Today's Liberals, like their mommies and daddies, do not believe in the inherent evil of mankind.

Editor's notes:   Today's Liberals,  like their mommies and daddies before them,  do not believe in the inherent evil of mankind.  Obama  and his clown show,  actually believe that man is essentially  good.  As a consequence,  man will respond in kind,  to any act of respect or love.  Treat the enemy with respect,  and the enemy will return the favor.  Although most of them do not believe in the Christ as God,  the only true God,  they are fond of quoting "return good for evil,"  "love your enemy,"  and "do not return evil for evil,"  

They ignore Christ,  in anger,  throwing his enemies out of the Temple porches.  They ignore Christ's call for divine judgment and eternal hell fire,  on those who do not believe.  They are unaware of Paul's admonition,  "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone,"  words that allow for peace to be an impossible matter.   

Understand that if self-defense is reasonable and permitted,  so too is the defense of our nation.  Never forget,  our nation is different from all the others,  in so many good ways.  Most outstanding,  in this regard,  is the fact that we,  the people,  for the very nation we serve and defend. 



WSJ:   How does a man who entered the White House vowing to restore science to its proper place tell us that gun control is the answer to terrorism?

After all, California already has strict gun control, as does France, which just had its second terrorist massacre this year. Not to mention that the one time when terrorists with assault rifles and body armor were foiled, it was because an off-duty traffic cop in Garland, Texas, was carrying a gun—and used it to shoot the two heavily armed Islamists before they could kill anyone.

Or that “common sense gun control” would have done nothing to stop Richard Reid (the unsuccessful shoe-bomber); the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston (pressure cookers) or the 9/11 hijackers (box-cutters). Maybe the president should be demanding common sense pressure-cooker control.

Yet while the critiques of the president’s antigun pitch are correct, they are also beside the point. Because liberal calls for gun control aren’t about keeping guns from bad guys. It’s what you talk about so you don’t have to talk about the reality of Islamist terror. And focusing on the weaponry is part of a liberal argument that dates to the Cold War, when calls for arms control were likewise used to avoid addressing the ugly reality of communism.

Understand this, and you understand why Senate Democrats reacted to San Bernardino by putting forth antigun legislation. Why the New York Times ran a gun control editorial on its front page, and the Daily News used its own cover to feature the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre underneath San Bernardino killer Syed Farook—labeling them both terrorists. And why President Obama used Sunday night’s address to whine about those resisting his call for gun measures that would not have stopped any of the shooters.

Put simply, today’s liberalism cannot deal with the reality of evil.

4 comments:

  1. The concept of "Christ as God, the only true God" is a human invention so desperately myopic and so narrow minded, that those that are invested in it seem oblivious to the grandness of the scale of the universe, and to the minuscule place that humankind occupies. Such a limited perspective is unfortunately the mark of a lazy mind, one who isn't willing to ask questions and think beyond their own culture. It shows a failure to at least become somewhat familiar with man's place in nature, and our species history on geologic and cosmic timescale. Of course this won't make any sense to the author of this blog, but perhaps to some readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any point of absolute truth will appear to be "narrow minded" precisely because it is absolute in a singular and exclusive way. I mean, you believe that a man can simply say he is a she, a "truth" to you that allows you to laugh at all who disagree. More than this, the alternative to my "myopic and . . . narrow minded" position, as to the concept of the Christ of God, is a thing called "existentialism." And what is that but worship and honor given to the individual creature. You, sir, are your own authority in matters of conscience and "moral" conduct. That is "existentialism." Excuse me for not accepting your "authority" in my life.

      Opinion? Indeed, one can argue that it is all "opinion." But my opinion puts the Christ of God and the well-being of others (His teaching) at the center of my intellectual world. My choice? To put you and your personal opinion at my intellectual center . . . . ain't going to happen. And why? Because you can't give me a reason for allowing you to critique my opinion or insist on the observance of your opinion. Don't like the "Christ of God," concept? Fine. Just know that you have absolutely nothing to take its place . . . . . . . nothing.

      Delete
    2. " you believe that a man can simply say he is a she" - red herring, straw man argument.

      We are existential in that we create in large part our circumstances by the way we lead our lives. It has nothing to do with honoring and worshipping oneself.

      No I don't like the "Christ of God" or Jesus fairytale in a literal sense, and I can see that it has problems as well as benefits. My beliefs are based on discernment through facts, evidence and science. My philosophy regarding moral conduct is based on kindness.

      This perspective is clearly superior to christian concepts which have denied science and human advancement, as well as been a divisive force in humanity for centuries.

      "There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness." --Dalai Lama

      Delete
    3. " you believe that a man can simply say he is a she" - red herring, straw man argument.

      WHAT DO YOU THINK A PRE-OP TRANNY IS . . . . SOME GUY WHO SAYS "I AM WOMAN" AND BUYS WOMEN CLOTHING TO PROVE IT. AND YOU LOVE THE . . . . AH . . . . GUY.

      We are existential in that we create in large part our circumstances by the way we lead our lives. It has nothing to do with honoring and worshipping oneself.

      EXISTENTIALISM OR HUMANISM IS A PHILOSOPHY THAT SETS MAN'S WILL OVER AND ABOVE ALL ELSE, IN TERMS OF PHILOSOPHY. GIVING PLACE AND HONOR TO MAN, HIS THOUGHTS AND PRIORITIES. SUCH IS PRECISELY WHAT ” EXISTENTIALISM” IS ALL ABOUT. FURTHER, IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT "WORSHIP" IS DEFINED AS "AN EXCLUSIVE OFFER OF SERVICE," YOU HAVE HONOR AND WORSHIP AS BASIC TO EXISTENTIALISM.

      No I don't like the "Christ of God" or Jesus fairytale in a literal sense, and I can see that it has problems as well as benefits. My beliefs are based on discernment through facts, evidence and science. My philosophy regarding moral conduct is based on kindness.

      NO ONE STARTS WITH FACTS AND SCIENCE . . . NO ONE. WE START WITH IDEAS AND POINTS OF FAITH (I BELIEVE WE CAN FIND A CURE; I WANT TO TRAVEL TO MARS) AND GO FROM THERE. IF FACTS AND EVIDENCE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS, THEN EVIDENCE IS AN INTERPRETATION OF CERTAIN REALITIES WHILE FACTS ARE SIMPLE STATEMENTS OF THE OBVIOUS. KINDNESS IS A PARTICULAR SHOW OF EMOTION, NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL CORNERSTONE.

      This perspective is clearly superior to christian concepts which have denied science and human advancement, as well as been a divisive force in humanity for centuries.

      WITH THIS COMMENT, YOU HAVE PLACED PERSONAL OPINION AT THE FOREFRONT, A TYPICAL EXISTENTIAL/HUMANISTIC STUNT.

      "There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness." --Dalai Lama

      SOOO, YOU ARE A COMMIE LAMIE ?

      Delete