Written in 2008 (and updated periodically since) after looking online one morning and discovering that apparently neither Democrat politicians or news organizations are inclined toward describing precisely what the liberal leaders in America want.
While you will hear some opinions below, nothing here is meant to exaggerate or in any fashion for the purpose of propaganda depict Democrats in America and those who cover them in the media as other than what research and 30 years of observation has revealed them to be.
I have a degree in journalism, worked for two newspapers, am a former Democrat and former outspoken liberal who opposed Ronald Reagan yet began really hearing and finally undertanding the other side around 1984, still in the days before Rush Limbaugh.
Because the largest media organizations in the country have been caught doctoring news to help out the Democrats thousands of times in recent years, citizens have begun taking up the call to bring truth to people. See final section for corroborating evidence about the modern state of the profession called journalism.
What Democrats believe:
1. Racial Justice
11. School Vouchers
21. The Death Penalty
2. Gay Rights
12. Hate-crime penalties
3. Borders / Immigration
13. The World Court
4. Motor Voter Law
14. The Boy Scouts
24. Witch hunts and McCarthyism
5. Guns and Self Defense
15. Freedom of Speech
25. Cutting up Israel
6. The "Missile Shield"
26. Universal healthcare
17. The Kyoto Protocol
27. Welfare and Food Stamps
8. Abortions for minors
18. Income and Taxes
28. Christian symbols in public
9. Government schooling
19. Voting rights for convicted felons
10. Sex education in school
20. The 2000 Presidendial Election
1. Racial Justice: It is the most explosive ongoing issue of the last 30 years (and therefore properly belongs at the top of any list), the quickest way for a candidate to lose an election, be villified for days in the media (Trent Lott), perhaps hounded out of office. Radio and television program hosts (Don Imus, Laura Schlessinger plus others) and regular employees alike are subject to being immediately fired for uttering the wrong words about racial matters. At the very least, a public speaking tour filled with repeating the same apologies over and over accompanied by suspension time will be expected.
Despite the dramatic risk of daring to say the wrong words, charges of racism continue flying around in the media all the time, especially during the weeks every two years before a national election, as if people are blind to the likely outcome and therefore nonchalantly acting as racist clods on a fairly regular basis.
The charges are nearly always against Republicans, by the way. In a series of dramatic reports, for example, ABC, NBC and CBS simultaneously told their 20-30 million viewers in 2010 that Tea Party members and those supporting border protection in Arizona were racist, all minus the small concession of actually producing any quotes or behavior captured on video that proved the existence of racism. There were just accusations from Democrat leaders and, more subtly, accusations from the reporters themselves.
In an almost universally unreported event, Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com issued a standing challenge to the media and Democrats to cough up the goods rather than continually making accusations without backing them up. In return for the heretofore unseen proof, Breitbart began offering $100,000 American money - one-HUNDRED-THOUSAND dollars. No one has come forward to claim the bounty. Nor has the press (other than on the Fox News Channel) been willing to report about the extraordinary Breitbart challenge. Neither have they apologized for falsely accusing members of the Tea Party.
And perhaps further revealing the actual inclination and motive of the mainstream media, when Bill Clinton in 2008 said in a recorded and later admitted remark that Barack Obama, a few years earlier, would have been fetching coffee for him, the media went silent in the presence of verifiably condemning material from a Democrat, a rather prominent one at that. The Clinton comment was hardly an isolated incident, as racist remarks from Democrats hushed up by the press can already fill a filing cabinet.
Apparently (if gauging by daily news and by public school curricula), you aren't supposed to know that the Republican Party was created for the very purpose of combating the extension of slavery, and that black citizens voted for Republicans almost exclusively for decades thereafter. The reason why it is reasonable to contend that ordinary people aren't suppposed to know is due to the fact that nowhere in the media can that information be heard reported (other than perhaps by way of a comment in passing).
And the story grows more intriguing. Later, with help from the press, a lie began building to cover up the racist past (the present too) of Democrats (who started the Ku Klux Klan) and, in a bold and brilliant act of chicanery, convince a majority of the world that Republicans were
actually the ones behind the remnants of racism in the country during the 1960s. On the contrary, the Democratic Party controlled the South during the sixties.
To that end, it is unknown for the most part that Republicans were the strength behind the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (with Democrats in opposition, including Al Gore's father, a Senator, and Bill Clinton's mentor, J William Fulbright, a United States Senator also), and that a Republican president (Dwight Eisenhower) is the one who broke down segregation in schools.
The main Democrat who did support the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Baines Johnson, was recorded on a White House taped (and saved) conversation claiming, "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years."1 That is a direct quote, one you will never hear at ABC, NBC, NPR, CBS.
To this day, there is a former KKK leader who is an honored and elected member of the United States Senate. He is a Democrat, Senator Robert C Byrd. To be sure, a man should be able to escape from past mistakes. Still, it is noteworthy to include how the only former KKK member in Congress IS a Democrat. (Update: Robert Byrd died in 2010)
So give credit where credit is due. Democrats are the party of racism while today being amazingly effective liars, willing to destroy the reputations of decent men and women by making up supposed acts of Republican racism repeated over and over during news reporting about the Tea Party.
Oh, one other thing. Witnessing the rather frequent and completely ignored series of racist black violence against innocent white people in recent years (always ignored at ABC, NBC and CBS) has led me to conclude that liberals in the media and Democratic Party are actually now getting people killed by their inflammatory rhetoric year after year after year. By constantly harping on 50 and 100 year old racism, by completely ignoring racism practiced by some of the blacks in America, the millions of kids growing up with only television and rap stars for father figures are being injected with a deadly poison that may be leading to resentment and bubbling up into violence.
2. Gay Rights: Here we have the second most explosive issue in the country at the moment. Hold on to read the entire section. The media have trained people to be easily offended and lapse into being judgmental about anyone challenging full and equal rights for gay men and women. True enough, they are actively, intentionally teaching people what to think. Yet during the training, liberals have left out (as they often do about other topics) many parts of the equation.
Gay rights used to mean equal permission to live any way they wanted without being subject to arrest. Things have changed. Full equality and in some cases greater protection and higher rights are sought. To accomplish the goal, all employers, landlords and organizations must be forced to accept homosexuality as if it were the same as God-assigned gender or race. Adoption agencies too.
Of course, many Democrats believe there is no God. So the discussion branches off at this point. Below under the section on evolution being taught in schools, the likelihood of there being no God is discussed. How do we know homosexuality is a deviation from God assigned (or nature-assigned, if you prefer) gender roles? It only takes flipping over the first card. A homosexual could never produce a child. End of that family line.
The war for gay rights represents an area where freedom of choice hardly sounds all that great to the Democrat. Going further, freedom of religion must by necessity be methodically stripped away. They hint at some unknown scientific reason to explain homosexuality, calling it genetically implanted into the person at birth. Science, of course, has never found any such link.
The Bible calls it a choice, a wrong choice. Most fair minded people (even those believing in the Bible) are willing to allow the gay crowd to live their own way nonetheless. Such tolerance is no longer sufficient for the Democrat or gay activist groups.
The coerced acceptance has made it into public schools, where indoctrination has been added to the mix, students being "taught" that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable and natural alternative to male-female relations. View here.
Democrats in California are seeking to go a step further, requiring the celebration of homosexuality in classrooms. View here. That entails teaching about various individuals in history who were gay.
Moreover, some students have been told in public school classrooms that experimenting for themselves will help them decide which sexual orientation they are destined to be. When reports of such activity become known, always uncovered and reported by non-traditional (conservative) news organizations, the mainstream news media (ABC, NBC, NPR, CBS, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, etc) deny their audiences the right to even hear about what is actually going on in the country.
See example of unreported (by the mainstream media) sexually related indoctrination in public schools here.
On the subject of sexuality, people are already getting fired in American corporations for suggesting that a gay life could be in any way wrong. In some European countries, doing so is labeled a hate crime, punishable by law this very day.
Update May 4, 2010: If the above claim seems unrealistic, here is an account of the recent arrest of a Christian street evangelist in England for merely saying out loud that homosexuality is, in the eyes of God, a sin: Christian preacher arrested... Other accounts of prior arrests are below the story in the linked article.
In light of the tone here and the last few paragraphs, let's talk about love, kindness and judgmentalism for a moment. It might sound cruel to speak about homosexuality with an implication that the behavior must be wrong and should therefore be pointed out and become an object of either derision or preaching.
First off, many people misunderstand the Biblical caution about judging others. There actually is a time for judging in scripture. Not all Christians do it the right way, to be sure. Neither do all non-Christians, most of which are likewise afflicted with the tendency to be judgmental. In either case, a whole bunch of efforts meant in love and for the protection of children are being mischaracterized as judgmentalism.
In their zeal to create a paradise on earth apart from God's plan, liberals have drafted their own moral code. One of the commandments in that code submits that homosexuality is a natural way of living. They have no proof for the conclusion. It is, therefore, nothing more than a religious view, a humanist religious view. But it has taken hold of western civilization just the same, much as all of liberal morality has.
As a result, the American Psychological Association years ago declassifed same-sex relationships from the list of abnormal mental conditions. What does that mean out in the real world? It means that all studies of homosexuality from a standpoint of possibly being a malady worthy of treatment were halted. It means that nobody studying psychology will be taught how to deal with the condition in a way distinct from heterosexuality. Furthermore, anybody holding a view of homosexuality being wrong may be denied admission to graduate programs for psychological counseling. One case has already made news, leastwise in the alternative media.
So what if a person experiencing homosexual thoughts chooses to SEEK help in becoming (or returning to being) a heterosexual on his or her own? Too bad. The liberal world has decided you MUST live that way or figure out how to get yourself free because they refuse to help anyone the moral code of humanism says needs no help. Is that loving and accepting? Kind of sounds like acceptance covers only those who think a certain way. Also, daring to hold a view apart from the humanist view assures anyone attempting to gain public office or who may be already influential in some way of getting brutally attacked by the liberal media as they attempt to destroy public support for the individual. Is that loving and accepting?
But what if the Bible is true? Sure, there are people who don't like that God because he seems harsh, because the Old Testament contains passages where the killing of seemingly innocent people was demanded, because that God imposes demands on humans. Many envision more tolerant and what they view as more loving qualities in a god, a god they (aside from the growing population of atheists) figure must be out there.
I see it as kind of like the Burger King principle, "Have it your way." "Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce; special orders don't upset us..." If you don't like the God being offered, reject him while searching for another.
But again, what if the Bible is true, this God, like him or not, the real God? There is plenty of evidence supporting the Bible, including prophecies that have come true and have been coming true in recent years. In an age of feel-good romantic comedies and ostensible freedom to choose nearly any lifestyle, do we have to like or approve of the God of the Bible for him to be real? What if, ponder this one for a moment, what if the actual God were a murdering thug, yet real nonetheless?
Imagine how much complaining that would produce. Thinking of the last question, what are people complaining about anyway? Precisely what does the actual Holy Bible God ask of them that leads to so much resentment and resistance? Other than in the Old Testament, has he called for their death? All things considered, if the God depicted in the Bible is the one true god, then we mere mortals are awfully darn fortunate to have gotten a creator and diety with so FEW demands.
Anyway, back to the current sub-topic, if homosexuality is indeed wrong on some level, then a logical theory could be postulated that accepting people in that condition, refusing to ever tell them the lifestyle might be wrong, taking the liberal way could itself be the unloving reaction. Liberals never like to view themselves as lacking compassion and love. Yet in their journey to find no wrong with lifestyle choices (other than the wrong of disagreeing with liberalism), in their refusal to accept the gift of wisdom and discernment from God (if there be such a thing), there is a possibility that they have mistaken acceptance for love and now made the act of truly loving a homosexual by sharing truth illegal. Wow!
So who is right? Until we know for sure, only the Democrat is working toward expressing one view a crime.
3. Borders and Immigration: During the argument and admission even by liberal reporters that perhaps 12 million illegal immigrants from Mexico reside in the United States, one crucial factor is omitted. Any child born to an illegal is instantly given American citizenship (along with the medical cost probably being paid for). No one has performed the calculation about how many that figure would add to the 12 million. I imagine at least up into the millions more.
At any rate, what Democarts want: There should be no limit whatsoever regarding who may arrive on these shores and compete for jobs, for housing, for space in the wild, for fish in the streams, for government handouts. The lack of limits should apply to even those who are carrying diseases. Since most Hispanics end up voting for Democrats, conservatives in the country speculate that the rationale is designed for rounding up new voters who lack sufficient knowledge to know what the Democrat stands for. In either case, no country on Earth, including Mexico, permits the type of rampant border violations taking place in the US.
Thanks to conservative talk radio, more and more Americans have been learning the truth about humanist liberals. Therefore, Democrat leaders continue seeking new fields of potential voters, immigrants being a bountiful supply.
Large cities in the US, the majority of them run by Democrats, have one after another begun forbidding police departments from reporting the apprehension of illegal alien criminals to immigration agents. Los Angeles and New York city are two of many examples. When there is a Democrat in the White House, it makes no difference anyway because they merely release illegals back on the streets of America.
4. Motor-Voter Law (voting with no identification): Democrats vigorously oppose all efforts to ensure honest voting. Going further, they helped Bill Clinton pass the 1993 Motor Voter Bill, which allows registration for voting when getting a drivers license. Recent attempts to approve drivers licenses for illegal immigrants is a natural extension of the 1993 bill because the illegal immigrants would be automatically registered to vote by the government. Their claimed defense is that requiring ID creates undue hardship on people who may lack the ability to secure a legal identification, such as a drivers license.
The Republican Party explains how ID is required for bank accounts, driving an automobile and even obtaining a cellphone contract. Without help from the federal government, a few states have taken to passing their own ID requirements. In response, Democrats have been whooshing in and taking each of the states to court. In 2008, there is a challenge that has made it all the way to the Supreme Court for deciding if imposing the proof of identify is illegal or a reasonable demand for ensuring fair elections.
5. Guns and Self-Defense: Democrats are for outlawing the right to own firearms. Period. After losing some elections based on the issue, Democrats became willing to lie about their overall intentions and achieve the goal incrementally, beginning with certain styles of handguns, then eventually all handguns, followed by rifles. Already, liberals worldwide have achieved their aims or partially so in numerous countries where citizens formerly held the right to protect themselves with guns. England and Canada are two examples.
Be careful to notice how they and their friends in the media often shift the debate by talking about the ownership of firearms for a "hunting" and "sporting" purpose, omitting the self-defense argument entirely, the one that can save your life. The former two categories carry no emotion. Ratherm they are just about "rights" instead of life and death. The Democrat knows he will lose the debate when challenging the Consitutional right of an American to defend him or herself against a violent criminal. So he sticks to the hunting and sporting angle.
Denying all documented evidence2, 3 compiled by research, the Democrat leader and his or her friends in the media continually portray a carefully crafted myth that guns are more dangerous than automobiles, swimming pools and even ordinary playing in the yard, even though more people are accidentally killed by each of those every year than with guns. Furthermore, guns have the power to save lives. Swimming pools rarely accomplish such a feat.
The Democrat wants you to hold off intruders with a telephone (if you have one) that can be used to call 911 and a teeny can of liquid (if you have one) that shoots a quite narrow stream of irritant a few feet. It makes no noise and creates no deterrence whatsoever unless somehow managing to aim perfectly (perhaps in the dark) to hit the eyes of the intruder after he is close enough to slice a knife across your chest.
The research conducted by Professor John Lott in his book More Guns Less Crime indicates very clearly that taking away firearms from law-abiding citizens leads to an increase in murder, rape and robberies. Conversely, after various townships across the U.S. began permitting residents to increase their access to firearms in the form of concealed carry permits, crime decreased in each and every case. And of course that makes sense when taking into account that even criminals generally desire to avoid being shot by a powerful gun. If the criminal has no idea who might be concealing such an article under his coat, then daring to threaten and rob people takes on a whole new dimension.
Ahhh, but the Democrat then frequently replies that America, land of the right to own guns, has more gun murders than all other countries.
That is true. We also have more murders without guns than other countries. Without trying to get lost in the psychology of American culture here, at least the first part, more gun violence, is easy to explain.
The reason we have so many gun crimes in America is that we first permitted (the only nation anywhere writing it into the Constitution) everyone to own guns, then began forbidding citizens from actually carrying the things.
So you end up with a nation where millions of guns are in drawers and closets, though only criminals are willing to carry them outdoors. Liberals also hysterically demanded that gun instruction be removed from public schools. Combined with how their allies in the media have cleverly portrayed people who own firearms as thoughtless rednecks, fewer and fewer people buy and learn to use firearms.
Instant recipe for disaster. Washington DC, until a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, took the liberal philosophy even further, banning handgun ownership entirely, including those kept in the home. Washington DC has for many years, all of them with Democrats in charge, held the dubious distinction of being the murder capital of the country.
6. The "Missile Shield": In general, hard-core liberals believe the United States to be more evil than all other countries. They are, unfortunately, never informed about the legacies of nations controlled by regimes adhering to extreme liberalism (communism), including China (which murdered some 20 million of its own citizens) and the Soviet Union (which murdered some 50 million of its own citizens). The view of the typical liberal who votes for Democrats is, once again, based on deceitful teaching from public schools and similarly deceitful reporting by the major news networks, ABC, NBC, NPR and CBS, the lot of them combining to paint an inaccurate picture of supposed Yankee imperialism, plus of course the history of slavery.
Asked to define imperialism in light of the U.S. actually having no colonies (the traditional requirement for being an empire), the Democrat will generally change the subject, begin hurling insults at America from another angle, unfairness to the poor, racism. Slavery remains especially interesting. For thousands of years nations engaged in slavery, all of them beyond the borders of the United States, and well before Europeans ever settled here. In fact, slavery goes on to this day. But no one is told about how America became merely a teeny dot in a world filled with slavery. That would ruin the message. Consequently, liberal school teachers and the media steer around news that places history in perspective, preferring to drive home the incorrect idea that this one country has been uniquely evil in modern times.
Carrying this fake view of history, in his heart the misinformed liberal longs for the United States to be taught a lesson (and justifiably so, were the lies he has been told actually true). Therefore, any mechanism strengthening our security, be it offensive or defensive, is deemed wrong.
Democrat leaders, on the other hand, oppose the defense shield and hope to destroy traditional American for another reason. Many of them understand true history. The fake version is merely to push gullible and good-hearted liberal voters into handing power over to Democrat politicans. Afterward, those politicians can work toward the real goal, creating a one-world government under the UN or another authority, destroying the Constitution along the way, outlawing the free practice of religion and controlling people through taxes, legislation and peer pressure.
Since a DEFENSE shield can not be derided as provocative OFFENSIVE weaponry, the liberal legislator walks a fine line opposing this amazing protective layer that wards off incoming missiles. On occasion, if confronted with a question on-air, he might resort to over-hyping early attempts at shooting down incoming missiles that resulted in failure. To that end, they pretty much rely on hoping most people will never notice the missile tests that began hitting their targets a while back. Fake news editors help along those lines by killing stories that make the program look effective. Mostly, Democrats work the tried and true method of handling items they oppose, by refusing to even bring them up, preferring to quietly kill missile defense in large budgets where funding is carved away a piece at a time.
7. Abortion: Everyone knows that Democrats are "pro-choice", which is a code phrase that ends up meaning abortion at any age for any reason at any time during a pregnancy. That includes the procedure known as partial-birth abortion, a fetus removed even after entering the timespan when it could survive outside the womb if delivered. Describing how the fetus gets removed is too grizzly for even a description by me of what Democrats believe.
They claim to oppose legislation outlawing partial birth abortion because of a supposed absence of a clause allowing exceptions for the "health" of pregnant women. That is a ruse, a bold and often repeated lie. Even Barack Obama as President of the United States, following Bill Clinton before him, has while in office issued those deceptive words. No mainstream media organization bothered to inform audiences of the truth. Doctors already have latitude to make decisions in order to save the mother's life, including aborting the fetus. The "health of the mother" clause is nothing more than a clever mechanism permitting a partial birth abortion for any reason, such as a feeling of stress or a headache, which are the secret definitions of "health" known to all Democrat leaders and their friends in the media.
Abortions are called freedom of choice. Anyone opposing the program is called anti-choice. While this issue may seem like the most important to the Democrat, there is actually one greater that colors all of their positions. We will get there in due course.
8. Abortions for minor children too: WITHOUT parental permission OR EVEN the knowledge of parents that their child is undergoing a surgical procedure. While handing out an Aspirin in school is forbidden, advising young girls where to get an abortion fits easily into the Democrat view of acceptable counsel from responsible adults, otherwise known as public school teachers.
Whether to be more angry with Democrats or the millions of parents who vote for them despite the goal (and policy in some locales) of allowing school girls to get a surgical abortion without parental knowledge remains an internal conflict of mine.
9. Government schooling: The younger the better, the more years the better. Consequently, most citizens now attend school for sixteen years. God is forbidden entry in government schools. The teaching of "morals" IS allowed, however. Those morals are based on the liberal world view of life, which is based on the philosophy of humanism. Most public school teachers are liberals themselves, all the more so in American universities4. Students are exposed to repeated assaults on the Constitution, the nation's heritage, history and foreign policy, all while omitting the libraries of greatness and love produced in and by this one country. European students are fed a similar diet of distorted history about America by their media, politicians and teachers, thus explaining the animosity accurately reported toward this nation.
But why, you might wonder, do so many liberals harbor such a visceral hatred toward traditional American culture while they lavish praise on the socialist regimes of Europe and elsewhere? The answer begins with a comparison. What other country is endlessly scrutinized by liberals worldwide? While the Venezuelan communist president Hugo Chavez can seize television stations to prevent free speech, while the Chinese liberal communists can deny the right of childbirth to citizens, while Arab nations demand women live without rights granted to men, all occurring without protest by liberal leaders, only Israel joins the United States for constant and historical condemnation by Democrats and the mainstream media.
The reason: Only those two nations hold the Bible above all other authority. This analysis could be inaccurate. Yet the fact is that no other countries inspire so much condemnation with so little justification for the endless emotional outbursts. The strongest factor winding through both of their histories is the one element lacking from the rest of the world, a clear devotion to the God of that one book.
10. Sex-ed: Teaching children how to engage in sexual intercourse in government schools, all without any mention of the emotional and spiritual consequences. Democrats managed to get sexual teaching into the schools by predicting their wise instruction would reduce the teenage pregnancy rate, which at the time was actually rather small. When pregnancy rates sky-rocketed in the years afterward, Democrats never skipped a beat and merely began preaching about the need for more classroom instruction. When Republicans requested a portion of the curricula to recommend advising against sexual activity before marriage, the Democrats howled in protest.
11. School vouchers (no freedom of choice): Democrats oppose allowing parents to take the money spent on government schooling and use it for placing their children in halls of learning where God has not been denied entry, where the tenets of the liberal mindset are not taught as the proper morality in place of the one denied entry, where honest history is presented in history class, where the silly lies of global warming and evolution are not forced on the vulnerable minds of young children.
The National Education Association (which is a labor union), walks in philosophical lockstep with the Democratic Party. Getting rid of underperforming or outright incompetent teachers has long been essentially forbidden. And even the good ones (by standards of being effective teachers) are generally atheist liberals. Used to be that teaching was merely a starting point for college graduates before moving into more permanent careers. Democrats have made schools into indoctrination camps for creating good liberals. To that end, it is no surprise why they desire to hold onto already trained liberal teachers and resist efforts to allow children education elsewhere.
12. Hate-crimes penalties: A concept that remains a favorite of Democrats. The proposed laws largely cover the areas of race and homosexuality. While enthusiastically trumpeted if racism can be found committed by a white person against a minority, when racial atrocities are committed BY minorities, the Democrat has no stomach for calling the action a hate crime. Nor can one find it reported by the national news outlets.
Later I will try to update this portion about the anti-white-ism being taught in classes I took as a student in 2009-10 at Southern Oregon University, and probably most other colleges.
13. The World Court: Liberal governments in Europe decided that people should be arrested, tried and convicted for violating their laws, even if the violations took place by a citizen of the United States while IN the United States and under lawful behavior in his own country. Democrats demand that America subject itself to authority of the World Court, an organization deriving its moral compass from the code of humanism, which teaches that no laws from God exist because there is no God.
14. The Boy Scouts: What ordinary Americans were deliberately never told during the controversy is that militant homosexual groups are trying for quite a bit more than permission for young gay boys to become Scouts. The actual prize is to attain leadership positions in that organization.
Here's the other part that is supposed to remain a little secret. Regardless of your opinion on the topic, common sense instructs adults to never put grown men in charge of Girl Scout troops because men are ATTRACTED TO the female of the species. For that reason, we assign WOMEN to oversee the activities of young girls in the Girl Scouts. On the flip side of the gender consideration, it is equally lacking in common sense to assign young boys to homosexual men because, again, homosexual men are ATTRACTED TO the MALE of the species.
Anyone making that simple argument is forbidden airtime on 60 Minutes and the rest of the mainstream media programs because their aim is to present all people opposing homosexual freedom as lacking logic and thereby operating out of nothing more than petty hatred.
And while on the subject, it has thoroughly and cleverly slipped by the collective consciousness of the populace that Girl Scout organizations quite a while ago secretly began allowing lesbian leaders to be in authority over the Girl Scouts, and even appointed one of the nation's leading liberal feminists to run the national group.
15. Freedom of Speech: To the Democrat, the term means freedom of pornography, in general all things sexual (deviant or otherwise), along with freedom to speak ill of America. Freedom of speech no longer sounds all that great to the Democrat when daring to say anything outside the liberal worldview, such as a prayer in public or that a minority committed a crime or that certain sexual lifestyle choices might hurt the ones practicing them.
16. Environmentalism: At the core of extreme liberalism (which not all Democrats believe) is a contempt for human life on the planet. They see humans as violent creatures that spoil the pristine nature of the land. Part of that is actually true, part of it misleading. Humans can be violent, though animals definitely can be also. In either case, only the extreme liberal wishes the humans would go away.
Regardless, another tidbit that is supposed to remain unknown is that a Republican president initiated the practice of setting aside large parcels of pristine wilderness for protection. That president was Theodore Roosevelt.
Taking the premise way too far, Democrats refuse to allow oil drilling in remote areas of Alaska that well more than 99 percent of the populace will never see anyway. Dreams of fuel-free automobiles then contrast with the Democrat reality of willing submission to hostile Arab countires for oil instead of using what is available right here.
In order to convince more voters to go along with Democratic Party refusal to help the U.S. gain energy independence, reporters at ABC, NBC and CBS made a practice during the Bush years of showing misleading and incorrect depictions of the area in Alaska proposed for drilling. In other words, they showed video from places no one proposed to drill in. They lied.
The Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth has been widely criticized across the globe by scientists for inaccuracy and hyperbolic speculation lacking plausibility. Dissenting scientists are denied airtime on news outlets while those same outlets provided Gore millions of dollars in free advertising disguised as news about the film. Hollywood deemed the propaganda film worthy of an Academy Award as they had done for the similarly deceptive Micheal Moore film Fahrenheit 911.
A documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle has been produced and aired in various locales around the world. It refutes the dire predictions of doom promoted by Gore, the UN, Europe, Hollywood and Democrats, and then goes further by describing what the liberals are actually doing in their deceptive campaign for global warming laws.
The media in America have been pretending the documentary doesn't exist. Even though being extremely well produced and fighting to gain recognition against powerful forces, the rebuttal documentary will never be nominated for an Academy Award because most of the world's major awards (Nobel, Pulitzer and the Oscars) are reserved for liberal works.
View The Great Global Warming Swindle now by clicking here. It will open in a new browser window. A link to the video is also available on the User Tools page, along with the home page of meetchristians.com
Another item Democrats and their allies in the press have chosen to remain quiet about: By May 19, 2008, a total of 31,000 scientists had signed a petition opposing the hysteria surrounding the global warming theory, opposing the conclusion that man is playing any role whatsoever in what is probably (with supporting evidence) a typical cycle of temperatures on earth.
17. The Kyoto Protocol: A treaty that stems from false teaching about global warming, and before that fears about a disintegrating Ozone layer and before that tales of devastating acid rain. Signing onto the pact would mean American money being transferred to other countries in order to pay for what is considered an imbalance in the consumption of resources by America. Growing industrial nations India and China would have been exempt from Kyoto. Though every single Democrat in Congress voted against participation in Kyoto (along with Republicans), they still criticize Republicans for failing to help make the restrictions and requirements mandatory. Their friends in the press let them get away with the duplicity by simply neglecting to mention that prior vote.
18. Income and Taxes: The Democrat believes that appointed liberals are more wise and more caring than individual citizens, and should thus be handed the power to take money out of the bank or paychecks of hundreds of millions of people, giving that money to their neighbors based on an attempt to create a paradise on earth where all are equal and no pain exists. Actually, this may be one of their more noble ideas, in theory, even if completely absent of knowledge about human nature.
No matter what else, citizens who choose to save and spend wisely end up being the ones punished, as their income is taken away to support people who make choices leaving them broke, entitling them to grab money from others, with the help of IRS agents. Furthermore, by tearing down all consequence for making poor choices, the liberal politician ironically ends up blocking those who most need it from learning important lessons in life about responsibility, lessons designed into the program by God. Therefore, people remain poor and in need of handouts because they are always offered handouts.
There is no choice to opt out of the income transfer plans and programs of Democrats. Currently, they can take credit for Social Security, welfare, food stamps, rent and home payments, energy assistance, paying for the childbirth of illegal immigrants (many Americans too), college grants, payments for a disabled child, 6 months at a time of unemployment payments and quite a few more.
19. Voting rights for convicted felons: The Democrats have long pushed for extending the vote to ex-convicts, possibly because polling indicates they are more likely to vote for Democrats. The Democrats have furthermore traditionally been in favor of letting convicted criminals out of prison early.
20. The 2000 presidential election in Florida: Speaking of voting rights, and since this was a huge lie pulled on the world by Democrats and the media, one that lingers to this day, it warrants a mention here. I will offer the condensed version.
After every election for president, many counties across the country have "spoiled ballots." For one reason or another, they have been discarded, generally for obvious reasons, occasionally because markings make them difficult to know for sure the intent of the voter.
Short of voting all over again, polling precincts have chosen to just let things be with regard to spoiled ballots because the process of trying to divine voter intent would, if honestly conducted, accomplish very little in most cases. That's due to the ones in the trash being likely to reflect the percentages of those being marked correctly. So counting them would make little to no difference.
But Al Gore, the press and Democrats are rather smart little rascals. They developed a strategy to only count discarded ballots in certain counties, ones where more people vote for Democrats. So let's just say you have 100 counties with 10 spoiled ballots in each one. That means 1000 ballots (100 counties x 10 ballots) are laying in trash cans. Suppose half of the counties generally fall Democrat by 60% and the vote is tied or close to a tie after counting the legal ballots.
Democrats fly in with a court order demanding to count precincts again because of trumped-up allegations of irregularities. Here is where the magic fits in. They only want to hold a recount, including considering spoiled ballots from the trash cans, in the 50 Democrat counties (or maybe just a few of the most liberal counties, depending on how many votes are needed to overtake the Republican in the race).
At a 60% Democrat majority in the chosen counties, from the 10 ballots pulled out of the trash each county by average will produce 6 new Democrat votes and 4 new Republican votes (or a net of 2 new Democrat votes per county). By never recounting votes in Republican majority counties, presto, you have just added 100 Democrat votes from the 50 counties (6 Democrat minus 4 Republican = 2. And 2 x 50 counties = 100 new votes).
They have essentially been getting away with stealing elections this way for a while. Rather than telling the truth, the media allowed nearly 7 billion people on earth to believe that Bush and the Supreme Court wilfully deprived American citizens of the right to have their votes count. In truth, the Florida Supreme Court either lacked the intelligence to see through the ruse or collaborated to help Gore try to steal the election. The court was comprised of mostly Democrats afterall. Were it not for a few brave people at the federal level (minus two liberals voting with Gore), trickery would have produced the 2000 election winner.
Michael Moore won an Academy Award for his propaganda work disguised as a documentary, Fahrenheit 911, which opened by advancing the deceitful notion that Gore was robbed of a supposedly rightful election victory. Other documentaries have carried the identical false contention, plus perhaps millions of comedy routines over the years.
21. The Death Penalty: They accuse Republicans of being inconsistent by supporting the life of unborn children, but death for convicted murderers. Republicans shoot back the same charge of inconsistency when Democrats strive to save the lives of murderers while strenuously siding with the right of women to kill their unborn, even those that could live outside the womb. When the cards are compared, both have a point. Yet only the Democrats tend to defend criminals while leaving the fate of the innocent to the whims of individuals.
22. Communism (and it's cousin, socialism): First, a Democrat president stood down while communists came to power in Russia in 1917, weeks later murdering the royal couple, along with their four young daughters and young son in a storm of bullets in the basement of a country home. Afterward, the conquering party launched a reign of murder, terror and denial of freedom continuing for decades. Hollywood celebrities openly cheered government communism in the former Russia, which became known as the Soviet Union.
Later, two successive Democrat presidents in the 1930's and 40's helped communism expand in the world on other fronts by first agreeing to allow Joseph Stalin to take over Eastern Europe, enslaving the people there, then handing China over to a new communist regime, wherein another instance of tens of millions were killed.
Vietnam was a war waged in an effort to stem the rapid advance of aggressive communism from the Soviet Union and China (who financially sponsored the aggression by the North Vietnamese), not the "civil war" claimed by Democrats in America.
After years of Democrats refusing to win the war in Vietnam (two Democrat presidents presided over the early years of the conflict), the American citizens had been whipped into an anti-war frenzy by an anti-war press, headed by Walter Cronkite of CBS (who misled his own audience about the Tet Offensive in 1968). The presidential election in 1968 put a Republican in the White House (following John F. Kennedy (1960) and Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963)). The Republican came to power promising to finish the Vietnam engagement. He did so by building up the South Vietnamese so they could defend themselves against communist attacks.
But Democrats in America were having none of it, voting to cut off funding the South Vietnamese army even after President Nixon had withdrawn US troops5. Within a couple years, South Vietnam fell to the communists. When asked in 2007 by a reporter for Fox News what she thought about 2 million civilians being murdered afterward, Hollywood actress Jane Fonda blamed America for being there in the first place.
With communism advancing into South America in the 1970's after the fall of Vietnam, leaders of the movement were supported, even entertained, by Hollywood celebrities and the American president, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. Later, Democrats in Congress enacted a law (the Boland Amendment) forbidding a Republican president (Ronald Reagan) from helping South American governments fight the advance of communism. To this day, the only charge of impropriety Democrats have to label Reagan with is the alleged violation of the Boland Amendment, wherein he is said to have secretly shipped arms down there. The American people are still deprived of hearing the entire story.
World War I begins with a Democrat in the White House, who then ends up sending American troops, 116,000 of them never returning alive. Woodrow Wilson failed to get his dreamed of League of Nations ratified afterward, which would have been like the UN, a world body thought to be smarter than the American people, and thus with authority over decisions in our country.
World War II begins with a Democrat in the White House, who in turn sends American troops. 406,000 were killed. Ordinary Japanese-American citizens were sent to prisons during the conflict, all done by order of a Democrat president. Whether any of these conflicts or decisions were wise is a topic worthy of debate. Yet with public schools having failed to properly arm students with historical knowledge based on facts rather than a liberal ideological world-view (where all Republicans are evil and greedy), it is useful merely helping people understand which political party oversaw the events.
This time the Democrat dream of placing America under the authority of a world body does come true. The old vision of a League of Nations becomes the United Nations, which goes on to support Muslims while vigorously condemning Israel and the U.S. for years and years afterward, even placing known terrorists on the Security Council. They furthermore stood by while nearly half a million innocent civilians were slaughered in Rwanda in the year 1994, a massacre Bill Clinton admits having never done enough to prevent or slow. Despite massive corruption in recent years (See: UN oil for food scandal), media outlets in America and Europe helped the affair duck public scrutiny by pretty much pretending it never occurred throughout the months of investigations and startling revelations.
The Korean War (33,600 American soldiers killed) and Vietnam war (58,000 American soldiers killed) each begin with Democrats in the White House, in both cases leading to U.S. troop deployment by those presidents. And in fact, the Democrat Bill Clinton called for the forced removal of Saddam Hussein and the overthrow of Iraq, a policy signed by Congress and publicly supported by virtually the entire Democratic Party leadership.
Before he got that far, another opportunity presented itself for President Clinton to appear presidential. The government of Serbia had been under hostile attacks by Islamic radicals in the province of Kosovo. Even the Clinton State Department labeled the Kosovar Muslims as "terrorists". Yet for defending themselves and eventually settling on telling all of the Muslims to go home, the U.S. president had a made-for-tv scene in the roads filled with Muslims walking out of Serbia and Kosovo.
So what did he decide upon? Invade Serbia (with the UN voting AGAINST the Clinton aggression). In doing so, U.S. armies were forced to fight on the side of Muslim fighters in order to overthrow the Christian people of Serbia, in effect stealing from them the province of Kosovo. Rather than interviewing hundreds of anti-war protesters (there were none for some reason), news anchors Dan Rather of CBS, along with the NBC and ABC contingents, flew over to Kosovo and helped make the case for audiences back home that Clinton must be right. He was not. No cries of protests rang through cities across the world despite a belligerent and wrong-headed attack against a sovereign country that was only guilty of protecting itself from terrorists.
24. Witch-hunts and McCarthyism: While the term "McCarthyism" has been turned into a slur by liberal reporters and their kinfolk in the Democratic Party, meant to define persecution (a witch-hunt of sorts) of people for supposedly non-existent links to communist organizations, the real story is another matter. In reality, McCarthy had accurately identified numerous actual communists happily earning a living and undermining their own country while working inside top levels of government in two successive Democrat presidencies, those of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman6.
In order to cover up the messy revelation about communists crawling around throughout the Democrat administrations, Democrats and the press (along with movie producers in Hollywood) needed to destroy Senator Joseph McCarthy. They were so effective in the lie that even today Democrats boldly denounce Republicans for employing "McCarthy-ite" tactics, used in modern times to signify any form of asking serious questions deemed inappropriate by the Democrats.
25. Cutting up Israel: Though Jews already reside on a piece of land one-third the size of Oregon (not much bigger than Los Angeles County), 1/300th the size of surrounding Arab territory, Democrats and Arabs are dedicated to the prospect of Israel surrendering half of that teeny nation to hostile Arabs who call themselves Palestinians and swear to push the people of Israel into the Mediterranean Sea. Democrat president Jimmy Carter prided himself on an agreement that saw Israel give up the Gaza Strip to Egypt. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (against the conservative base of his own party) supported further land sacrifices.
Update June 15, 2010: President Obama, the UN, the media and much of the world have condemned Israel for killing 9 supposed peace activists aboard a ship attempting to cross an Israeli blockade and enter the Gaza area. Most of the critics have ignored evidence showing those peace activists beating a soldier with metal pipes, stabbing him and throwing the body over the side of their boat after pulling him down from the helicopter from which he attempted to board the ship.
26. Universal healthcare: Fits into item #22 above. It is always the first benefit offered by communists when attempting to take over a country in order to get the poor on their side. The tactic walks hand in hand with promises to take money from the rich, playing on the human vice of envy. In order to accomplish the task, leastwise in the U.S., the truth about how the rich actually pay a far higher percentage of their incomes must never be mentioned.
Another piece of the puzzle left out of the national discussion is that no one in America is denied health CARE anyway. Hospitals are required by law to admit and care for all patients showing up at the door. When speaking about the 40-some million without health "care", one must keep in mind what is actually going on, that 40-some million lack health INSURANCE. And many of them do so willingly, including myself. They would rather invest money elsewhere, paying for medical bills as they arise. Furthermore, the figure takes into account illegal immigrants, which is an intentional manipulation of the statistic.
27. Welfare and Food Stamps: Before welfare began paying people to stay at home, increasing their monthly allowance upon making new children, crime in the ghettos was a near paradise compared to modern times, which of course eliminates the Democrat excuse for crimes among the poor. What actually occurs is that a teenage girl who lacked proper upbringing is then, thanks to liberals, permitted to move into her own home and raise little babies all by herself, or even with various boyfriends around, perhaps living in the home.
In our world, people only have about 6 chances of being forced to grow up, become responsible citizens. 1. Good parents. Lacking those, 2. Wise and loving teachers at school who have the time to fill in. 3. The church. 4. Being arrested, followed by feeling compelled to reform yourself. 5. The military. 6. A job.
Welfare is partially accountable for removing #1, good parents, because of handing money to wayward teenagers, supporting them for 20 years. Doing so also eliminates #6, a job. The baby takes away the military option. Democrats have enacted laws forcing God out of public schools. Welfare has seen to it that schools are filled with fatherless children lacking any discipline in their lives. Consequently, wise and loving teachers with spare time are in short supply, and even then forbidden from telling children that God may help fill the hole in their hearts. Finally, because there is so much crime thanks to years and years of liberal policies, even getting arrested rarely leads to much incarceration time, wherein lost boys and girls might be forced to turn around.
In the end, the liberal Democrat actually hurts the very people he or she claims to be helping. Nothing is more cruel than witnessing the destruction of our nation's youth by handing free money to delinquent or, at best, naive and foolish teenagers. Moreover, welfare has broken the national spirit, as people with money no longer feel a need to give for charity. Plus they feel depressed upon watching what has occurred to their country.
Democrats have destroyed the America those of us in middle age grew up in. And yet they want more.
28. Ridding the land of religious symbols: Democrats yearn to get federal money into every conceivable organization in society. One reason is that doing so allows them to once again hold up the false teaching about separation of church and state, a phrase which actually is found nowhere in the Constitution, and merely emanates from Supreme Court justices appointed by Democrat and liberal Republican presidents who had to peer into a single letter written by one man to a group of Baptists who were concerned about the government intruding into their rights.
While you will rarely hear a Democrat actually come out and advocate tearing down crosses and monuments displaying the 10 Commandments, it is nearly impossible to find an instance of a liberal complaining about the tearing down of the nation's heritage.
All things considered, this item stands tall as the preeminent feature of the liberal mindset. For anyone who studies the Bible, then observes what the Democrat politician fights for day in and out, discovers that in each and every case God and the Democrat stand as polar opposites, leaving the liberal leaders tragically as a living embodiment of an anti-God party.
Warning: Following the 2004 election losses, Democrats in Washington initiated a plan to begin talking about "their faith" more, which they had theretofore supposedly kept a private matter. They are being deceitful. For the most part, we are talking about atheists. Those who do actually seek a faith connection seem to always end up in churches where most of the teachings from the Bible are left out of the program, such as in the Catholic Church.