GOING BACK TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE...

I'm reminded of a post I wrote almost exactly 2 years ago when I considered the direction the Obamaphiles and mainstream media have been guiding us toward for the last year or so of the Democrat's campaign. Let's take a trip down memory lane for a few minutes, and recall some observations that I quickly see becoming disturbing realities of every day life.

The article is a thorough fisking of a U of Chicago professor who attempted to define liberalism in a positive way, only to reaffirm to me through his muddled doublespeak the oppressive, nanny-state attitude of liberal culture.

He wrote:

Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others.

I wrote:

Liberals, more often than not, prefer to squelch opinion deemed undesirable by them...Liberals frequently litigate and censor anything that opposes them.

Today: Complete control of the media is the name of the game for the Obama campaign. They're squarely in his corner, not even hiding anymore their contempt for opposing views. And now, with the risk of complete Democratic control of government, even alternative media, such as talk radio and the independent blogger are threatened by the monstrosity called the "Fairness" doctrine, which the liberals had tried to pass before to try and squelch conservative thought, but failed. No doubt they will try again, only this time they would have little to nothing in their destructive antiConstitutional path.

He wrote:

Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference.

I wrote:

Again, liberals will freely tolerate anything they believe in. So what? The problem lies in the hidden meanings of 'equal rights' and 'civil rights'. To someone unfamiliar with the movements, it may sound like liberals uphold rights for all... when in fact they push for more than mere equality, but a special right for certain groups to be selected, recognized, and rewarded.

Today: Barack Obama epitomizes this attitude that somehow we have to repay for wrongs of the past, that somehow people far removed in history from the days of the Civil War have to perpetually feel sorry. It's an attitude where every single critical comment of Obama the man is denounced as racist. And when he says 'equal rights' you know that he's thinking of the word 'equal' as defined in 'Das Kapital'.

He wrote:

Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech.

I wrote:

Elimination of obstacles to voting means exactly what it implies - liberals take advantage of those who otherwise have no business and no Constitutional right to vote... On a side note, has anyone seen a more contradictory set of principles than 'campaign finance reform' and 'freedom of speech'?

Today: With the (tempered) exposure of ACORN as nothing more than a cover for rampant voter fraud, and the selective suppression of free speech, the liberals once again have made my words sound like fulfilled prophecy.

He wrote:

Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government...

I wrote:

If anything, liberals' strong desire to federally fund abortion has more to do with an overbearing, all-encompassing government than anything they accuse conservatives of coming up with.... not to mention other instances, of course, like FDA and EPA regulation, the Department of Education, et. al.

Today: These days, the Obama- and Democrat- led government intends to fulfill its strongest desire.... to live your life for you, make all your decisions, force so-called 'rights' at taxpayer expense, and become your all-around babysitter. Are you ready for nanny state governance?

He wrote:

Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual.

I wrote:

.. indeed, they support the rights of criminals, but what about the victims? They rail against prisons and the death penalty, but what about justice for the truly wronged?

Today: Surely there's going to be some positive payback to those felons who were allowed to vote this year? Additionally, I'm all for the 'positive' things being said by the left during this campaign.. you know, all the besmirching of character, ad homminem, invective, and outright lies... respect? dignity? Have a conversation with a typical left-winger and you'll be hard pressed to find any self-respect, let alone respect for others.

He wrote:

Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.

I wrote:

For all this 'generosity', I find it ironic that time after time, states generally thought of as leaning liberal are found to be among the least charitable in the country, while those generally thought of as conservative lead the nation in charitable giving.

Today: That's right - liberals believe in giving, as long as it's to the babysitter... er, government. You won't find them in church, or giving much to charity (unless the charity is (cough cough) the Great One's campaign).

He wrote:

Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith.

I wrote:

Never act on the basis of sectarian faith' should never be 'prohibit all manner of sectarian faith in public places'. It's funny how liberals conveniently choose which rights to uphold and which ones to suppress.

Today: ...except, of course, if you take your advice and endorsements from people like Jeremiah Right and Louis Farrakhan.

He wrote:

Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties.

I wrote:

Freedom of religion? So I take it abolishing prayer and public religious displays doesn't count?

Today: Obama's stance on the Constitution is now becoming more broadly known. It can be summarized on two words: disregard, contempt.

He wrote:

Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible.

I wrote:

"Hello, I'm the new sheriff in town, and I vow to do anything in my power to protect my people. Hold on for a second while I put these handcuffs on... I have to make this a fair fight, you know. Oh, and you can have my gun..."

Today: Safety and security... by disarming the people, and giving the government ultimate control of said security. Brilliant!

He wrote:

Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values.

I wrote:

On the other hand, a taste of the kind of measures a liberal government would take toward our national defense may find us wondering where our liberty went. There are those who don't have those interests at heart; and if you worry too much about the rights of the terrorists and criminals, you may find yourselves under a much less forgiving, Sharia law.

Today: The Constitution won't mean a hill of beans if we decide to use the International Criminal Court and the guidance of the UN.

Are you, reader, willing to accept that the principles of liberalism described above are right for this country? Are you willing to rest your safety, security, and lifestyle in the tenous arms of the nanny-state? Do you really think Obama has your best interests at heart? If so, then I guarantee with him you get exactly what you ask for and more, whether you end up liking it or not... and then, in another four years, we'll see whether the 'change' he's promised was in the right direction. I think it's not, and won't be, but that's for time history to determine.