If liberals really do love America why is it they inevitably end up on the side of our enemies almost every single time? Ann Coulter said that: “liberals invented the myth of “McCarthyism” to legitimize impertinent questions about their own patriotism. They boast (falsely) about their superior stance on civil rights which is dependent upon the most revisionist interpretation of history imaginable but somehow their loyalty to the United States is off limits as the subject of political debate” Here are some of those inconvenient facts that trip them up every time.
The current level of harassment and slandering of the Tea Party is a perfect example: why do liberals mock Americans who want the government to live within its means and who love their country? Calling them “warmongers”, “religious zealots”, “dangerous”, “crazy”, “racist” and “violent”? If members of the left really love this country… then why do they demand that we treat our enemies like they are our friends and our friends like they are our enemies. Members of the extreme left, like the ACLU spend every day actively looking for schools and local governments to sue for saying the Pledge of Allegiance using the words “under God”, or for having signs that say “God Bless America”, a Depiction of the 10 Commandments or Crosses placed on public property. They even have a problem with the word “Christmas”, and actively litigate against something as simple and a part of Christmas as a nativity scene.
Who is the bigger patriot the person who attends tea party events and admires and respects the values that created this country or the people who ridicule them and attempt to dismiss them as being naïve angry and dangerous?
Why do they relentlessly oppose the military, the flag, our national defense, and the Pledge of Allegiance, and when they are called on it they say your a “kook” “a nut” and a “liar”?
The left feels no guilt or responsibility to the truth when they constantly call all conservatives ‘fascists’, ‘racists’, ‘homophobes’, ‘intolerant’ and ‘hatemonger’s’. One definition of Hate speech is: “a conservative who cites actual facts that reflect poorly on the Democrats patriotism” but it’s okay for the Democrat to say anything that pops into their head with little or no regard for the truth if they feel like it.
Who are the real patriots” the people who support the troops, and support the country, or the people who aggressively oppose both?
Are the protesters the real patriots? Believing so is counterintuitive at best.
I saw several bumper stickers the other day right next to an “Obama” cult bumper sticker which said “Beware of Patriotism” and the third was “Silence Dissident Voices”. After the tea party started to gain traction with the American people a security report identified tea party members and Christians as ‘potentially dangerous’ and recommended they be ‘watched closely’. Can anyone forget the amazing remarks made by members of the ‘academic left’ shortly after the 9/11 catastrophe? I remember there was one guy from Columbia University (ironically enough) who said something to the effect that “I don’t know which is more frightening and disturbing, the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric from the White House”. How is it possible for anyone to truly believe there is any parity between radical Islamic terrorists and President Bush’s rhetoric from the Oval Office.?
The left hates and opposes capitalism,
They denounce and reject the sanctity and traditional definition of marriage, they have no problem when 35 million people from other countries walk across our borders and bankrupt our hospitals, cities, and states, they have made a religion out of their worship of the left-wing holy Grail… abortion, they know and understand that free speech is what made and continues to make this country unique and the envy of the world, yet come up with one harebrained idea after another…like the “fairness doctrine” in order to silence those who disagree with them?
All of the liberals able to read know exactly how the Constitution treats the right to gun ownership yet they take advantage of every chance they get in order to dilute or eliminate this most basic and clearly spelled out right. How is it that the same people who argue over whether or not the right to own a gun is protected by the Constitution are able to see and read things like a woman’s right to kill her child, the right for men to marry men and women to marry women, and mandates for the government to expand itself into areas where there is no constitutional authority to support it….. all In the Constitution and much to the detriment of our society.
Is it patriotic to expand the nanny state and to create an entire population of dependent people?
Is it the American dream to not insist that people take responsibility for their own lives?
Is it the American Way to criticize and attack the people among us who created something, or sold something or developed something that made our lives better and made the people who dared to dream and took the risk to bring a new product to market and in the process made themselves rich?
Are patriots the people who see this country as the land of opportunity or the people who think America should take away the wealth earned by the most productive members of society and redistribute it to those who have produced and done nothing except learn how to fill out government forms and hold their hand out during commercial breaks?
Do patriots ignore every available piece of evidence to the contrary in order to ‘celebrate Islam as a religion of peace’?
Why do left leaning people demand that we lift sanctions, cancel embargoes, and try to reason with despotic dictators who make a daily habit of declaring their intent to kill all the infidels (read – us)?
Why would a Democratic senator praise Osama bin Laden for all his good work in the building of day care centers in a post-911 environment?… is Osama a terrorist? Or is he what the left would call him, an “agrarian reformer”?
Liberals are only consistent about a few things: silencing anyone who dares to question a liberals patriotism, ideas or bankrupt ideals, and calling anyone who disagrees with them stupid, crazy, dangerous and a nut!
They see organized religion not as the backbone of this country and not as the origin of the general beliefs which governed this country’s foundation, but as the enemy of the state and as a sinister forces that needs to be eliminated from public discourse. The idea of separation of church and state has been taken to its ridiculous and anti-American extreme.
Liberals malign the flag, ban the pledge, throw cocktail parties for our enemies, or offer them a teaching position at one of these countries universities and call everyone who questions their conduct names of every type imaginable.
They have stood in opposition to the ability for all Americans to exercise their liberties and freedoms whenever those liberties were perceived as a threat to their anti-America dogma.
How is it possible for anyone to claim they love this country and the ideals it was built upon while at the same time voting against securing our borders?
How can someone claim to love this country AND who consistently votes against the ideals it was founded upon?
Senators Wyden and Merkley have both recently voted and/or cosponsored the “Disclose Act” this act was passed with no language for a quick constitutional review (which is not normal for legislation of this kind), with nearly immediate implementation, whose sole purpose is to ban the free and open exchange of political discourse as well as halting almost all grassroots types of election campaigning (Like the Tea party) it specifically exempts labor unions from these free speech restricting laws, and does an end run on the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing corporations to participate in the political process the way labor unions have been participating for decades. The clear and spoken intent of this law is to tilt the playing field towards the Democrats in the November elections. Is it patriotic and a show of your love for the ideals of this country to vote in favor of laws that restrict speech, and circumvent recent legal precedents
We all get to decide these types of things for ourselves …at least for now. Based upon the available evidence what do you think?