Month: July 2011
Job Killing Actions by Atlanta
Update on Norway Killer and the Medias Attack on Conservatives
I posted examples of the media jumping the gun with previous killers or attempted killers in a post entitled “Norway’s Oklahoma.” I also posted Michael Medved’s opening monologue as well as a call taken by him, HERE. Also, I have included the first two segments of Dennis Pragers dealing with the medias attack on people quoted in Breivik’s rant.
Libertarian Republican has done some fantastic footwork that I wish to share with my readers here (Breivik opposed laissez-faire; favored nationalizing industries).
More evidence surfacing that mass-murderer Anders Breivik was a populist opposed to free market capitalism.
Ezra Dulis at BigJournalism.com has dug through his massive on-line manifesto. Breivik was an environmentalist, ranting against “global pollution.” He even advocated a Chinese-style population model, to prevent “overconsumption, saving their forests ect.”
And then this nugget:
All globalist companies will be nationalised (a minimum of 50,1% ownership must be redistributed to EF governments hands (combined) at any given time, for their respective countries). Investors with majority control who refuse this re-nationalisation process will have their respective corporation expelled from the European Federation monetary zone (losing trading concessions). Ensuring state control is the only way to avoid that globalist capitalist political lobby groups continue to negatively influence European policies relation to immigration and multiculturalism.
I never thought I would actually argue against capitalism but the US model is an extreme variant, almost resembling a pure laissez faire model. 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are now in the hands of 1 percent of the people. 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
There’s more. He goes on to side with the far left in utter hatred for Fox owner Rupert Murdoch.
In the UK, News International (a company mostly owned by Rupert Murdoch) owns several newspapers (including The Times and The Sun), Sky Television (a major European satellite operator), Star Television (covering Asia) and publishers like Harper Collins.
In 1998, Rupert Murdoch owned 34% of the daily newspapers and 37% of the Sunday newspapers in the UK. Successive UK governments have allowed his empire to grow in return for his media’s support.
Cross-media ownership and the fact that a small number of people own so many of our means of obtaining information is a threat…
Finally, he makes an insane argument that the United States wants to keep troops in Europe to “preserve Europe as a stable market for their products.” He compares U.S. economic interests to “slavery.”
(John & Ken) Gov. Moonbeam Says Dream Act Will Not Be A Dream Much Longer~Already Signed Part Of It Into Law
Preaching the Gospel To Ourselves~Knowing Our Place Allows for Greater Understanding of What God Accomplished On Our Behalf
One pastor that put a twist on preaching the Gospel to ourselves rather than pointing to others as a cause of chaos is Supt. H. Burnett of Dunamis Word. This pastor and I may not see eye-to-eye on the non-essentials. But on the essentials, he preaches the Gospel message as it should be: we are sinners in need of a savior… and we need daily regeneration by the continued workings of the Holy Spirit. His pointing a segment of his readers to the fact that they shouldn’t be concerned about secret or conspiratorial marks on the Dollar Bill or New World Order type shenanigans, but rather, these marks of rebellion and sinfulness are in and on each one of us ~ IS BRILLIANT. In other words… preach the Gospel to ourselves, start there. A great insight!
Half-Yes,Half of all jobs created in America the last few years were by Texas!
From Libertarian Republican:
….According to USA Today – Economy “Texas bucks national unemployment trend” July 28:
From June 2009 to June 2011 the state added 262,000 jobs, or half the USA’s 524,000 payroll gains, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even by a more conservative estimate that omits states with net job losses, Texas’ advances make up 30% of the 1 million additions in the 34 states with net growth.
Paul Davidson at USA Today adds this:
The stunning showing could play a role in the presidential race. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is signaling he may run for the Republican nomination. If he does, he’s likely to ground his campaign in his state’s outsized job growth.
Editor’s comment – Y’all come on down. But don’t bring those Yankee (and California) style regulations and high taxes with ya.
I Love This Police Officer! Great Job! (2nd Amendment Watch)
Typical Hatred from the Left~ Fear Mongering Pelosi Doing what she does the best
Dylan Ratigan (MSNBC) Smokin Crack!?
NewsBusters explains the crazy talk above. Another odd thing they talk about in the video is when Democrats controlled Congress. Dems took over in Nov of 2006. Odd:
In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.
At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama’s inauguration.
By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89–which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office–the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.
When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.
In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.
True, President Bush and the Republican Congress he had in about six of the eight years of his presidency were not exactly models of fiscal restraint.
That being said, President Obama and the pre-Tea Party Democratic Congress of 2009-2011 ramped up the spending even more, and at an alarming pace compared to President Bush or previous presidents.
Al Sharpton Not too Sharpton
Translation (from NewsBusters): You make a valid point and I can’t refute it, so I’ll feign indifference instead. Clearly it was too difficult for Sharpton to bring himself to say — fair enough, congressman.
Buddhist Monks and Sex-Abuse (You Will Only Hear About Catholic Abuses)
Deeper Thinking Here at RPT
Then… if reality is ultimately characterless and distinctionless, then the distinction between being enlightened and unenlightened is ultimately an illusion and reality is ultimately unreal. Whom is doing the leading? Leading to what? These still are distinctions being made, that is: “between knowing you are enlightened and not knowing you are enlightened.” In the Diamond Sutra, ultimately, the Bodhisattva loves no one, since no one exists and the Bodhisattva knows this:
“All beings must I lead to Nirvana, into the Realm of Nirvana which leaves nothing behind; and yet, after beings have been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana. And why? If in a Bodhisattva the notion of a “being” should take place, he could not be called a “Bodhi-being.” And likewise if the notion of a soul, or a person should take place in him.
So even the act of loving others, therefore, is inconsistent with what is taught in the Buddhistic worldview, because there is “no one to love.” This is shown quite well (this self-refuting aspect of Buddhism) in the book, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha. A book I recommend with love, from a worldview that can use the word love well. One writer puts it thusly: “When human existence is blown out, nothing real disappears because life itself is an illusion. Nirvana is neither a re-absorption into an eternal Ultimate Reality, nor the annihilation of a self, because there is no self to annihilate. It is rather an annihilation of the illusion of an existing self. Nirvana is a state of supreme bliss and freedom without any subject left to experience it.”
(From: REINCARNATION VS. LAWS OF LOGIC)
(This is a h/t to Freepers) The Chicago Tribune has this story about Monks disappearing when needed in court. Buddhist Temples say, “not our responsibility”:
Buddhist monks walk away from sex-abuse cases
Across the U.S., temples frustrate investigators by insisting they have no control over monks’ actions, whereabouts
The meeting took place at Wat Dhammaram, a cavernous Theravada Buddhist temple on the southwest edge of Chicago. A tearful 12-year-old told three monks how another monk had turned off the lights during a tutoring session, lifted her shirt and kissed and fondled her breasts while pressing against her, according to a lawsuit.
Shortly after that meeting, one of the monks sent a letter to the girl’s family, saying the temple’s monastic community had resolved the matter, the lawsuit says.
The “wrong doer had accepted what he had done,” wrote P. Boonshoo Sriburin, and within days would “leave the temple permanently” by flying back to Thailand.
“We have done our best to restore the order,” the letter said.
But 11 years later, the monk, Camnong Boa-Ubol, serves at a temple in California, where he says he interacts with children even as he faces a second claim, supported by DNA, that he impregnated a girl in the Chicago area.
Sriburin acknowledges that restoring order did not involve stopping Boa-Ubol from making the move to California. And it did not involve issuing a warning to the temple there. Wat Dhammaram didn’t even tell its own board of directors what happened with the monk, he said.
“We have no authority to do anything. … He has his own choice to live anywhere,” Sriburin said.
A Tribune review of sexual abuse cases involving several Theravada Buddhist temples found minimal accountability and lax oversight of monks accused of preying on vulnerable targets.
Because they answer to no outside ecclesiastical authority, the temples respond to allegations as they see fit. And because the monks are viewed as free agents, temples claim to have no way of controlling what they do next. Those found guilty of wrongdoing can pack a bag and move to another temple — much to the dismay of victims, law enforcement and other monks.
A woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by a monk at a Theravada Buddhist temple in Chicago holds her 11-year-old daughter, who was conceived, according to her mother, during the assaults. (Stacey Wescott, Chicago Tribune / July 24, 2011)
I want to note an old conversation/debate on a similar issue with a friend-of-a-friend. We were discussing the Ground Zero mosque and one of the mantras that spread around the liberal-sphere was that if you cannot build the mosque next to sacred ground that you cannot build Catholic churches next to schools. I responded:
Here is a response to a conversation elsewhere. I originally was going to post this in multiple pieces on FaceBook, but it would have been too many posts. I post it here only because my comments section here at RPT and my response here are not limited to certain amounts of spaces or words. Enjoy, although as usual, I am long-winded. I should be a professor!
Sean, no one was lost at the Burlington Coat Factory (where the COMMUNITY CENTER, not “mosque” will be based). If we are to follow your logic, I guess no Catholic churches should be located within a few blocks of daycare centers, no? Anyway, I am a New Yorker and I also realize polls can be made to indicate almost anything. Most of the people I know think it is more important to hold up sacred tenants of our constitution than to cave in to very misguided xenophobia. There have been a LOT of people bussed in to protest and the anti-Islamic rhetoric is very damaging. (Salon)
Thanks Nora for hopping into this conversation. This can be an emotional topic, so know that even though I cannot see your facial expressions, hear concern, humor, or consternation in your tone — I afford you the best of intentions. I do wish to, however, point out some mistakes in your thinking. I may take a post or two to do so as I respect where you are coming from… so bear with me. FIRST POINT, there will be a mosque in the community center. In fact, it will be the top two floors and be tall enough to view the site of the Twin-Towers. That’s number one.
NUMBER TWO, I wish to discuss this issue of molestation by priests that you intimated about.
School counselors, dentists, Buddhist monks, foster parents, and the like — all have abused children. Men who are pedophiles look for positions of AUTHORITY OVER [*not yelling, emphasizing*] children that afford MOMENTS OF PRIVACY with these same children. Dentists do not violate children or women in the name of dentistry. Buddhists monks do not sodomize children in the name of Siddhartha. School counselors in the name of psychology, foster parents in the name of Dr. Spock, etc, … you get the point. Likewise, priests do not violate children in the name of Christ. (The many terrorist attacks are in the name of something… can you tell me what Nora?)
So I hope you can see that mentioning churches next to schools is a non-sequitur, I think we can agree that any church moving priests (Catholicism) or pastors (Protestantism) from one parish or church to another is a problem that has to be dealt with. Just like teachers who have the same issues levied towards them are moved from district-to-district (N.E.A.).
(From: DISCUSSING MOSQUES & MEN)
In yet another post I mentioned this tendency to highlight only Christian abuses while making comparisons that are non-sensical:
Sexual Abuse — Catholic Church. Other religious and non-religious organizations practice this abuse… wherever there is a person of authority over children and the chance to be alone with such a person, you will find people who fill these positions for the direct purpose of abusing these young victims. For instance:
1) Religious News Online reports from an original India Times article, another source that cites this is Child Rights Sri Lanka:
Two Buddhist monks and eight other men were arrested on Wednesday, accused of sexually abusing 11 children orphaned by the island’s 19-year civil war, an official said.
Investigations revealed that the children, aged between nine and 13, had been sexually abused over a period of time at an orphanage where the men worked, said Prof. Harendra de Silva, head of the National Child Protection Authority….
2) Washington County Sheriff’s Office Media Information reported the following:
Mr. Tripp was arrested for sexually abusing a former 15-year-old foster care child.
The investigation started when the Oregon Department of Human Services was contacted by a school counselor who learned that there may be sexual abuse involving a student and Mr. Tripp. DHS workers then contacted Sheriff’s Detectives who took over the investigation.
Detectives learned that Mr. Tripp has been a foster parent since 1995 and has had at least 90 children placed in his home during that time. Sheriff’s Detectives are concerned that there may be more victims who have not yet reported sexual contact involving Mr. Tripp….
3) A therapist who worked at Booker T. Washington Middle School in Baltimore was arrested in Catonsville and charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy, Baltimore County police said yesterday.
Robert J. Stoever, 54, of the 1500 block of Park Ave. was arrested Sunday night after a county police officer saw him and the boy in a car in a parking lot at Edmondson Avenue and Academy Road, said Cpl. Michael Hill, a police spokesman.
Stoever was charged with a second-degree sex offense and perverted practice, according to court documents. He was sent to the Baltimore County Detention Center, Hill said….
4) A Bronx dentist was arrested yesterday on charges that he twice raped a 16-year-old patient whom he had placed under anesthesia during an office visit on Thursday, police said.
The girl, a patient of the dentist for several years, was hired for a summer job as his receptionist on Thursday, and had an appointment with him for treatment that afternoon, said Lieut. Hazel Stewart, commander of the Bronx Special Victims Squad.
[….]
“She went in and she changed into a little uniform that he gave to her, and he gave her some files to work on,” the lieutenant said. “Then he said that it was time to take a look at her teeth.”
At that point, Lieutenant Stewart said, “he used some type of anesthesia on her and he allegedly raped her.”
The young woman told officers that she was never fully anesthetized, Lieutenant Stewart said, but that “the effects of the anesthesia were strong enough to render her helpless to such a degree that he was able to rape her again.”
These folks are atheists, Christians, Buddhists (which are ontologically speaking, atheists), and every other ideology and stripe of life and culture in the world. The argument is as strong as this:
There have been many cases of dentists’ drugging men and women and groping them against their will, therefore, I do not believe in dentistry.
The conclusion just doesn’t follow the premise. In the case of religious comparisons, you would have to isolate the founders and their lives in order to properly judge a belief, not the followers. I would engender the reader to consider well this quote by Robert Hume:
The nine founders among the eleven living religions in the world had characters which attracted many devoted followers during their own lifetime, and still larger numbers during the centuries of subsequent history. They were humble in certain respects, yet they were also confident of a great religious mission. Two of the nine, Mahavira and Buddha, were men so strong-minded and self-reliant that, according to the records, they displayed no need of any divine help, though they both taught the inexorable cosmic law of Karma. They are not reported as having possessed any consciousness of a supreme personal deity. Yet they have been strangely deified by their followers. Indeed, they themselves have been worshipped, even with multitudinous idols.
All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. Confucius, late in life, confessed his own sense of shortcomings and his desire for further improvement in knowledge and character. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances.
Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God-consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion. The most remarkable and valuable aspect of the personality of Jesus Christ is the comprehensiveness and universal availability of his character, as well as its own loftiness, consistency, and sinlessness.
From, The World’s Living Religions (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 285-286.
(From: LOVE)
And remember, a study showed that sexual abuse by teachers is 100-times worse than by priests (LIFESITE NEWS):
…according to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”
After effectively disappearing from the radar, Shakeshaft’s study is now being revisited by commentators seeking to restore a sense of proportion to the mainstream coverage of the Church scandal.
According to the 2004 study “the most accurate data available at this time” indicates that “nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.”
[….]Weigel observes that priestly sex abuse is “a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared,” and that in recent years the Church has gone to great lengths to punish and remove priestly predators and to protect children. The result of these measures is that “six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops’ annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members.”
Despite these facts, however, “the sexual abuse story in the global media is almost entirely a Catholic story, in which the Catholic Church is portrayed as the epicenter of the sexual abuse of the young.”
Now, since we are deeper thinkers here at RPT. Since sexual molestation/rape is an obvious evil… let me excerpt a bit from my chapter in my book on this:
Here’s another way to see the same thing, Dan Story weighs in again:
It may be possible that nothing exists. However, it is impossible to demonstrate that nothing exists because to do so would be to deny our own existence. We must exist in order to affirm that reality doesn’t exist. To claim that reality is an illusion is logically impossible because it also requires claiming that the claim itself is unreal—a self-defeating statement. If reality is an illusion, how do we know that pantheism isn’t an illusion too?[1]
Another author put it thusly, “if pantheism is true (and my individuality an illusion), it is false, since there is no basis by which to explain the illusion.”[2] The challenge then becomes this: “if reality is an illusion, how do we know then that pantheism isn’t an illusion as well?”[3] You see…
… most people assume that something exists. There may be someone, perhaps, who believes that nothing exists, but who would that person be? …. no one ever consciously tries to defend the position that nothing exists. It would be a useless endeavor since there would be no one to convince. Even more significantly, it would be impossible to defend that position since, if it were true, there would be no one to make the defense. So to defend the position that nothing exists seems immediately to be absurd and self-contradictory.[4]
Another problem in pantheism is God’s inability to deal with or solve the problem of evil.[5] Dan Story points out what should be becoming obvious, “He is the cause of it (remember, all is God).” Mr. Story continues:
Pantheism and the New Age may try to ignore this problem by claiming that sin and suffering is merely illusion. But let’s bring this philosophy down to the real world. Try to convince a man dying of cancer or a parent who has just lost a child that evil and suffering are illusion. Even if evil is an illusion, the illusion itself is real. In either case, evil exists. As Geisler noted, “If evil is not real, what is the origin of the illusion? Why has it been so persistent and why does it seem so real?… How can evil arise from a ‘God’ who is absolutely and necessarily good?”[6] The answer must be that if pantheism is true, God cannot be good, and He must be the source of evil.[7]
Between karmic destiny and the god[s] of pantheism and its dealing with pain and suffering (and consequently the promotion of it) by claiming everything is an illusion is not an answer at all. Must we not live as if this illusion is reality?
[1] Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense, 112-113.
[2] Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, See the Gods Fall: Four Rivals to Christianity (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997), 210.
[3] Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense, 112-113.
[4] L. Russ Bush, A Handbook for Christian Philosophy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 70.
[5] Michael J. Murray critiques quickly the Ramanuja and Madhya philosophies:
Stated in terms of Christian terminology, Ramanuja’s view implies that every soul that has ever existed endured an eternity in “hell” (i.e., the cycle of rebirths) before it could enter “heaven” (i.e., union with God). Now unlike Madhya, Ramanuja claims that God freely, and beginninglessly, created the world, and all existing souls, out of his own being. This latter claim, however, presents Ramanuja with a very severe problem of evil: that of reconciling his belief that God is perfectly good and all-loving with God’s ultimate responsibility for the beginningless existence of souls in a state of sin and suffering. The problem of evil faced by Ramanuja here is much more severe than that faced by Western theists. First, unlike Western theists, Ramanuja cannot say that this evil is a necessary consequence of God’s creating creatures with free will. Although the suffering of a soul in any individual life could be blamed on the bad karma resulting from its free choices in previous lives, the fact that the suffering is beginningless — and hence infinite — cannot be blamed on free choice. The reason for this is that, no matter what free choices souls make in this life, or have made in any previous life, they cannot change the fact that they have beginninglessly endured an infinite amount of suffering; but one cannot be responsible for what one was powerless to change. Followers of Ramanuja, therefore, do not seem to have recourse to the traditional free will theodicy invoked in the West to explain evil. Second, the amount of evil that needs to be explained is infinitely larger than that faced by Western versions of theism, since, according to Ramanuja each soul has committed an infinite number of evil acts and endured an infinite period of suffering. Unfortunately, as Julius Lipner points out, neither Ramanuja, nor any other orthodox Hindu theologian, ever attempted to address this particular problem of evil since they took the eternality of the world and souls as an “unquestioned datum for life and thought.” Unlike Ramanuja (and Western theism), however, Madhva’s theology largely avoids the problem of evil. The reason for this is that in his theology God is neither responsible for the beginningless existence of souls in a state of bondage, nor for the fact that they continue to remain in bondage, this being ultimately the result of their inherent, uncreated nature. Nonetheless, his system suffers from two drawbacks when compared to Ramanuja’s view. First, Madhva’s system leaves one with a plurality of ultimates — souls, matter, and God — without accounting for their existence. Although this is not a devastating criticism of Madhya, everything else being equal, views that hypothesize a single, unified source of everything (such as God), are in virtue of their simplicity, philosophically more satisfactory. Second, even though Madhya claimed to base his view on scripture, from the perspective of many orthodox Hindus his theology seems to contradict both those passages of Hindu scripture that appear to imply a deep sort of identity between God and souls and those that appear to imply that the world emerges out of God.
Reason for the Hope Within, 200-202.
[6] Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 189 (emphasis added).
[7] Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense, 113.
So, Buddhism (any Karmic religion) has no real way to even consider such an act as evil, or, morally wrong. All these monks believe is that ultimately is that nothing exists, and their future holds extinction… nothing. The Judeo-Christian worldview posits a time of judgement based upon one’s choices here on earth. This concept has stopped a lot of evil in the world. Could you imagine a world filled with people who think “nothing” exists. Maybe the Australian continent would be these heartless persons red-light district where molesting babies is a “nothing” event.
7-Promises (by John Hakins)
By John Hawkins at Townhall:
It’s no secret that liberals and conservatives don’t get along. But, if there’s any one thing that we’ve learned from the liberal love of sensitivity classes and situation comedies, it’s that once people get to know each other and learn about each other’s beliefs and concerns, all legitimate differences melt away. So, with that in mind, I’d like to relieve the concerns of our liberal pals by telling them what we conservatives are really like. Think of it as sensitivity class – for liberals. Granted there may be a few conservatives here and there who disagree with me on these things, but as someone who has known conservatives all my life, I can assure you that they’re the exceptions, not the rule.
1) I don’t hate black Americans, Hispanic Americans, gay Americans, Jewish Americans, Muslims, or any of the other groups that liberals obsessively claim that conservatives hate. In all fairness, you could probably make a great case that I strongly dislike Nazis, Satanists, Fred Phelps’ clan full of weirdos, and Noam Chomsky, but who doesn’t? Not only is it extraordinarily offensive to be falsely accused of hating whole classes of people, it’s really bad for America to try to falsely convince tens of millions of Americans that they’re despised and hated by half the country.
2) I’m not rich, I don’t have any particular love of rich people, and I’m not being paid off by the Koch brothers (although they’re welcome to start at any time.) Of course, I also don’t envy the rich, think it’s “unfair” that they have more than I do, or want to punish them because Paris Hilton and the Kennedy family don’t deserve their money. So, am I “in the pocket” of the rich? No, it can just seem that way if you’re comparing conservatives like me to people who seethe with resentment for people who’ve done well in life.
3) I’m not “anti-science.” I like science. I read books about science. In fact, I’m extremely dubious about embryonic stem cells and manmade global warming because I’ve been convinced by science-based arguments. Moreover, it seems rather odd that the “pro-science” side of these debates seems to rely on pleas from Michael J. Fox, sad stories about polar bears, and iffy claims about “consensus” when the “anti-science” side seems to trot out statistics and science-based arguments. Let’s face it: You don’t have to accuse people of wanting birds to die to get them to buy into the theory of gravity. If you can’t convince people to buy into a scientific argument with science, then maybe your evidence is a whole lot shakier than you seem to think.
4) I’m an anti-authoritarian, non-conformist. That’s one of the reasons I don’t like the government inserting its tentacles into our lives, it’s why I work for myself, and it’s a big part of why I’m on the Right. People think we take “marching orders” from Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, or the Koch brothers? Hell, conservatives are the only real rebels left in American society. We’re the ones who have the courage to say that we’re not victims, that we don’t care if Hollywood and the media disagree with us, and we’re willing to advocate policies we think are good for the country even if we’re called “mean” for it. You can be the biggest jerk in the world and you’ll still be patted on the back for being “compassionate” by everyone from Lady Gaga to the teachers at your kid’s school, to the New York Times if you’re a liberal. Want to be slandered, demonized, and constantly accused of being things you’re not because you believe in doing the right thing? Be a conservative.
5) I love women and I don’t think they should be barefoot, pregnant, and chained in the house on a clothesline that runs between the bedroom and the kitchen. As a matter of fact, I’d say I’m more supportive of women than a lot of liberal feminists today because while I don’t think women HAVE to be stay-at-home moms, I consider that to be every bit as much of a valid and important career choice as being a corporate VP. Also, isn’t it a bit ironic that conservatives are accused of “hating women” in a country where Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are wildly popular on the Right, while liberal men launch non-stop misogynistic attacks at them and their families?
6) I’m a compassionate person. I give money to charity, I’ve bought groceries for people, and I’ve held fundraisers on my blog to raise money for people in need. In fact, one of the biggest reasons I’m a conservative is that I believe our philosophy is the best way to do good in people’s lives and preserve the best things about this country for future generations. This baffles some liberals, who can’t seem to understand how that can be the case when conservatives oppose so many government programs that “help” people. What they may be missing is that if the government is not an unalloyed good, but a “necessary evil,” then its “help” is often as counter-productive as tossing shotguns into the middle of a drunken barfight so people can “protect” themselves. Compassion is about what you do personally, not what government programs you advocate funding with other people’s money.