Liberalism Is The Quest For Tyranny

Orginal Post January 14, 2007

Hey folks,

This past Friday night, I wrote a two part article talking about the days news. In that two part article, I used well over a thousand words. In the end, it was six words that got the most attention. I even got a phone call telling me "You cannot say that." Some agree with the six words, some got down right angry about them. But as I keep saying, just because you do not agree with it, doesn’t mean that it is not true. The six words are "Liberalism is the quest for tyranny."

What is Liberalism defined? According to Wikipedia

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods (for example now in the United States generally it means new liberalism while in the rest of the world has the meaning of classical liberalism).

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]

Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.

A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties.

Now lets touch on some of these. The LWL do NOT support personal freedoms, free exchange of thought, nor do they support free speech. Unless you agree with them. If not, they will do EVERYTHING they can to discredit, close minds, and silence the speaker.

They DO want to control the market. They DO want to, in essence, put a cap on how far you can go. Make over a half million dollars a year, you will pay for it. They DO want you to need them. They love social programs that they try to pass off as compassion. They want more control in your lives.

Anti-discrimination laws have become discrimination. Universal education is becoming simple brain washing. Progressive taxation is simply punishment for making it. Religion? I'll get to that in a minute. What about this? "classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights." Not the new LWL. They have no problem taking your land if it benefits them. They will even give it to another private person for that reason. They call it eminent domain.

Then this statement in the meaning, "Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property." That is the EXACT opposite of what they truly believe. Right to life? Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, I guess that is the same. Right?

They want you to have no other choice than to depend on them. Why do you think that they are so against God? Many see God as the final authority. As well they should. But that would mean someone or something, in their mind, is above them.

Look at their targets. Wal-Mart, Big Oil, Pharmaceutical Companies, any big business. Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in the world. They start giving out cheap prescriptions, they are attacked. They {LWL} do not want you going there. They will give them to you. You need THEM not Wal-Mart. Free market is their enemy. The "American Dream" is fine with them, as long as they are the center of it. They strip away at your abilities to think for, express, and do for yourself so that them may do for you.

According to Wikipedia,

A tyrant (Latin tyrannus, from Greek τtύ?ρ?αaν?ν?ο?ς? týrannos) possesses absolute power through the people in a state or in an organization: one refers to this mode of rule as a tyranny. In ancient Greece, tyrants were generally aristocrats who had gained power over the others by getting the support of the poor people by giving them land, freeing them from slavery, etc.

Welfare, food stamps, government housing, free education, ETC. Get the point?

Tyranny is micro management and control over every aspect of your life. This is what the Liberals strive for. They envy people like Saddam, Castro, and Ahmadinejad. Absolute power without accountability. They even line up to go visit these people. Praise these people. Even say we should talk to these people. We could learn from them.

Liberalism is an attempt to create an alternate reality, where liberalism is compassionateness. Where it is fair and just. Where those that have, should care for those that have not. It punishes independents, and rewards those that blindly follow. It stifles free thought, and tells you want to believe. Look at the war. The Mass Media Drones, lie, fabricate photos, omit truth, leak top secrete information, and post things they get EMAILED to by the enemy. They are in contact with them. Some of them have even become they enemy’s tool for their propaganda.

Yes folks, like these six words or not, Liberalism IS a quest for tyranny.
Peter

OPNTalk - Liberalism Is The Quest For Tyranny

Liberalism Is The Quest For Tyranny

Hey folks,

This past Friday night, I wrote a two part article talking about the days news. In that two part article, I used well over a thousand words. In the end, it was six words that got the most attention. I even got a phone call telling me "You cannot say that." Some agree with the six words, some got down right angry about them. But as I keep saying, just because you do not agree with it, doesn’t mean that it is not true. The six words are "Liberalism is the quest for tyranny."

What is Liberalism defined? According to Wikipedia


Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods (for example now in the United States generally it means new liberalism while in the rest of the world has the meaning of classical liberalism).

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]

Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.

A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties.

Now lets touch on some of these. The LWL do NOT support personal freedoms, free exchange of thought, nor do they support free speech. Unless you agree with them. If not, they will do EVERYTHING they can to discredit, close minds, and silence the speaker.

They DO want to control the market. They DO want to, in essence, put a cap on how far you can go. Make over a half million dollars a year, you will pay for it. They DO want you to need them. They love social programs that they try to pass off as compassion. They want more control in your lives.

Anti-discrimination laws have become discrimination. Universal education is becoming simple brain washing. Progressive taxation is simply punishment for making it. Religion? I'll get to that in a minute. What about this? "classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights." Not the new LWL. They have no problem taking your land if it benefits them. They will even give it to another private person for that reason. They call it eminent domain.

Then this statement in the meaning, "Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property." That is the EXACT opposite of what they truly believe. Right to life? Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, I guess that is the same. Right?

They want you to have no other choice than to depend on them. Why do you think that they are so against God? Many see God as the final authority. As well they should. But that would mean someone or something, in their mind, is above them.

Look at their targets. Wal-Mart, Big Oil, Pharmaceutical Companies, any big business. Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in the world. They start giving out cheap prescriptions, they are attacked. They {LWL} do not want you going there. They will give them to you. You need THEM not Wal-Mart. Free market is their enemy. The "American Dream" is fine with them, as long as they are the center of it. They strip away at your abilities to think for, express, and do for yourself so that them may do for you.

According to Wikipedia,

A tyrant (Latin tyrannus, from Greek τtύ?ρ?αaν?ν?ο?ς? týrannos) possesses absolute power through the people in a state or in an organization: one refers to this mode of rule as a tyranny. In ancient Greece, tyrants were generally aristocrats who had gained power over the others by getting the support of the poor people by giving them land, freeing them from slavery, etc.

Welfare, food stamps, government housing, free education, ETC. Get the point?

Tyranny is micro management and control over every aspect of your life. This is what the Liberals strive for. They envy people like Saddam, Castro, and Ahmadinejad. Absolute power without accountability. They even line up to go visit these people. Praise these people. Even say we should talk to these people. We could learn from them.

Liberalism is an attempt to create an alternate reality, where liberalism is compassionateness. Where it is fair and just. Where those that have, should care for those that have not. It punishes independents, and rewards those that blindly follow. It stifles free thought, and tells you want to believe. Look at the war. The Mass Media Drones, lie, fabricate photos, omit truth, leak top secrete information, and post things they get EMAILED to by the enemy. They are in contact with them. Some of them have even become they enemy’s tool for their propaganda.

Yes folks, like these six words or not, Liberalism IS a quest for tyranny.
Peter

California Seeks to Silence Free Speech

Further PROOF that New Liberals are Idiots

Hey folks,

There are so many different problems with this, it is not even funny. It is just further proof the the New Liberal Party is NOTHING like the original. Nor do they even have a clue what TRUE Liberalism is. AGAIN:

What is Liberalism defined? According to Wikipedia

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods (for example now in the United States generally it means new liberalism while in the rest of the world has the meaning of classical liberalism).

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]

Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.

A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties.

Now lets touch on some of these. The LWL {Left Wing Loons}do NOT support personal freedoms, free exchange of thought, nor do they support free speech. Unless you agree with them. If not, they will do EVERYTHING they can to discredit, close minds, and silence the speaker. They also do not care what the PEOPLE say at the voting both, if they disagree with them.

They DO want to control the market. They DO want to, in essence, put a cap on how far you can go. Ask Obama and his $250,000, uh, $200,000, I mean $150,000, would you believe $130,000? Whatever it is today, it is still a cap on private citizens. Make Make more than that, you will pay for it. They DO want you to need them. They love social programs that they try to pass off as compassion. They want more control in your lives.

Anti-discrimination laws have become discrimination. Universal education is becoming simple brain washing. Progressive taxation is simply punishment for making it. Religion? I'll get to that in a minute. What about this? "classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights." Not the new LWL. They have no problem taking your land if it benefits them. They will even give it to another private person for that reason. They call it eminent domain.

Then this statement in the meaning, "Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property." That is the EXACT opposite of what they truly believe. Right to life? Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, I guess that is the same. Right?

They want you to have no other choice than to depend on them. Why do you think that they are so against God? Many see God as the final authority. As well they should. But that would mean someone or something, in their mind, is above them.

Look at their targets. Wal-Mart, Big Oil, Pharmaceutical Companies, any big business. Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in the world. They start giving out cheap prescriptions, they are attacked. They {LWL} do not want you going there. They will give them to you. You need THEM not Wal-Mart. Free market is their enemy.

The "American Dream" is fine with them, as long as they are the center of it. They strip away at your abilities to think for, express, and do for yourself so that they may do for you. The "Fairness Doctrine" AKA the Censorship Doctrine.

According to Wikipedia,

A tyrant (Latin tyrannus, from Greek τtύ?ρ?αaν?ν?ο?ς? týrannos) possesses absolute power through the people in a state or in an organization: one refers to this mode of rule as a tyranny. In ancient Greece, tyrants were generally aristocrats who had gained power over the others by getting the support of the poor people by giving them land, freeing them from slavery, etc.

Welfare, food stamps, government housing, free education, ETC. Get the point?

Tyranny is micro management and control over every aspect of your life. This is what the Liberals strive for. They envy people like Hugo Chavez , Castro, and Ahmadinejad. Absolute power without accountability. They even line up to go visit these people. Praise these people. Even say we should talk to these people. Obama even said China is so much better than we. We could learn from them.

Liberalism is an attempt to create an alternate reality, where liberalism is compassionateness. Where it is fair and just. Where those that have, should care for those that have not. It punishes independents, and rewards those that blindly follow. It stifles free thought, and tells you want to believe.

Yes folks, like these six words or not, TODAY'S "Liberalism IS a quest for tyranny."

Let's look at California. Since the election, where the PEOPLE voted in Prop 8, the LWL have lost their minds. Remember the break down. In Florida, Whites voted 60-40, but Black voters approved a ban on gay marriage by a vote of 71 to 29. Is there any question? Now I'm pointing out Race for a reason here. Then in California, Whites may have even let this fail 51-49. It was the 70 percent support from Black voters that put the measure over the top. 70 to 30. It was not the White, War Mongering, Racist, Chauvinistic, Homophobes, you know, Republicans. It was not the "Church" that did this. It was the Blacks. Liberal Democratic Black people. Obama's base.

We have seen EVERYTHING being thrown at the Blacks from the Gays. Liberal bloggers and a bunch of Gay Rights Activists were out there calling Black people the N-word for supporting Prop 8 in large numbers. Some stars made off hand comments about this. Like Roseanne Barr calling Blacks Ignorant and said some of their churches were corrupted. Where is the investigation for possible HATE SPEECH on these people? Why are the Gay Rights Activists NOT protesting the Blacks in the Inner City neighborhoods?

So what do we learn yesterday? According to the AP - California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California officials will investigate whether the Mormon church accurately described its role in a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said Monday that a complaint by a gay rights group merits further inquiry.

ABSOLUTE BULL! The majority of the people in California VOTED. Prop 8 PASSED. It is CLEAR what the WILL of the PEOPLE in California, and 30 other States, is. Now ONE complaint is going to cause this Inquisition against the Mormon Church? Pay back against Mitt Romney? The MORMONS did NOT get this passed. The PEOPLE did. The VAST MAJORITY OF BLACKS DID.

Executive director Roman Porter says the decision does not mean any wrongdoing has been determined.

None was Moron, I mean Roman. So what is the point? We know the point folks. They are attempting to find some kind of way to subvert the Will of the People.

Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.

A representative from the Salt Lake City-based church could not be reached for comment.

They should not have to comment. We have a little thing called the First Amendment in this Country. I know that the LWL HATES that, but we do. Not only does this PROTECT the people by given them the RIGHT to say whatever they want, it also PROTECTS THE CHURCHES FROM THE STATE. I think I may have found my Idiot of the Week already.

I will be watching this one folks. But you know, the sad truth is, this new Clinto,,I mean Obama Administration is FILLED with people JUST LIKE Roman. People that HATE the Constitution, the Freedoms that it provides, and that could not care less about the Will of the People. This is the type of thing that I have been warning you about for over two years now. This will only get worse once the new Administration takes over. Folks, you have not seen ANYTHING yet.
Peter

Sources:
AP- California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

Original Liberalism IS What Conservatism Should Be

New Liberalism is nothing more than a quest for Tyranny

Hey folks,

So it seems is the New Republican Party. Now I have been talking about this for years. Back on January 14, 2007 I posted Liberalism Is The Quest For Tyranny. In it I pointed out the VAST difference between Original Liberalism and what we have now.

What is Liberalism defined? According to Wikipedia

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods (for example now in the United States generally it means new liberalism while in the rest of the world has the meaning of classical liberalism).

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]

Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.

A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties.

Now lets touch on some of these. The LWL do NOT support personal freedoms, free exchange of thought, nor do they support free speech. Unless you agree with them. If not, they will do EVERYTHING they can to discredit, close minds, and silence the speaker.

They DO want to control the market. They DO want to, in essence, put a cap on how far you can go. Make over a half million dollars a year, you will pay for it. They DO want you to need them. They love social programs that they try to pass off as compassion. They want more control in your lives.

Anti-discrimination laws have become discrimination. Universal education is becoming simple brain washing. Progressive taxation is simply punishment for making it. Religion? I'll get to that in a minute. What about this? "classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights." Not the new LWL. They have no problem taking your land if it benefits them. They will even give it to another private person for that reason. They call it eminent domain.

Then this statement in the meaning, "Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property." That is the EXACT opposite of what they truly believe. Right to life? Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, I guess that is the same. Right?

They want you to have no other choice than to depend on them. Why do you think that they are so against God? Many see God as the final authority. As well they should. But that would mean someone or something, in their mind, is above them.

What is a Tyrant?

A Tyrant (Latin tyrannus, from Greek τtύ?ρ?αaν?ν?ο?ς? týrannos) possesses absolute power through the people in a state or in an organization: one refers to this mode of rule as a tyranny. In ancient Greece, tyrants were generally aristocrats who had gained power over the others by getting the support of the poor people by giving them land, freeing them from slavery, etc.

Welfare, food stamps, government housing, free education, ETC. Get the point?

Tyranny is micro management and control over every aspect of your life. This is what the Liberals strive for. They envy people like Saddam, Castro, and Ahmadinejad. Absolute power without accountability. They even line up to go visit these people. Praise these people. Even say we should talk to these people. We could learn from them.

It has never been more true than today. This is going to go long today, but you have to get this. According to Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie who appeared on Fox News' Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Wednesday, September 23, Conservatism is dead. Now I do not agree with that, but I get his point. I even warned about this on December 17, 2008, when I posted this Is The USSA Inevitable?

Little Hitler in Iran. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Kim Jong-il in North Korea, Putin in Russia, Castro in Cuba, now Obama in America? Is the new USSA, The United Socialist States of America, REALLY inevitable? I really am starting to think that it just might be.

We do not even have to wait for the next thirty days for Obama to be sworn in. We already know that Barack Hussein Obama TOLD us that he wants a Socialistic Society. He wants and is putting in place people that can bring that into being. Now we even have a Climate Czar, if you will. Someone in the highest office to FORCE you to accept the scam of Global Warming. Someone to impose oppressive taxation and control over PERSONAL lives in the name of saving the planet from a threat that is complete BS. It does not exist.

But let's look at the OUTGOING President. Bush has already Nationalized the Banking industry, Housing markets, and is now about to Nationalize the Auto Industry. Of course this is welcomed by Obama and some in the INCOMING Administration. It fits their agenda. Nationalize Healthcare, Education, and even the Oil Companies.

With Bush's head start, Obama will have a much easier time simply continuing down the road of Tyranny. Private business will no longer be Private. It will all work together toward the "Common Good" of all Americans. Individual Freedoms will be reduced to "Level the Playing Field," and the wealth will be spread around. In control of it all, will be a Centralize Government. They will decide what is best for you.

One of the problems is the People. The People are not only allowing this to happen right before our eyes, some are encouraging it. Calling for it. Yes I know that the majority of this Country is still against it, but those in power seem to be for nothing less. So how can this possibly happen here in the greatest Country in the World? Ignorance is one of the most simplistic answers. People just do not know WHAT Socialism is.

As I said before, Hitler could not rise by himself. He had people HELPING him to. Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili {Joseph Stalin} same thing. The Soviet Union would have never been, had not some people WANTED it to be. ONE man, one idea, can do little. They need support. Little Hitler {Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad} is rising right now because there are many helping him. Including some in this very country. Hugo Chavez approved 33 other changes to the constitution.

“We will do what we have to do to approve the constitutional reforms that the president proposes because that is what the people want,” said Iris Varela, a pro-Chavez member of parliament.

Sound familiar? Obama does not like the Constitution. He said that there are too many restriction and it is not conducive to what he wants to do. So? will he change it to make it fit? He could. Chavez also shut down Radio and TV stations. Can you say Fairness Doctrine?

Remember Senator Maxine Waters said this, Thursday 22, 2008, during the show hearing.

"And guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

She was talking about Oil. But we are seeing this right now with other Industries by Bush. The latest is the Auto Industry. Conservative Republicans implored the White House not to use money from the $700 billion bailout for the financial sector to aid car makers. A leading House Democrat, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the government should secure veto power over the companies' business decisions as part of any aid.

Congress will not vote on it. They WANT Bush to do it. This way, when they take over, Obama can say, "Hey, Bush appointed this "Car Czar" and put these things in place. We just have to improve on them and continue them in the way Bush's own Press Secretary Dana Perino said, 'We're trying to do something that's responsible.'"

Remember what Campaign for America's Future co-director Roger Hickey said?

“Congressional Conservatives and the President are the culprits who have stood in the way of a new progressive direction for our nation”

“A new progressive direction for our nation” SOCIALISM He came out and said it. Well, it does not look like Bush is standing in the way anymore. It looks more like Bush is leading the way. In about 30 days, there will be no REAL opposition at all in Congress. There may not even be all that much opposition against the PROPAGANDA of the Mainstreme Media, who simple write and report what they are told to.

Is the new USSA inevitable? It just may be.

I hoped you clicked the link and watched the Video of Nick Gillespie talking about how people are fed up with Politics as usual. I hope you got it. More importantly, I hope the Republican Party got it. No folks, I do not believe that Conservatism is dead. But it has NO LEADERS. We need someone to step up and take us back to a time when the Government was run for the people and by the people. Back to a time when it was the American Spirit of the PEOPLE that made us great. Back to a time when the Government was OUT of our daily lives and truly there to keep us safe and SERVE the People. NOT CONTROL the People for It's own gain.

Is the USSA inevitable? With Obama and Crew? YES! There is little doubt about that now. But we are not going to defeat this by electing someone else that is just like them. No matter WHAT Party they claim to be from. One thing is for sure though, in all this, we KNOW that the current Administration and Congress ARE on this Quest for Tyranny and the only way to stop them in 2010. VOTE THEM OUT. Let's stop this now and THEN let's send a message, WE NEED A REAL LEADER. We need a Conservative Leader. We need America BACK!
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Liberalism Is The Quest For Tyranny
OPNTalk - Is The USSA Inevitable?
Reason.TV - The Death of Conservatism Freedom Watch Video

The Inexorable March Of Tyranny

As I have been warning you about for the past Few YEARS.

Hey folks,

That's right. I have been telling you, warning you, and talking about the New Liberalism. The fact that the New Liberalism is nothing more than a Quest for Tyranny. I defined the distinct difference between New and Old Liberalism. Old Liberalism is what Conservatism should be all about. It is actually CLOSER to Conservatism than today's Republicanism, in a lot of areas.

I have been using their own words and actions, leading up to the 2008 Election and beyond, to point out CLEAR Examples of what the Quest for Tyranny is all about. What it means is the Death of Freedom, and the whole reason this Country was founded to begin with. Some of you thought, "Never. Not here. This is America." Some of you thought I was nuts. Some of you STILL have some difficulty, even thought it is happening right in front of your eyes, seeing your Country being stolen away from you. Some still can not bring themselves to accepting that we have a President that HATES America, and wants to change it into a Centralized Controlling Government Run, Socialistic, Dictatorship. But just because you are having difficulty grasping that, doesn't change the fact it is what it is.

So when an OPNer out there sent this in, I knew I couldn't wait until Friday. So here it is. It's by Bob Livingston, and it is entitled The Inexorable March Of Tyranny, December 27, 2010

Americans hoped the midterm elections in November would put the brakes on the overreach of the current administration and Congress. However, as I expected, the hubristic arrogant bunch of elected elites that currently contaminate our nation’s capitol have refused to hear the message voters sent them.

To be fair, crying Speaker-to-be — aka Weeper of the House — John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the Republicans have not yet assumed control of Congress, but it’s not going to matter. Government is going to continue to take away what is rightfully yours, regardless of who is “in charge.”

You want evidence? S510, also known at the Food Safety Modernization Act, passed Dec. 19, late on a Sunday, night by unanimous consent. That means that not one Senator — Democrat or Republican — opposed it.

This bill gives unbridled authority of government over our food. Big Brother can now determine who can and who cannot grow, distribute or sell fresh vegetables or meats. It can shut food producers down on a whim, or force them into extinction through over-burdensome paperwork. It will mean the death of small farmers, all to benefit Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and other large producers.

It is so over-reaching that it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that government inspectors will be tramping about in your back yard, checking to see what you’re growing and preventing you from canning your own produce.

The bill seemed to die a technical death a couple of weeks ago. But I cautioned then that the bill would be back. That it would be brought back so quickly and so sneakily was a surprise, and a tragic betrayal by Republicans who proved once again that they are not to be trusted with protecting our freedoms.

And the lawless regime of President Barack Obama continues unchecked as well. First, the Federal Communications Commission defied a court order and passed a new set of net neutrality regulations last Tuesday. With these regulations — under the guise of making the sure the Internet is free — the FCC gained control of Internet content.
Obviously, this is what Obama wanted, as the new regulations were proposed by Obama’s FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski.

Never mind that a Federal court earlier this year told the FCC it had no business regulating the Internet. Never mind that Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants all legislative powers to the Congress. Genachowski — dubbed Julius Seizure by The Drudge Report — and two Democrat members of the FCC decided they had authority over the courts and Congress.

These new regulations will have a chilling effect on free speech. The Internet is the last bastion of freedom, and has grown beyond anyone’s imagination since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Since then, billions of dollars have been made and untold thousands of jobs created in the Internet industry — because the government did not interfere with it.

Internet journalists and bloggers have successfully defeated the government’s control over the flow of information. And that is what irks Big Government proponents like Obama… and like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez… and China’s Hu Jintao… and One Worlders like the bigwigs at the United Nations.

The furor over the WikiLeaks revelations demonstrate just how much the elected elites fear the truth and want to control the flow of information. The truth is always one of the first victims of totalitarianism.

The new FCC regulations “fix” a problem that doesn’t exist. As The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, just after the FCC acted, “The FCC’s action ‘is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure,’ said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn’t support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet ‘because it wants to, not because it needs to.’”

Likewise, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency — yet another unConstitutional arm of the government — now says it will regulate emissions from fossil fuel power plants by 2011 and petroleum refineries by 2012 since a climate bill failed in the Congress. This is yet another unConstitutional act by an agency populated with radical Leftist progressives.

The Transportation Security Administration continues its power grab — sexually assaulting our wives and children and ogling their naked pictures in the name of safety. But now, not only are airline passengers considered terrorists until they are squeezed, groped and irradiated to the satisfaction of an overpaid TSA dolt, now bus and train passengers are being victimized.

And the Department of Homeland Security has many more plans for Americans in the name of safety — plans that strip us of our rights supposedly guaranteed under the Constitution.

In Oklahoma, regulators from the Federal Reserve ordered a bank to remove a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller’s counter and buttons that say “Merry Christmas, God With Us,” saying they were inappropriate.

This is not a public building, mind you, but a privately-owned bank. The order by the Fed, which of course is not a Federal institution, is a clear violation of the bank owner’s and the tellers’ 1st Amendment rights.

Americans are coming to realize that their greatest enemy is not al-Qaida, a manufactured and U.S. government-inspired and funded enemy. The greatest enemy they face resides in Washington, walking the halls of Congress, the White House and Federal buildings across the country.

There are those who lean Right who blame the Left. There are those who lean Left who blame the Right. The blame rightfully falls on both, for it is both sides that answer to Big Brother and do his bidding. It is both sides that have supported Orwellian laws and regulations that steal your property, your wealth your personhood and your ability to choose.

It is both sides that bow to the altar of Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Food and Big Union, all to the detriment of the populace. It is both sides that are supporting and even proposing policies and regulations that destroy the middle class and small business and drive jobs overseas.

And it is Americans themselves who are to blame. They slept while Congress, Presidents and the Federal judiciary acted contrary to the interests of the American people. And when they finally awoke they asked that Congress work together — compromise — and reach a bi-partisan agreement; never realizing that when liberty and tyranny compromise, more liberty is lost.

Brilliant. Just Brilliant. Yet even more evidence that the Left ARE on a quest for Tyranny. I know, I know, Bush opened the door. I've said that many times. Homeland Security is expanding into a tool for the Regime. Where are all those upset back when they were just Wiretapping? The Bush Bailouts? Obama took that one and ran with it. This 111 Congress has spent more than the first 100 combined. We have no new use of our Natural Resources, which DOES effect the Economy. Oppressive Taxation and Regulation all over the place, with more promised to come. Take over of Private Industries and the intentional driving out of Business, Private Industries. Look around folks. The USSA is on the way. Time to change directions, and FAST.

Now a message to those who have yet to take control. LISTEN to the PEOPLE. HEAR what we are saying. STOP the Liberal agenda, in ANY form it takes, by ANY means necessary. We do not want Bipartisanship if Bipartisanship means helping those to destroy the Country we so dearly love. We want them STOPPED. Not met half way. Stop THINKING you know what the People want, and start LISTENING to the People. You have the ability to STOP this quest for Tyranny in it's tracks. Do the RIGHT thing, and I assure you, help is on the way in 2012. Do the wrong thing, and I guess we will have to start all over, after we throw YOU out.
Peter

Sources:
Personal Liberty.com - The Inexorable March Of Tyranny
CNS News - 111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S.

Note: From The Emails is a weekly Segment every Friday, or occasionally anytime, that appears here at the OPNTalk Blog. Please feel free to Email any Articles, Comments, Thoughts, Whatever, that you may like to share to opntalk@gmail.com As always, you never know what you may see here.

E15, Liberal Dreams Have Consequences

We drive. They starve. Everybody PAYS.

Hey folks,

Not to mention, no one knows how it will ACTUALLY effect, well, ANYTHING. Happy Tuesday to you. YES. That WAS me on the Tom Sullivan Radio Show on Friday talking about Housing. I was on the Third Hour, first up. I was talking about the best, and only way, to speed up the Housing "Recovery." I will elaborate more on this tomorrow. However, since it is Tuesday, time to check in at the Energy Front.

So you may have heard, the E.P.A. is considering raising the maximum blend of ethanol in unleaded gasoline from 10 percent to 15%. Great. So what's the problem? No one knows how it will effect the Engine, Pollution, OR the World Food Source.

So let me ask you a question. You are a Farmer. You grow products that feed the the masses. You get X amount per acre. It's enough to barely get you by. Some years are better than others. Then along comes the Government. They say we will pay you a GUARANTEED amount for you to grow Corn. That's roughly 120 bushels per acre of Corn that yield 300 gallons of ethanol. They will even give you MORE to subsidize you, just in case. They will also herald you as someone on the cutting edge and a Hero, for doing your part, in saving the planet. Most stop growing FOOD, and start growing "Fuel."

Remember stories like these? Media Research Center - Ethanol Being Blamed for Global Food Riots New York Times columnist praised by Pulitzer board for 'clarity of vision' didn't foresee global food shortages that resulted from the realities of his vision. By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 4/11/2008 5:48:11 PM

As riots over food shortages are breaking out in Haiti, Egypt and other parts of Africa, the media are looking for a culprit. ABC’s April 10 “World News with Charles Gibson” identified one culprit of this global strife: biofuels.

“[P]rices are rising across Africa, pushed up by the cost of oil and demand for biofuels,” ABC correspondent Jim Sciutto said.

“Those biofuels are in fact a large part of the equation,” ABC correspondent David Muir added. “Many farmers around the world, who once grew wheat and rice, now grow corn and sugar cane instead to produce ethanol, a more lucrative market.”

It's pretty hard for most to turn down a GUARANTEE profit. Some Kooks, would LOVE to see Oil Prices out of reach. Some Libs back then even admitted it. Listen to this Idiot.

Flash back to two years ago – Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, author of “The World Is Flat,” appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on March 9, 2006. He made a very bold statement about his preferred direction for the future of U.S. energy policy.

“[C]harlie, if they [Iran] cut off oil and oil went to $100 a barrel – that would make my day, because the sooner we go to $100 a barrel, the sooner we’re going to have everyone in America driving a plug-in hybrid car fueled by corn and ethanol,” Friedman said. “And I think that would be a great thing. And that would ultimately free us from having to worry about these people.”

Yeah the DREAM. But as we know, the Liberal Dream usually doesn't even come close to resemblance of any type of actual REALITY. Not only did this hurt the Food sources, but it was also blamed for INCREASED Pollution.

An April 7 Time magazine article also blamed ethanol for the quickened clearing of Brazilian rainforests, as farmers move to plant more soy to meet the demand created as American farmers switch from soy to corn to feed ethanol mandates.

Then you had THIS Story. From CNN - Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket

"In just two months," Zoellick said in his speech, "rice prices have skyrocketed to near historical levels, rising by around 75 percent globally and more in some markets, with more likely to come. In Bangladesh, a 2-kilogram bag of rice ... now consumes about half of the daily income of a poor family."

The price of wheat has jumped 120 percent in the past year, he said -- meaning that the price of a loaf of bread has more than doubled in places where the poor spend as much as 75 percent of their income on food.

"This is not just about meals forgone today or about increasing social unrest. This is about lost learning potential for children and adults in the future, stunted intellectual and physical growth," Zoellick said.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, also spoke at the joint IMF-World Bank spring meeting.

"If food prices go on as they are today, then the consequences on the population in a large set of countries ... will be terrible," he said.

The UK Telegraph - Global warming rage lets global hunger grow By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor Published: 12:01AM BST 14 Apr 2008

We drive, they starve. The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.

"The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). "Naturally people won't be sitting dying of starvation, they will react," he said.

Back in 2009, I talked about all this. I posted OPNTalk - Good Intentions Unintended Consequences

CHICAGO (AFP) – The use of crop-based biofuels could speed up rather than slow down global warming by fueling the destruction of rainforests, scientists warned Saturday.

Once heralded as the answer to oil, biofuels have become increasingly controversial because of their impact on food prices and the amount of energy it takes to produce them.

Yeah, remember the riots? The "Food Wars" that were breaking out? The poor could no longer afford Corn Products and Farmers were rewards a lot of money to set land aside to produce Harvests for Fuel only? That was a great plan.

They could also be responsible for pumping far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they could possibly save as a replacement for fossil fuels, according to a study released Saturday.

So? Now, they want to INCREASE this. Add another 5 percent to EVERY GALLON of gas. So look for all this to also increase. Then you have the fact that they do not even know how it will actually WORK. According to Energy Tomorrow - Don't Blend Politics and Science On E15, API President, Jack Gerard, tell us this. Don't Blend Politics and Science on E15
By Jack Gerard Thursday 19 August 2010

Higher-level ethanol blends like E15 have not been proven safe or effective according to preliminary testing to date. These studies are scheduled to be completed in 2011. In addition, EPA is in the midst of the scientific review mandated by the Clean Air Act before new fuels, additives or fuel blends are introduced into commerce.

Despite these ongoing studies, EPA has indicated it may act as soon as September to approve E15 in vehicles. This has alarmed lawmakers and ordinary citizens alike. In July, the House Energy Committee warned EPA that renewable fuels must be introduced in "a manner that adequately protects consumers." A broad coalition of business, consumer and environmental groups also wrote EPA expressing similar concerns.

So untested, untried, and to hell with any unintended consequences, we have to realize the DREAM. I know, I know, that IS Liberalism defined. Quick to Dream, slow to think. Problem is, when you do this, you do not have the time to realize if it IS a dream, or a nightmare in the waiting.
Peter

Sources:
Media Research Center - Ethanol Being Blamed for Global Food Riots
CNN - Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket
UK Telegraph - Global warming rage lets global hunger grow
OPNTalk - Good Intentions Unintended Consequences
Energy Tomorrow - Don't Blend Politics and Science on E15

Some Gay Activists Just Do Not Get It

Coming right up, today, 111608

Hey folks,

Welcome to the Big Sunday Edition of the OPNTalk Blog. We are fully loaded today, with some things you may only hear here, and some that are becoming big news. So get your coffee, tea, Hot Coco, Juice, or whatever it is that gets you moving in the morning, and let us get right to it.

Coming right up.

Testing For Obama Starting Early?
Ah, Yes, The Compassion of The New Liberalism
Amnesty Revisited
Answer to Chicken or Egg
IWA For Sunday 111608

That's coming right up. But right now I have a question. Why is it so hard for some of the more extreme Militant types of Gay Rights Activists to get it? Seriously. I'm asking.

Since Prop 8, which they are calling Hate 8, was voted on and PASSED in California by the VOTERS, 70 percent of which was the Black Vote that went to approve the Constitutional Ban, they have lost their minds.

Major destruction and hateful abuses have taken place. People have been force to quit their jobs. Threats and violence is the norm in some parts, and they keep attacking the WRONG people.

According to the AP - Gay advocates protest marriage ban across nation, they continue to not get the fact it was the American People that voted this in. Not the Church, Religious Right, ETC. It was the American people. As a matter of fact.

Connecticut, which began same-sex weddings this past week, and Massachusetts are the only two states that allow gay marriage. The other 48 states do not, and 30 of them have taken the extra step of approving constitutional amendments. A few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage.

Protests following the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, have sometimes been angry and even violent, and demonstrators have targeted faiths that supported the ban, including the Mormon church.

So 30 states have changed their Constitutions based on a VOTE from the people in the states, to Ban Gay Marriage by defining Marriage as one Man and one Woman. The PROTESTERS have been "angry and even VIOLENT" during these protests and it's time to hold them accountable. There are some that get it.

However, representatives of Join the Impact, which organized Saturday's demonstrations, asked supporters to be respectful and refrain from attacking other groups during the rallies.

Seattle blogger Amy Balliett, who started the planning for the protests when she set up a Web page three days after the California vote, said persuasion is impossible without civility.

Yes it is, in more ways than one. Every cause that you want to convince people is worthy, can not ever be FORCED down people's throats. From Religion, Race issues, Gay issues, to anything else. The quickest way to turn people off is to get in their face and scream at them, threaten them, or call them names.

"If we can move anybody past anger and have a respectful conversation, then you can plant the seed of change," she said.

Balliett said supporters in 300 cities in the U.S. and other countries were holding marches, and she estimated 1 million people would participate, based on responses at the Web sites her group set up.

"We need to show the world when one thing happens to one of us, it happens to all of us," she said.

The protests were widely reported to be peaceful, and the mood in Boston was generally upbeat, with attendees dancing to the song "Respect." Signs cast the fight for gay marriage as the new civil rights movement, including one that read "Gay is the new black."

No it isn't the new Black. Sorry. If I were a Black person, THAT would offend me. I'm sure that is one of the reasons that 70 percent of Blacks voted FOR the Ban in California, and 71 percent in Florida.

But anger over the ban and its backers was evident at the protests.

One sign in Chicago, where several thousand people gathered, read: "Catholic Fascists Stay Out of Politics."

Again folks, it was NOT the Religious Right Organizations that did this. The PEOPLE Voted for it.

"I just found out that my state doesn't really think I'm a person," said Rose Aplustill, 21, a Boston University student from Los Osos, Calif., who was one of thousands at the Boston rally.

Nice but wrong. Again, not the state.

In San Francisco, demonstrators took shots at some religious groups that supported the ban, including a sign aimed at the Mormon church and its abandoned practice of polygamy that read: "You have three wives; I want one husband."

{Sigh}

Chris Norberg, who married his partner in June, also referred to the racial divisions that arose after exit polls found that majorities of blacks and Hispanics supported the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

"They voted against us," Norberg said.

Yup.

In Salt Lake City, where demonstrators gathered just blocks from the headquarters of the Mormon church, one sign pictured the city's temple with a line adapted from former Republican vice president candidate Sarah Palin: "I can see discrimination from my house."

{Laughing} Sarah Palin had NOTHING to do with this either.

More than 500 demonstrators in Washington marched from the U.S. Capitol through the city carrying signs and chanting "One, two, three, four, love is what we're fighting for!"

A public plaza at the foot of New York's Brooklyn Bridge was packed by a cheering crowd of thousands, including people who waved rainbow flags and wore pink buttons that said "I do."

Protests were low-key in North Dakota, where people lined a bridge in Fargo carrying signs and flags.

Mike Bernard, who was in the crowd of hundreds at City Hall in Baltimore, said Proposition 8 could end up being a good thing for gay rights advocates.

"It was a swift kick in the rear end," he said.

In Los Angeles, protesters gathered near City Hall before marching through downtown. Police said 10,000 to 12,000 people demonstrated.

Supporters of traditional marriage said the rallies may have generated publicity but ultimately made no difference.

That is probably true. Unless President Obama decides to go against his word, and attempt to over turn the Will of the people. The Will of the people in 48 states. I'm not so sure even HE is that brave.

OK. Like I said, we have a lot of ground to cover, so get ready. I'll be right back.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Gay advocates protest marriage ban across nation

It IS About Free Speech

Hey folks,

Sorry about this morning. I had major computer problems that I did not have time to fix. Seems that where I write the "Daily Article" was not communicating with the Blog itself. Every time I tried to post it, it froze the computer. So I came in tonight, problem resolved. So here you go.

Happy Friday to you. Someone sent this to me, knowing my past and how much of an advocate of Free Speech I really am, and asked me what I thought about this. So here you go. There is NO doubt about it. This IS a Free Speech Issue. Since when do only minorities and Liberal groups get to enjoy Free Speech? Another question. When is school going to go back to the “Three “R”s?

I’m talking about this article from World Net Daily.

Court blasts district 'gay appeasement' policy
Orders student's claim against speech limits reinstated

Posted: November 1, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

A federal court reinstated a lawsuit that claims a school district adopted a policy restricting free speech in order to appease a homosexual-rights agenda endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ah yes, the ACLU. The Liberal hit organization. The ACLU is a joke. They are nothing more than a pawn and a tool used by the Libs to attack ANYTHING and ANYONE that does not allow the Liberal agenda. Period.

The case involves student Timothy Morrison, who complained he was barred from expressing his Christian beliefs under a policy adopted by the Boyd County, Ky., school district in an agreement with the ACLU.

The ACLU worked on the school's policies after officials refused to allow students to start a "Gay Straight Alliance" organization. In an agreement to end a lawsuit over the decision, the district adopted a speech code that defined harassment as "the use of language … in such manner as to be commonly understood to convey hatred, contempt, or prejudice or to have the effect of insulting or stigmatizing an individual," and prescribing punishment for such actions.

Folks, ANY TIME you hear of ANYONE adopting a “Speech Code,” you can substitute that phrase with they have adopted "CENSORSHIP."

The speech code, however, triggered a lawsuit by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Morrison, who feared punishment if he expressed his Christian-based disapproval of homosexuality.

The case had been dismissed at the district court level but was reinstated by a panel from 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"We hold that an allegation of a past chill of First Amendment-protected activity is sufficient to confer standing to a plaintiff seeking retrospective relief, even when that relief comes in the form of nominal damages," the ruling said. "We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment to the board … as it pertains to Morrison's free-speech claim seeking nominal damages."

Joel Oster, senior legal counsel with the ADF, told WND the speech restrictions came directly as a result of the ACLU's pursuit of a "gay" club at the school.

"The school district went overboard the other way," Oster told WND, "with three days of mandated diversity training."

Translation time folks, BRAINWASHING. Pushing the Liberal agenda. PC. Call it what it is.

The rule that students not talk about homosexual behavior followed.

"Christian students and other students who do not approve of homosexual behavior are not second-class simply because of their perspective," he said. "Silencing students because of their viewpoint is a clear violation of their constitutional rights.

"This student's free speech rights were certainly violated, and we're pleased the case will proceed to trial," he said.

But it IS OK in some schools for the teachers to talk about why Heather has two Mommies.

Part of the diversity training program mandated by the school was a video that instructed students to withhold Christian viewpoints about homosexual behavior.

"Although a favorable decision cannot provide Morrison an opportunity to travel back in time and utter the speech he withheld, it can provide him with nominal damages. Even though these damages amount to little, they serve to vindicate his rights," the court ruling said.

The ban on Morrison's expression of his faith was contained in the school policy, the ADF noted, then stated explicitly in the video the school prepared and presented to students about diversity.

Get this. People wonder why I call it Psychobabble? Listen to this moron. This tells you all you need to know about Liberalism. This right here.

"We all get self-centered and start to think that our way is the right way and our way is the correct way. We all want to believe that we have evidence that our way is the correct way," a clinical psychologist appearing on the video states.

"So … no matter where you go, no matter what you do, no matter who you meet, you are going to find people that you don't like," the psychologist says. "You're going to find people that you disagree with. You're going to find people that you don't like the way they act. It can't be avoided, not, not anywhere in the world, it can't be avoided. You're going to find people that you believe are absolutely wrong. You're going to think … That is so wrong … But here is the kicker, just because you believe, just because you don't like them, just because you disagree with them, just because you believe they are wrong, wholeheartedly, absolutely, they are wrong. Just because you believe that does not give you permission to say anything about it. It doesn't require that you do anything. You just respect, you just exist, you continue, you leave it alone. There is not permission for you to point it out to them."

“But here is the kicker, just because you believe, just because you don't like them, just because you disagree with them, just because you believe they are wrong, wholeheartedly, absolutely, they are wrong. Just because you believe that does not give you permission to say anything about it. It doesn't require that you do anything. You just respect, you just exist, you continue, you leave it alone. There is not permission for you to point it out to them.”

Absolute and completely utter Bunk. You have the right to say whatever you want. OK, let’s use the genius’s premise. You do not like Bush? Too bad. You do not have the right to say he is wrong. You do not like the War? Too bad. Just “respect, you just exist, you continue, you leave it alone. There is not permission for you to point it out to them.” Right? According to this moron, you do not have the right to civil disobedience, or dissent. Just accept that the President sees things another way that is different from the way YOU see it, accept that, and move on. You do not have the RIGHT of Free Speech if it may offend someone or hurt someone’s feelings.

You think the ACLU would agree with that? How about this? You, being a "Gay” person, “You're going to find people that you disagree with. {Christians} You're going to find people that you don't like the way they act. {Christians} You're going to find people that you believe are absolutely wrong. {Christians} You're going to think . That is so wrong . {Christianity} But here is the kicker, just because you believe, just because you don't like them, just because you disagree with them, just because you believe they are wrong, wholeheartedly, absolutely, they are wrong. Just because you believe that does not give you permission to say anything about it. It doesn't require that you do anything. You just respect, you just exist, you continue, you leave it alone. There is not permission for you to point it out to them.”

See? It works both ways.

The district court also allowed students pursuing a "gay" club at the school to intervene in Morrison's speech constraint dispute. The court also alleged the plaintiff didn't suffer constitutional violations.

The school policy eventually was revised to allow "the civil exchange of opinions or debate."

But the appeals panel said Morrison still had standing to pursue a complaint for nominal damages, because testimony regarding "policies restricting speech" was uncontroverted and such damages are symbolic.

I hope he wins. Not because he is a Christian. Not because he doesn’t agree with the Homosexual Agenda, but because he has just as much right to say what he believes as they do. But then again, if schools would just go back to teaching reading writing and arithmetic, maybe all these things could be avoided in the first place. Just a thought.
Peter

Source:
WND - Court blasts district 'gay appeasement' policy

I Am Man, Hear Me Beat My Chest

Hey folks,

By now, you all know what kind of a proud Papa I am. My Son Joshua is just over two, and I have never been happier, nor more proud. I have talked about him, my personal life, ETC. More than some of you like. But one thing I have NEVER done, was think of myself as less of a man BECAUSE I’m a Father.

I just caught this article by Time.com-Fatherhood 2.0. By LEV GROSSMANSat Oct 6, 3:05 AM ET

Does being more of a father make you less of a man? To a group of committed dads assembled one night in a New Jersey diner, the answer is obvious. Sort of. Paul Haley, 38, a father of two, says women look at him when he walks down the street with his kids. I think it's admiration, he says. Adam Wolff, also 38--with two kids and one on the way--ponders what it means to be a man. Is my man-ness about being the breadwinner or being a good father to my kids or something else? Michael Gerber, 36, father of a 7-month-old, asks, Do you mean, Do we feel whipped?

Sorry, I truly believe that once you have kids, man, women, married, unmarried, whatever, it then becomes all about the child. The child IS the most important thing in your life. If you do not feel that way, than perhaps you are not ready to be a parent.

"I'm probably a little whipped," shrugs Lee Roberts, 45. He's a part-time copy editor, married to a full-time journalist, who has stayed home for nine years to raise their two children. "There are definitely some guys who look at me and think, 'What's up with him?' Do I care? Well, I guess I do a little because I just mentioned it," he says. Haley speaks up to reassure him: "Kids remember, man. All that matters is that you're there. Being there is being a man. "

ABSOLUTELY!

But what does it mean, exactly, to be a man these days? Once upon a Darwinian time, a man was the one spearing the woolly mammoth. And it wasn't so long ago that a man was that strong and silent fellow over there at the bar with the dry martini or a cold can of beer--a hardworking guy in a gray flannel suit or blue-collar work shirt. He sired children, yes, but he drew the line at diapering them. He didn't know what to expect when his wife was expecting, he didn't review bottle warmers on his daddy blog, and he most certainly didn't participate in little-girl tea parties. Today's dads plead guilty to all of the above--so what does that make them?

FATHERS!

As we fuss and fight over the trials and dilemmas of American mothers, a quiet revolution is occurring in fatherhood. "Men today are far more involved with their families than they have been at virtually any other time in the last century," says Michael Kimmel, author of Manhood in America: A Cultural History. In the late 1970s, sociologists at the University of Michigan found that the average dad spent about a third as much time with his kids as the average mom did. By 2000, that was up to three-fourths. The number of stay-at-home fathers has tripled in the past 10 years. The Census counts less than 200,000, but those studying the phenomenon say it's probably 10 times that number. Fathers' style of parenting has changed too. Men hug their kids more, help with homework more, tell kids they love them more. Or, as sociologist Scott Coltrane of the University of California, Riverside, says, "Fathers are beginning to look more like mothers."

You see, this is the problem. Fathers are Fathers. To make statements that indicate men are more “womanly” because they hug their child, or say they love them, actually hurts some men's fragile egos. Instead, we should be encouraging this.

Many dads are challenging old definitions of manliness. "Masculinity has traditionally been associated with work and work-related success, with competition, power, prestige, dominance over women, restrictive emotionality--that's a big one," says Aaron Rochlen, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Texas who studies fatherhood and masculinity. "But a good parent needs to be expressive, patient, emotional, not money oriented." Though many fathers still cleave to the old archetype, Rochlen's study finds that those who don't are happier. Other research shows that fathers who stop being men of the old mold have better-adjusted children, better marriages and better work lives--better physical and mental health, even. "Basically", says Rochlen, "masculinity is bad for you."

So are sugar doughnuts and beer bongs, and men hate to let go of those too. Women forced the revolution by staging one of their own: in the 1970s they began storming into the workforce, making it harder for men to shirk child care. What's more, they showed their sons that it's possible to both work and parent. Economic forces were at work as well: for the entire 20th century, every successive generation of American men could expect to do better financially than their dads--that is, until Generation X. According to a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the median income for a man in his 30s in 2004 was 12% lower than it was in 1974, once adjusted for inflation. Men were forced to relinquish sole-breadwinner status for their households to stay afloat.

OK, there is so many things wrong with these statements it’s not even worth the time. "Masculinity is bad for you?" No. Beleive it or not, you can be a masculine man and still be a great Father. You can still be a MAN, and still be a great Father. You do not have to chose.

But the truth is men are learning, women also, that FAMILY is more important than money. FAMILY is more important than careers. FAMILY is more important than SELF. It is amazing that people actually find that a family with two parents, with involved Fathers, are better off than single parent homes? Or even more amazing is that those homes that have at least one stay at home parent, do better than those where both are forced to work. WOW. Really? {Smile}

But how to forge a new idea of manhood for this brave new two-income world? Hollywood hasn't been much help. From Michael Keaton in the 1983 movie Mr. Mom to Adam Sandler in Big Daddy (1999) to Eddie Murphy in Daddy Day Care (2003), the sight of a man caught in the act of parenting has been a reliable laugh getter--always a good indicator of what the culture considers uncomfortable material. For every Pursuit of Happyness, there's a movie like this summer's Knocked Up, which plays not so much as a tribute to fatherhood as an effort by men to convince themselves that fatherhood is all right--and the movie's happy ending is the least plausible thing about it. One show at least managed to capture the tension: What were those seven seasons of The Sopranos about if not a man fighting to reconcile the tender pangs of a caring, new-style father with the old-school masculine ideals of violence and stoicism--not to mention the psychological damage wreaked on him by his own old-school father?

Society hasn't made it easy for newly evolved dads to feel manly either. In Rochlen's study of stay-at-home dads, those who scored low on measures of traditional masculinity professed higher degrees of happiness in their roles--as well as in their marriages, with their children and with their health. But even they worried about how the rest of the world viewed their choice--with some reason. "There's definitely a stigma out there," says Rochlen. "The dads tell stories about mothers on the playground looking at them like they're child molesters or losers."

Traditional masculinity, as defined by them, is wrong. As for the playground thing, you can blame that on the feminist movement and liberalism in general. For YEARS they have been telling us that men are perverts. So after years of being programed of this, and the “fact” that men are dogs, chauvinists, evil, and it’s up to the good, wholesome, sweet woman to protect and raise their kid, you get what you get. Add in to that mix, the natural Motherly instinct to protect their child, and you have extremely cautious women. That’s understandable. But when they see you are there with YOUR child, they often open right up. Of course, I would not recommend going there alone. Bring your child with you.

Ironically, dads who take on parenting roles once considered emasculating may simply be responding to nature. Studies have shown that men experience hormonal shifts during their female partner's pregnancy. A man's testosterone level drops after settling down to marriage and family, perhaps in preparation for parenthood, as the male hormone is thought to be incompatible with nurturing behavior. In one study, for example, men with lower amounts of testosterone were willing to hold baby dolls for a longer period of time than those with a higher count. In another, the very act of holding dolls lowered testosterone.

More evidence of nature's intent to design men as active parents might be seen in the effects of involved fathering on children. Given the politically charged debates over same-sex unions and single parenting, it is perhaps not surprising that the richest area in the nascent field of fatherhood research is in the results of fathers' absence. David Popenoe of Rutgers University has pointed to increased rates of juvenile delinquency, drug abuse and other problems among children raised without a male parent present. Research on the unique skills men bring to parenting is sparse but intriguing. Eleanor Maccoby of Stanford University has found that fathers are less likely than mothers to modify their language when speaking to their children, thus challenging their kids to expand vocabulary and cognitive skills. Fathers also tend to enforce rules more strictly and systematically in reaction to children's wrongdoing, according to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan. "Having a father isn't magic," says Armin Brott, author of seven books about fatherhood, "but it really does make a difference for the kids. "

Well I’m glad we have experts to tell us that. Now it must be true. Right?

When men take on nontraditional roles in the home and family, it also makes a difference to the marriage. Coltrane of UC Riverside and John Gottman at the University of Washington found in separate studies that when men contribute to domestic labor (which is part and parcel of parenting), women interpret it as a sign of caring, experience less stress and are more likely to find themselves in the mood for sex. This is not to say that more involved fathering has erased marital tensions or that it hasn't introduced new ones. Dads admit they get fussed over for things moms do every day. "Sometimes you're treated like a dog walking on its hind legs--'Oh, look, he can do laundry '" says Jim O'Kane, 47, a father of two in Blackstone, Mass. And some women resent ceding their role as top parent. When her daughter fell down at a birthday party, Amy Vachon, 44, of Watertown, Mass., recalls that the girl ran crying all the way across the room--to her husband Marc. "I admit it hurt at the time," she says, "mostly because I wondered what everyone thought. There's such a high standard in society for the good mother."

It's a slippery slope: a recent Pew survey found that increasingly, parents rank their relationships with their kids as more important than their relationship with their spouse. Just as interesting, they rank their job dead last. That most masculine of traits--the ability to go out into the world and bring home a buck--is receding in importance for the men of Generation X. Men's rates of labor-force participation have dropped from just above 90% in 1970 to just above 80% in 2005. Almost a third of young fathers (32%) say they dedicate more time to their children, while 28% say they devote more time to their jobs.

WHY is this a slippery slope? Because Morals and Family are winning out? Definitely NOT part of the Liberal agenda.

Big employers are beginning to catch on. Deloitte & Touche, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Xerox and IBM are urging family-friendly benefits for their male employees and touting them to male recruits. California recently became the first state to guarantee paid time off for new dads. But the U.S. still lags far behind other countries: only 12% of U.S. corporations offer paid leave for fathers of new babies (the U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act enables workers in large companies to take up to 12 weeks off, but that time is unpaid), while dads in 65 other countries are guaranteed paid paternity or parental leave; 31 countries offer 14 weeks of it or more. At companies that offer and encourage paternity leave, participation is high. KPMG reports that 80% of eligible workers have taken paternity leave since it was first offered in 2002. Still, more than half of working men say they would not take paternity leave even if it was offered, most saying they could not afford it, others fearing it would harm their careers--the same complaints long made by working women.

I’m not really for this concept. I’ll admit it. A job is a job. You have time. Sick, Vacation, ETC. I understand the Mother thing, she is giving birth. But the company still needs to get the job done. How much time is good? Why stop at 12 weeks? Why stop at 14 weeks? See my point. If being home with your family is that important to you, then get another job, {Talking to men} or change shifts, or just quit. Whatever. But I’m not sure a believe that it is the man’s RIGHT, to take off fourteen weeks.

Today's fathers aren't the men their own fathers were but only if you insist that the nature of masculinity doesn't change--that it's a biological fact and not a mutable cultural construct. The new fathers are creating a new ideal of masculinity. It's not as Mad Men cool, but it is healthier. "The emerging and evolving norms of fatherhood and masculinity challenge men to be a different kind of guy," says Rochlen. "But on the positive side, it gives them new opportunity to embrace and enact these dimensions that are good for them and good for their families." It's even good for their emotional health. Coltrane says fatherhood is proving a "safe pathway" for men to develop and explore their nurturing side. "It's not considered wimpy or gay to hug your daughter," he adds. That's something we can all embrace.

View this article on Time.com

I agree with the majority of this article, I find it interesting that we need experts to tell us these things, but I agree with them. To all you Fathers out there, BE Fathers. Trust me, from first hand experience, it truly is the thing that makes me the most happy.
Peter

Source:
Time.com-Fatherhood 2.0