Sunday, February 12, 2012

Remember My "Buy More Ammo" Meme?

Neumayr sets it up.

Modern liberalism is willfulness writ large -- a godless ideology that rests upon the caprice of central planners. Under it, the fluctuating and often frightening desires of corrupt men, rather than the changeless will of a caring God, form the shaky measure of "good government." As the grim chapters of recent history show -- chapters written in the blood of millions of unborn children and other "undesirables" -- taking God out of "goodness" drains the term of any coherent meaning, leaving mankind at the mercy of power-seeking ideologues.

... But on another level, buried deep within his cold and rootless personality, [Obama] is a man of perverse tenacity, a convinced socialist and secularist who was trained long ago to run the ball into the end zone for radicalism.
 
For all his joshing and superficial charm, he remains the creepy child of post-Enlightenment liberalism...

 ...The brutal logic of these bogus rights, as Obama hints in his mumbles about "access" as the trumping value in this debate, is that everyone must recognize them. Who cares if the Church objects to financing the sins of her employees? The Church is wrong, and error has no rights, hiss feminists. The dogmatism of which Obama routinely accuses the religious is on far starker display in his own ideology, a species of raw social engineering that depends for its fulfillment upon bullying conscientious objectors at the point of a government gun.

This is a historic moment in the culture war -- a crystallizing flashpoint in which the totalitarianism and bigotry long implicit in secularism rises to the surface and becomes explicit for all to see.

...The essential character of secularism is totalitarian. For all of its chatter about religion as a "private" matter, for all of its nonsense about the "privacy of the bedroom," nothing under secularism in the end is actually private.  The social engineers of Obamacare will determine the birth control methods of the unwashed. They will dictate the terms of man's beginning through eugenic abortion and his end through death panels. And to gratify the bloodlust of bigots, they will leave the stained bill for the reviled religious to pay.

In the alternative, of course, there could be a civil war.

22 comments:

Deekaman said...

Remember how many millions have been murdered by powerful governments: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Che,Fidel, Saddam, Assad, Ghaddafi, Ho, Mugabi.

And that's just in the last 100 years. But it is no longer taught. What is taught is "fairness" at the hands of government. They are the final arbiter of right and wrong, of good and bad.

I fear the Republic is already undone.

Jim said...

Seriously?!

Jim said...

The social engineers of Obamacare will determine the birth control methods of the unwashed. They will dictate the terms of man's beginning through eugenic abortion and his end through death panels.

Jeezuz what horse manure! You read this crap?

Explains a lot.

neomom said...

Government imparts "rights". Government takes them away...

Yes. That is the benevolent, soft tyranny of the progressive ideology. At least at first. It will get harsher. Check out NDAA and see what power they already have. That Romney and Obama have said we should trust that won't be used.

Liberals today aren't concerned about losing liberty, they are afraid of losing their freebies.

Jim said...

Liberals today ... are afraid of losing their freebies.

What the heck are you talking about? Why would you say something as STUPID as that? What freebies are you talking about?

Freeways? Freecell? Freecreditreport.com? What are you talking about?

Deekaman said...

Jim, am I wrong here? Or are you just a troll? In what manner am I wrong in my assertion? Have governments not spent a bunch of time, money and energy murdering their own? Or am I wrong about the teaching of it? Or is it that this can never happen here?

In what manner is Dad wrong? Or Neo? Or have you not bothered to read the relevant parts of those bills? Or maybe it's because you are one of "them" and you think since you are on the same side of the argument, they will come for everyone else first?

Which is it? The arguments that go "Seriously?!" or infer stupidity on the part of the writer with no further clarification are not arguments at all. They are instead, the statements made by one who has no argument.

Dad29 said...

Jim is from the Left Coast, has a brother working for Planned Parenthood, and trolls Catholic blogspots.

neomom said...

Free education

Free healthcare

Free housing

Free cell phones

Free food

Look at progressive ideology? Everyone has a "right" to everything. Even if that means taking it from someone else. It twists the entire basis of our founding documents from being endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... No guarantees. Just the opportunity. Free will. Better enumerated n te Constitution ans Bill o Rights.

To...

Now all these other "rights" are invented all to be granted by the government, paid for by somebody else. For the equality of outcome, in the name of (insert descriptor) Justice. All while our political overlords create more and more restrictions on the freedoms spelled out in the Constitution. And exempt themselves from them. Not that they care all that much about the Constitution anyway. Barack called it a flawed document because it was one of negative rights - everything the government couldn't do to you. One of our own Supreme Court Justices reveres it so much that she wouldn't recommend using it as a model for any other Constitution because we don't spell out the rights she thinks we should have. Like South Africa, where the constitution spells out the government role in the right to housing and healthcare.

May I take this time to remind everyone some of the fruits of the various Progressive tree experiments... Wilson, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, eugenics... Yeah, those committees of privileged smart people telling the shlubs what is good for them works out well every time...

Pardon me if I don't believe it will turn out any different now.

neomom said...

Pardon all the typos... IPad...

Jim said...

Wow, this may take a few posts. We'll see.

First:

are you just a troll?

No, I am not a troll. I participate in this community because I learn a lot. About what some people (I hesitate to say "a segment of the population") think. More importantly, I try to research many of the assertions made here and elsewhere to learn the facts and context, which nine times out of ten are different from what I find on here.

Onward: But it is no longer taught. What is taught is "fairness" at the hands of government. They are the final arbiter of right and wrong, of good and bad.

am I wrong here?

I reject your assertion. Maybe the history of the 20th century isn't taught by home schoolers, but it certainly is in my district and at our colleges. In fact both my sons are taking college post-reconstruction history and we discussed some of the topics you mentioned. Another has Political Science and we've discussed that class as well. At no time have they been taught what you've asserted.

Have governments not spent a bunch of time, money and energy murdering their own? Or am I wrong about the teaching of it?

Yes, you are wrong about the teaching of it. Murdering their own? Of course. But I don't see any connection whatsoever between historical or even current murderous regimes and America. To suggest that providing safe and legal medical services to women is a slippery slope to crimes like the Holocaust or Stalin purges or Assad attacks is in my opinion lunacy.

Or maybe it's because you are one of "them" and you think since you are on the same side of the argument, they will come for everyone else first?

No, I think this is paranoid lunacy. The whole point of the contraception rule is to reduce government spending. Isn't that your prime directive? (After "No sex for you", that is.) It's not an attack on members of any church.

They are instead, the statements made by one who has no argument.

Sometimes it's impossible to argue something that is so ludicrous it's like arguing against excrement thrown against a wall. You know, like "The social engineers of [PPACA] will determine the birth control methods of the unwashed." This is simply crap thrown against a wall. This claims that PPACA rules force people to use contraception, selects the specific method, and here you go you filthy maggot-infested wretch.

Jim is from the Left Coast, has a brother working for Planned Parenthood, and trolls Catholic blogspots.

Last time I checked, the "Left Coast" was still attached to America. In fact, I live in a relatively conservative county (for California).

And it seems you remember from weeks or months ago that my brother worked for Planned Parenthood, but you don't remember from this weekend that that was 20 years ago. You are either not paying attention or purposely writing a lie.

I didn't know this was a "Catholic blogspot". A majority of the posts are not Catholic-related and I've read several folks here saying they are not Catholic.

Jim said...

And then...

Free education I pay property taxes and I pay college tuition.

Free health care I pay premiums and my employer contributes as part of my compensation.

Free housing I own a home and a mortgage.

Free cell phones I pay well over $150 a month for my family's cell phones, not to mention hundreds for the phones themselves.

Free food Only the samples at Costco.

Look at progressive ideology? Everyone has a "right" to everything.

Crap against the wall.

Here's some founding documents for you:

"He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to ... promote the general Welfare..."

Now all these other "rights"

Made up stuff.

For the equality of outcome

Made up stuff (crap against the wall). Nobody, NOBODY, least of all the President, has proposed equality of outcome. That's crap.

Not that they care all that much about the Constitution anyway. Barack called it a flawed document because it was one of negative rights.

These are the echoes of the uninformed repeating the untrue. There is no doubt that the Constitution is flawed. If it weren't, there would never be any arguments as to what it means.

- everything the government couldn't do to you.

Is that not in fact what the Bill of Rights says?

One of our own Supreme Court Justices reveres it so much [yada yada yada]

More Cal Thomas drivel. Are you suggesting that if you got a representative selection of GOP policy makers or "conservative" citizens together today, that they would come up with the exact same constitution as was written by our founding fathers in the 1700s?

That's just ludicrous.

It saddens me to think that some people have so little faith in the history, culture, laws, and goodness of the American people and as much as 50% of its citizens that you would believe the kind of crap that's being thrown against the wall.

Wait a minute. I hear the rotors of the black helicopters. Got to make sure I'm stocked up on beans and rice.

neomom said...

Jim obviously missed the Occupy Manifesto - shorter version - tax people with more money than me and give me stuff. btw - we pay for free cell service for "the poor". They even advertise it on the radio as to how to sign up. They also inform AmeriCorps folks on how to sign up for food stamps in addition to their income. Happened to be sitting next to a lovely young woman working as PR person for our local literacy council as an AmeriCorps fellow.

I don't listen or read Cal Thomas. I saw the video of Ms Ginsburg. I heard the radio interview of King Barack. And yes - the Bill of Rights does exactly that. Barry was lamenting that fact that the Constitution limits what the Government can do in regard to redistribution.

You want me to have faith in the 50% of the population that knows more about Snooki than anything regarding civics? I just spent the entire weekend sick watching the celebrity corpse humping of the "tragic" death of the latest drug-addled person in the entertainment industry. Or the "education" industry that puts out crap like the latest McGraw Hill 3rd grade social studies text that fails to mention a single Republican - except the couple sentences on Abraham Lincoln. It doesn't even include a complete list of the Presidents. Yeah - I don't think so.

Your kids are getting the History that their Progressive professors want them to get.

neomom said...

But since you brought up "General Welfare"... Lets ask the founder's themselves as to their intents...

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,” — James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia, 1984).

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” — John Adams

Jim said...

OK, let's start here. (BTW, these men were great, and some were wise, but they weren't all perfect. They didn't even all believe in Jesus Christ, for heaven's sake.)

Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

Um, prohibition anyone?

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much

Neither Obama nor I nor anyone I follow said that anyone makes "too much."

A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another

Yep, like the EPA, OSHA, FDA, etc.

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

No FAA then? No CDC?

To take them in a literal and unlimited sense

I know of nobody who does.

These quotes go on and on, and they are admirable in some cases. But Madison was not the only founding father with an opinion in those days.

As long as you are quoting Thomas Jefferson, don't forget this one:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

neomom said...

I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy. - Barack Obama in Quncy, IL April 2010

Yah, he said it, out loud....

Once again, limited government does not equal zero government. Though I'd love to see several of those agencies severely reduced in size and scope.

But don't go down the path of selective quoting. Folks actually believe that separation language is in the text of the Constitution. Progressives are the ones ignoring everything they had to say about wealth distrbution and government "charity"

Anonymous said...

Jim for the sake of your Soul you need to see the images at this website.

If you do not feel some these images are crimes against humanity I am left speechless

If abortion is such a good thing, then of course these pictures will not bother you? no?

Here is the face of eugenic abortion.
The essential character of secularism is totalitarian in america today.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/abortion.htm

Anonymous said...

Jim, meet Mark Shea,
and here is what he
has to say to folks like you.

"If what goes on in
someone's bedroom is
none of my business,
then don't make me
pay for their supplies
or consequences...

Conversely,
if somebody is going to
force me to pay for their
supplies and consequences,
don't tell me it's none
of my business."

Anonymous said...

Jim, Here is more of the sort of crap we can expect to see from Progressive professors...

Academics Call for Killing People to Harvest Their Organs

http://moonbattery.com/?p=8026

-------------------------------------
Once you can justify killing a child for being inconvenient, every other conceivable crime against humanity is a cinch.

Once you’ve firmly established that you can take organs from a living old or disabled person, it’s a very small step to taking organs from a child specifically bred for that purpose.

Jim said...

Mom, you could make George Washington into a communist if you took the right quote in the right way. Of course EVERY phrase Obama utters is under scrutiny.

If some told me I'd made enough money, I would say, "Yep. I'm very comfortable. I've provided for my children and grandchildren 10 times over. I have everything I need to live the life I want to live." I would have made enough to do that.

That in no way means that I would stop making more money. If I enjoyed what I do, why wouldn't I continue to do it. Would I stop because of 4% more in taxes? Would you?

Only an Obama hater would construe the above quote to mean that a person should only make a certain amount of money and no more. Obama has never suggested a 100% marginal rate at the top end. He has suggested 39.6%.

Though I'd love to see several of those agencies severely reduced in size and scope.

I don't have a problem with that although we might disagree on which and by how much.

But don't go down the path of selective quoting.

I was showing that it works both ways.

Progressives are the ones ignoring everything they had to say about wealth distrbution and government "charity"

This is made up and not supported by any facts.

Jim said...

Anon: Jim for the sake of your Soul you need to see the images at this website.

Work on your own soul and I'll worry about mine. I won't look at your pictures.

If abortion is such a good thing, then of course these pictures will not bother you? no?

What a stupid question!

The essential character of secularism is totalitarian in america today.

What a stupid statement!

I couldn't care less about what Mark Shea has to say. If he participates in any kind of insurance, he pays for things that other people use and he doesn't. Whether he approves or not. That's the nature of insurance.

Your source for the harvesting organs business is aptly named Moonbattery. It links to a source that links back to Moonbattery as its source.

Finally it gets to some selected quotes from bioethics journals that constitute a discussion on the topic. It discusses the subject of whether a person who is essentially brain dead and has previously volunteered to have the tubes removed and agreed to donate organs should have those organs harvested prior to actual, medical death in order to preserve the viability of the organs. This is hardly a progressive stance. It is not shown if they are progressives, conservatives, nuns or lunatics. One thing is for sure-they are not policy makers in the Obama administration nor is it "firmly established".

Paranoia strikes deep, Anon.

neomom said...

The LCMS is seeing through the accommodation charade.

http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=1357

Jim said...

^o^