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

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

Transcript of Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University

A New Beginning, as released by the White House. The speech was delivered on June 4, 2009.

President Obama: "I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar University — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words — within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future — and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them — and all of us — to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments — provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action — whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women — to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations — including my own — this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities — those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek — a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many — Muslim and non-Muslim — who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort — that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country — you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort — a sustained effort — to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples — a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you."

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

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

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