Take the test here: http://www.prageru.com/test. Do you think you're a liberal? If so, is it because you hold liberal positions or is it because you believe that conservatives are selfish and mean-spirited? Watch this video course and then take the test. You might be surprised by the result
Showing posts with label Liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberals. Show all posts
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Prager University - Dennis Prager - Are You a Liberal?
Take the test here: http://www.prageru.com/test. Do you think you're a liberal? If so, is it because you hold liberal positions or is it because you believe that conservatives are selfish and mean-spirited? Watch this video course and then take the test. You might be surprised by the result
Labels:
Dennis Prager,
Liberalism,
Liberals,
Prager University
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Mike Adams - Time to Ban High Capacity Liberals From Campus
Author’s Note: Campus liberals who crave free stuff can find it on www.letterstoayoungprogressive.com.Not all liberals are created equal. Some make an occasional stupid remark. Others have the capacity to make a lot of stupid remarks without reloading. An example of the latter is my boss, UNC Chancellor Thomas Ross. As a former Professor of Public Law and Government, he cannot be accused of mere bias when he makes demonstrably false statements about matters of public policy. Instead, the public must recognize that he is not just biased but also grossly incompetent. Because his incompetence threatens the safety of all people who come to UNC campuses, including small children, he should be replaced immediately.
Ross recently made a public statement in response to new NC House legislation that would ease restrictions on concealed carry (CCW) permits on our college campuses. One change in the CCW law would allow the permit holder to keep a weapon in the trunk of his car while on university property. Although the bill does not fully remove all campus restrictions on permit holders, Ross had the audacity to say the following:
“We have an obligation to provide a safe environment for our students and employees, and every UNC campus has a trained police force charged with promoting the safety of all people who come onto our campuses. All UNC Chancellors and Chiefs of Police believe allowing guns on campus would increase the risk to public safety and hamper our ability to protect not only our students, staff ,and faculty, but also campus visitors, including parents, siblings of students, and summer camp participants. Vehicle break-ins are one of the leading crimes on college campuses, and even guns brought lawfully onto campus, as contemplated by this bill, could fall into the wrong hands and result in serious injury or death."
We do indeed have an obligation to provide a safe environment for students and employees. That is why we need to relax totalitarian policies that selectively violate the Second Amendment by stripping the rights of law abiding adult students to protect themselves and others by carrying a concealed weapon. They should not be sitting ducks just because they chose to further their education on campuses made dangerous by progressive ideology.
Sixteen refereed publications show that CCW laws reduce violence. Zero refereed publications show that they increase violence. In other words, the laws are good for the public. Shouldn't Tom Ross, a former Professor of Public Law, know what laws are good for the public? Of course, Ross probably does know the research but refuses to share it with the public. In other words, he does not want others to conceal weapons while he conceals the truth. It elevates hypocrisy to a Zen art when a university system president decides to lead by feigning ignorance and suppressing his knowledge of academic research.
Students should not be made vulnerable to rape in order to preserve the ideological purity of overpaid public servants. Of course, the self-serving propagandist has no real interest in serving the public.
While we are on the subject of rape, all university Police Chiefs believe that most campus rape accusations are false. But they won't say that because college campuses are the most politically charged workplaces in America. Put simply, a university police chief will lose his job if he speaks his mind. And that is relevant to the present debate. Many UNC law enforcement officers support the right to carry on campus. I spoke to one last night and he was simply aghast at Ross' statement. But he knows that anyone who opposes Ross will lose his job. Clearly, Ross knows he does not have the unanimous support of the campus law enforcement community. He is simply misleading the public that pays his salary.
I'm glad Ross brought children into the debate. Summer camp participants need protection, too. If the data show that CCW laws reduce crime then we must take the data seriously. Other than having homosexual camp leaders in the Boy Scouts, I can't imagine a better way to protect young campers than having capable guardians with CCW permits. When Ross plays the summer camp card, he is begging the question. He simply assumes CCW laws increase crime or, more accurately, assumes we are ignorant of the fact that they decrease crime.
Now is a good time to recall that a few years ago our campus hosted the rapper Ludicris who sang about shooting b*tches and hoes with his 9mm. In fact, he was paid $130,000 to sing about killing b*tches and hoes. Surely, we can let CCW permit holders on campus for free. Research shows that they seldom shoot their b*tches.
I am also glad Ross brought up burglary. Break-ins do occur on campus. But that is no reason to ban guns from campus. Burglary is one of the crimes reduced by having CCW laws. It cannot be used as an excuse to negate CCW laws on campus. That would be like killing both your parents and asking the court to show you mercy because you are an orphan. If we allowed CCW laws to be fully operative on campus, those burglars would be far more likely to be apprehended, convicted, and imprisoned. Then crime would go down and Ross would probably issue a statement lamenting the fact that "so many people are in prison despite the fact that crime is down."
But Ross continues his mendacity – and I'll respond, after you read the following:
“In addition, a number of UNC campuses house early college high schools, middle schools, or summer camps for younger children. The presence of these young people further heightens our concerns about the safety risks that come with guns getting into the wrong hands. Moreover, when responding to an armed robbery or active shooter incident, our officers would often be hard pressed to distinguish between a criminal suspect and well-intentioned bystanders with weapons drawn, particularly in the heat of the moment. The potential for tragedy far outweighs any potential benefit or convenience to concealed-carry permit holders. We encourage the General Assembly to remove the provision that would allow guns to be brought onto UNC and other college and university campuses.”
Children should not be used as human political shields unless the cause is liberal. I mean, liberals have always cared more about children. That's why they abort them by the millions. They don't want them to be born into a world where they could get shot at a UNC summer camp because some Tea Bagger forgot to lock his Glock in the glove box of his Ford F150. Seriously, Tom Ross, if you cared about children, you would shut down all the UNC Women's Centers that “center” on pro-abortion politics. And, while you’re at it, get your anti-gun laws off my body!
Shoot outs last a really long time. In fact, the average shootout takes about an hour, which is long enough for most UNC police officers to finish eating their donuts, flirting with coeds, and finally arrive at the scene of the crime. And then its mayhem! Barney Fife can't tell the good guy from the bad guy. He's shaking like a suspected Christian in a UNC student conduct hearing! (Sarcasm = off. Now back to reality).
As a professor who teaches criminal law, I use hypotheticals all the time. But they need to be at least somewhat realistic in order to be persuasive. When the police are not around and a permit holder encounters a shooter the incident is typically over in seconds and long before the UNC officer finishes writing a traffic ticket in order to raise money for the new Gay and Lesbian Resource Center.
But Ross is right when he says that the current controversy involves an important trade off. He is willing to trade the safety of students in exchange for preserving the dreams of children. Of course, I'm talking about the children who teach at universities and refuse to grow up and face the reality that we live in a fallen world where utopia is impossible and guns are necessary.
Mike Adams
Friday, April 5, 2013
Mike Adams - The Gospel According to Don
Author's Note: although Jesus never specifically condemned it, I think wearing snow boots with your mini skirt after Easter is a sin. But that's just my holistic interpretation of the Scriptures. What's true for this author may not be true for you.I have an old friend named Don who graduated from college twenty years ago. He has tried every get rich scheme in an effort to retire early and enjoy the good life. Now that he's in his forties and has nothing to show for it, he's decided to take the biggest shortcut in life: he's joined the Democratic Party.
Don started smoking pot every day in college. Unlike most pot smokers he never grew out of it. So he suffered the side effects of pot including laziness and inattention to personal hygiene. These are among the reasons none of his get rich schemes worked. In every business venture, no matter how temporary, one must be on time, responsive, and well kempt. Pot interferes with all of these objectives.
Daily pot use led him to failure, which, in turn, led him to liberalism as a means of rationalizing his personal failure. In 2009, Don came by my office to discuss the TARP bailout. I told him why I opposed the bailout in principal and in accordance with my concerns over its long term economic consequences. Don told me we needed TARP because ultimately the government had to take over the banking industry. He spoke of the evils of greed, insider trading, and crony capitalism. It's the kind of thing I heard every day in academia. So I just changed the subject.
Failure in business can cause someone like Don to jump ship and become an economic liberal. The motivation for that switch is obvious. Desperate people crave handouts. But at some point the former conservative who joins the Democratic Party must make peace with the radical social policies of the Democratic Party. For a while, I’ve wondered how Don would make that transition. Last week, I found out when he decided to show up after four years of silence and bomb my Facebook page. That's why I love Facebook. It's been reuniting me with psycho ex-girlfriends and frenemies for years.
Don the ex-con (that's short for ex conservative) went right to one of my status updates, which criticized the homosexual rights movement. In addition to a few personal insults, he left a comment I am hearing with increasing frequency from the so-called Christian Left. He said "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. EVER!" And so we are supposed to assume that anything Jesus was not recorded as saying in the Bible is fair game.
First, as a matter of clarification, Jesus did condemn homosexuality. In the first chapter of Romans, homosexuality is very specifically condemned. That book was written by the Apostle Paul. But those weren't his words. He was speaking the word of God. And Jesus is God. So the words belong to Him. Second, and perhaps more importantly, things may not have been mentioned by Jesus because they were obviously wrong, not because they were right. Furthermore, consider the ramifications of assuming that things Jesus never specifically mentions are therefore permissible:
Jesus never mentioned child pornography. Does that mean it is moral and therefore fair game?
Jesus never mentioned female genital mutilation. Does that mean it is moral and therefore fair game?
Jesus never mentioned insider trading. Does that mean it is moral and therefore fair game?
And, finally, Jesus never said anything about smoking pot every day, mooching off your wife, and bombing your friends’ Facebook pages while they are at work trying to earn a living. But decent people know some things just aren't right. In fact, they are downright left.
When Don wakes up, lights another bowl, and logs onto Facebook he's going to realize it was imprudent to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. And he'll likely offer another inane liberal rebuttal to my well-reasoned remarks. When he does, I'll be sure to write a follow-up. It's how I earn my living and avoid government handouts.
Mike Adams
Labels:
Bible,
Homosexuality,
Jesus Christ,
Liberals,
Marijuana,
Mike Adams,
Pot
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Jeannie DeAngelis - Pretend-gun Fingers and Plop-Tarts
Originally posted at American ThinkerRepublican state Senator J. B. Jennings of Maryland is proposing a bill to protect Pop-Tart gun-makers and students who emulate President Obama, a man notorious for flashing around his pretend-gun finger, from being suspended from school. The goal of the bill is to keep children in class who are caught on school grounds aiming, chomping or sketching anything that even remotely resembles a gun.
Jennings feels that if a student points in a style that resembles the shape of a gun, or quite by accident bites a bologna sandwich in a way that causes the lunch lady to panic in fear for her life, before administering the harsh sentence of suspension the situation should be evaluated as to whether the sandwich-eating was done in a manner that suggests "intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm."In the state of Maryland, second-grader Joshua Welch and 6-year-old Rodney Lynch were both reprimanded for gun facsimile-related misconduct. Joshua was ousted after he haphazardly gnawed his Pop-Tart into a shape that his teacher felt resembled a gun, and first-time offender Rodney Lynch, who lost his head and positioned his thumb and index finger into the shape of an 'L,' got snagged too, which resulted in a two-day suspension for both of the pint-sized miscreants.
Senator Jennings says that it is not his intent for his bill to become "part of the growing gun debate in Maryland," but hopes it will bring some "commonsense discipline to state schools." Wait! Jennings wants to introduce common sense to politically-correct public school educators? Is that even possible?
As Senator J.B. points out, "These kids are 6 or 7-years-old. They don't understand what they're doing." The larger question here, Mr. Senator, is this: Did Joshua and Rodney's accusers know what they were doing when they all but ran screaming from the building over a half-eaten Pop-Tart and two fingers positioned at a 90-degree angle?
Nonetheless, the bill the Maryland senator is proposing aims to halt the preposterous practice of hyper-vigilant school administrators suspending first- and second-graders willy-nilly for making anything out of anything that even remotely resembles a handgun.
According to the senator, "If it's done in a violent manner, then yes, we can take it to the next level. We can look at suspension." Just out of curiosity, what would be considered violent Pop-Tart eating? Telling the kids on the schoolyard that you slurped the strawberry filling out from the center, like Hannibal Lecter telling Clarice Starling that he ate the liver of a census taker with some fava beans and "a nice Chianti?"
Moreover, maybe no one noticed this, but just the name "Pop-Tart" makes one think of the violence-inducing cereal that shall remain nameless that encourages violent behavior in the style of 'snap' your neck, 'crack' a few kneecaps, and 'pop' you in the lip.Not to mention that favorite of comic strip character Calvin and Hobbes -- "chocolate frosted sugar bombs."
Maybe Jennings could up the ante by including an addendum to the bill that, henceforth and in perpetuity, at least in the state of Maryland, "Pop-Tarts" must be referred in kinder, gentler terms as "Plop-Tarts."
Either way, the senator said he was inspired to propose the bill after receiving calls from anxious parents fearing that suspension from elementary school has the potential to blemish a child's academic future. For most Americans, unlike Barack Obama, school transcripts are part of the public record.
Therefore, children who have no plans to run for president could be thwarted from moving ahead in life for doing things like: playing cops-and-robbers with a banana, pointing a recorder at another student in an intimidating way, or indiscriminately screaming 'bombs away' when playing kickball. Currently, those types of behaviors are closely monitored to ensure that school officials can recognize and impede a potential Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or Jared Loughner.
If the senator's bill does pass and a deaf preschooler is hauled off for sharing his name in sign language during class or an aspiring cartographer traces the shape of Florida on the cover of a notebook, the first response would not be suspension, but a stop at a counselor's office. If, while being psychologically evaluated, the child is deemed a menace to both school and society for strange finger movements or artistic expression that depicts evil intent, a decision will be made as to how to deal with the dangerous delinquent.
In the meantime, J.B. Jennings says the Senate bill 1058 is heading to the Education Committee, where educators who suspend small children for things like overdoing it with the red finger paint during art class will vote on the merits of the bill. If the educational community passes "The Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013," which some have coined "Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act," it will go from committee to the Senate for a vote.
Until then, for parents with children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder whose fingers show signs of having impulse control problems, do yourself a favor and duct-tape their little thumbs to their forefingers and pack anything for breakfast except a "Plop-Tart."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/pretendgun_fingers_and_ploptarts.html#ixzz2NK8atCaN
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Jeannie DeAngelis
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Andrew Klavan - Liberalism Exposed: Beyond the Elitist, Preening America-Hating Stereotypes
Have you ever wondered how liberals think? PJTV's Andrew Klavan takes you inside the mind of a liberal ... and it ain't brain surgery.Saturday, June 23, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Matt Barber - Liberalism is Terminally Ill
It’s been a pitiful sight – a sad week for progressives and “Big Union” Democrat-shilling thugs. In the wake of Tuesday night’s (June 5, 2012) devastating recall smackdown in Wisconsin, tens of thousands of “Occupy” hippies across the nation have simply been too depressed to get stoned and not look for work.On Wednesday (June 6, 2012) the White House released President Obama’s detailed itinerary through October:
1. WorryIndeed, the president has much to worry about. No honest politico can deny that liberals’ Wisconsin debacle likely represents a shadow of things to come – a precursor to November.
2. Lie
3. Obfuscate
4. Golf
5. Fundraise
6. Worry
Recall DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s admission on CNN. In a rare moment of candor, she said Wisconsin was a “dry run” – a “test run” for the 2012 election. (A bit like the Titanic’s test run, as it turns out.)
Tuesday night Sarah Palin took to Fox News where she said that Scott Walker’s humiliating defeat of Tom Barrett, the DNC and heretofore-excessively-coddled-labor-union-leaders spells big trouble for little Barry. “Obama’s goose is cooked,” she said. “It’s the union leaders who need to be recalled.”
Does this mean the Democratic Party is not long for the world? That our two-party system is on its way out?
Of course not.
As long as there are voters who really, really want lots of free stuff from other people, there will be Democrats and Democratic politicians.
Still, what it does mean is that beyond the short-term political reality that Wisconsin presents a bleak forecast for Democrats in 2012 – liberalism itself (or “progressivism,” as the left euphemistically prefers) is terminally ill.
On Tuesday night, blogger David Burge of the Iowa Hawk blog tweeted: “The principal delusion of liberals is that liberalism is popular. The principal delusion of conservatives is that liberalism is popular.”
Simple, yet profound.
Liberals should be afraid. They should be very afraid. The jig is up. Polls consistently show that Americans identify as conservative over liberal by a two-to-one margin. Wisconsin was an earthshaking manifestation of this reality.
But it was only a tremor.
There’s a distinct probability a massive quake awaits liberals when, later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court releases its decision on Obamacare. If this, both Obama’s and Democrats’ signature accomplishment, goes down, so too do the obtusely utopian, neo-Marxist dreams of the Democratic Party’s progressive base.
And in November? The tsunami.
Indeed, the political tectonic plates are shifting. Unsurprisingly, so-called “progressives” pretend it ain’t so.
Problem is, so do conservatives.
Stop it, both of you!
This is about worldview. This is about an epic clash between two irreconcilable, diametrically opposed socio-political philosophies. It’s a zero-sum game. Somebody wins and somebody loses.
On the one hand, we have secular-socialism, a cultural and political philosophy embraced by labor unions, Barack Obama, the base of the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and many of those controlling the reins of our elitist institutions. It is “progressivism.”
This is a philosophy that, throughout history, has proven to be a serial failure. One need only look to Europe for the latest example. This secularist worldview is based loosely on the unattainable, redistributionist ramblings of Karl Marx, the father of communism.
It hates Christianity. It hates constitutionalism. It hates the precepts of individual liberty and responsibility codified throughout our nation’s founding documents. It embraces moral relativism and says there are no clear lines of demarcation between right and wrong.
It says that government is God and that as government giveth, government taketh away.
In sum: It’s garbage.
On the other hand we have the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is the socio-political philosophy embraced by our Founding Fathers. The historical record is unequivocal. It was within this framework that our U.S. Constitution was created. It is conservatism.
It says that we are endowed by our “Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It embraces the virtues of fiscal responsibility, individual liberty and personal charity. It says there is black and white – right and wrong. It strives for less government and more freedom.
It acknowledges that there is a sovereign God – to whom we are all accountable – including both government and those whom “we the people” place in government.
It holds that as God giveth, God taketh away, and that you lying, cheating, ungodly snakes in Washington, D.C., better just take a step back and quick.
In sum: It is truth.
On Tuesday night, as the election returns came in and it became clear that Scott Walker was landsliding liberals and their union thugocracy, some progressive nut broke down, sobbing on camera and cried: “Democracy died tonight!”
Progressives, get this straight: On Tuesday night democracy didn’t die. Democracy was fulfilled in a powerful and transformative way.
And it’s only the beginning.
Liberals went to Wisconsin for a recall vote and a revolution broke out. We the people have spoken. Tea party? Yes. “Occupy”? Not so much.
Christian apologist C.S. Lewis wrote, “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”
On Tuesday America hit Wisconsin and did an about-turn.
Matt Barber
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

