this particular line, but are still heavily influenced by the politics and philosophies of the ages, whether they realize it or not.

     And I think that’s enough of my twisty political/religious ideas I seem to be just vomiting out of the top of my head tonight!  By the same token, I feel it’s something I probably needed to vomit out of the top of my head tonight.