Malignant Liberal Idiocy

Since Townhall’s Kathleen Parker climbed aboard the “I hate Sarah Palin, so please view me as an intellectual” bandwagon, I have decided to refrain from reading her work. As I scanned the headlines in today’s Townhall.com Daily e-mail I caught Mrs. Parker’s and was moved to click on it. You see, I have something of a sadomasochistic desire to read columns that insult people like me.

Mrs. Parker’s column, “Them Oogedy-Boogedy Blues” serves as further indication that the Republican Party is at a crossroads. Her column also serves as an indicator of what is wrong with the Republican Party, and I am not referring to the “problem” she laments. I am referring to that which is exhibited by her lament, the PC, wishy washy, “moderate” crap that is the suggestion that people of values, principles, and faith are welcome in the Republican Party as long as they don’t express themselves.

I don’t know if Kathleen Parker is hoping to be quoted in Barack Obama’s inaugural address or if she is just doing her part to ensure that our party becomes a minority as a cheap knock-off of the real Democrat Party. From her column:

The list of commentators who ain’t got oogedy-boogedy is long, though Ponnuru is the most recent to out himself. While dismissing assertions — mine and others’ — that the Republican Party has a religion problem, Ponnuru acknowledges that social conservatives “could present themselves more attractively,” and “pick their spokesmen more wisely.”

That’s a start, but let’s take it another step. How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one’s values, but let reason inform one’s public arguments.

That was and remains my point. It isn’t so much God causing the GOP problems; it’s his fan club.

In the mind of an “intellectual” (or anti-Sarah) faith has no place in public expressions. If one is to represent the Republican Party in an inclusive fashion, he or she should refrain from offering honest opinion. Someone other than God (is that better?) forbid that an opinion can be traced to any sense of morality! Imagine the despair of someone who might otherwise vote for a Republican candidate, when he or she finds out that some Republicans are guided by morality and values other than inclusion, diversity, and moderation. There can be no doubt that this would be Republican voter will be so despondent that he or she will never again be able to darken an oval next to a letter “R.”

So what should be the rules for appropriate Republican discourse? Apparently the portion of the party that seeks to model all future campaigns on the success of the presidential runs of Ford, Dole, and McCain would have the following rules serve as a guide.

• Do not go to church… unless the particular church preaches Black Liberation Theology or has some other politically correct redeeming characteristic such as a lesbian pastor.
• If you go to church, don’t mention it in public.
• Avoid expressing opinions on any subject which may be construed as being a moral issue.
• Carry tweezers in your pocket and use them to pinch your leg if you utter any of the following heretofore banned words: traditional, values, abortion (you are allowed to mention “choice” as long as the mention is accompanied by a positive tone), God, marriage, right, or wrong.

Generally speaking, it will be considered best practice to look to role models if one is curious as to the sort of presentation that will be accepted in the new party. Mrs. Parker graciously provides a clue as to where a curious candidate might find an approved model:

As long as the religious right is seen as controlling the Republican Party, the GOP will continue to lose some percentage of voters, and that percentage likely will increase over time as younger voters shift away from traditional to more progressive values.

Hooray for “progressive values!” Where have I heard that term, “progressive?” Oh that’s right, progressive is the word liberals prefer as a self description! I can still fondly recall the time when Hillary Clinton referred to herself as “progressive.” We have found the best source for approved role models for future Republican candidates, the Obama Administration.

I did a “Goodsearch” for “progressive values” and I found an interesting organization. This organization might provide guidance for Republicans that just can’t bear to completely separate themselves from faith. This particular organization combines the best of both realms: progressive values and the only religion approved by the PC/Diversity Police. To learn more, feel free to visit Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV).

I might not be able to stomach a candidate that contorts himself into a human pretzel in his efforts to not offend certain groups or to avoid any appearance of moral convictions. I might continue to disregard the anti-Sarah’s such as Kathleen Parker, who I believe are more snob than intellectual. Give me a candidate that speaks what is on his or her mind and doesn’t give a damn if people that believe that they have a constitutional right to kill babies are offended.

Today’s Washington Obamost has “an excerpt” from an internet series titled “On Faith.” It should surprise no one that the chosen excerpt is Deepak Chopra’s commentary, “Please Keep God Out of the Voting Booth.” Of course it may surprise or sicken the reader to see this rabid Obammunist even mention the Constitution.

There never will be, and never should be, a religious reason to pick one candidate over another. God hasn’t personally voted in an American election, but he keeps voting by proxy. In an ideal world that would never happen. Supernatural beings aren’t citizens. Omniscient deities don’t make choices (since they already know every outcome in advance). To anyone who holds a serious regard for the Constitution, voting your faith should be a private matter, not a public one. It wouldn’t make me happy to know that a Catholic friend voted for someone solely because he was a Catholic, or that a Jewish friend voted for someone solely because he took a hawkish stand pro Israel, but that’s their right. No public discussion is required.

Yet we have to be realistic. God is going to vote by proxy this year. The real question is where his massive voting bloc is heading, now that the Republican Party has been so thoroughly discredited. Can we hope that religious voting will return to being a private matter?

Please click the link to Chopra’s commentary if you want to read the rest of the piece and perhaps be insulted for even considering your faith as an influencing factor on your vote.

I am confused about the implication that the Constitution would discourage a person from casting his or her vote based on the things that are important to him or her. This notion is foreign to me, perhaps there is something in the Bhagavadgita that informs Chopra’s perspective. I took a course on Eastern Philosophy approximately 8 years ago which covered Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confuscianism. True I did not take this course out of any desire to learn about these religions, as I was motivated strictly by the idiotic degree requirements imposed upon college students. I do remember being unimpressed by the course material and coming away with a sense that a common theme in at least some of these philosophies was the avoidance of individual responsibility.

Perhaps there is confusion regarding which candidate Chopra is supporting despite the fact that The Washington Obamost published his drivel. A visit to his own web-site and blog should clear any doubts as to his hope for change. His recent blog post, “The Man Who Changed the World?” makes it clear why he would be afraid of American voters considering faith when casting this year’s votes.

Wanting to change the world is different from having to. The latter is what’s expected of Barack Obama if he’s elected. The huge crowds he keeps attracting aren’t looking simply for a new leader, or even a reformer to undo the bad things wrought by the Republicans. They are looking for transformation. This isn’t pure fantasy. Sometimes history forces change right before your eyes, and when that happens the road forks. You can tinker with the world as it is or you can remake the world as it should be.

While it is too bad Chopra didn’t stay in India and spare this nation from his interference, the fact is, he didn’t. Of course his idea of change involves one global “collective” and therefore he likely recognizes no borders.

Is Chopra advocating global communism with “Big Brother” Barack Obama as the head of the commune known as Earth? Does he seek a global unity based on his faith and does he see Barack Obama as promising in that regard? Perhaps he hopes to attain the goals of his faith via the Saul Alinsky “Rules For Radicals” notion that the ends justify the means. How appropriate that a spiritual Obammunist would seek to further the goals of his faith by issuing a devious plea to people of faith to cast it aside before they vote?

It should be obvious that any Obamoron would want voters to ignore faith and their sense of right and wrong on Tuesday, for a reasonable consideration of right and wrong would preclude casting a vote for the man who spoke out against “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” It would be obvious that Barack Obama’s campaign based on deceptive practices (Saul would indeed be proud) would not mesh well with a sense of right and wrong. Indeed the dangerous purveyors of Obammunism desperately need you to ignore common sense, your faith, right and wrong, and simply be dazzled by the theatrics. Vote with your brain switched off, that is their hope.

On a somewhat related note, “The One” mentioned selfishness the other day. Isn’t it amazing that these libiot Obammunists believe in charitable giving… as long as it is with other people’s money?!? What has Barry given to his brother in Nairobi? What has The Messiah given to his illegal aunt in Boston? How do the charitable contributions of the Demoncrat candidates compare to those of the Republicans? The selfishness charge is completely misplaced. Selfish describes the narcissist, Barack Obama. Selfish describes the “Gimme! Gimme!” voters that see the promise of increased handouts on the backs of this nation’s productive! Selfish describes the wealthy Obammunists that stand to gain when their smaller competition is wiped out by the tax increases and regulation nightmares that would strangle small business in an Obamanation! Selfish describes Deepak Chopra, who would see our nation suffer to fit his warped philosophy.

The man who would bring you Obamunism draped in “hope” for “change” wants the Christian population to trust him with their support for the presidency. Let us ignore the contradiction that would be a Christian supporting Obama and look at the message of the charlatan. His D.C. campaign office (AKA The Washington Post) describes how “Obama Addresses His Faith:”

ST. LOUIS, July 5 — Sen. Barack Obama ended a week’s focus on values by giving a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a highly personal account of his spiritual journey and a promise that he will make “faith-based” social service “a moral center of my administration.”

He “ended a week’s focus on values” so he must be relieved to have such unfamiliar subject matter behind him. I’m not saying that I don’t believe Barry has values. I am saying that his values are likely not what he was trying to sell last week… or did he give a speech on Marxism somewhere in there? Perhaps he did make a veiled reference to his plans for Obamunism in St. Louis:

He suggested that he would apply the lessons of his faith to the problems he would face if he became president. “The challenges we face today — war and poverty, joblessness and homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools — are not simply technical problems in search of a 10-point plan,” he said. “They are moral problems, rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness, in the imperfections of man. And so the values we believe in — empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors — these cannot only be expressed in our churches and our synagogues, but in our policies and in our laws.”

The message I receive is that the working people will be required to pay more in taxes to enable us to exercise “empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors.” Redistribution of wealth is the only way to prove that we are not a nation of “societal indifference and individual callousness.” His type of libiot ideology is largely to blame for the problems he mentions so how insulting is it to the intelligence of his audience that he expects them to believe that the solution can be found in the cause?

How dare he mention joblessness when his party seeks to stifle manufacturing either in the name of the environment or big labor unions? How dare he mention homelessness when his party seemingly has declared war on the productive? Or am I missing how the homelessness problem might be related to joblessness? “Violent streets and crumbling schools,” is this man insane? The left has worked for years to degrade society. They have glorified immorality and fatherless homes. they have made schools shift the focus from education to diversity and important subjects such as trans-gender-sex-education.

The vile purveyor of Obamunism will not admit that he and his ideology support the degradation of society and the ills he laments. He cannot admit that he needs unwed mothers raising children without fathers. He cannot admit that he needs children to receive poor educations and grow into less than productive citizens. The more people that rely on social programs and entitlements, the more people the Obamunists can control. He cannot admit that he needs dependents of the government so that he can justify the confiscation of the productive sector’s labor.

I get the sense that the most genuine Obama moment of the campaign occurred at a gathering with San Francisco elites when Barry didn’t know he was being recorded. Christian voters, Barry wants your support so please be so kind as to ignore what is likely the most honest quote you’ll get from the dope of hope. From The Hill:

Obama told guests at a private event in San Francisco that he was having trouble attracting support in rural Pennsylvania because people living there had become “bitter” over their economic circumstances and as a result “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

At least he didn’t come out and say “hillbillies” because that would just be tacky! Wait! He chose his words carelessly… and… and they weren’t the words he’s known for twenty years so “bitter” and “cling” have joined Rev. Wright, Wesley Clark, and Bill Ayers in the pile of items from which to distance himself.

Back to the article by his campaign (or Washington Post if you want to be picky.) He has apparently thrown Christians a bone by indicating that there might be an excuse that might not be good enough for slaughtering an unborn child:

Last week, Obama expressly came out against using “mental distress” as a justification for late-term abortions, a position widely seen as the latest in a string of moves toward the political center but one aimed specifically at Christian conservatives.

Oh, well in that case, every Christian should see it Barry as the pro-life candidate! Not so fast though, he still thinks abortion at any stage is acceptable as long as it isn’t a result of “feeling blue”:

“Historically, I have been a strong believer in a woman’s right to choose, with her doctor, her pastor, her family,” he said Saturday. “And I’ve been consistent in saying you have to have a health exception on any significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.

“It can be defined by physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases,” he continued. But “it’s not just a matter of feeling blue.”

On a personal note, I believe that Obama’s pro-abortion activism would disqualify him from receiving a single Christian vote. What he did in the Illinois Senate to kill common sense legislation to protect babies that were born alive (botched abortions) might disqualify him from having a soul. From Jill Staneck:

On Jan. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable.

We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.

My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.”

Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”

There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.

With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

Christians who oppose abortion are apparently supposed to be so caught up in “change” that we will accept the notion of not allowing abortions to a mother just because she’s “feeling blue” as a reasonable compromise on the issue. (Of course, in my opinion the life of an innocent child is not something open to compromise, but hey I’m not an enlightened elitist.) Christians’ intelligence and character are being insulted by Obama’s faith based pandering. Not only are we dumb enough to believe what this snake oil salesman is saying, we are greedy! We would not be charitable and giving; therefore, we need Obamunism and its wealth redistribution plan to care for the needy.

I sure am glad that American Christians have the man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years (when not campaigning for something) and never heard the controversial parts of the sermons, to lecture us regarding faith!