"Republicans are obstructionists! They won't let poor President Obama GET THINGS DONE!"
When you spend time on Twitter, you will hear this sort of line from the typical liberal. The source? Usually getting 100% of news from MSNBC, CNN or the Daily Show. Whether it is unitentional or willful, many liberals simply are unaware that a) Congress is not required to pass a President's agenda b) our Constitution provides a system of Checks and Balances to ensure that a President DOESN'T have pure control over government therefore c) Republicans are within their Constitutional authority to reject the President's agenda.
Of course, the same liberals saw zero problem with minority Democrats during the first six years of the Bush Administration blocking President Bush's judicial appointees. This was perfectly fine! It was within the system checks and balances that the Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution!
While this is of course hypocritical, the typical liberal is actually completely unaware of this phenomenon! In most cases it's not at all willful hypocrisy but rather hypocrisy through ignorance.MSNBC or CNN is spoon-feeding them today that it's obstructionist for the GOP to stop President Obama's agenda, just as they spoon-fed those same liberals that it's perfectly Constitutional for the Democratic minority in the aughts to obstruct then President Bush. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, "the aughts" are 2000-2009.)
I will never forget seeing a famous liberal whose entertainment value I enjoy aside from politics lambasting Harry Reid for "giving up" to GOP "obstructionism" during battles over the last year or so. He was apparently blissfully unaware that poor, put upon President Obama was getting about 75% of what he wanted from the GOP who were, in fact, bending over backwards to compromise.
It is my opinion that this individual was literally unaware of this reality because, as he posts on his Twitter regularly, his news source is MSNBC. He is blissfully unaware of the reality of government, and will likely happily support the next Democratic minority in obstructing the next Republican President (when these two circumstances next occur simultaneously).
How do we deal with these liberals? That's a tough question. Most are Neighborhood Liberals, so don't forget your gentle kid gloves. Those who are Activist Liberals are basically a lost cause in this case (as in many cases). Your best bet if it's an open, willing person is to present the alternative view and present the simple facts of the issue. It may work, it may not. Ultimately, as Rush Limbaugh has stated on many occasions, nothing can overcome willful ignorance.
Showing posts with label Liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberals. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Friday, February 10, 2012
In 2012, Conservatives are STILL the Center
In December of 2010, I launched this blog with a post entitled Conservatives are the Center. Earlier this year, In a new Gallup poll, the point has once again been demonstrated, conservatives are the most populous ideological group in the nation.
Need more proof of this? Let's look at registered Independents. Now, depending on your state, registering as an Independent ranges from a complete waste of party affiliation to a logical and reasonable choice. In some states, , Independents can vote in their choice of the Democratic or Republican primaries, which is very useful if your party has an incumbent running unopposed in that year's primary election. It can be used to moderate your opposing party's candidate (or to just cause trouble like some did in Operation Chaos). In states with closed primaries, however, being a registered Independent keeps you from ever voting in a primary election and having a choice as to whom you can vote for in the general election.
Independents are not synonymous with moderates but it's a fair comparision, so let's look at the conservative, moderate and liberal numbers within that group:
 |
| Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. |
According to polls throughout 2011, 40% of Americans consider themselves to be conservative, while 35% call themselves moderate at 21% admit to being liberal. So once again, there are nearly twice as many conservatives as liberals.
Yet we as conservatives continue to try to pander to the so-called moderates. The reality, of course, is that the vast majority of moderates are either liberals who realize they are the minority and don't want that stigma; conservatives who don't realize that we are the majority and thus claim moderateness; and finally those who simply want to be thought of as intelligent and thoughtful, and have thus adapted a default position of sitting smack dab in the middle of the fence with a leg on each side so as to maintain their desired appearance.
There is, of course, an electoral spin on this mindset. Liberals, because they genuinely are a minority, have to move toward the center to have a snowball's chance in July of being elected (after all, you can't win an election on your actual beliefs when only 21% of Americans share your values). To win, they need to get close to 90% of the self-identified moderates to vote for them. That's staggering.
Conservatives, on the other hand, only need to sway just over 30% of the self-identified moderates to win, because we have a clear plurality of the population just with fellow conservatives! Why? Because we conservatives ARE the centrist position! We are the pulse of most Americans! We just need to get a relatively small piece of those moderates to join us, while the Left has to get the majority.
Independents are not synonymous with moderates but it's a fair comparision, so let's look at the conservative, moderate and liberal numbers within that group:
 |
| Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in US |
Well would you look at that? 35% of registered Independents consider themselves conservatives! So if we can get them with conservatism, it looks like conservatives can win elections with comfortable ease. The truth remains: Conservatives don't need to pander to moderates to get elected...we're already the majority! We're the center position! We're the group that embodies what the nation believes!
So, my message remains the same to conservatives, to Republicans: Be proud to be conservative. To be a conservative means standing for traditional American values, for rugged individualism, for a "Yes YOU Can (with hard work)!" mentality and not "Yes We Can (with other people's money)!" Let's just be conservatives, and let the chips fall where they predictably may...on our side.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
The Bias of Moderateness
We all know these people: They're so very proud of their moderateness, they trumpet how they "listen to both sides then make a decision issue by issue." They almost always find a way to land in the center, somehow, even though they're considering each issue on its merits. It's as legitimate of a bias as Conservatism or Liberalism, without the inherent honesty of bias that comes with the Left and the Right (Drive-By Media and their poorly hidden bias not withstanding).
These individuals believe that the concept of the middle ground taught in the school yard is absolutely true in life. You know which concept I speak of: If two people are having a disagreement, it is likely neither are 100% right, but the truth is in the middle. (This is often false, by the way. (This is often false, by the way. If one child is bullying another child because the bully needs to feel superior or in control of another person, the bullied child is not partially to blame; the bully is to blame for his actions.) Thus they find a way to land in the middle.
They see Conservatives pushing for low taxes and Liberals for high taxes, they recommend the two sides split the difference. They see Conservatives wanting small government and Liberals wanting big government, they push for medium sized government. Unfortunately, both economic history and the desire for the maximum amount of freedom for individuals would stand in the way of even medium level taxes or medium sized government. In the case of the former, the more money you take out of the economy the more you are harming the ability of business owners to hire by taking away business capital. In the case of the latter, we already have too much government; quite frankly we need less of it that the current batch of Republicans is accepting.
It’s not hard to understand WHY people love being considered moderates. In the case of Liberals, they recognize that Liberalism is not main stream by any stretch. In the Gallup Poll that I quote frequently (1), only 20% of Americans consider themselves Liberal. So, wanting to be perceived as mainstream, they call themselves “moderate.”
Conservatives actually are quite main stream. The same poll shows 42% of Americans consider themselves Conservative, more than double the number of Liberals and a comfortable 7% more than consider themselves Moderate. Unfortunately, Conservatives are treated as being as extreme as Liberalism, and since they don’t want to be perceived as extremists, many Conservatives call themselves “Moderate.”
There’s another reason, and it’s more important than the others. The Media has done its very best to promote being a moderate as akin to being thoughtful, intellectual, good with children, an excellent cook, and all kinds of good things. The Drive-Bys have done their best to make sure you WANT to be called Moderate, because it makes you sound wise.
Automatically aiming for the middle doesn’t make a person wise. What makes a person wise is being intelligent enough to do the things that work and have worked over time. Wisdom is continuing the things that have brought positive results and ceasing the things that yielded negative results. Historically, Conservatism has yielded positive results and Liberalism has yielded negative results. To split the difference is to simply garner somewhat less positive results at best or somewhat less lousy results at worst.
Yet there are individuals who define their entire political beliefs on the idea of being moderate. If they truly considered each issue on its merit, it is likely they would end up with a Conservative view on some issues and a more Liberal view on others. I’ve met few people who fit that description (although there are a handful of such people). The ones who aren’t Conservatives or Liberals in denial and aren’t in that small handful I mentioned before are people who are biased toward moderateness.
They put one leg on either side of the fence on every issue and sit. My friends, this isn’t wisdom. It is in fact less wise even than those who fall immediately to the left or the right simply because it is left or right. Those individuals at least found out that their core values are Liberal or Conservative and thus assume that their opinion on a new issue would likely fall in line with those core values. Moderates just aim for the fence with their rear ends so they can sit on it.
The bias of moderateness is a copout. It’s an attempt to seem wise while being lazy. People who are stuck on being moderate are not intelligent; they just want you to think of them that way. To those of you who are legitimate Conservatives, who feel you must call yourself Moderate, please stop. You have made your decisions on values and a track record of success. Be proud of it! 42% of Americans agree with you. Even those of you who are Liberal, I don’t agree with you but at least have the guts to admit who you are. If you are truly convinced of Liberalism, stand up for it, don’t spin it and call it being Moderate to be palatable to those who don’t agree with you.
To those of you who automatically aim for the fence to sit on it…for Heaven’s sake please take the time to make an informed decision. Even if you become convinced of Liberalism you’ve been adult enough to take a stand. Landing in the center doesn’t make you wise, it makes you wishy-washy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals
These individuals believe that the concept of the middle ground taught in the school yard is absolutely true in life. You know which concept I speak of: If two people are having a disagreement, it is likely neither are 100% right, but the truth is in the middle. (This is often false, by the way. (This is often false, by the way. If one child is bullying another child because the bully needs to feel superior or in control of another person, the bullied child is not partially to blame; the bully is to blame for his actions.) Thus they find a way to land in the middle.
They see Conservatives pushing for low taxes and Liberals for high taxes, they recommend the two sides split the difference. They see Conservatives wanting small government and Liberals wanting big government, they push for medium sized government. Unfortunately, both economic history and the desire for the maximum amount of freedom for individuals would stand in the way of even medium level taxes or medium sized government. In the case of the former, the more money you take out of the economy the more you are harming the ability of business owners to hire by taking away business capital. In the case of the latter, we already have too much government; quite frankly we need less of it that the current batch of Republicans is accepting.
It’s not hard to understand WHY people love being considered moderates. In the case of Liberals, they recognize that Liberalism is not main stream by any stretch. In the Gallup Poll that I quote frequently (1), only 20% of Americans consider themselves Liberal. So, wanting to be perceived as mainstream, they call themselves “moderate.”
Conservatives actually are quite main stream. The same poll shows 42% of Americans consider themselves Conservative, more than double the number of Liberals and a comfortable 7% more than consider themselves Moderate. Unfortunately, Conservatives are treated as being as extreme as Liberalism, and since they don’t want to be perceived as extremists, many Conservatives call themselves “Moderate.”
There’s another reason, and it’s more important than the others. The Media has done its very best to promote being a moderate as akin to being thoughtful, intellectual, good with children, an excellent cook, and all kinds of good things. The Drive-Bys have done their best to make sure you WANT to be called Moderate, because it makes you sound wise.
Automatically aiming for the middle doesn’t make a person wise. What makes a person wise is being intelligent enough to do the things that work and have worked over time. Wisdom is continuing the things that have brought positive results and ceasing the things that yielded negative results. Historically, Conservatism has yielded positive results and Liberalism has yielded negative results. To split the difference is to simply garner somewhat less positive results at best or somewhat less lousy results at worst.
Yet there are individuals who define their entire political beliefs on the idea of being moderate. If they truly considered each issue on its merit, it is likely they would end up with a Conservative view on some issues and a more Liberal view on others. I’ve met few people who fit that description (although there are a handful of such people). The ones who aren’t Conservatives or Liberals in denial and aren’t in that small handful I mentioned before are people who are biased toward moderateness.
They put one leg on either side of the fence on every issue and sit. My friends, this isn’t wisdom. It is in fact less wise even than those who fall immediately to the left or the right simply because it is left or right. Those individuals at least found out that their core values are Liberal or Conservative and thus assume that their opinion on a new issue would likely fall in line with those core values. Moderates just aim for the fence with their rear ends so they can sit on it.
The bias of moderateness is a copout. It’s an attempt to seem wise while being lazy. People who are stuck on being moderate are not intelligent; they just want you to think of them that way. To those of you who are legitimate Conservatives, who feel you must call yourself Moderate, please stop. You have made your decisions on values and a track record of success. Be proud of it! 42% of Americans agree with you. Even those of you who are Liberal, I don’t agree with you but at least have the guts to admit who you are. If you are truly convinced of Liberalism, stand up for it, don’t spin it and call it being Moderate to be palatable to those who don’t agree with you.
To those of you who automatically aim for the fence to sit on it…for Heaven’s sake please take the time to make an informed decision. Even if you become convinced of Liberalism you’ve been adult enough to take a stand. Landing in the center doesn’t make you wise, it makes you wishy-washy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Liberals try to use Bin Laden's Death to Plug Obama
Yesterday, I talked about the real heroes of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Navy SEALS. Now it's time to do what I do best: rhetorically light into Liberal politicians and Media for trying to make it about Obama.
Listen to Obama's speech from Sunday night again. (1) Please take a moment to rewatch that speech. Obama says that he directed the CIA director to make killing or capturing Bin Laden a priority. He makes it sound like it wasn't our longstanding policy since 9/11 (even though it most definitely was). He insinuated that he was changing course. As a matter of fact, he was simply continuing the policies of President George W. Bush. He says that HE put together the team that killed Bin Laden. Yep, it was all Obama. The Navy SEALS were formed in 1962 (2). That detail is of course ignored by the Drive-By Media. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was formed in 1947. Again, that detail is ignored by the Media in an attempt to make Obama look like a big hero.
If you listen to Obama's speech, you hear a lot of "I" and "me." The President wants you to know he is personally responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Anyone who understands in the inner-workings of the military, and by that I mean if you have an uncle who was in the Air Force twenty years ago, you understand that while the President is indeed the Commander in Chief, you also recognize the President's job in a situation like this is extremely open and shut. You found Bin Laden? Gee, let me think, ummm, kill or capture him? This isn't a difficult strategy or a hard decision. It's extremely simple.
The truth is when President Obama called the CIA director to tell him to focus on finding Bin Laden, I'd bet my right arm that the Director at least thought, if not said, "Of course, sir. We've been doing that to the best of our ability and we will continue to do so." It's just another rhetorical ploy from Obama. Of course the CIA was looking for Bin Laden! Anyone who honestly believes that there was a greater level of seriousness or quality of tactic used under the Obama Administration is of questionable wisdom, and that's me being generous.
Do you want to see what a speech of similar subject that ISN'T packed with narcissism would sound like? Watch George W. Bush's speech announcing the capture of Saddam Hussein. (3) President Bush says that "United States Military forces" captured Saddam. He said this is "a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq," and "the superb work of intelligence analysts," and how "the operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force."
He spoke about Hussein facing justice. He spoke to citizens of Iraq. He does not reference himself AT ALL as the impetus for this action. He doesn't say "I instructed our forces to make the capture of Saddam their top priority." Of course it was a top priority. He didn't need to say it! He credited the soldiers and the intelligence analysts. That's what Obama should have done, but instead he chose to thump his own chest.
How about the media? Let's pretend for a moment that Bin Laden was killed while George W. Bush was President. Do you think the Drive-By Media would consider this such a great success? Or do you think reports would've sounded like this:
Late Sunday night, President Bush reported to the nation that U.S. forces have killed Osama Bin Laden at a compound in Pakistan. At first glance, many considered this to be a great success in the War on Terror. However, many believe that Bin Laden's death is largely symbolic, because Bin Laden has been unable to be more than a figurehead for Al Qaeda since being forced out of Afghanistan in 2002. Additionally, reports that the methods used to ascertain Bin Laden’s location were not in line with the Geneva Accords. Congressman Dick Durban (D) said Monday,
“No one wanted to see Bin Laden face justice more than me. But if we stoop to such deplorable levels to do it, we’re no better than the Al Qaeda.”
When asked to comment, the White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said,
“We have operated within the boundaries of military procedure to ascertain the whereabouts of Bin Laden.”
Does that fictional news report sound at all off base? Or does it sound a lot like the sort of reports we saw when a Republican was President? I didn’t think so.
The Liberal spin machine is cranked up to 11 on this one. They want to paint Obama as somehow unbeatable in 2012. I have a newsflash for you: President George H.W. Bush was supposed to be unbeatable in 1992 after the Gulf War. How’d that work out? The reality is Liberal “conventional wisdom” isn’t wisdom at all. It’s spin. They are trying to convince the solid Conservative Republicans who would mop the floor with Obama in a head to head election to stay out and wait until 2016. This group can be compiled by looking at who the Left has attacked with great veracity (see: Sarah Palin) and those who they claim aren't ready (see: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie).
This is another attempt by the Drive-By Media to convince the old guard Republican Party and additionally themselves that Obama is going to be unbeatable. He won't be at all, and I will delve into that more tomorrow. We have 10% unemployment and $4/gallon gas. Obama is no less beatable today than he was Saturday. There will be a few point bump for a month or so, but the election is eighteen months away. As Conservatives, lets just stay on topic against Obama and keep crediting the people who REALLY deserve credit: the intelligence analysts and the Navy SEALs. They are the heroes. Don't forget it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) President Obama's Speech Announcing the Death of Osama Bin Laden
(2) United States Navy SEALs
(3) George W. Bush: Saddam Captured
Listen to Obama's speech from Sunday night again. (1) Please take a moment to rewatch that speech. Obama says that he directed the CIA director to make killing or capturing Bin Laden a priority. He makes it sound like it wasn't our longstanding policy since 9/11 (even though it most definitely was). He insinuated that he was changing course. As a matter of fact, he was simply continuing the policies of President George W. Bush. He says that HE put together the team that killed Bin Laden. Yep, it was all Obama. The Navy SEALS were formed in 1962 (2). That detail is of course ignored by the Drive-By Media. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was formed in 1947. Again, that detail is ignored by the Media in an attempt to make Obama look like a big hero.
If you listen to Obama's speech, you hear a lot of "I" and "me." The President wants you to know he is personally responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Anyone who understands in the inner-workings of the military, and by that I mean if you have an uncle who was in the Air Force twenty years ago, you understand that while the President is indeed the Commander in Chief, you also recognize the President's job in a situation like this is extremely open and shut. You found Bin Laden? Gee, let me think, ummm, kill or capture him? This isn't a difficult strategy or a hard decision. It's extremely simple.
The truth is when President Obama called the CIA director to tell him to focus on finding Bin Laden, I'd bet my right arm that the Director at least thought, if not said, "Of course, sir. We've been doing that to the best of our ability and we will continue to do so." It's just another rhetorical ploy from Obama. Of course the CIA was looking for Bin Laden! Anyone who honestly believes that there was a greater level of seriousness or quality of tactic used under the Obama Administration is of questionable wisdom, and that's me being generous.
Do you want to see what a speech of similar subject that ISN'T packed with narcissism would sound like? Watch George W. Bush's speech announcing the capture of Saddam Hussein. (3) President Bush says that "United States Military forces" captured Saddam. He said this is "a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq," and "the superb work of intelligence analysts," and how "the operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force."
He spoke about Hussein facing justice. He spoke to citizens of Iraq. He does not reference himself AT ALL as the impetus for this action. He doesn't say "I instructed our forces to make the capture of Saddam their top priority." Of course it was a top priority. He didn't need to say it! He credited the soldiers and the intelligence analysts. That's what Obama should have done, but instead he chose to thump his own chest.
How about the media? Let's pretend for a moment that Bin Laden was killed while George W. Bush was President. Do you think the Drive-By Media would consider this such a great success? Or do you think reports would've sounded like this:
Late Sunday night, President Bush reported to the nation that U.S. forces have killed Osama Bin Laden at a compound in Pakistan. At first glance, many considered this to be a great success in the War on Terror. However, many believe that Bin Laden's death is largely symbolic, because Bin Laden has been unable to be more than a figurehead for Al Qaeda since being forced out of Afghanistan in 2002. Additionally, reports that the methods used to ascertain Bin Laden’s location were not in line with the Geneva Accords. Congressman Dick Durban (D) said Monday,
“No one wanted to see Bin Laden face justice more than me. But if we stoop to such deplorable levels to do it, we’re no better than the Al Qaeda.”
When asked to comment, the White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said,
“We have operated within the boundaries of military procedure to ascertain the whereabouts of Bin Laden.”
Does that fictional news report sound at all off base? Or does it sound a lot like the sort of reports we saw when a Republican was President? I didn’t think so.
The Liberal spin machine is cranked up to 11 on this one. They want to paint Obama as somehow unbeatable in 2012. I have a newsflash for you: President George H.W. Bush was supposed to be unbeatable in 1992 after the Gulf War. How’d that work out? The reality is Liberal “conventional wisdom” isn’t wisdom at all. It’s spin. They are trying to convince the solid Conservative Republicans who would mop the floor with Obama in a head to head election to stay out and wait until 2016. This group can be compiled by looking at who the Left has attacked with great veracity (see: Sarah Palin) and those who they claim aren't ready (see: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie).
This is another attempt by the Drive-By Media to convince the old guard Republican Party and additionally themselves that Obama is going to be unbeatable. He won't be at all, and I will delve into that more tomorrow. We have 10% unemployment and $4/gallon gas. Obama is no less beatable today than he was Saturday. There will be a few point bump for a month or so, but the election is eighteen months away. As Conservatives, lets just stay on topic against Obama and keep crediting the people who REALLY deserve credit: the intelligence analysts and the Navy SEALs. They are the heroes. Don't forget it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) President Obama's Speech Announcing the Death of Osama Bin Laden
(2) United States Navy SEALs
(3) George W. Bush: Saddam Captured
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Liberal Attempts to Co-Opt Jesus Christ
With Easter two days ago, sadly we were also treated to Liberals trying to pretend Jesus Christ is a Liberal. As Rush Limbaugh stated on Monday, this is what Liberals see as the only use for Jesus. To Elected Liberals, who see all religions as crutches to help weak people get through life, Jesus can only be used to promote their policies.
Before I continue, I want to again state unequivocally my faith. I am a born-again Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He came to Earth, walked amongst us for 33 years, was crucified for the sins of mankind and rose again on the third day, which we call Easter. I believe Jesus Christ is alive and well and that He reigns with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. I believe He is returning as He promised, and that right quickly. I also believe Jesus told us EXACTLY who He is and what is truth in His Word, the Holy Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible and beyond reproach as the documentation of God's truth.
Finally, please be aware that the Bible says:
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." - Hebrews 13:8 (1)
Thus, Old Testament verses are as useful as New Testament verses on the subject of what Jesus believes. There is no distinction between the statements of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit through prophets and directly to people in the Old Testament and the statements of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.
Please note I won't go into the scriptures as deeply on this because I have a longer paper I want to publish here once it's ready fully discussing the principles of Biblical Conservatism.
Anyone who has read more than two posts on this site know that Jesus is not a Liberal. Any arguments against this can be torn down easily. Liberals will tell you Jesus "accepted everyone" as an argument that Jesus would accept all lifestyles, even those that include sins like homosexuality and promiscuity. This is inherently false. It takes Jesus out of context. Here's the truth: Jesus Christ accepts all PEOPLE but does not accept all BEHAVIORS! Consider the story of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John:
The scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11 (2)
If Jesus was a Liberal as Liberals claim, wouldn't He have said "Go, everything you're doing is fine, you were born that way." He didn't! He said "Go and sin no more." Herein lays the real difference between Jesus Christ and Liberals. Jesus accepts all people, but not all their actions. Christ knows who he created people to be, and that their bodies were not created for adultery. He accepts the woman, but that acceptance requires her to follow Him. Following Jesus means doing all in your power to put on Christ and to reject sin. Of course, this doesn't mean Christians must never sin and that we're expected to suddenly become perfect. We aren't. But we are expected to do our best to turn from our sin. In other words, if someone is now knowingly living a lifestyle of sin (like promiscuity or homosexuality) they must stop.
Or perhaps you might say that Jesus was opposed to wealth, as Liberals are opposed to wealth. Yet the Bible does not speak against wealth. Instead, it speaks of places where God BLESSED the righteous with wealth!
The LORD has blessed my master greatly, and he has become great; and He has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female servants, and camels and donkeys. - Genesis 24:35 (3)
Or perhaps this passage:
Blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
Who delights greatly in His commandments.
His descendants will be mighty on earth;
The generation of the upright will be blessed.
Wealth and riches will be in his house,
And his righteousness endures forever. - Psalm 112:1-3 (4)
Or here:
“And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day. - Deuteronomy 8:18 (5)
The Bible speaks of God BLESSING people with wealth, how can you claim Jesus believed wealth is evil? The truth is Jesus never condemned money. The Bible does say:
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. - 1 Timothy 6:10 (6)
The Bible does say the LOVE OF MONEY is evil, but money itself is not. God speaks throughout the Bible of blessing people with money, provided it does not become a false idol to people. So it is unreasonable to believe Jesus is opposed to people becoming wealthy.
Or how about taxes? Liberals believe it is just to tax those who are wealthy at a higher rate than others. The Bible had two forms about tax in the Bible. The first, the temple tax (Exodus 30:11-16) was the same amount for all people, one half shekel. The second is the tithe. The tithe was the same percentage from all people, 10% of that person's income (Deuteronomy 14:21-23). That's the exact same percentage of tax on all people. That's a flat tax, people.
So many Liberals like to say that under a flat tax, richer people wouldn't be paying "their fair share." I disagree. Let's look at three individuals:
Person A: $20,000 annual salary
Person B: $200,000 annual salary
Person C: $2 Million annual salary..
Under a Biblical Flat Tax (10%) let's look at what each person would pay:
10% Flat Tax
Person A: $2,000 per year in federal taxes
Person B: $20,000 per year in federal taxes
Person C: $200,000 per year in federal taxes
As you'll see, as God blesses a person with more income, their tithe and taxes would increase exponentially. Furthermore, with more money in the economy, one can expect lower unemployment which means more taxpayers and ultimately increased tax revenue. It's a historical fact! (7)
How about caring for the poor? Jesus must have supported government spending on the poor, right? Actually no. In both the Old and New Testaments, God tells individuals to care for the poor.
If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. - Deuteronomy 15:7-8 (8)
That's right, YOU give to the poor. Directly. Don't give to the government and have the government redistribute the money. You do it. That's not Liberalism. That is Conservatism!
Another Easter is passed so Liberals will cease using Jesus to support their policies for another year. But every year, without fail, Liberals, especially in the Drive-By Media, will try to co-opt Jesus based upon their false premises of compassion. I say it again, unequivocally: Jesus Christ is not a Liberal. Jesus said YOU take care of the poor. Jesus instituted flat taxes in Israel. Jesus doesn't tell people to keep up their sins without accountability. Jesus is a Conservative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All Scriptures taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
(1) Hebrews 13:8
(2) John 8:3-11
(3) Genesis 24:35
(4) Psalm 112:1-3
(5) Deuteronomy 8:18
(6) 1 Timothy 6:10
(7) "Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates" from Heritage Foundation
(8) Deuteronomy 15:7-8
Before I continue, I want to again state unequivocally my faith. I am a born-again Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He came to Earth, walked amongst us for 33 years, was crucified for the sins of mankind and rose again on the third day, which we call Easter. I believe Jesus Christ is alive and well and that He reigns with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. I believe He is returning as He promised, and that right quickly. I also believe Jesus told us EXACTLY who He is and what is truth in His Word, the Holy Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible and beyond reproach as the documentation of God's truth.
Finally, please be aware that the Bible says:
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." - Hebrews 13:8 (1)
Thus, Old Testament verses are as useful as New Testament verses on the subject of what Jesus believes. There is no distinction between the statements of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit through prophets and directly to people in the Old Testament and the statements of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.
Please note I won't go into the scriptures as deeply on this because I have a longer paper I want to publish here once it's ready fully discussing the principles of Biblical Conservatism.
Anyone who has read more than two posts on this site know that Jesus is not a Liberal. Any arguments against this can be torn down easily. Liberals will tell you Jesus "accepted everyone" as an argument that Jesus would accept all lifestyles, even those that include sins like homosexuality and promiscuity. This is inherently false. It takes Jesus out of context. Here's the truth: Jesus Christ accepts all PEOPLE but does not accept all BEHAVIORS! Consider the story of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John:
The scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11 (2)
If Jesus was a Liberal as Liberals claim, wouldn't He have said "Go, everything you're doing is fine, you were born that way." He didn't! He said "Go and sin no more." Herein lays the real difference between Jesus Christ and Liberals. Jesus accepts all people, but not all their actions. Christ knows who he created people to be, and that their bodies were not created for adultery. He accepts the woman, but that acceptance requires her to follow Him. Following Jesus means doing all in your power to put on Christ and to reject sin. Of course, this doesn't mean Christians must never sin and that we're expected to suddenly become perfect. We aren't. But we are expected to do our best to turn from our sin. In other words, if someone is now knowingly living a lifestyle of sin (like promiscuity or homosexuality) they must stop.
Or perhaps you might say that Jesus was opposed to wealth, as Liberals are opposed to wealth. Yet the Bible does not speak against wealth. Instead, it speaks of places where God BLESSED the righteous with wealth!
The LORD has blessed my master greatly, and he has become great; and He has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female servants, and camels and donkeys. - Genesis 24:35 (3)
Or perhaps this passage:
Blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
Who delights greatly in His commandments.
His descendants will be mighty on earth;
The generation of the upright will be blessed.
Wealth and riches will be in his house,
And his righteousness endures forever. - Psalm 112:1-3 (4)
Or here:
“And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day. - Deuteronomy 8:18 (5)
The Bible speaks of God BLESSING people with wealth, how can you claim Jesus believed wealth is evil? The truth is Jesus never condemned money. The Bible does say:
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. - 1 Timothy 6:10 (6)
The Bible does say the LOVE OF MONEY is evil, but money itself is not. God speaks throughout the Bible of blessing people with money, provided it does not become a false idol to people. So it is unreasonable to believe Jesus is opposed to people becoming wealthy.
Or how about taxes? Liberals believe it is just to tax those who are wealthy at a higher rate than others. The Bible had two forms about tax in the Bible. The first, the temple tax (Exodus 30:11-16) was the same amount for all people, one half shekel. The second is the tithe. The tithe was the same percentage from all people, 10% of that person's income (Deuteronomy 14:21-23). That's the exact same percentage of tax on all people. That's a flat tax, people.
So many Liberals like to say that under a flat tax, richer people wouldn't be paying "their fair share." I disagree. Let's look at three individuals:
Person A: $20,000 annual salary
Person B: $200,000 annual salary
Person C: $2 Million annual salary..
Under a Biblical Flat Tax (10%) let's look at what each person would pay:
10% Flat Tax
Person A: $2,000 per year in federal taxes
Person B: $20,000 per year in federal taxes
Person C: $200,000 per year in federal taxes
As you'll see, as God blesses a person with more income, their tithe and taxes would increase exponentially. Furthermore, with more money in the economy, one can expect lower unemployment which means more taxpayers and ultimately increased tax revenue. It's a historical fact! (7)
How about caring for the poor? Jesus must have supported government spending on the poor, right? Actually no. In both the Old and New Testaments, God tells individuals to care for the poor.
If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. - Deuteronomy 15:7-8 (8)
That's right, YOU give to the poor. Directly. Don't give to the government and have the government redistribute the money. You do it. That's not Liberalism. That is Conservatism!
Another Easter is passed so Liberals will cease using Jesus to support their policies for another year. But every year, without fail, Liberals, especially in the Drive-By Media, will try to co-opt Jesus based upon their false premises of compassion. I say it again, unequivocally: Jesus Christ is not a Liberal. Jesus said YOU take care of the poor. Jesus instituted flat taxes in Israel. Jesus doesn't tell people to keep up their sins without accountability. Jesus is a Conservative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All Scriptures taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
(1) Hebrews 13:8
(2) John 8:3-11
(3) Genesis 24:35
(4) Psalm 112:1-3
(5) Deuteronomy 8:18
(6) 1 Timothy 6:10
(7) "Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates" from Heritage Foundation
(8) Deuteronomy 15:7-8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)