I know, I know…that’s a weird title for an article. But in trying to make sense of liberalism, I have come to the conclusion that it’s harder to understand than I ever realized. Anyone who has ever taken an Introduction to Philosophy 101 type course will learn that there are several schools of thought which are foundational for various disciplines such as economics, political science and social science systems.
While all of these disciplines do have conflicting outlooks within their own teaching, they nonetheless base their premises on logical thought…or at least try to.
However, in dealing with liberalism, you more than likely will come up against illogical assertions based entirely on “feelings” and nothing else.
What got me thinking about this was a “discussion” (rather, mild argument…) involving the word “fine”. Someone asked me how I was and I simply said “I’m fine…”. Well, I was told not to use that word because it’s now considered a “trigger” for some people who probably are having a bad day and are not doing so “fine”. Okay, so I’m banned from using one word in the English language because of someone else’s feelings? A simple word can “trigger” someone and therefore we have to eff-up the English language because of some snowflake’s feelings? That’s PC culture going too far. Let’s rearrange the entire language based entirely on feelings. (No one has ever asked if maybe I’m triggered by the word “liberal”, but since I’m a conservative Christian, I don’t matter….)
I don’t understand liberal support for abortion. While this short article is not the place to dive into the pro/con talking points of both sides of the issue, I do want to point out one very glaring hypocrisy liberals always ignore. They support the killing of the unborn but are totally against capital punishment, even for the most heinous of mass murders who have even confessed.
Liberals would have been happy to spare Dr. Mengele regardless of the torture he inflicted on Auschwitz inmates. (For you millennials out there, google this one…) Besides, he probably did perform forced abortions on more than one Jewish woman during his “service” to the SS, although I don’t know that for certain.
This issue is of course coupled with our so-called criminal justice system. Once again, there’s too much information on both sides of the issue to delve into here. My point is this: why is the criminal the only one who seems to have rights?
As an example of how liberals support criminals over law abiding citizens, let’s look at the case of Kate Steinle. As most of you will remember, she was the 32-year-old woman in San Francisco who was shot while out for a walk with her father on July 1, 2015. The story is that a five time deported illegal from Mexico by the name of Jose Inez Garcia Zarate picked up a gun he found lying under a bench and the gun “went off”, ricocheting and hitting Ms. Steinle. A jury (In San Francisco, remember) acquitted him of murder but did convict him of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Maybe the circumstances of the case were extenuating enough not to warrant murder and Zarate did receive a conviction…of sorts. But this case is once again a horrid example of liberals favoring the criminal. Let’s just ignore the fact that this guy had been deported FIVE times previously. Due to San Francisco’s ultra-liberal status as a sanctuary city, that didn’t matter. After all, he’s only a “poor immigrant wishing to make a better life for himself…” Classic case of innocent Americans being harmed by criminal illegals if ever there was one.
I also believe that our society’s addiction to technology is something that liberals have a hand in. To look at it empirically, it’s not much of a stretch to reach that conclusion. As we’ve seen with Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress recently, the tech giants could care less.
Practically all of our “entertainment” sources…music, movies, TV, Broadway, graphic arts, etc….are controlled by liberals. They’ll use any and all means to bash Christians and conservatives in the name of “diversity” and “coexistence”.
While it’s probably a conspiracy theory of my own creation, I really believe that social media is partly the cause of the rise in school shootings and attacks on law enforcement. Want to be a badass to your Darwin Award/hood rat/people of Walmart peers? Just mouth off to a cop and post it on social media. Or just post a short video from your bedroom showing off your gun, knife, and martial arts weaponry collection while spouting off parts of your recent “manifesto”. Yeah, that makes you a man.
This is, of course, all in the name of Freedom of Expression…but libtards don’t like the First Amendment because (shock!!!) it also allows deplorables to speak…unless it’s on a college campus. We don’t hear the term “copycat crime” anymore, but I firmly believe that’s what the school shootings are really about. How much cause/effect does social media have here?
I’ve written before regarding the FBI stats on murder by specific weapon. This information doesn’t matter to libs, though. If it involved a gun, then let’s ban all guns…because…
The Lakeland, Florida shooter, Nicolas Cruz, had been in what was called the Promise Program, which allowed minority students with disciplinary issues to go unpunished because having that on their record could mess up their future. The proverbial red flags in this case are too numerous to mention here, but let’s blame the gun. That’s far more convenient than facing up to the fact that this guy should have been dealt with and put away a long time ago, but due to liberal policies of favoring the criminal over the innocent…well, we know what happened.
In closing, I want to mention one other part of liberalism I just don’t understand. This one involves the use of profanity. On a personal note, I confess that I’ve pretty much always had a tendency towards a foul mouth. I know…as a Christian I have to work on this…a lot.
But here’s my issue. Why is the use of the ubiquitous F-bomb sort of verboten, while saying the name of Christ and giving our Father in Heaven the last name of “damn” isn’t? What would happen if folks started saying Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Krishna…or for that matter the Big Spaghetti Monster in The Sky…as cursing slang instead? That would be considered either insensitive cultural appropriation, white privilege, or just plain racism…of some sort.
Just google the election night, on air liberal melt downs and you’ll hear all sorts of colorful weeping and gnashing of teeth. While that stuff is entertaining to watch, it does show that libs can say anything, in any context, at any time (on air or not) and it’s acceptable. We deplorable will always…ALWAYS…be called out for our “double standard” if we’re ever caught using such language.
I’m going to continue this line of thought in my next installment, which will focus on how liberal hypocrisy eventually leads to them destroying their own.
Until then, today’s rant has been brought to you by the following scriptures:
Matthew 7: 15, 20: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (v.15) “Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.” (v. 20) John 8:32: “And
shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”
MORE SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION
Have you gotten your free download of the lead single “RUNNIN'” from my upcoming project SALT? If not, here’s how to get it…and remember…it’s free. (noisetraide.com/degroff/runnin-featuring-john-schlitt). Also, please check out Rottweiler Records, GHF and DeGroffProjects all on FB. The full album will be officially released on June 22. Thanks in advance for your support.
Image: CCO Creative Commons; Excerpted from: https://pixabay.com/en/question-mark-questions-and-answers-3245622/