“If men could only know each other, they would never either idolize or hate. … Good people are only half as good, and bad people only half as bad, as other people regard them.”
— Elbert Hubbard
“Very few people are immune to expressing prejudice, especially prejudice towards people they disagree with.”
— Mark Brandt (Tilburg University, Netherlands), lead author of Answering Unresolved Questions About the Relationship Between Cognitive Ability and Prejudice, which found that “When it comes to prejudice, it does not matter if you are smart or not, or conservative or liberal, each group has their own specific biases.”
“It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”
— Bill Murray
“It is the Left that has gone crazy.”
— Former Leftist Dave Rubin (source). In Why I Left The Left, he explained why “he can no longer call himself a progressive because the movement has devolved into a feelings-based silencing of speech rather than accepting the free exchange of ideas.”
Liberals claim to be more tolerant and civil—but are they?
Leftists may think they're perfect people qualified to cast the first stone, but they're just as flawed as the rest of us. Liberals delight in castigating conservatives as the prejudiced ones, but research shows that “… prejudice is not restricted to a particular political ideology.”
Excerpting from Cognitive ability varies, but prejudice is universal: “When it comes to prejudice, it does not matter if you are smart or not, or conservative or liberal, each group has their own specific biases. … Cognitive ability, whether high or low, only predicts prejudice towards specific groups. … ‘Very few people are immune to expressing prejudice, especially prejudice towards people they disagree with,’ says lead author Mark Brandt …” Liberals tend to be blind to this flaw in themselves: their burning hatred of others who dare disagree with them (illustrated below) manifests their prejudice.
Oscar Wilde said, “Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.” Liberals love to market themselves and their candidates as not only being morally and ethically superior but downright perfect—as if any person could possibly be for long. Since liberals are often geniuses at marketing and spin, I challenge them to explain this: Why is there so much violent (and other) crime in cities controlled by Democrats that overwhelmingly vote for liberal Democrats in national elections?
I noticed this correlation during my career as an ER doctor working in pro-Democrat big cities and pro-Republican other areas: the central appeal of Democrats as the “gimme stuff” party too often extends to demands to get stuff from others around them, whether it is robbery or rape or murder out of spite (here's a 2016 electoral map compared with the crime rate). I could write a book on all of the heartbreaking cases I saw, from children killed on an impulse to women brutalized in horrific ways that would sicken Adolf Hitler.
I won't paint with a broad brush because some of the nicest, sweetest, most loving people I ever met lived in big cities like Detroit and Flint, yet the overall statistical correlation linking crime to predominantly pro-Democrat areas strikes me as undeniable—but if anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.
Reflecting on violent crime in pro-Republican areas, most cases I recall were committed by Democrats. The most recent case involved a Democrat my girlfriend's family knew from the small town they grew up in. He was in business with two brothers, had a dispute with them, and settled it by shooting them to death in their home.
Seattle is the third most liberal city in the United States, but the New York Times reported that “African-American travelers in Seattle experienced statistically significantly longer delay waiting for a trip request through UberX or Lyft to be accepted.” In Boston, another hotbed of liberalism, “people with African-American-sounding names were more than twice as likely to have their Uber rides canceled compared with people with white-sounding names.” Discrimination is ubiquitous, infecting even über-liberal cities; solutions to overcome it are not, but here's my answer.
As someone who strongly agrees with liberals on some issues, why would I pillory their incivility? Because they richly deserve it, as I'll prove in this article.
While I side with certain liberal ideas, I don't side with liberals, nor with conservatives. After having been a staunch liberal at one time and later an inveterate conservative, I belatedly realized that the ideological political poles are just havens for inside-the-box thinking that cannot solve our problems. To do that, we need outside-the-box ideas that help conservatives, liberals, and everyone else get more of what they want. Requires pixie dust? Impossible? No. Read an example of how we could make government affordable without penalizing anyone, or an example of how roads could be plowed for free.
Instead of searching for ways to put a smile on the face of everyone, partisans exhaust their exiguous intelligence by sniping and patting themselves on the back for their reverence of second-rate ideas. We can do better, if we put our thinking caps on. Hence, I implore you to stop sniping and start thinking … outside-the-box.
It's difficult to compliment Democrats or Republicans after considering how they are helping destroy the middle class, now so enfeebled many smart, hard-working people struggle year after year with no light at the end of the tunnel. Want more proof?
This article is part of the
$100,000 Challenge Series
People often think they are enlightened even when they believe things that should have been left in the Dark Ages.
In this series, I will challenge conventional wisdom and explore some odd and unjustifiable beliefs that persist, offering $100,000 to the first person who can solve each challenge, proving me wrong. My opinions are bound to ruffle some feathers and make you think.
Liberals often talk about civility while behaving in a very uncivil manner. They assail conservatives for trivial (or fabricated) imperfections while turning a blind eye to vicious and even barbaric incivility from other liberals, such as the ones who threatened to kill Sarah Palin and her daughters—something Palin confirmed on Fox News—or the ones who firebombed her church in December 2008 when several women and children were working inside.
Shawn Christy and his father Craig were convicted of harassing Sarah Palin's lawyers with “hundreds of calls a day.” One of the attorneys, John Tiemessen, “testified that the men's calls threatened Palin and attorneys.” Craig Christy allegedly “threatened to kill Tiemessen in one obscenity-filled message, and in another, Shawn Christy said he might have sex with Palin. The younger Christy also threatened to come to Alaska and rape one of the attorneys.” Shawn Christy “was accused of stalking Palin” but a restraining order didn't stop him from making “a one-day visit to Alaska on her February birthday.”
Bristol Palin received a threatening package and note almost four years after her mother ran for Vice President. (Don't lunatics know how to blow off steam and get over it?) Bristol received a similar threatening package in 2010. Threatening candidates is crazy; threatening their children is beyond nutty. Imagine the uproar if President Obama's daughters were threatened; shouldn't everyone be equally outraged when the daughter of a conservative politician is targeted?
MSNBC host and serial hatemonger Martin Bashir suggested that “someone should defecate in her [Sarah Palin's] mouth.” Later apologizing for his comment, he said that “the politics of vitriol and destruction is a miserable place to be and a miserable person to become.” He promised to learn a lesson — one he should teach to other liberals. ABC News suspended Bashir in 2008 after he made “comments considered crude and sexist at a dinner for Asian-American journalists.” Ilana Mercer called Bashir “barking-mad.”
MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry “mocked the fact that one of Mitt Romney's grandchildren is black.”
Another MSNBC host, Ed Schultz, called Laura Ingraham “a right-wing slut.”
In 2014, MSNBC liberals are still calling Sarah Palin a moron, perhaps miffed that she had the gall to point out that she—not Obama—was correct in saying years ago that Russia was still a threat. Considering Russia's 2014 invasion of the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine, she was correct. (I wasn't; I thought the Cold War was ancient history. Guess not.)
During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama said, “I've now been in 57 states, I think one left to go.” Liberals didn't call him a moron for that. Perhaps what he intended to say was that the long, grueling campaign made him FEEL as if he'd been in 57 or 58 states. Or might it have been Ambien talking?
We'll likely never know because the propagandists masquerading as journalists won't ask him, thinking they are doing him a favor.
Wrong; they are doing him a great disservice. Hearing his response would dispel doubt from the anti-Obama half of America who opine that he's not as bright as his fans believe. However you slice it, when liberals harp about the supposed incivility of conservatives yet viciously attack others without basis, their double standard is obvious.
Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “bimbo,” “dumb twat,” and “cunt,” because “there's just no other word for her.” He also said that she is “the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos.”
John Podesta, reportedly tied to several far-Left organizations and now a senior-level adviser to President Obama, previously compared “Republicans to the infamous cult led by Jim Jones, who was responsible for the 1978 cyanide poisoning of more than 900 of his followers in Guyana.” Mr. Obama promised to restore civility to the White House but appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a highly partisan, pugnacious Democrat who is noted for his intense, combative style. He is infamous for reportedly sending “a rotting fish to a pollster who had angered him.” One of the perennial Democratic spokespersons/apologists (I think it was Lanny Davis) tried to trivialize that by saying it was just a joke. A joke? Sending a dead fish to someone is widely regarded as being a death threat.
Emanuel added to his infamy by reportedly standing up at a dinner to celebrate Bill Clinton's victory and shouting “Dead! Dead! Dead!” as he stabbed a steak knife into the table after rattling off each name on a list of Clinton's enemies. A campaign veteran said that “the table looked like a lunar landscape” after the outburst. “It was like something out of The Godfather. But that's Rahm for you.”
After joining Clinton's campaign team, he reportedly introduced himself to the staff by standing on a table and yelling at them for 45 minutes. He is also reported to be constantly spinning, gesturing, and fidgeting.
But that's Rahm for you? No, that's mental illness for you. That isn't just my opinion as a doctor. When a psychologist friend of mine heard a commentator discussing some of the bizarre things that Emanuel has done, she looked at me with a look of dread on her face and said, “He is nuts.” After reading about him, she opined that he seemed to be “a spoiled brat who never grew up” and one who used “temper tantrums to get his way.” Bruce Reed, who served with Emanuel in the Clinton White House, was quoted as saying that “grown men lived in mortal fear of what he might do to them if they couldn't get the answer he wanted.”
A threatening letter containing a “suspicious white powder” was sent to Donald Trump's son Eric and opened by his wife. The letter warned that if Trump doesn't withdraw from the presidential race, his children will be harmed. Days later, Donald Trump's older sister received a threatening letter.
On March 19, 2016, anti-Trump protesters blocked an Arizona highway, evidently not caring that might jeopardize lives: perhaps an ambulance carrying a person to a hospital, or perhaps a police car racing to stop a thug beating or raping a woman. Trump haters blast him for being authoritarian yet actions such as this manifest their authoritarianism.
Anti-Trump protesters in California bloodied a Trump supporter, smashed a police car, and screamed profanities while throwing objects at passing motorists. Another Trump fan said he was cornered, beat up, and spat upon by assailants who threw eggs at him and threw his cellphone 200 feet.
Trump haters—including children—in Fort Wayne, Indiana mooned, gave the finger to, and shouted profanities at passing Trump supporters, which included military veterans.
On May 24, 2016, an assembly of anti-Trump protesters in Albuquerque, N.M. “morphed into madness” by smashing a door, breaking through barriers, screaming profanities, throwing rocks, bottles, and burning T-shirts at police and their horses, injuring several officers. They also jumped on police cars, kicked passing vehicles, grabbed a man in a wheelchair and threw water on him, shoved large rolling dumpsters into horses and cheered when a spooked horse fell to the ground. Doug Antoon, an Albuquerque attorney, reported that “rocks were flying through the convention center windows … Glass was breaking and landing near his feet.” Speaking of the demonstrators, he said, “This was not a protest, this was a riot. These are hate groups.”
On May 27, 2016 in San Diego, another anti-Trump protest spiraled out of control when a man holding a Mexican flag stood on a railing designated as a police barricade as others chanted in Spanish and English and men jumped onto the railing to viciously confront police, who beat them back with batons. “As tensions boiled, some people in the crowd threw water, shoes and other objects at the officers.” A protestor attempted to grab an officer's gun and another held a sign saying Trump “incites racism and violence.” 35 arrests were made.
An arsonist burned a large Trump political sign in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey.
Shortly after Trump was elected President, a Chicago man who allegedly voted for him was pulled from his car and savagely beaten by a mob that then stole his vehicle. In a separate event, a protestor in California shouted, “We can't just do rallies. We have to fight back. There will be casualties on both sides. There will be because people have to die to make a change in this world.”
In Portland and other cities, post-election protestors rioted, smashing cars and vandalizing local businesses. Twitter was littered with people calling for Trump to be assassinated. If the shoe were on the other foot and Trump supporters were rioting, beating an innocent man, and calling for Clinton to be assassinated, the Left would say they're nuts.
“We see the hypocrisy of liberalism on display with these protests and that is the most intolerant people in the world are those who cry loudest for tolerance.”
— Pastor Robert Jeffress, on The O'Reilly Factor (11-15-2016) discussing a protest against his church organized by Dominique Alexander, who was “arrested in July 2009 for causing serious bodily injury to a child … [and] got into trouble for forging a check, leading police on a high-speed chase, stealing a car and falsely claiming that a car was stolen” as well as “violating his probation on multiple occasions.” He reportedly “claims Dallas Police Chief David Brown is partially holding him responsible” for the deaths of five police officers.
CNN apologized to President-elect Trump after one of their producers “was caught on camera joking with reporter Suzanne Malveaux about [his] plane crashing.”
A Brooklyn lawyer and his husband were removed from a JetBlue flight after he created a histrionic scene involving Ivanka Trump and her children, traveling with a large group of family on holiday vacation.
Michael Banerian, the youth vice-chairman of the Michigan Republican Party and one of Michigan's 16 electors in the Electoral College, received multiple death threats attempting to influence his vote. He said, “You have people saying ‘you're a hateful bigot, I hope you die,’ … I've had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I've received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.” On Fox News (12-19-2016), he added, “I got 3000 letters to my house in the last three days. … People talking about putting a bullet in the back of my mouth, burning my family, sending me pictures of a noose and saying if I don't vote for Hillary Clinton they will get me.”
Commenting on that, reporter Blake Burman said he had spoken “with a law enforcement official here in Pennsylvania earlier today … some electors have received death threats … there have been anecdotes like this all over the country.”
Arizona elector Robert Graham said the pressure applied to some electors “was actually affecting their health.”
Pennsylvania elector Lawrence Tabas said someone tried to get into his home, after which he received protection from the state police until his vote was cast.
Drexel University professor George Ciccariello-Maher tweeted, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide.”
The Left's affinity for violence isn't limited to the United States: British politician Nigel Farage and his family received numerous death threats; he “has been a hate figure for Left-wingers …”
Wisconsin State Representative Gordon Hintz—a Democrat—told Republican Representative Michelle Litjens that she was “fucking dead” after she voted for Governor Scott Walker’s budget plan. On February 10th 2011, Hintz was issued a municipal citation for violating a city sexual misconduct ordinance; the alleged crime evidently occurred at the Heavenly Touch Massage Parlor.
On March 9th 2011, Republican Senators in Wisconsin received e-mails threatening to kill them and their families:
“Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes (sic) will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die. WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator [presumably Governor Scott Walker] have to die. [...] We have all planned to assult (sic) you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so “high” on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic (sic) process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun. [...] Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!”
Stephen Sweeney, a New Jersey Senate Democratic leader, angry at Governor Chris Christie, said, “I wanted to punch him in his head.”
Shortly after Betty Rivas appeared onstage with Donald Trump, leftist hatemongers came out of the woodwork to mock her hair and threaten her and her husband, Jorge; they “received harassing phone calls at [their] Mexican restaurant, vulgar comments on both her and the business’ Facebook pages, and received malicious restaurant reviews on Yelp for Sammy's Mexican Grill in Catalina.”
Trump invited Mrs. Rivas onstage after seeing her sign that read: LATINOS SUPPORT D. TRUMP. Notably, she “said she received no such response from Trump supporters after taking a similar sign to the Tucson Bernie Sanders rally.”
Jorge said, “They are doing everything to shut us down.” They called him a racist, a pig, an idiot, and warned, “You are going to burn.” He added, “If I asked you to give me a list of 50 nasty words and phrases, you can pick all of them, they said them all.”
According to their appearance on Fox News 3-31-2016, the verbal abuse included thousands of phone calls that Jorge termed “terrorizing”: threats to put them out of business and kill them. Encouragingly, people horrified by this abuse supported their right to free speech without retaliatory threats to them personally or their business (their food looks delicious!); such hate is a sign of fascism. If the far-Left haters looked into a mirror and saw reality, they wouldn't see the loving, tolerant, open, accepting people they claim to be.
Responding to conservative and new mom Amanda Carpenter, Democratic official Allan Brauer tweeted, “May your children all die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.” Brauer's death wish is the latest in a string of utterances that left people thinking he is racist, misogynistic, immature, and vile. Brauer was elected Communications Chair for the Democratic Party of Sacramento County, California. Trying to defend himself, he referred to Carpenter as “pubic lice” and complained he was “Busy blocking the tapeworms that have slithered out of hellspawn @amandacarpenter's asshole.”
Shortly after Trump's election, a woman in the Seattle area wearing a jacket emblazoned with “Black Lives Matter” called for killing people and The White House. She yelled, “White people, give your ******* money, your ******* house, your ******* property, we need it ******* all … “**** white supremacy, **** the U.S. empire, **** your imperialist *** lives. That **** gotta go … And we need to start killing people. First off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die. The White House, your ******* White House, your ******* Presidents, they must go! **** the White House.”
A protest turned into a violent riot at the University of California at Berkeley as students (and other thugs?) smashed and damaged buildings and other property (including cars and ATM machines), blocked a car and assaulted the driver (the wrong person, not the target of their rage), spray-painted “Kill fascists” on a Walgreens pharmacy, and pepper-sprayed a female Trump supporter (directly into her face) as she spoke with a local reporter for a TV interview.
Another woman was “hit with a black flag and pole before being pepper-sprayed” and another rioter struck “an attendee in the head with a bike lock.” Rioters also punched people, threw fireworks, and set fires, one of which burned a tree. Campus police “officers were targeted with projectiles, including bricks and smoking objects.”
Rioters succeeded in canceling a talk by Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos, calling him and those wishing to hear him speak “fascists”—rather ironic since free speech is American as apple pie while using violence to silence others is exactly what real fascists do, and did in Italy circa World War II with Hitler's Sturmabteilung (SA) Brownshirts being the epitome of using violence and intimidation to cower and crush opponents. Thus the extreme Left are the fascists—NOT President Trump or his supporters.
In Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, Daniel Klaidman describes “a heated exchange” between Attorney General Eric Holder and Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod “that almost turned physical in the West Wing” of the White House.
Nevada Assemblyman Steven Brooks was “found driving with a handgun registered to another individual and 41 rounds of ammunition” and later arrested “on suspicion of physically attacking a family member, then grabbing for an officer's weapon. The arrest came only days after the North Las Vegas Democrat embarked on a three-week leave following a string of bizarre events that began with his Jan. 19 arrest for allegedly threatening Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick … over his committee assignments. … Days after posting bail, he was detained and hospitalized for a mental evaluation after a disturbance at his grandmother's house involving a sword.”
Donna Dewitt, the outgoing president of South Carolina's AFL-CIO, smiled with obvious delight as she repeatedly used a baseball bat to smash a piñata bearing a photo of Republican Governor Nikki Haley:
“Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.”
— Eric Hoffer
“It has often been said that power corrupts. But it is perhaps equally important to realize that weakness, too, corrupts. Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many. Hatred, malice, rudeness, intolerance, and suspicion are the faults of weakness. The resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done to them but from the sense of inadequacy and impotence. We cannot win the weak by sharing our wealth with them. They feel our generosity as oppression. St. Vincent De Paul cautioned his disciples to deport themselves so that the poor "will forgive them the bread you give them."”
— Eric Hoffer
18 anti-racists wielding hammers and steel batons “stormed a suburban Chicago family restaurant in broad daylight to assault a meeting of alleged white supremacists.” They injured ten people, “at least three [of whom] required treatment for head wounds,” and caused $15,000 in property “damages including broken plates, glasses and furniture.” Tinley Park's Ed Zabrocki said he's been mayor for 31 years and has “never heard of anything stranger than this.”
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby did not have to pay for drugs they deemed abortive, liberal activists threatened to burn down Hobby Lobby stores.
Mike Dickinson, a Democrat allegedly running for Congress (or hoping he could), allegedly asked God to infect NRA members with the deadly Ebola virus and allegedly offered money for nude photos of Kendall Jones, a 19-year-old cheerleader from Texas famous for her beauty and penchant for hunting.
Dan Savage, whose “political leanings are primarily liberal” according to Wikipedia, “was so angered [in 2000] by televised remarks in opposition to same-sex marriage by conservative Republican presidential hopeful Gary Bauer that [after contracting the flu] he … volunteered for the Bauer campaign with the intent to infect the candidate with his flu. He wrote that he licked doorknobs and other objects in the campaign office [including "the rims of all the clean coffee cups drying in the rack"], and handed Bauer a saliva-coated pen, hoping to pass the virus on to Bauer and his supporters (though he later said that much of the article had been fictitious).”
I strongly support treating gay and lesbian people the same as everyone else, so I oppose discrimination of them, which is needlessly cruel and contrary to the Golden Rule ethic of reciprocity. Savage is intelligent and insightful, but even thinking about intentionally infecting others with a potentially deadly virus is appalling. Savage said, “I wish the Republicans were all fucking dead” but later “apologized for his remarks,” adding that his “dad is a Republican.”
Savage isn't crazy but some of his comments make him sound that way, or at least very uncivil. If a conservative said or did anything half as outrageous as what Savage has done, liberals would brand him as a psychopathic loon—because liberals, despite all their rhetoric about being tolerant, and despite the dictionary definition of liberal that makes them seem almost perfect, show no mercy in pouncing on Republican or conservative imperfections. We're all human, hence we're all imperfect, hence we all occasionally say things we later regret and often never agreed with because anger and frustration often overly amplify emotions.
Bob Furnad, former president of CNN Headline News, “was caught on camera placing a bag filled with dog excrement in a neighbor's mailbox.”
In a speech laced with profanity, Madonna said she has “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House” after Trump's election.
Actor Wendell Pierce, a supporter of Hillary Clinton, was arrested after reportedly attacking a woman favoring Bernie Sanders. Pierce reportedly “pushed her boyfriend away before grabbing the woman's hair and hitting her in the head.”
“… liberal-on-liberal violence has broken out as demonstrators … slashed the tires, broke the windows, and, in one instance, purposely barfed on the private buses Google and Yahoo! use to transport employees …”
Supporters of Bernie Sanders threw chairs, leaked cellphone numbers, and threatened to kill members of the Nevada Democratic Party, including its chairwoman, Roberta Lange. She lamented, “It's been vile. It's been threatening messages, threatening my family, threatening my life, threatening my grandchild.” A text message warned her to “prepare for hell.”
In a bizarre twist to the Tragedy in Tucson, one victim, 63-year-old James Eric Fuller, 63, a self-described liberal who was shot in the knee, spoke of torturing top Republicans before severing their ears. “There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Rep.] Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end, because they're small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center.”
Fuller disrupted a town hall meeting by photographing Tucson Tea Party leader Trent Humphries and then saying, “You're dead!” As police escorted him from the room, he screamed, “You’re all whores!” Fuller was arrested and committed for a psychiatric examination.
He previously claimed that Republicans “appeal to simple-minded rednecks” and repeatedly denounced the “Tea Party crime syndicate.”
The James Eric Fuller page on HypnoThoughts.com said he was looking for “an opportunity to advocate my personal agenda promoting social justice and common sense.” His specialty was using “extraordinary persuasive charisma to interest blasé, apathetic, oblivious and at times hostile voters to listen to the voice of justice and consanguinity.”
“Extraordinary persuasive charisma,” “common sense,” “voice of justice,” torturing people, cutting off ears, crafting an ear necklace, putting dog feces in a neighbor's mailbox, firebombing a church, threatening to kill kids and rape women, attacking people with hammers, licking doorknobs to spread germs—and Tea Party people are the crazy ones?
Fuller's lack of insight into his shortcomings rivals that of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the two Boston Marathon bombers, who complained that “people can't control themselves” and “there are no values anymore.”
“The Left these days defines tolerance as being incredibly warm and receptive to people who completely agree with them already. Diversity is to have lots of people who comes in lots of different shapes and sizes and colors, and sexual orientations, but they all have to agree on the same things.”
— Jonah Goldberg
Comment: In other words, the Left often has no tolerance for intellectual diversity – the most important kind.
Connect the dots: IRS Targeting Hollywood Conservative Group
Meet the Democrat Who's Not Afraid to Criticize President Obama on ISIS: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. She is very intelligent, a superb speaker, imbued with common sense, and an exemplary politician and person who may very well become President of the United States. The fact that she strongly appeals to me (someone who usually votes for Republicans, always wishing for a better realistic alternative) manifests her broad appeal and exceptional potential. If all Democrat politicians were like her, there would be no need for their supporters to do some of the desperate, kooky things they do to wage war on Republicans and their fans.
Speaking of which: After accusing President Obama of not loving America, “former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said his office has received death threats.”
I've had liberals harass me at home in ways that make me question not only their sanity but brainpower, because while I agree with conservatives and libertarians on most matters, I agree with liberals on others. After being a liberal in my youth (I proudly voted for Jimmy Carter), I morphed into a conservative and thought they were right on just about everything. I did more than my share of liberal bashing but kept listening to them and eventually sided with them on various matters, one of which is hugely important but they perennially approach it in such an ineffective way that it will never get traction.
“Another danger is that, if you listen long enough you may start attending to what's being said. You may start thinking about other people, even sympathizing with them. You may develop a true empathy for others, and this will turn you into such a human oddity that you will become a social outcast.”
— P.J. O'Rourke
Since I strongly agree with liberals on some issues, why do I not treat conservatives with the same contempt as liberals? Why do I respectfully disagree with conservatives even when I think they are wrong?
Because conservatives are not trying to put a noose around my neck, depriving me of basic liberties and more of my money. (This opinion needs updating. While that statement once seemed unquestionably true to me, that matter is not as simple as it seems; see The endless wars we cannot afford in my article The collapse of the U.S. economy: inevitable unless we do this. Conservative George W. Bush eroded our freedoms, made higher taxes inevitable, and drove several more nails into the USA coffin.) Furthermore, conservatives are more likely to tolerate differences of opinion; they're more likely to think, not just react. However, there are exceptions, such as a well-known conservative whose rush to judge others reveals a striking character defect, a lack of brainpower, or both. In an upcoming article, I will skewer him for his reverence of hot air, not facts.
“You've seen the ads attacking my husband. As [Senator] Mitch McConnell's wife, I've learned to expect them. Now, far left special interests are also attacking my [Asian] ethnicity, even attacking Mitch's patriotism because he's married to me. That's how low some people will stoop.” (source)
— Former U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, speaking of attacks by the liberal group Progress Kentucky
“There are two organizations pushing for change in November—al Qaeda and the Democratic party. And they both have the same message: 'We're going to fix you, America.'”
— P. J. O'Rourke
Leftist foes, “throwing stuff around and starting fires,” celebrated the death of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Fueled by champagne, they chanted “Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Dead, Dead, Dead,” smashed shop windows, threw paint bombs, held street parties, damaged a police vehicle, injured police officers and others, smiled, handed out “Thatcher's dead cake” as they sang and cheered, “smashed the windows of Barnardo's the Children's charity,” and jubilantly held a banner proclaiming, “THE BITCH IS DEAD.”
As Ed Morrissey wisely asked in The curious ghoulishness of Thatcher-death celebrations:
“What exactly were they celebrating? Thatcher hadn't been in power in over 22 years. An entire generation has gone by since Thatcher left office, and the Tories have held power only briefly since. If these people are so miserable and put her in the center of that misery, perhaps they should ask why their lot in life hasn't improved since she left office. … If they have been holding this kind of grudge for 22 years, on what kind of hate will they be able to live now?”
Liberals: Tolerant. Civil. Living in a dream world. Brimming with hate and masters of projection, it's the conservatives who need more civilization. They spot minor conservative flaws from a mile away yet can't see rabid mental pathology oozing from liberal pores surrounding them. (Research: Why Do Haters Have to Hate? Newly Identified Personality Trait Holds Clues based on Attitudes without objects: Evidence for a dispositional attitude, its measurement, and its consequences. To more fully understand projection, read Harvard Business Review's Why Are Some People So Critical?)
I am no Thatcher fan, but in judging anyone, it is only fair to consider their good points, not only their bad. Thatcher's determination to retake the Falklands manifested how she ignored the bloody roots of British royal power that infected them with the might makes right notion, first priming their leaders to make people at home, and later abroad, get on their knees, do as they are told, and fork over some of their loot as payment for being ruled—like the Mafia does.
Anyone who studies history can figure out why Great Britain's prosperity fell so much that protestors, blind to this obvious truth, blamed Thatcher for what prior British rulers did wrong—which was plenty. If Great Britain were as evil as it once was, the United States wouldn't waste time on al Qaeda; we'd target Britain for their considerably more numerous evils, such as what they did to people in India and elsewhere.
Thanks to President Obama, whose mention of colonialism spurred me to fill in some of my educational gaps left by teachers presenting a remarkably unbalanced interpretation of history. If you swallowed the propaganda of educators, you'd think we're great, our allies are good, and the rest of the world is filled with evil savages. It's just not that simple.
Trivia: In Against the Odds, vacuum cleaner magnate James Dyson put Thatcher in a new light for those who thought she was the British equivalent of Ronald Reagan; she comes off as being cluelessly out of touch with economic reality.
Liberals like to portray themselves as paragons of tolerance, but they often vilify others who disagree with them even slightly. Liberals who don't have the intellectual horsepower to substantively make their case often resort to ad hominem attacks and character assassination. In other words, if they can't beat others in an argument, they'll disparage them, as they did during the 2008 campaign when they alleged that Bill Clinton was a racist.
This nuttiness typically stems from the rabid Obama fans who need such flak to divert attention from their idol Barack, whose singular gift is reading a teleprompter, echoing the words of gifted speechwriters. Obama didn't know how many states we have, what a P/E ratio is, or how to pronounce corpsman (he repeatedly said corpse-man).
UPDATE: Let me interrupt this Obama-bashing session to say that I now agree with him on various issues. For example, see my group of articles on siding with liberals, doing the right thing, helping people survive the economic crisis, and praising Obama for signing the JOBS Act. However, I still wouldn't vote for him. Liberalism can be a good way to run a life, but it's a terrible way to run a country.
If Obama is a genius, why is he so ashamed of his college records that he sealed them? What could they possibly contain that would be worth sealing? A failing grade in economics? Something worse?
Obama admirers point to his Harvard Law School record as evidence of his brilliance, but as I documented in another article, some colleges award sham grades and sham degrees as part of a covert affirmative action program.
Many people strongly suspect that Bill Ayers wrote much of Obama's book, Dreams From My Father (read Jack Cashill's impressive analysis).
Obama brilliantly exploited his innate passive-aggressiveness (if it isn't innate, then he is even more brilliant) to frustrate his opponents. Obama's paid-to-smear supporters thwart his critics by alleging that they must be racists or haters for disapproving of him. America still harbors rabid racists (I discussed some years ago in a posting about healthcare workers who intentionally murder black patients), but if the USA were as racist as the Left often alleges, it wouldn't have elected a black President, nor would it think of reelecting him, considering how he's hurt—not helped—most Americans.
Obama is focused on “looking good,” but that's not good enough. With the United States teetering on the edge of financial collapse, Obama attended a roundtable discussion to talk about job creation and energy efficiency. The best idea generated from that meeting was the suggestion that installing more insulation in homes and businesses would save energy by reducing heating and cooling costs.
Obama's roadmap to recovery is leading him down paths everyone already knows about. He said that insulation is sexy because it saves money. A proverb states that “a well-beaten path does not always make the right road.” The right road to our recovery leads to places that Obama and his brain trust don't know about, such as my idea of how to modify a home to save more energy without the cost or installation hassles of insulation. That idea enabled me to be warmer than ever during an unusually cold Michigan winter without turning my furnace on even once.
“If you want to succeed you should strike out on new paths, rather than travel the worn paths of accepted success.”
— John D. Rockefeller
No one expects Obama to have all the answers, but he should be smart enough to know where to find the ideas we need to recover. However, his roadmap is leading him to places that even kids know about. That's genius? That's leadership?
In the near future, Americans will be hammered by economic problems so severe they will thirst for answers to their problems, even if they are not inside-the-box ideas found on the roadmaps favored by the two major political parties—roadmaps that led us to economic disaster.
In writing about politics and the economy, my goal is not to hammer liberals, with whom I increasingly agree. Instead, my ultimate goal is to propose solutions (here is an example) beyond the usual rehash of freeze-dried ideas from bygone American politicians. Some of those inside-the-box ideas will help, but they won't be enough to save us and restore our prosperity. We need good outside-the-box ideas off the well-beaten path; ideas you won't ever hear from politicians or the political pundits in the media who think they are so darn smart, such as those on Fox News, which isn't as fair and balanced as they claim, as I proved in another article. However, we live in an inside-the-box world that often ridicules new ideas, as I discussed in another article.
If liberals are as tolerant as they purport to be, why are so many of them picking through every word I write, looking for a way to attack me? To illustrate the depths of their desperation, they even ridiculed the Mosquito Motel I made for my Mom as a Mother's Day present:
They also criticized my sheds, with one bird-brain mistaking them for birdhouses. Do they look like birdhouses to you? Birds that large became extinct during the Jurassic Period! :-)
“You can tell the size of a man by the size of the thing that makes him mad.”
— Adlai Stevenson II, a great American politician (Democrat)
Benjamin Disraeli said, “Small things affects small minds.”
petty (adjective): marked by: (1) contemptible narrowness of mind, views, outlook, or ideas; (2) meanness, especially in trifling matters; deliberately nasty for a foolish or trivial reason.
small-minded (adjective): intolerant; mean; petty; narrow-minded; bigoted; lacking tolerance, flexibility, or breadth of view.
bigot (noun): (1) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing opinion, belief, or creed; (2) a person who is obstinately intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on politics or religion, and has animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
Liberal is supposed to mean:
(1) not limited to established, traditional, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry;
(2) open to proposals for reform or new ideas for progress;
(3) tolerant of change or the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded;
(4) accepting; not criticizing or disapproving;
(5) showing respect for the opinions, practices, or rights of others;
(6) full of love and generosity;
(7) tolerant and forgiving under provocation;
(8) inclined to forgive and show mercy;
(9) indulgent, easy-going, charitable, open-minded, understanding, sympathetic, kind-hearted, unprejudiced.
Liberal sounds pretty great, doesn't it? However, many liberals are anything but liberal. Instead, they are mean, nasty, spiteful, filled with hate, and looking for any flimsy excuse to stick a knife into the backs of anyone who doesn't agree with them on everything. Hence they are bigots.
“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.”
Arthur H. R. Fairchild said:
“The most distinctive mark of a cultured mind is the ability to take another's point of view; to put one's self in another's place, and see life and its problems from a point of view different from one's own. To be willing to test a new idea; to be able to live on the edge of difference in all matters intellectually; to examine without heat the burning question of the day; to have imaginative sympathy, openness and flexibility of mind, steadiness and poise of feeling, cool calmness of judgment, is to have culture.”
Why is the supposedly tolerant left so shockingly intolerant? Could it be they are not as liberal as they purport to be?
“I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance.”
— Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Narcissism engenders “how dare anyone disagree with ME!” intolerance, but the magnifying glass liberals often use to examine imperfections in others is rarely turned on themselves.
Too many liberals (certainly not all) are myopically focused on their rights and imposing their beliefs on others even if it means depriving them of their rights and freedom to think for themselves. And money: liberals and their politicians are perennially scheming for ways to take more of your money and thus more of your freedom. If you resist their greedy confiscation, they'll brand you as greedy—they are masters of projection.
Liberals often possess an arrogant certitude that they are more intelligent than others, but smart, educated people would not jump to hasty generalizations: logical fallacies of faulty generalization by reaching inductive conclusions based on insufficient evidence. In other words, leaping to conclusions or rushing to judgment.
For proof that liberals often commit hasty generalizations, look at the profusion of liberals attacking me and the number (zero) who had enough brainpower and honesty to challenge other liberals on their preposterous smears.
Too many liberals act as if they don't want facts to get in the way of their hasty opinions. This problem affects even some in the liberal elite, such as Ron Schiller, who, as Senior Vice President for Development and President of the NPR Foundation, said that Tea Party supporters are “not just Islamophobic, but really xenophobic! I mean, basically they are—they are—they believe in sort of white, middle America, gun-toting. I mean, it's pretty scary. They're—they're seriously racist, racist people.”
Nothing like painting with an overly broad brush, eh Mr. Schiller? To use his D-student manner of expression, what he said is a seriously bigoted, bigoted statement, but he doesn't appear to be bright enough to sense his conspicuous hypocrisy.
“Now, I'll talk personally as opposed to wearing my NPR hat. It feels to me as though there's a real anti-intellectual mood on the part of a significant part of the Republican Party. You know, in my personal opinion liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced. I am most disturbed by and disappointed by in this country, which is that the educated, so-called elite in this country is—is too small a percentage of the population so that you have this very large uneducated part of the population that—that carries these ideas. [...] what NPR stood for is non-racist, non-bigoted, straightforward telling of the news.”
No wonder NPR fired him for making statements that made him sound as if he were a petty, small-minded bigot who enjoys nitpicking and jumping to hasty generalizations. However, he is hardly alone. Too many liberals derive a malicious, juvenile satisfaction from tearing others down and focusing on isolated islands of dirt in a shining sea of goodness. Sadly, the American dream changed from building yourself up to tearing others down.
What you say about others says a lot about you
Psychological researchers published an article (Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you) demonstrating that what you say about others says a lot about you. Specifically, they found that kind-hearted, happy, and emotionally stable people are more likely to see others in a positive light.
I've seen the truth in that in my own life. While I worked as an ER doctor and in the years thereafter in which I was recovering from the burnout that plagues many emergency physicians and dealing with chronic extreme sleep deprivation, I was cynical and embittered, which was reflected in my writing—much of which is still posted online and in my books. However, in the past year or so in which my spirit rebounded to its pre-ER state of being sunny and naturally buoyant with a profound desire to help other people and animals, I've noticed that as I've become much happier, I am less critical of others and more likely to figuratively put myself in their shoes and see things from their point of view. If you sincerely do that, it is difficult or impossible to be harshly critical of them, except when they richly deserve it.
As I've empathized with the perspective of others, I lowered my resistance to—and sometimes even wholeheartedly embraced—certain liberal positions. Some of my most cherished conservative beliefs did not withstand the scrutiny of pondering whether they were ethically justifiable. For example, the issue of illegal immigration is deceptively simple: it's our country, they entered illegally, kick 'em out, end of story. Then I learned that a huge chunk of the western United States once was part of Mexico. We bought a small part of that land fair and square, but the rest was acquired using might makes right principles of coercion. As fond as I am of the U.S., I am even more fond of doing the right thing, and might makes right is never a justifiable part of that equation. I am now doing something I couldn't have imagined in my conservative days: selling my Sea-doo, Ski-doo, and shed to help a deported person reenter the United States, and writing about the priceless benefits of sponsoring immigration.
I don't fit into any one political box, so I am not a liberal or conservative. As my political views have become more eclectic, I've seen how liberals and conservatives make errors in framing their preaching to the choir arguments that rarely accomplish their goal of changing hearts and minds. I was fortunate to meet some people with different viewpoints who used placid methods of persuasion, not heated rhetoric. If Leftists were truly liberal, they would not be so intolerant of intellectual diversity and a robust exchange of ideas.
The $100,000 challenge: Prove that the dictionary definition of liberal is more fitting than saying they are petty, small-minded bigots who enjoy nitpicking, jumping to hasty generalizations, and reveling in mean-spirited intolerance. To win the prize, you must also plausibly explain how so many liberals could attack me as they did and yet meet the definition of liberal (see above); in particular, proving they are broad-minded and tolerant of the ideas of others; accepting; not criticizing or disapproving; showing respect for the opinions of others; full of love and generosity; tolerant and forgiving under provocation; inclined to forgive and show mercy; indulgent, easy-going, charitable, open-minded, understanding, sympathetic, kind-hearted, unprejudiced.
Columnist Michael Goodwin, a Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008, wrote: “The Democratic Party has lost its mind and its way. Its political philosophy of inclusion and progress has been consumed by virulent strains of anger, dishonesty and intolerance. Its leaders don’t just want to win an election; they want to silence any American who disagrees with them. … In theory, free speech still exists. But to the new Democrats, speech is free only to those who spout the party line. Everybody else must pay a price.”
Following Trump's election in 2016, he added, “They [Obama and Hillary Clinton] have nothing new to offer, with their vision of the future limited to larger doses of the same failing medicine and their intolerance for disagreement showing they would never learn from their mistakes. Their bad ideas had run their disastrous course. … Because they are doomed to fail, we could be witnessing the death throes of the Democratic Party as we know it. With Obama and the Clintons encouraging the attempted theft of an election they lost and failing to denounce intimidation and death threats against Trump electoral voters, most Americans have reason to consider the Dems a dead letter.”
Hitler had his enforcers, all of them evil. Obama has his enforcers, too. Media Matters is just one of them. All enforcers are eventually exposed and loathed.
Media Matters uses a microscope to search for and magnify the slightest imperfections in their opponents, and when they don't find enough dirt to base a smear campaign on, they fabricate stories and twist facts to suit their partisan propaganda needs. However, they are blind to what Democrats do wrong. Example: Democrat Gloria Platko, a township clerk in Michigan, called a township supervisor an “arrogant nigger” in January of 2013. On April 29, a search for Gloria Platko on their site yielded zero hits.
Media Matters obviously doesn't care about racism or even political correctness; they only care about smearing opponents while giving a pass to Democrats, even if they are racist. This double standard is inherently discriminatory and yet another example of their bias. However, the Right has its own bias, which I will cover in another article.
Despite all the lip service America gives to tolerance, it is too often highly judgmental and intolerant, as evidenced by the blackballing of Tim Tebow because he's too Christian and a teacher who was “asked to resign” because she was photographed in a bikini while moonlighting as a model—not having sex with a student, doing drugs, or “urinating in class.”
As a doctor, I know that intolerance is a sign of mental illness. Folks with a screw loose are more likely to get all worked up (to put it colloquially) over trivial things such as ordinary human imperfections (and even perfections!), not school shootings, mass unemployment, or other things that obviously should concern people who care about others.
“Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting.”
— Sydney J. Harris
“Fretting about overpopulation, is a perfect guilt-free—indeed, sanctimonious—way for "progressives" to be racists.”
— P. J. O'Rourke
Liberals often throw a conniption fit if they detect a conservative who is the slightest bit imperfect or not PC 24/7/365, yet they're often blind to their incivility, such as by using the word “teabagger” that so many of them use joyously even though it is venomous and filled with hate and intolerance. The Tea Party will almost certainly fail to achieve its objectives, but what they need is better ideas, not juvenile disparagement.
Speaking of juvenile disparagement: Michigan State University Professor William Penn said Republicans are old people with “dead skin cells washing off them.” He added this threat: “I am a college professor. If I find out you are a closet racist, I am coming after you.”
Some liberals have a hair trigger for alleging racism even when their allegations are transparently false and easily disprovable. For example, Oprah Winfrey said, “There's a level of disrespect for the office [of President] that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because [Barack Obama is] African American. There's no question about that.”
Oh yes there is. Republicans in general and the Tea Party in particular are often alleged to be racist because they don't like Barack Obama. Yet if Dr. Ben Carson were President and Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory were Vice President, I would sing Happy Days are Here Again and Tea Party fans would jump for joy.
Now why would allegedly racist people celebrate having a fully black President and Vice President yet blast half-black Obama? Because they're not racist! Race has nothing to do with it, but competence does. President Obama has done some commendable things in office, such as sign the JOBS Act, but he's frittered away numerous opportunities to catalyze our economic recovery (for all Americans, not just the half he tries to help by hurting the other half) and he seems hell-bent on shoving ObamaCare down our throats even though it is precipitating a national crisis.
Obama clearly knows little about healthcare, economics, and how the real world works and could work much better to deliver even better care at less cost. Rather than ask those of us who know, Obama's ego deluded him into believing that he and his hyper-partisan associates know everything they need to know. Obviously they don't. They burned through the better part of a billion dollars and put up a website that manifests their shocking incompetence. The Pentagon can't always protect its computers and now the Obama administration wants Americans to believe their financial and health information is safe being uploaded to a site created by programmers in dire need of summer school. Trust them?
Since millions of Americans will lose health insurance because of Obama's meddling, some will inevitably suffer and die as a result. That's one of many tangible reasons why he is disrespected and even loathed: because too often he doesn't know what he is doing, but he does it anyway, because he doesn't see the danger in being hardheaded.
It's obviously not race. If America were racist, would we have elected him? Other than charm, Hollywood-handsome looks, a great voice, and skill in reading carefully crafted words from teleprompters, his qualifications to be President were exiguous and largely imaginary, known only to spellbound fans who concocted all sorts of attributes he simply did not possess. Now with the failure of ObamaCare, the real Obama—the out-of-his-league Obama—is coming into focus so that even Democrats are blasting him. Are they suddenly racist?
If America were racist, we wouldn't love Oprah Winfrey, but we do. We tolerate her repeated allegations of racism because she has many redeeming qualities. I think my girlfriend is dead wrong about some things, too, but I still love her and keep listening to her. Eventually, she often persuades me that I was wrong. Changing gives me an opportunity to evolve into a better person.
More Americans might learn to love Barack Obama, but an essential part of the equation is missing: a willingness for him to sincerely listen to those who disagree with him. Instead of assuming that opponents may have legitimate reasons for believing what they do, he treats them with contempt and ridicule, as do countless liberal Democrats who went rabidly overboard in expressing their contempt for George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, the perennial target of liberal misogyny.
You can disagree without being disagreeable, but too often they cannot. Too often they view disagreements not as opportunities to educate but invitations to harshly judge others after seeing less than 1% of them. After their premature declarations of war, they often go on the warpath and spew what is clearly venom, thus manifesting their incivility. Rather than reaching for the high road, they revel in hitting below the belt. The more their words wound, the more they love it. Yet they're mystified why they're not respected more? They're full of hate, not love. They don't want to change; they want the world to change.
The ObamaCare debacle shows the danger of people who want the world to change to conform to their wishes even when they are clearly wrong. Mr. Obama wants change, but his idea of change is you bending to please him. Even if it kills you.
Oprah is a billionaire—and she wouldn't be if America were racist. She's been so rich for so long she likely forgot how hard average Americans work for their money that is being robbed by politicians in Washington who always want more of it.
The United States became great precisely because of freedom, but as that is being replaced by coercive control, our prosperity is diminishing. Freedom of speech should exist in reality, not just in the Constitution, and not just in whispers at home. But bigoted liberals want freedom of speech only for themselves. Since freedom of speech is the best antidote to control that led to slavery, silencing opponents is the first step to controlling them. This evinces the ultimate objective of liberals: freedom for them, control for you.
Oprah, of all people, you should know better. You know what control leads to. You know why it's wrong.
Ilana Mercer denounced Obama because “he would toy with the lives of millions as though they were insects and he God.” Yet when even wise Democrats realized that Obama didn't know enough about our healthcare system, Obama kept meddling. He's God and you're an insect to him. If he must squash you to control you to feed his ego, he will. Now that's offensive, Oprah.
It's time to put down the scalpel, Dr. Obama. You're butchering the healthcare system, not healing it. You ignored its flaws and cut into healthcare plans that connected patients to their doctors. Oprah saw the rising level of discontentment with you and chose to defend you rather than acknowledge that we have valid reasons to loathe a government headed by a man who likes citizens best when they're on their knees. You should know better, Oprah.
Ironically, if Obama got over his narcissistic ego and acknowledged that his opponents have legitimate points, he could be a superstar President who paves the way to a brighter future by solving problems instead of creating them. His admittedly clever Machiavellian political games usually stymie today's crop of clueless Republicans, but beating them up is tantamount to beating the fraction of Americans (almost half) they represent. That's not a victory, that's a shame. Immature people love to fight and destroy others; mature people love to cooperate and help others.
Why are liberals more likely to be nasty?
One of my relatives is stridently liberal and a gifted genius. She wrote the best parts of a bestselling book but let her then-husband take all the credit. Although she strikes me as super-smart, she also strikes me as being so unhappy she seemingly wounds people just to vent whatever it is she's feeling inside. Liberal and unhappy: is there a connection?
Evidently yes. Quoting from The New York Times:
“Political junkies might be interested to learn that conservative women are particularly blissful: about 40 percent say they are very happy. That makes them slightly happier than conservative men and significantly happier than liberal women. The unhappiest of all are liberal men; only about a fifth consider themselves very happy.” (emphasis added)
Unhappy people tend to be more pugnacious. They're more eager to vent their venom, and have more of it. Misery loves company, so they often enjoy making others miserable, too.
“If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own.”
— Henry Ford
But why do American liberals resort to kooky tactics and violence? Look at what's happening in Venezuela in 2016: their economy based on socialism is crumbling. The New York Times reported that “electricity and water are being rationed, and huge areas of the country have spent months with little of either.” Fox News broadcast video of starving people rummaging through restaurant garbage to find food and others raiding a truck until armed military personnel stopped them. Their public schools are closed on Fridays to save electricity and other basic necessities are in short supply: all evidence that spreading-the-wealth-around socialism destroys wealth and leads to misery.
Thus liberals can't debate on facts because the facts aren't on their side. In desperation, too many of them use physical force and other disreputable measures instead of doing what all Americans should be doing: engaging in vigorous but mutually respectful discussions of how to best get our economy back on track.
Most Republican voters realized how the Republican establishment was screwing them, but many Democrat voters don't yet realize how the Democratic establishment has fed off them like parasites, creating the misery they use as bait election after election to hook voters, promising to solve problems they created but never doing that so voters in the next election will in desperation once again eagerly lap up empty campaign promises. After hearing that BS my entire life and seeing the United States sink instead of soar (except for several bubbles that later burst), I'd sooner put my faith in a slick used car salesman than a politician.
Liberals tolerating only liberals
Too many American liberals are authoritarian, eager to shut down the conversation and silence those who don't agree with them; unfettered freedom for them and whatever they want, to hell with others.
Liberal rage is more focused on political opponents and less focused on the problems they purport to care so much about. But oddly, despite desperately hoping everyone agrees with them, they reflexively dismiss the possibility that people can change, so they tend to go overboard attacking their perceived enemies in such vicious and nutty ways (as documented above) they view those opponents as perpetual enemies, not possible future ideological friends. But people do change. I became less conservative and Mary Tyler Moore reportedly became less liberal.
Liberals supporting same-sex marriage demanded that Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich be terminated because he gave $1000 in support of traditional marriage in 2008—a time when even Barack Obama opposed same-sex marriage. Liberals didn't go for Obama's scalp because they figuratively give get-out-of-jail-free cards to other liberals; no matter what they do, they get a pass while conservatives are targeted for destruction.
Underlying this selective rage is an über-arrogance: that only their opinions are tolerated; that only they deserve to think for themselves and possess the right of free speech, while the rest of us should shut the hell up and let them rule the world and everyone in it, with them dictating to us what is and is not permissible. Two-sided public discourse and debate are important keys to culture, so when liberals work overtime to silence others, it reveals their totalitarian mentality.
A chilling consequence of the liberal Thought Police run amok is that most of the world’s brightest people are afraid to voice their opinions, which deprives us of the fruits of their minds that are worth considering whether or not one agrees with them.
Ironically, liberals most demanding of tolerance for their opinions are so intolerant of others with dissimilar views they feel justified in attacking them. As Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote, “I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance.” The intolerance that fuels the liberal Internet Manufactured Outrage Machine manifests their bigotry and immaturity.
Like spoiled brats, too many liberals care only about what they want. Their exalted self-opinions inflate the importance of their beliefs while trivializing others and what they think. In their minds, those “others” are such peons they may deserve to die if they don't agree with liberals on every matter important to them. For proof, witness some of the wacky liberal rage depicted above, or consider how Obama pal Bill Ayers co-founded the Weather Underground, a radical Left organization that devised a savage genocidal plan to take over the United States, brainwash its population, and exterminate the estimated 25 million they could not brainwash.
Modern-day Hitler wannabes who feel entitled in imposing their will on others haven't gone away; they've merely morphed their tactics and hidden their barbaric agenda to rob the world of diversity by destroying people who don't march in lockstep with everything they believe.
These liberals dream of an increasingly intolerant society that delights in declaring war on anyone who doesn't kowtow to them, but a victory for them is a loss for everyone who values independent thinking.
This malignant incivility metastasizes from liberal to liberal with few of them admonishing transgressors for going too far with too little provocation. Instead, they often evince a pack mentality in which the wackiest actions and statements gain the most gleeful support, but individually — apart from the throngs that champion intransigence — most liberal loons lose their rabid proclivities and instead seem about as normal as the rest of us imperfect people except for an angst that fuels their disaffection and thereby, in desperation, incentivizes them to act in ways that clearly manifest frustration with their inability to achieve their goals as rapidly as they'd like.
Liberal angst has many roots. To understand liberal politicians and the long-term havoc some of them can wreak, one must take a step back and focus on the devastation they cause, not their immediate superficial charm and feel-good policies intended to hook dupes, as I once was.
I had great hopes for Obama. At the onset of his presidency, in From Bailout to Bliss I wrote, “While I have many reservations about Obama, I am convinced that he could become not just the greatest President ever, but the greatest hero in history, loved by almost everyone.”
I'm now laughing at how naïve I was.
After making egregious mistakes, it is helpful to analyze why they occurred. In medicine, we have M&M (morbidity and mortality) conferences in which we engage in peer reviews of mistakes that led to adverse outcomes so we can learn from them and hence not repeat them. In doing a figurative M&M on my initial assessment of Obama, I realized where I went wrong: I focused too much on his impressive brain (Republicans may mock his intelligence, yet can't seem to outwit him) and ignored his heart.
I don't agree with Dr. Ben Carson on everything, but I love him anyway — not romantically, of course, but I have love for him as a person who strikes me as someone who has a heart of gold who is committed to doing the right thing and helping as many people as possible.
Contrast that with Obama, who seems to delight in screwing the half of Americans who disagree with him, as well as the majority of us who think it's wrong for the IRS to selectively target political opponents because the Constitution and common sense manifest the need for it to be scrupulously nonpartisan. After briefly expressing his outrage at what is clearly outrageous and illegal behavior, Obama has looked the other way as his Justice Department is doing everything possible to not seek justice. The President participated in this cover-up by saying there is “not even a smidgeon of corruption.”
That's not Obama's brain talking, because anyone tuned into reality realizes that when the federal government uses its power to figuratively beat up opponents, it is a heinous abuse of power that should outrage Mr. Obama and keep him outraged until justice is done.
Judging by this warped standard, it is OK for burly men to beat up and rape women because they're stronger and can get away with it. Might makes right.
No one is that stupid—certainly not President Obama, who is a genius. His brain is too smart to be hoodwinked into thinking that what the IRS did is acceptable, but his heart likes it when the burly beat up the weak.
Myriad Democrats and independent voters vehemently disagree, knowing that an abuse of power by a Democratic administration could just as easily become an abuse of power by a Republican administration. It is never acceptable for the strong to take advantage of the weak because they can get away with it; that violates one of the most basic rules of civilization and civility itself.
Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, said that people in hell are “my kind of people.” He and other leaders (many but not all liberal) know how to exploit followers they deem “useful idiots,” which they play like a fiddle.
Having voted for Democrats and fallen for too much liberal BS that just doesn't comport with the goodness inherent in true liberalism, I woke up, resenting how I'd been one of their useful idiots. This resentment fuels liberal angst when everyone who isn't utterly blind sees how an increasingly liberal country is an increasingly troubled country beset by problems that pile up, with none of them solved.
I dealt with my angst constructively, not swinging the pendulum to the other extreme and thinking that mainstream Republicans had the best solutions. Instead, I thought for myself and found a nonpartisan path to unprecedented prosperity and harmony.
“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
— Winston Churchill
Comment: Since liberals fancy themselves as the tolerant ones, they of all people should tolerate opinions that don't harmonize with their beliefs, but they often don't. Daring to disagree, even on just one issue, can send them into an apoplectic rage that makes them behave uncivilly. This article presented proof that even the cream of the liberal crop can go bonkers and say or do nutty things in response to nothing more than simple disagreement.
One of the most salient differences between conservatives and liberals is that the latter cozy up to Big Government and the myriad controls they impose. General Robert E. Lee said, “I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself.” Can you trust liberals?
Bringing liberals and conservatives together
On December 29, 2106, a liberal woman called into the Rush Limbaugh Show to thank him and guest host Mark Steyn for helping her become closer to her conservative father by better understanding his worldview. She also expressed relief that President-elect Trump was behaving responsibly and admirably, as if he sought to bring the fractured nation together. Steyn somewhat coldly responded to her heartwarming olive branch, explaining that her original fears were groundless, thus missing an opportunity to optimally combat divisiveness.
Yes, conservatives and liberals look at some aspects of the world in remarkably different ways after leading different lives with different experiences that shaped them. The point of this article wasn't to suggest that all or even most liberals are nuts (obviously not) but that their frequent allegations that conservatives are the crazy ones and liberals are implicitly A-OK is not consistent with reality. Both sides include reprehensible people who say or do bad things, such as white supremacist Dylann Roof, who perpetrated the Charleston church massacre.
That's the type of hate worth targeting, not the episodic PC mistakes and political differences of opinion that arise from ideological diversity, which is something we should all cherish.
Michelle Malkin discussing “AFL-CIO thug-in-chief Richard Trumka” and Fox News reporter Mike Tobin who was struck and threatened with having his neck broken.
- How to Get Along with People You Just Don’t Like Very Much: Research points toward a path to common ground
- Regressive left: “used as a pejorative to describe a section of left-wing politics who are accused of paradoxically holding reactionary views by their tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies, particularly tolerance of Islamism, for the sake of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.”
- Joe Biden Wishes He Could Beat Up Donald Trump
Comment: Some Republicans probably do, too!
- Article: Distance from conflict may promote wiser reasoning
Comment: Good advice for political partisans, too.
- Article: When good people do bad things: Being in a group makes some people lose touch with their personal moral beliefs
Excerpt: “Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group.”
Comment: This is also relevant to how political partisans often ooze hatred for opponents in an unreasonably excessive way that exceeds what they feel about al-Qaeda, Hitler, murderers, and rapists.
- Article: Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg slams intolerance by liberals on college campuses during fiery Harvard graduation address “Delivering the main speech at Harvard's 363rd commencement …, Bloomberg complained that campuses have become citadels of ‘modern … McCarthyism’ where conservative views are too often shunned and shouted down.”
- How incivility spreads in the workplace
- While the mainstream media is often viewed as liberals gleefully shilling for liberal politicians and causes, investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson revealed on Howard Kurtz's Media Buzz (4-13-2014) that the Obama administration strongly pressures news organizations to avoid certain topics. Why the media succumb is attributable in part to a lack of courage, so wealthy conservatives — perhaps the Koch brothers — could counter this by establishing a yearly million-dollar prize for journalistic courage.
- Politics and Prejudice Explored
Excerpt: “… prejudice is not restricted to a particular political ideology.”
- What Warring Couples Want: Power, Not Apologies, Study Shows
Excerpt: “The most common thing that couples want from each other during a conflict is not an apology, but a willingness to relinquish power …”
Comment: Just give up: I'm wrong, you're right—just what political partisans dream of: the other side admitting they're wrong and giving up.
- More Similar Than They Think: Liberals and Conservatives Exaggerate Perceived Moral Views
- The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
- Answer Three 'Why' Questions: Abstract Thinking Can Make You More Politically Moderate
- Difficult-To-Read Font Reduces Political Polarity, Study Finds
- Choosing Less a Form of Protection, Says New Study On Decision-Making
Comment: Some people are happier when everyone has the same, but less.
- Are Humans Hardwired For Fairness?
- Diversity Programs Give Illusion of Corporate Fairness, Psychologists Find
Comment: Superficial diversity, again.
- Obama’s Petulant, Passive Aggressive Leadership Reveals a Fixed Adolescent Mindset
- Unruly Kids May Have a Mental Disorder (and undoubtedly adults, too)
- Article in The Wall Street Journal: The Passive-Aggressive Presidency
- The Effect Of 'In Your Face' Political Television On Democracy
Excerpt: “Much of today’s 'in your face' televised political debate also causes audiences to react more emotionally and think of opposing views as less legitimate. [...] Conflict is inherent in any democracy, but the legitimacy of democratic systems rests on the extent to which each side in any controversy perceives the opposition as having some reasonable foundation for its position.”
Comment: Exactly. The “other side” isn't stupid or crazy. People who see merit in only their opinions have defects in empathy that prevent them from seeing how other perfectly sane and intelligent people can possess views antithetical to theirs. Emotionally mature people routinely put themselves in the shoes of others to understand their points of view and how they arrived at them. When I began doing that in my über-conservative days, some of my opinions changed so much that I now, IMHO, do a better job of espousing some liberal viewpoints than many lifelong liberals.
- The Ins and Outs of In-Groups and Out-Groups based on:
(1) The Herding Hormone: Oxytocin Stimulates In-Group Conformity
(2) The Stranger Effect: The Rejection of Affective Deviants
(3) "Treating" Prejudice: An Exposure-Therapy Approach to Reducing Negative Reactions Toward Stigmatized Groups
- Tight Times May Influence How We Perceive Others
(Excerpt: “Our biases lead us—whether we're aware of it or not—to favor people who belong to our own social group. Scientists theorize that these prevalent in-group biases may give us a competitive advantage against others, especially when important resources are limited.”) based on Does This Recession Make Me Look Black? The Effect of Resource Scarcity on the Categorization of Biracial Faces
- Do Markets Erode Moral Values? People Ignore Their Own Moral Standards When Acting as Market Participants, Researchers Say
Excerpt: “Many people express objections against child labor, exploitation of the workforce or meat production involving cruelty against animals. At the same time, however, people ignore their own moral standards when acting as market participants, searching for the cheapest electronics, fashion or food.”
Comment: This reminds me of a local “green” liberal who drives a big SUV, lives in a big house, flies in jets on frequent vacations, owns a motorboat (not a sailboat), and eats WAY too much (the environmental impact of food production is so staggering that the Earth would be much better off if everyone ate only as much as they need to survive). Her obesity creates health problems that create the need for expensive medical care; the medical system ultimately runs on energy and synthetic chemicals, thus it pollutes the planet. Determined to show off what she thinks is a hot body, she dresses in skimpy clothes even in winter and stays warm by turning up the thermostat. Blind to her own flaws, she goes around lecturing others on what they should do.
- The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness
- Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions
- Rules for Radical Conservatives: Beating the Left at Its Own Game to Take Back America, by ex-liberal David Kahane
- Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation
- Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life
- United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror
- Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
- The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party
- Get a Load of This Slightly Threatening Email From the Obama Re-Election Campaign (another source for it)
- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism
- Inconvenient Headlines
Excerpt: “It's a deeply felt conviction among liberals that they are the caring party. It's not too much to say that liberals are quite confident that they are nicer, more moral people than conservatives. It must require truly titanic powers of denial for the "moral" and "compassionate" party to maintain its position on abortion — a position that leads them into some macabre rationalizations.”
- Gen Z’s High Incivility Quotient
- NASA Paper: Nuclear Power Prevented 1.84 Million Deaths, May Spare 7 Million More
Excerpt: “A new study out of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says the use of nuclear power has prevented many more deaths than it has caused because of its lower impact on the environment.”
Comment: So why don't more liberals embrace nuclear power? Just a rhetorical question …