Liberals Really Are Terrorists
As I was reading the newly revised National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, I stumbled upon the following list which you can read in context HERE.
The terrorism we confront today springs from:Political alienation. "...terrorists are recruited from populations ...vulnerable to manipulation by those who advocate a perverse political vision based on violence and destruction." Grievances that can be blamed on others. "The failures the terrorists feel and see are blamed both on others and on perceived injustices from the recent or sometimes distant past. The terrorists’ rhetoric keeps wounds associated with this past fresh and raw, a potent motivation for revenge..." Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. "Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda." An ideology that justifies murder. "Terrorism ultimately depends upon the appeal of an ideology that excuses or even glorifies the deliberate killing of innocents. Islam has been twisted and made to serve an evil end, as in other times and places other religions have been similarly abused."
As I was reading through this list it suddenly became clear to me why some conservatives label liberals as terrorists. I have reproduced the above list changing only the following words: 'terrorist' to 'liberal', 'murder' to 'slander', 'Islam' to 'The DNC', and 'religion' to 'political organization'. Tell me if you don't think it applies...
The liberalism we confront today springs from:Political alienation. "...liberals are recruited from populations ...vulnerable to manipulation by those who advocate a perverse political vision based on violence and destruction." Grievances that can be blamed on others. "The failures the liberals feel and see are blamed both on others and on perceived injustices from the recent or sometimes distant past. The liberals’ rhetoric keeps wounds associated with this past fresh and raw, a potent motivation for revenge..." Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. "Liberals recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda." An ideology that justifies slander. "Liberalism ultimately depends upon the appeal of an ideology that excuses or even glorifies the deliberate slandering of innocents. The DNC has been twisted and made to serve an evil end, as in other times and places other political organizations have been similarly abused."
Am I wrong?
posted by Hawkeye® -- Wednesday, September 06, 2006
27 Comments
27 Comments:
Definitely not wrong. Boy would that go over 'well' in liberal hands. You terrible conservative you. :)
What did I tell you? There is a set of liberal hands already.
I did enjoy a chuckle over his list of 'non-violent' organizations. Can you say eco-terrorism, or how about murder?
Nylecoj,
I guess you hit right on the head. (:D)
WCL,
I view liberals advocating "a perverse political vision based on violence and destruction" in 'political' terms...
The liberals have been waging a war against "The War on Terror". The liberals have been exposing classified secrets like the NSA Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, and the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. These things are all "destructive" in my opinion.
As for violence, just listen to their rhetoric. Some of those jerks at DU or MoveOn go simply ballistic! And Nylecoj is correct. What about ELF?
"Environmental activists
are increasingly turning to acts of violence to make their point... The extremist group Earth Liberation Front has claimed responsibility for
several fires in California, including a $50-million blaze at a San Diego housing development."
And Planned Parenthood advocates the most violence of all! They advocate the murder of innocent, helpless, unborn children. Abortions have murdered more than 45 million human beings since Roe v. Wade. That's as many as Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan killed put together!
Planned Parenthood doesn't condone violence? The only measure of WMD's is whether Sadaam still had them in 2003, at the point of invasion, thereby somehow neutralizing the ones he used on Iranians and Kurds? My only response to your posting was to be "Ouch. You nailed that one." But then I read the twisted logic of this post and kinda flew off the handle. LOVE the "Israeli occupation" documentation.
Shelly,
Thanks for stopping by. These moonbats make me crazy.
Who is the only United States Senator, who was a member of the KKK? Well, Gollleee! It's Democrat Senator Robert KKK Byrd.
And what do you call it if an organization's main preoccupation is turning Murderers and Rapists loose on Society,and giving Islamofascists their own Bill Of Rights . I call it the ACLU.
I went back and read the whole thing again,and Left Coast Liberal, hoist himself on his own Petard.
Your comparison of Terrorists to Liberals ,is simply masterful ,Hawkeye.
Barb,
Good points about Byrd and the ACLU! Oh, and thanks for your kind words.
(:D) Regards...
Q.E.D. :-)
NO! You're totally right. I've been saying the same thing for months. It's undeniable when libs and the terrorists echo the same exact talking points. They share the same ideology, except one is of a pacifistic nature and the other of an offenive nature, proactive.
to all:
has it ever occured to you imbeciles that we are battling a CONSERVATIVE organization in Al Qaeda?
Osama's philosophy of the Islamic way or the highway is the mirror image of the philosophy advocated by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson where it's either what they say, or burn in hell.
if osama were to be asked his opinion on gay unions, his answer, given that he is a crazy religious nut, would prob be the same as what Falwell/Robertson/Dobson have said on the subject.
Ahh, today I can post. Yesterday I tried with no luck but forgot what I was going to say. Oh well, enjoy your posts as always
Excellent. Given the veiled death threats the lib moonbats have made toward President Bush (Moonbat Sheehan being the latest with her dream of killing an infant George W), the 47 million unborn Americans murdered in the name of the religion of liberalism and the venomous hate and rage that most liberal DemDonks have lately displayed toward conservatives, particularly those in the White House, it's not surprising to me the kinship the hate-Bush/hate-America radical left and Islamofascist have.
Everytime there is a new UBL video, his talking points are virtually identical to that of BDS afflicted DemDonks! If a lib thought he/she could get away with it, I'm sure they'd just as soon slit our throats for messing up their utopia.
BTW, when I read west coast moonbat's rant, I was struck by how much he sounded like this Muslim loonie tune.
If the hyperlink doesn't work, try pasting the following on your address line:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22452_Adam_Gadahn_the_MEMRI_Cut&only
Amy,
Thanks for "Viewing". When it comes to the Iraq war the libs are pacifists, but when it comes to politics however, the libs are pretty "offensive" (using both meanings of the word.
(:D) Regards...
Maggie,
You go girl!
WCL,
There's a difference between Christian conservatives and Muslim conservatives... The Christian conservative espouses ideals in which he/she believes, by which some have been offended. The Muslim conservative espouses ideals in which he/she believes, by which many have been beheaded, hanged, shot, buried alive up to their necks, torn to pieces, or had various body parts removed (and sometimes a combination thereof). There is absolutely no moral equivalence between the two groups and you're smart enough to know that.
Ms. RW,
Sorry you had problems posting. Some of the slime in the comments here must have gotten into your computer.
Hank,
Great points! Yeah, I watched that video from your E-mail link. Scary stuff indeed.
WCL,
Racism certainly is a "hate-based" ideology, but Christian opposition to "gay unions, pornography, tolerance for other religions, (and) stem cell research" is not hate-based.
While there are always a few "wackos", bigots and dogmatists... in general I would say that:
Christian opposition to pornography is "love-based" in many respects. First, it seeks to protect those who are sexually exploited. Second, it seeks to protect children from exposure which can be psychologically damaging (aside from the premature loss of innocence and 'childhood'). Third, it seeks to prevent "porn addiction" (a documented side-effect that is similar to gambling addiction). Fourth, it encourages "purity" which permits a closer relationship to God.
Christians generally do NOT oppose ADULT stem-cell research. Christians oppose EMBRYONIC stem cell research. This opposition is "love-based" in that seeks to protect the embryos themselves which are seen as "proto-humans". Embryonic stem cell research usually requires the destruction of the embryo and Christians equate this with abortion or murder. You may disagree with the concept, but the motivating factor is love for the proto-human, love for the fetus, love for the human being that the embryo represents.
Christians further oppose EMBRYONIC stem cell research because (if legalized) it would spawn an industry that would require the mass production of human embryos slated for destruction. This is viewed by some as the equivalent of cloning human beings in order to harvest body parts for transplants... something which you too, I think, would oppose.
Yes, a lot of Christians see homosexuality as a sin and perversion. Their opposition to homosexuality however is "love-based", because they fear that those who practice such perversion are doomed to hell in eternity (which they wish no one to endure).
Sure, some are bigoted (which is a sin), even to the point of violence (another sin). But most Christians don't oppose the homosexuals themselves, or even gays "unions", but rather gay "marriages". The reason is because legalization of gay marriages establishes benefits for such people which must be funded by the taxpayer. It's one thing to practice a lifestyle that Christians do not agree with... but it's another thing to force those Christians to subsidize that lifestyle. And by the way, 86% of Americans consider themselves "Christians".
And finally, the last time I checked, "tolerance for other religions" was not a bad thing. I'm assuming you meant "intolerance" for other religions. And frankly, I just don't see it. Did it occur in the past? You bet. Does it occur much today? Not really. In fact, I can probably find you way more cases of intolerance towards Christians or persecution of Christians than you can find of Christian intolerance towards others.
American history is a good case in point. This country was founded on Christianity. We opened our doors to everyone of any religion. And now Christians are finding themselves the subject of anti-Christian bigotry, church burnings, unwarranted attacks by the ACLU, etc.
hawkeye,
firstly, let me just say that you may disagree with what the ACLU does. I myself can't say that I agree wholeheartedly with its agenda. HOWEVER, unlike the Christian right, the ACLU is consistent. It'll fight as hard for Christians who are discriminated at work because of their religion as they will for pple of other religions.
best example: it has filed a suit on behalf of that ultra right wing kansas-based group that goes around the country protesting at the funerals of soldiers.
another example: it had also filed a lawsuit on behalf of rush limbaugh for the time that the cops broke into his house to search the place.
American Christians on the other hand, are hypocrites of the greatest nature. It consistently pushes for a lower wall between church and state and defends the rights of politicians like Bush to make decisions based on faith.
However, you can bet that if for some unknown reason Bush converts to Islam overnight, these Christians would be renouncing their original stand to defend him from making decisions based on his faith.
As far as I am concerned, Christians seek to justify anything in the name of the bible. Right wing politicians like Ralph Reed justify their every move, including corruption, in the name of the bible. I'm not sure Jesus is that proud of you guys.
maggie:
it's sad that you're just one of those simplistic individuals who think that anyone who disagrees with the Bush doctrine is aiding the terrorists.
as i have mentioned before in this blog, the greatest gift that the devil ever bestowed on Osama bin Laden is the existence of American conservatives.
To fight a war requires not only guts and resolve but more importantly, wits. it's pretty obvious that America is losing the global war on terror because Bush lacks the brains necessary to win it.
WCL,
I agree with Bill O'Reilly who said the following...
Friday, January 06, 2006
By Bill O'Reilly
The ACLU exposes itself. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points" memo.
Over the past few weeks, the ACLU has taken out three attack President Bush ads in The New York Times, full-page ads. Quoting the civil liberties people, "Mr. Bush broke the law in the NSA phone tap deal and is as bad as Richard Nixon."
Of course, Mr. Bush is entitled to due process and a fair hearing, something the ACLU is supposed to champion, but the ACLU has convicted the president in a ridiculous display of political partisanship.
At this point, anyone who thinks the ACLU is looking out for the folks, sticking up for your rights, is absolutely hopeless. The American Civil Liberties Union has become the attack dog in the secular progressive jihad to change the culture and political landscape in America.
The proof for that assertion lies with the moneymen. The top ACLU donor is far left businessman Peter Lewis, who has given the organization about $25 million, $25 million since 2001. Obviously, a colossal amount of money.
Lewis wants legalized drugs, a libertine society. He is a true far-left believer. His pal, George Soros, another far-left fanatic, has donated more than $5 million to the ACLU since 1998. Soros is also behind the radical left organization Move On, which routinely coordinates with the ACLU.
The executive director and point man for the civil liberties group is 39-year-old Anthony Romero, another far-left guy, who actively opposes most traditional beliefs. Romero's a former Ford Foundation executive. And while he was at that operation, it gave at least $7 million to the ACLU. So it's no surprise Romero is now running the place.
So when you combine Lewis and Soros and Romero, you have three radical Americans who are bent on changing this country. And all this nonsense about protecting rights is a ruse.
Even former ACLU board members, like Michael Myers, are fed up with the radical direction of the ACLU. I spoke with Mr. Myers on "The Radio Factor" today.
MICHAEL MYERS, FMR. ACLU BOARD MEMBER: The ACLU is flush with money. It has a lot of money, and not just from Peter B. Lewis and not just from George Soros. It has a lot of money.
It's all about fundraising, and the lefty loony agenda of Anthony Romero, its term executive director. But this particular ad and the ads before that will generate revenues because it appeals to the hard left.
The ACLU has, in fact and in effect, been taken over by the hard left.
O'REILLY: Romero — I should say Myers referring to the full-page ads attacking President Bush in The New York Times.
So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. That's from the inside. And Myers is no convert. He's still a civil libertarian. He's telling you the truth. The ACLU is no longer about liberties, or the Constitution, or the regular folks. It is about imposing a radical agenda on America. And you can take that to the bank. And that's “The Memo.”
WCL,
Regarding your statement...
I'm not sure Jesus is that proud of you guys.
You're correct. And I am probably one of those Christians of whom Jesus is not too proud. I have long ago recognized that I am a sinner and in need of a Savior. I have asked Jesus into my life... asked Him to help me be a better person... asked Him to forgive me for my sins.
I cannot ask Jesus to be proud of me. I can only ask Him to forgive me and help me try to be better.
Hawkeye:
As I have mentioned before, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the ACLU but the actions undertaken by the organization to support the rights of right wing extremists like Rush Limbaugh and the Kansas-based Christian hate group undermine any allegations that it is pandering to the left.
You may not like its actions either but at least it cannot be accused of hypocrisy.
WCL,
I think you missed my point. If the ACLU is taking out full-page ads in the NYT accusing Bush of this or that, then they are indeed partisan and CAN be accused of hypocrisy. For example, I don't see them taking out full-page ads in the NYT supporting Rush Limbaugh. Therefore they ARE pandering to the Left!
hawkeye:
the ACLU does not have to take out full page ads on behalf of Rush Limbaugh; it filed a lawsuit on behalf of that jackass.
The ACLU is a progressive, liberal organization, no doubt about that. The thing to remember here is that its mission is to fight for the various rights of Americans and it will do that against any politician, Democrat or Republican.
In a hypothetical election between someone like Lincoln Chafee vs. a conservative Democrat like Ben Nelson, you can bet the ACLU will endorse Chafee.
WCL,
My point EXACTLY. If the ACLU were simply an organization that defended the rights of Americans in an unbiased way, then they shouldn't be endorsing or supporting ANYBODY! They should judge each case on the merits...
Thank you for clarifying to everybody that the ACLU is a political organization that panders the LEFT.
Hawkeye:
I don't understand how you fail to understand that the ACLU has a proven track record of fighting for the rights of all Americans, regardless of race, religion, income, profession, etc..
Why, in its efforts to so, does it consistently butt heads with Republican politicians more than Democratic ones ones?
The answer is plain and simple: Because certain aspects of the ideology of the former limits the rights of Americans.
Does the ACLU pander to the left? No.
Does the ACLU pander to a certain philosophy that is likely to be, BUT NOT ALWAYS, embraced by the left? YES
Look at it this way. The Federalist Society preaches a certain kind of legal thought that is more likely to be embraced by conservatives?
Does it pander to the right? No
Does it pander to a certain judicial philosophy that is more likely to be embraced, BUT NOT ALWAYS, by the right? YES
Dude, this isn't brain surgery. Go figure it out.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home