Liberal Rhetoric 101: Overgeneralization

"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!"

"The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!"


 "Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"

I'm guessing you've heard these claims, yes? It's all part of the liberal practice of taking a subject, looking at it from a great distance and boiling them down to a single common denominator while ignoring the dozens of other significant differences between the two. 

Lets consider the above three examples, shall we?

"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!" and "The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!" belong in the same explanation, so we'll treat them together.

The argument is based on the overgeneralized fact that "Radical Islam, the Ku Klux Klan and the Tea Party are on the political right.  While this is true, there is a matter of scale that is ignored by this comparison (please excuse the crudity of this model, it IS NOT to scale):

Note that while the Tea Party, the Ku Klux Klan and Radical Islam (as well as Monarchy, added in for comparison) are on the right wing of the spectrum. But no one who actually UNDERSTANDS the Tea Party (rather than the Drive-By Media's meme of the Tea Party) could consider it the same as the KKK or Radical Islam.

The Tea Party stands for equality and freedom FOR ALL, irregardless of race, in stark contrast to the KKK. It stands for a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a monarch, in stark contrast to monarchy. Finally, the Tea Party stands for the First Amendment's protection of Freedom of Religion, in stark contrast to Radical Islam.

The same would be true if a conservative were to attempt to claim that American Liberalism was the equivalent of Nazism (yes, the NAZI party was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY aka Left Wing, not right) or Communism. While these two factions do fall on the Left of the political spectrum, they are starkly farther to the Left than American Liberalism. (Comparing American Liberalism to European Socialism is a close comparison, however.)

Now for my third example:

"Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"

While Christianity teaches us to help and provide for the poor, and liberals (at least claim) to try to help the poor using government welfare, there is a major difference in the way Jesus taught us to help the poor and how liberals try to help the poor. as I've pointed out over and over, there is no place in the Bible where Jesus said "Give your money to the government, and let the government help the poor." There's nowhere ANYWHERE in the Bible where God commands the government to care for the poor.

Even though liberals love to give the false impression that conservatives don't care about the poor, it's just not true. It's just that our plan to help the poor doesn't involve government. We believe in the Biblical model of individuals helping the poor either directly or through private charities.

All three of these examples show the liberal mentality of looking at things from only one angle, without looking at the nuances and specifics of the situations which make these supposed equivalencies not actual equivalencies.  To respond to these arguments is simple. Just take the time to break down the sheer ridiculousness of these comparisons by discussing the very nuances and specifics that make the equivalencies not equivalent.

*yes I AM quoting Back to the Future intentionally

Best of Biblical Conservatism: Letter Bag: The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism

Today, on Best of Biblical Conservatism, we have one of our most popular posts of all time!

I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here.  The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere.  Here was the comment:

Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)

The Tea Party is therefore liberal.

It's an interesting point, Anny.  It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism.  The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty.  It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution.  When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy.  (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)

You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical.  They aren't radical anymore.  Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.

Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government.  It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems. 

Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.

What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy.  For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)

Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day.  The same is true of many other words.  In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat."  Does it mean that now, Anny?  Of course not.  Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.

In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism.  Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require. 

Best of Biblical Conservatism: The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism

This week, since I'm on my annual Christmas vacation, I've been posting "The Best of Biblical Conservatism" with selections from 2011's ten most popular posts. Today's was originally posted on September 15, 2011.

I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here.  The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere.  Here was the comment:

Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)

The Tea Party is therefore liberal.

It's an interesting point, Anny.  It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism.  The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty.  It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution.  When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy.  (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)

You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical.  They aren't radical anymore.  Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.

Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government.  It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems. 

Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.

What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy.  For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)

Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day.  The same is true of many other words.  In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat."  Does it mean that now, Anny?  Of course not.  Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.

In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism.  Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require. 

Letter Bag: The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism

I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here.  The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere.  Here was the comment:

Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)

The Tea Party is therefore liberal.

It's an interesting point, Anny.  It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism.  The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty.  It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution.  When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy.  (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)

You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical.  They aren't radical anymore.  Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.

Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government.  It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems. 

Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.

What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy.  For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)

Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day.  The same is true of many other words.  In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat."  Does it mean that now, Anny?  Of course not.  Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.

In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism.  Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require. 

How Telling: Liberals Claim Voter ID Laws Will "Disenfranchise" Their Voters

On Wednesday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a bill into law that would require voters to present photo identification before voting, rather than simply signing their name. The Drive-By Media and Democratic Party have responded with resounding claims that this bill will “disenfranchise Democrat voters.” Perhaps, if you haven’t spent your life since the age of eight being skeptical and having your ears tuned to Freudian slips like this from the Lamestreamers, you missed it. Let me repeat myself: Democrats are claiming that being required to prove that you are who you say you are would disenfranchise Democrat voters. That’s VERY interesting.


Quick poll: How many of you carry some form of legal identification with you wherever you go? Raise your hand please.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that every hand of every adult who reads this blog is in the air. In addition, I took a poll online, and thanks to my readers here, my Twitter followers, and my Facebook friends, and would you like to know how many of those individuals not only have a photo ID but also carry it wherever they go? About 90% of them, and something tells me the other 10% have ID that they choose not to carry everywhere they go, or perhaps it’s the few readers I have who show up in my tracker as reading this from places like Iraq and Afghanistan and are serving our country (to those of you, thank you from the bottom of my heart.)

Now this poll was by no means scientific, it was no more than a straw poll. Yet I’m certain that if I DID do scientific poll, I would find that the number of eligible individuals in America who are legally able to vote (that’d be a person at least 18 years old, an American citizen, a person who has not been convicted of a felony, and who has registered to vote, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) who do not have any sort of legal photo ID would be miniscule.

Chances are, like most American adults, you have a driver’s license. I’m guessing that the ones of you don’t say, live in Manhattan and take the subway everywhere or for some other reason don’t have a drivers license probably have a non-driver identification card or a passport. The only people who would legitimately not have any need to get any form of legal photo identification are those who neither drive, nor ever leave the country, nor ever want to purchase any age required product, whether that be tobacco, alcohol, or for that matter cough syrup and cold relief pills, or if you want to open a bank account, or have a cell phone plan or rent an apartment, because for each of those things you need photo identification. Whether that is a driver’s license, a non-driver identification card or an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Card, it is almost impossible to survive in the adult world without some sort of photo identification. That is the reality of the world.

Furthermore, asking a person to demonstrate they are who they claim to be is very important when it comes to voting. Voter fraud is a serious problem. People are able to claim that they are somebody else to vote more than once, to vote when they are not registered, to vote in the name of the deceased, etc. So what, precisely, does the Democratic Party mean when they say that requiring photo ID would disenfranchise their voters?

As I demonstrated moments ago, it’s nearly impossible to function in the adult world without photo identification, whether you are black or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, you need to have some form of photo identification to function in society. So why would it be such a travesty to require those who are registered to vote to show that they are who they claim to be? Considering the majority of us carry our ID with us wherever we go anyway, why who precisely would it disenfranchise?

The answer, of course, is those who aren’t franchised to begin with. People who are not legitimately registered to vote, for whatever reason, would be disallowed to vote. Whether that be those voting for dead people, whether that be convicted felons, whether it be people voting twice under two different names, those individuals would be barred from voting (or voting again).

Buried deep inside this Democrat talking point is a serious issue that is brought up every single election and never dealt with. Democrats, of course, try to give us a slight of hand by claiming that Republicans are going to try to disenfranchise Democrat voters, yet election after election there are no stories of Republicans stopping Democrats from voting. In 2008, we heard stories of the New Black Panthers intimidating Republican voters in Philadelphia. We saw Harry Reid miraculously win in 2010 by about five percent when every poll leading up to the election showed him LOSING by that amount.

No, I’m not insinuating anything. I’m flat out saying that this talking point is showing a real Democrat fear: voter identification laws would stop Democrats from using fraud to win elections. And yes, to whatever degree members of ANY political party would try similar tactics; it would also stop them from such fraud as well. It’s a reasonable piece of legislation that Democrats are throwing a conniption fit over. They are showing their hand a bit. They’re telling us that voter identification would hurt their ability to steal close elections. They will claim, I guarantee it, that requiring individuals to show identification cards to vote is either comparable to Apartheid in South Africa, or maybe Nazi Germany, or how about claim it’s reminiscent of Jim Crow in the South (as usual ignoring the fact, as history demonstrates, that it was Democrats who were the party of Jim Crow) in an effort to deflect this reality. Those tactics, however, are just smoke and mirrors. The reality is simple: the only people who are “disenfranchised” by a voter identification law are those who legally shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

On Self Defense: Conservatism Works in Reality, Liberalism Does Not

Perhaps you've had this discussion with a Liberal:  What would you do if you are in a store and a person enters, points a gun, and announces his intent to shoot people.  He's not there to rob the place.  His plan is to take out some kind of revenge on a society that, in his mind, has done him wrong.  As a Conservative, perhaps you exercise your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and have a legally purchased and licensed hand gun concealed on your person. You suggest to your Liberal friend that this gun gives you the ability to stop this crazy person before he harms another person, probably by shooting them first. After all, it's him or us, right? 

If your Liberal friends are anything like mine, they will tell you how horrible that would be of you.  You ask your Liberal friend what they would do.  Predictably, your Liberal friend says that they would try to talk the gunman out of his plan, perhaps by showing them compassion of some sort.  What is amazing to me is the fact that Liberals, at least the Neighborhood Liberals, truly believe this would work!  It's astounding, honestly, to think that a person who is legitimately out of their mind and intent on murder, would be talked out of it by someone nicely asking them to stop.

This attitude is the inevitable result of decades of Liberals not allowing the smallest of school yard scraps and telling children "fighting is never the answer."  Even at the school yard level, I've seen how this mindset fails.  In my own school experiences, I was told that, if a person attacks you, regardless of whether or not you provoked them, I should not fight back.  Instead, I was told that I should simply let them hit me until someone came and broke it up.  I was once told that I should not have fought back when, in junior high, someone hit me in the face with the handle of a lacross stick.
Thankfully, my parents did not subscribe to the school's mentality.  My father taught me to do my best to walk away and avoid violence.  Dad taught me not to throw the first punch and to do my best to resolve those conflicts without fighting.  However, my Dad also taught me that if a person took a swing at me, at that point I had the right to defend myself.  That was how I was raised: avoid fighting as much as you can, but when someone attacks you, don't let them. For the record, in the aforementioned lacross stick incident, I tried to walk away up until the point this person physically attacked me.  I fought back to stop this person from harming me further. (Translation: I decked the guy in the face and laid him out.)  I did not want to fight him, and I did my best to avoid it.  But once he struck me, I defended myself.

The Bible backs up this mentality:

A righteous man who falters before the wicked  is like a murky spring and a polluted well. 
Proverbs 25:26

If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. Exodus 22:2

So the Word tells us not to falter before the wicked and even says that if a thief is killed while breaking into a house then the defender is not guilty.  (Please note this self defense freedom only lasts during the burglary.  If the homeowner harms the burglar the next day, aside from the process of bringing that person to legal justice, it becomes murder.)  How much moreso if one is defending his own life?  God does not tell us to try to "talk it out" with those who are trying to do us harm. He tells us we are within our rights to defend ourselves and our property if we or our property are being attacked.

Furthermore, the idea that you can reason with a school yard bully, much less a madman with a gun who is willing to kill innocent people, much less an evil tin-pot dictator who keeps his own people in secret prisons and murders them if they are even perceived as a threat to their power, is absolutely foolish.  This sort of people will laugh and continue their violence in the face of "rational dialouge." What does work is stopping them physically so that they cannot harm you or another.

If it takes using a legally purchased gun to stop a crazy person from shooting ten other people, my response is "BAM," and if necessary "BAM BAM BAM BAM."  That will stop innocent people from being hurt.  "Are you sure you really want to hurt us?  Don't you want to have a discussion about what's really bothering you" at best causes the villain in our story to tell our kindhearted Liberal friend to shut up, and at worst it gets our kindhearted Liberal friend killed.

Once again, Conservatism and our self-defense mentality, whether it be with our hands or with a legally purchased gun, works.  The Liberal mentality does nothing at best, gets people hurt at works.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Inherent Racism of Liberalism

Last month I penned a post The Real History of Democrats and Republicans.  Since then I was told that Republicans are inherently racist by a Liberal who could not present a single example of racism by Republicans and backed their argument based on the fact that a) I couldn’t prove that I’m NOT racist (an argumentation fallacy, by the way, the burden of proof is on the affirmative) and b) if I wasn’t a racist I’d know all the evidences for the Republican party’s inherent racism.  Coupled with this brilliant demonstration of Liberal logic, I was also asked by a (Conservative) friend how the Democrats indeed went from being legitimately radically right wing to being radically left wing.  

The former conversation, which legitimately gave me a headache due to its foolishness and the latter conversation brought up an excellent question which bears discussion:  How did the Democratic Party go from the right wing to the left?  What happened to the legitimate racism of the Democratic Party?  History shows that no, the Republican Party of today is not the Democratic Party of yesterday, regardless of what Liberals who hate their party’s history would like you to believe.   So what happened to Democrats?  Did they turn on a dime and cease their racism?

To answer that question, one must understand the ultimate mental disorder that causes racism.  Personally I have never believed the canned answer from school that racism is a product of fear.  Rather, I believe racism is a product of a controlling spirit.  (For those of you in Palm Beach County, FL, that’s the desire to control other people’s lives to make yourself feel powerful.)   It’s the same set of mental issues that causes bullying.  Racism is about subordinating people to your desires.  Same goes with slavery, and, if you will follow me on this intellectual journey, Liberalism.

If you’re a regular visitor to Biblical Conservatism, something tells me you’ve seen Roots or some other fictional account of slavery, you’ll hear historically accurate accounts of slave owners referring to their human chattel as “like children” or “too stupid to make their own way.”  In reality, of course, slaves were intentionally kept ignorant so that they did not know enough to follow the natural human desire for freedom. (For those of you from Palm Beach, ignorance is defined as "the state of being uninformed.") Slaves were thought to be incapable of caring for themselves, and actually being better off being slaves so their masters could care for them.  (In reality of course, given the same freedom to achieve people of all races are capable of achieving great things.)  

Now compare this to the modern Democratic Party.  Minorities are told they can’t achieve without affirmative action programs that give special consideration to them because of their race.  They are told they need government to provide them with food through food stamps, healthcare through Medicaid, and income through unemployment insurance or welfare.  You can’t obtain high wages without a Union to take care of you.  Just vote for Democrats and they’ll provide you with your food, healthcare, and income.

Here’s the hard truth that Liberal Academia never told you: Democrats never stopped being racist.  Liberalism is a highly racist doctrine.  It believes that minorities can’t achieve on their own, that minorities need Liberals to take care of them.  Instead of being legal property of slaveholders, minorities are now expected to work the Liberal plantation by voting Democrat.   The only thing that has changed from the days of segregation is a change in the method of control.  Instead of separate bathrooms, restaurants and train cars, Liberals now use the welfare state to keep minorities down.  It is masquerading as benevolence, but it still serves to control the lives of others. 

Except this controlling spirit isn’t limited just to race anymore, it extends to anyone who can be convinced to let Liberals run their lives.  They tell you that you can’t decide what kind of food to eat for yourself, so they have to make trans-fats in restaurants illegal to protect you from yourself.  You aren’t smart enough to make the adult decision to smoke, even though you know the health detriments, so we have to force you to stop.  The exact same controlling spirit that caused slavery, that caused segregation, that caused certain individuals to tell other people “you have to do what I say” is now being directed at all people who are willing to be controlled by Liberals.

You’re too stupid and you’re like a child and need to be cared for stopped being directed only at black people and was pointed at everyone.  Now everybody is too stupid to care for themselves and need their masters, the government, to care for them.

Compare this to Republicans, who, by the way, have continued to say that people of all races can achieve through their own hard work.   You can do it, and you can do it on your own.  You can work hard in high school and get yourself into a good college.  You can work your way through college on your own and get a good job.  You can work your way up in a company and earn yourself pay raises and promotions to better yourself.  With the blessings of the good Lord, the sweat of your brow, and the freedom God created you to possess, you can achieve great things for yourself!  You don't need government to do it...YOU can do it!

I, for one, am sick to death of being told that Conservatives and Republicans are racist.  We're not opposed to giving minorities government benefits in large quantities, we're opposed to giving PEOPLE government benefits in large quantities. We are opposed to government being the provider in people's lives, regardless of what they look like.  We want to teach people to fish, not give them fish. 

Liberals, on the other hand, think you can't achieve, that they have to help you to let you achieve.  They believe this is especially true if you are a minority.  They tell minorities that you can't succeed on your own, you need our help.  Anyone else think THAT sounds racist?

Yet Conservatives are told that we are the racists.  We’re told we’re racist because we believe people of all races can indeed achieve, all by themselves, if they are just given freedom to achieve.  We’re racist because we don’t want to buy the votes of minorities by making them comfortable enough in poverty that they are willing to stay in that poverty.  We’re told we’re racist because we believe that if people of all races are given the opportunity to achieve they will indeed achieve just as well as any other person.  We say “yes YOU can.”

Here's the truth: Liberalism is racist. Any philosophy that says that you can't achieve something due to your race is racist.  It does not matter if you claim you have a good heart in your racism...many southern masters claimed that of their slaves, too.  A truly post-racial philosophy doesn't tell people all the reasons they are victims and why they can't succeed.  A truly post-racial society says, "The racism of the past is over.  Now you can achieve on your own with the same hard work as anybody else. We are all the same, and now we all have the same opportunities.  Do what you can with those opportunities, we're rooting for you!"

It's the Liberals who say you can't.  It's Conservatives who say you can.  So which philosophy is racist?  Answer: Liberalism.

Racist Cries at Tea Party Are Ad Homonym and False

The latest accusation of "racism" directed toward the Tea Party has hit the fan, in the form of a private where Obama is depicted as a monkey.  For the record, here is the picture:

(1)

Liberals, with their typical assumptions, went straight to calling it racist. To Liberals, what else could it be but racism, right?  It's the typical ad homonym argument from Liberals which attacks first and asks questions second.  Of course, the media doesn't mention the fact that it was a joke directed at birthers, saying this is the reason why Obama won't show a birth certificate is because his parents weren't human. Yes, I know calling black people "monkeys" was a favorite of legitimate racists forty years ago.  I also know Democrats frequently use the exact same type of rhetoric directed at Republicans and nobody sees an issue.  They use it to call someone a fool. Consider this image:

(2)

Liberals, of course, see absolutely nothing wrong with this particular image.  They explain it as calling Bush a fool.  It's not possible, of course, that the image of Obama was calling him a fool in a family of fools, right? It has to be racist. They draw out the race card constantly as it pertains to Obama.  I will grant you, perhaps the monkey imagery was in poor taste given the racial past of our nation.  That being said, Obama's supporters have used the "you're racist" argument to silence opponents since he hit the national scene.  Don't believe me?  Then explain to my why THIS image was also called racist:

(3)

To anyone not looking to find racism in an image, this looks like a clever pun on the symbol of the Democratic Party Donkey (4) and calling Obama a fool.  Yet the exact same Liberals claimed this, too, was racist. Because racists in the past called black people donkeys right?  They didn't?  Huh.

Herein lies the real issue.  Cries of "racist" are used by Liberals to silence Obama's critics.  They would like you to believe that if Obama was white, there would be no such objections to his policies from the Tea Party and Conservatives.  They'll tell you the facts back it up in history.  Of course, that means we disliked the policies of these politicians because they're black too, right?

2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee Senator John F. Kerry (D)

42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton (D)

39th President of the United States Jimmy Carter (D)

36th President of the United States Lyndon Johnson (D)

Wait a second, all four of those men are white!  Yet Conservatives didn't like their policies either.  Yet all four of these men have one major thing in common with President Obama.  are you ready?  THEY'RE ALL LIBERALS!  Yep, that's the common thread between all four of them. Conservatives did not like any of them politically.  In their day, each one of them was attacked for their policies very similarly to the way Barrack Obama is being attacked now.  

Let's look at the other side of this coin.  According to Liberal rhetoric, you'd believe Conservatives only support the following politicians because they're white, right?

Conservative Columnist and Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain

55th Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal (R)

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida (R)

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Appointed by President George H.W. Bush (R) in 1990)

Wait a minute...those people aren't white.  There are two men of African decent, one man of Indian decent and one man of Cuban decent.  Shouldn't the supposedly racist Conservatives and Tea Party members hate these men too?  Yet these individuals are actually Tea Party favorites!

Here's the point:  The Tea Party isn't racist.  Conservatives aren't racist.  It's just an ad homonym argument Liberals who don't want to enter into a real discussion with us.  As I've demonstrated time and time again, Conservatism has a major advantage over Liberalism: results.  Conservatism works.  Even the examples Liberals try to give for Conservatism failing, the real issue is Liberalism hampering Conservatism. 

For example, Liberals will tell you Reaganomics didn't work because of the huge deficits created in the 80s.  Of course, what they don't tell you is that Reagan doubled tax revenues, while Liberal Democrats in Congress continued to spend $1.80 of what was brought in.  In other words, Liberals were spending 180% of tax receipts. When tax receipts were increased to a point where, if spending remained the same, should have resulted in a 20% surplus, the Liberals in Congress instead doubled their spending also, leaving with an equal percentage of deficit and a higher total dollar amount of deficit. 

History proves Conservatism and disproves Liberalism.  Liberals can't stand toe to toe with Conservatives on policy. They are TERRIFIED politically of the Tea Party because the Tea Party offers Americans a real choice, which the old guard Republican Party doesn't offer.  So they try to tear us down.  They call us racist so they can claim that we're illegitimate.  We aren't illegitimate. We're the voice of common sense in a nonsensical world.

I challenge every Liberal who reads this to stop the mudslinging.  The Tea Party is not racist.  We are rejecting a socialist President, not a black President.  Drop the ad homonym arguments and fight fair.  Or are you afraid of a fair fight?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Google Images

(2) Google Images

(3) Google Images

(4) Democrat Party Donkey - Google Images

Debating with Liberals

After a recent debate with a Liberal on Twitter, I was subjected again to the Liberal’s idea of rhetorical debate.  Believe it or not, for the informed debater it is not at all difficult to defeat their argumentation.  You see, Liberal argumentation is fraught with rhetorical fallacies that are all too easily taken down utilizing a few simple rules of debate.

Before I continue, I would like to take time to establish my credentials with regards to this subject.  For those of you who do not know me personally, I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the College at Brockport (part of the State University of New York) in Communication Studies.  It is one of the top schools in New York for the study of Communications and Rhetoric.  My education included Rhetoric Theory, Rhetorical Critique, Argumentation and Debate.  Since that time I have used these skills in the fields of sales and marketing, currently for a national radio conglomerate (my company’s social media policy requires me to not specify which company).

As I stated above, certain rhetorical fallacies are rife within the Liberal dialectic.  For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, a fallacy is an illegitimate form of evidence in a debate, and dialectic is the overall series of arguments used by a particular group.  For the purpose of this demonstration, I will primarily use the issue of Global Warming, specifically man-caused Global warming.  The first fallacy is called the fallacy of expertise.

The Fallacy of Expertise

The fallacy of expertise is the belief that if someone is an expert, everything they say is beyond reproach.  What is important to know is that in a court of law and a debate, expertise must be demonstrated.   First and foremost, so many of Liberals so called experts are not experts in their field at all.  Look at Al Gore.  Al Gore is not a scientist.  Yet he is treated as an environmental expert.  What is his education?  The former Vice President has a bachelor’s degree in Divinity (that is theology for those of you from Palm Beach) and a graduate degree in Law.   So what precisely makes Al Gore an expert in climate science?  The answer is nothing.  Yet we are told he is an expert by Liberals and are expected to treat his claims as scientific.  Why,  because he claims himself an expert.  Herein lays the first part of the fallacy of expertise: people who claim themselves experts without actually being qualified as an expert.  Liberals expect to be assumed experts regardless of their actual expertise. 

What if the person is actually a legitimate expert?  For example, I due to my education and vocational experience I can claim a level of expertise in the field of rhetoric.  Yet I must still demonstrate that expertise with valid evidence.  Herein lays the second part of the fallacy of expertise.  Man caused Global Warming has not been demonstrated to be true.  Few people argue that the temperature of the Earth has changed over time.  The difference between the argument of Liberals and Conservatives is the cause.  Conservatives believe that the Earth’s temperature is in a state of constant flux.  It warms and cools in cyclical fashion.  In essence, the Earth was designed by its Creator to be self-regulating.  Even Liberal scientists’ claims back up this fact.  Forty years ago we were told that we were heading for a new ice age.  Now the same Liberal scientists claim the Earth’s temperature is rising.  If one were to follow the Liberal stream of logic (a difficult task to be sure) one would surmise that man has corrected his mistakes in reversing the effects of Global Cooling. 

However, Liberals do not like to enter into such debates.  It’s devastating for their case.  Rather, they start telling you the names of experts that agree that Global Warming is true.  They don’t feel the need to show the evidence, they just say “this expert” or “that expert” agree with them.  In a court of law and in a debate, this is an inadmissible argument.  It must be presented with specific evidences which demonstrate the case.  Liberals, of course, do not like tearing this down, which may lead them to this argument:

The Fallacy of Consensus

Liberals claim that all reputable scientists agree with their position on Global Warming.  Of course, they are already utilizing the fallacy of expertise by rejecting one sizable group of scientists while accepting those who agree with them.  It is false to believe that all reputable scientists agree with the claims that man caused Global Warming.  It is not true at all.  A significant group of scientists in fact do not believe man has anything to do with Global Warming.  Yet these Liberals will tell you no reputable scientist agrees with denial of Global Warming.  Of course, they do not actually even attempt to debate the scientific evidences against the Global Warming, they simply assume that because a particular individual disagrees with them they must be wrong.  The false assumption that one is absolutely correct without questioning is  a fallacy.  True science is based upon evidence, not consensus.  Once a Conservative tears down the fallacy of consensus, expect this argument next:

The Fallacy of Bias

The Liberal with whom you debate will then often attempt to tear down the lack of evidence given by their side by trying to tear down the other person whom is arguing with their so-called experts.  Rather than dealing with the fact that the consensus is not scientific, they instead start listing the biases of your side.  They will tell you that those who reject the principles of Global Warming are part of the energy industry or large businesses, essentially those who theoretically have the most reason to oppose environmental regulation.

Buried deep within this assertion is the idea that Liberal scientists are not bias, in fact they would tell you Liberals aren’t biased period.  Listen to what they tell you about the Liberal Media.  They claim their scientists are arguing facts alone, while of course refusing to present those facts (fallacy of expertise).  The truth be told, the only person who is ever unbiased is the person who doesn’t know enough about the issue at hand to have an opinion, and that person could never claim expertise on that particular subject.

The only things that are truly unbiased are facts.  Now particular facts can be demonstrated to not be factual if one examines them.  Yet the personal bias of the person who presents the facts should be immaterial if their statements are indeed facts.  To say that someone who has a vested interested does not eliminate facts.  Let me offer an analogy.  Let’s say you owe me ten dollars.  You go to pay me back and hand me a five-dollar bill, claiming that because the amount owed can be paid off with a single bill of identical size, shape and color can be paid off.  I tell you no, either give me a second five-dollar bill or I will return the five and you hand me a ten-dollar bill.  I am indeed biased in this situation, as being paid less than I am owed is detrimental to my personal interest.  Yet there is nothing false about my statement.  I am owed ten dollars, and I expect to be paid ten dollars.  My bias doesn’t change the fact that you have not paid me ten dollars you owe me, and even though a five-dollar bill is the same shape, size and color as a ten-dollar bill, it is not worth ten dollars.

Similarly, if somebody is speaking evident truth, it does not matter if they are the most biased person ever on that particular subject.  If the facts back them up, their evidence is sound. Period.

The Fallacy of the Negative

Once you reach this point, Liberals will try to get you to prove that their assertion isn’t true.  Global Warming isn’t a good comparison here, so let’s go to another favorite point from Liberals: racism.  Liberals will often assert that Conservatives and Republicans are racist.  It’s an ad homonym argument to be sure (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL that’s a single insulting attack without merit).  When you ask them to give an example of Republican racism, they will tell you to prove you aren’t racist.  How do you prove the absence of something?  The truth is you can’t prove that you AREN’T something.  That is why in our court system it is the prosecution’s job to prove that someone is guilty.  You are innocent until proven guilty.  If you have never done anything to demonstrate racism, that is all that you can do.

If someone claims you are racist, they must prove it.  To ask you to prove a negative is a pure fallacy.  They must prove it is true, otherwise they have no leg to stand upon.

The Fallacy of Verbosity

Which brings us to the final favorite fallacy of Liberalism: shouting you down.  At this point, it has become increasingly clear to the Liberal that the facts harm their case.  They will now proceed to try to try to throw so many arguments at you that you cannot deal with them all, thus claiming victory by sheer number of arguments.  This is also known in rhetorical circles as “elephant hurling.”  This usually takes the form of repeating canned slogans from bumper stickers, blaming George W. Bush for every ill in the nation from deficits to uneven tire wear to polio, or just rattling off talking points at you.  The answer is to take the very first thing the Liberal says and start to refute it.  When you're done, move to the second, etc.

Conclusion

Eventually what will happen is your Liberal friend will decide, after spending minutes, hours, days, weeks, millennia trying to convince you, they will declare that you’ll have to agree to disagree.  For the record, this means you’ve won.  Liberals of this sort are usually terrible at losing.  So they decide it’s time to stop arguing because you’ve trounced their case.  If they were as open minded as they pretend to be, they’d start questioning their opinion, yet since they’ve bought into the lie that their entitled to their wrong opinion, they will instead leave the discussion.  (Side note:  if you’re debating on social media like Twitter, they may disappear from the conversation entirely.  They may also try to reopen the discussion out of the blue days or weeks later when they think of what they believe is a good answer to your arguments.)   

What is important to remember above all else is that Conservatives have an unwitting ally in debates with Liberals: the truth.  Conservatism has a history of successful results.  That’s why when we talk about our side we talk about successes of our programs, where Liberals talk about the laws they’ve passed without mentioning the successes of those laws (or lack thereof).   When Conservatism has been tried, it has worked every time.  When Liberalism has been tried, it has never failed to fail.

I can hear some of you asking, “Why bother to argue with this sort of Liberal at all?”  Simple: You’re not just trying to persuade that Liberal, you are trying to persuade all who hear the discussion.  There are many people who are relatively apolitical who will be persuaded to be Liberal because they want to be compassionate.  This is your opportunity to win them to the side of compassionate results, Conservatism.  And at the end of the day, it’s more important to persuade five listeners than one Liberal whose mind is already made up.

Dear Nancy Pelosi: We Don't WANT to Agree with You!

Last week, Nancy Pelosi urged Republicans to “take back their party.”  She believes that if Republicans would just forfeit and act like Democrats, elections won’t “mean that much.”  Anybody surprised?  Nancy Pelosi does not want to lose the sweet deal she and the Democratic Party have had with the GOP the last fifteen years or so.  Ever since the Republicans took over the House of Representatives for the first time in generations in 1994, the Democrats have had Republicans who are terribly quick to play the “compromise” game which translates into giving the Democrats half of what they want when Republicans are in power.  Of course, Democrats proceed to get 100% of what they want when they are in power, meaning Democrats always get the long end of the stick.

Pelosi sees the writing on the wall.  She realizes the political threat that we in the Tea Party represent.  Her perfect world where Liberals are guaranteed at least 50% of their desires in all political dealings is about to go bye-bye because we will continue to hold the leadership of the Republican Party to the fire when they are too quick to compromise.   Pelosi, along with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and so many other Liberal Democrats are trying to appeal to the RINOs in the Republican Party to “take the party back” so we can go back to everyone being varying degrees of Liberal.

My message to the Republican Party is (please grab the nearest Republican Party leadership member of whatever rank you can find and shout this at them):  DON’T DO IT!  Pelosi is not out for your better good and she is not out for the best for the country.  Nancy Pelosi is concerned with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party.  She knows real competition from the GOP is the end of the sweet deal she’s had for years.  Yet if we want the country to go back to what made America great in the first place, we MUST fight.

Despite what Liberal academics keep telling you, “getting along” isn’t necessarily a good thing, and neither is “getting things done.”  As far as “getting along” is concerned, there is nothing wrong with civil discourse.  That being said, civility is not an issue that Conservatives need improvement.   What was the last time you heard a news report about a rank and file Conservative threatening somebody’s life?  (Newsflash, the Ku Klux Klan does not have Conservatives.  They have fascists.)  What was the last time that Republicans said that Democrats want old people to die and if they live they want them to eat dog food?  The answer is never.  Even though Liberalism is legitimately a racist mentality, how often do you hear Conservatives call Liberals racist?  (PS I’m going to delve into that further in an upcoming post when the news cycle gives me a day that doesn’t require a timely response.)   The answer is you don’t hear that at all from Conservatives.  From legitimate nut-job extremists like the KKK (who are the REAL right-wing extremists by the way) you hear that, and from Liberals (who are legitimate left-wing extremists).

There used to be something called the Arena of Ideas.  Notice the sports metaphor.  In the Arena of Ideas, people let their ideas compete with other ideas.  People debated.  They discussed ideas based not on intentions but on results.  People were vying not only to persuade each other but to persuade all who were hearing the debate.  Ideas competed like sports teams with the scoreboard being elections.

We’ve lost that in our society, and that is sad.  One of the things Liberal Academia has brainwashed people into believing is the idea that we should all happily coexist with our differing ideas and never try to persuade each other of our own ideas.  While this is a good idea at a family reunion or even at the office, in the area of political discourse that is baloney.    Political ideas ought to be competing for votes.  Conservatives are generally fine with this concept, while Liberals don’t want to have to stand up for their opinions in the Arena of Ideas because their ideas don’t provide results.

Rush Limbaugh has recently commented that Conservatives have a distinct advantage in this political discourse:  the truth.  What Conservatives want to put into practice WORKS.  We have a history of successfully raising more tax revenue through lower taxes.  We have a successful track record of booming economies where EVERYBODY is doing well.  Liberalism has nothing but stories of laws passed (regardless of their success) and good intentions.  When you look at the results of Liberal polices what do you see?  You see stories of crippling debt and deficits, failed programs which we’re told we need to keep pouring money into so they will work.  Look at the War on Poverty.  We have set piles upon piles of money on fire in order to fight poverty and yet the only real result of the War on Poverty is to make poverty a more comfortable situation (and one that people are willing to stay in) and more poverty.

As such I think it is quite obvious why Liberals do not want to go toe to toe in the Arena of Ideas.  That’s why Liberals have to say that Republicans want to take away senior citizen’s health care by ending Medicare and that Republicans want to eliminate Social Security.  Of course, they do not want that.  No Republican has recommended ending Social Security or ending Medicare.  Some have suggested means testing Social Security and Medicare, perhaps changing the retirement age for Social Security, all very reasonable (and fiscally sound) recommendations.  If Liberals actually spoke their intentions truthfully it would sound like this:

“We propose to spend taxpayer dollars on whatever will get us votes.  Do you want government to pay you to sculpt sculptures or paint paintings?  Even if it’s lousy?  Sure.  You’re going to vote for us right?  We will pay for absolutely everybody to receive food stamps, even if you have plenty of money to pay for food.  You’re going to vote for us right?  We will spend however much money we need to so that you will vote for us, and if we don’t have the money we will borrow it.

“By the way, you’re not smart enough to decide what food to eat.  We propose that you let us decide for you what you should eat.  Don’t worry, we’ll make sure you don’t have that make smart decisions for yourself or be free to make bad ones.  You should never smoke cigarettes because they’re bad for you, but we do need the tax dollars we get from it so keep smoking, but be aware that we’re going to talk about how bad it is for you.  Bear in mind we TOTALLY want you to keep smoking though…we need the tax dollars to buy votes. 

“Green Energy is not close to being developed.  We don’t have enough wind and solar technology to power a sizable farm much less to power the country.  Nonetheless, we want you to pretend that solar and wind power to replace fossil fuels.  Oh and please pretend ethanol is developed enough to be useful on a massive scale, regardless of the fact that there isn’t enough land in the world to grow enough corn to power the United States for a week and a half.  Oh and it’s going to cause the price of food to go up a ton.  But you feel guilty about something or other so you’ll believe us about this Green Energy, so it will definitely make you feel better (even though it won’t do a darn thing to save the planet. 

“In conclusion, vote Democrat, we’ll give you anything you ask for, funded by taxpayers.”

You couldn’t get elected Dog Catcher with that rhetoric.  Conservatives can talk about freedom to choose for yourself, about self reliance, about the successes of Economic Conservatism, the Laffer Curve and the increase in tax revenue when tax rates are kept low.  In short, we have positive things to talk about.  In a straight up debate about ideas, Conservatives will win. 

This is why Nancy Pelosi wants Republicans to agree to forfeit the true advantage we have in the truth.  She knows that the Tea Party is calling for the GOP to stand up and fight toe to toe and to talk about the truth that we have in our back pocket.  She wants us to pretend we’re even close on ideas so that the American people don’t see the legitimate differences between Republicans and Democrats.  When the choice is between Democrats and Diet Democrats in the GOP, many people will just go with Democrats.  It’s similar to when people said “New Coke tastes like Pepsi.  I might as well just drink Pepsi.”  Continuing the metaphor, however, when Americans are given the choice between Pepsi and Coca-Cola Classic, Coke wins.  Conservatives (and by extension Republicans) are Coca-Cola Classic.  When we stand for the Constitution, we’re baseball, apple pie, and road trips to the Grand Canyon.  

When we stand up and say we’re Conservatives and here’s what we stand for, we win.  Real Conservatism wins every single time it’s effectively communicated.  Liberalism never fails to fail when it’s put into practice and never fails to lose when Conservatism succeeds in explaining what Liberalism means. 

Nancy Pelosi, the Tea Party isn’t going anywhere.  You’re easy days are done.  You now have to deal with political discourse.  Deal with it, because we’re here to stay.