Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace said in a newspaper interview that homosexual behavior is immoral.  He compared it to adultery in terms of morality.  His position and opinion that sex outside of a monogamous, traditional marriage isn't moral behavior.  Boy did that set off the collectivist sheople herders and the homosexual political activists.

Homosexual activist groups (not sounding very "gay") complained;  "General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces,"  

Another unquantified claim was made;  "General Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military," said Massachusetts Democrat  Rep. Martin Meehan. "He needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing" and that the military is "turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination."

Of course Meehan, as many if not most politicians will claim anything in furtherance of his agenda.  Meehan is trying to pass a law eliminating the Military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Liberals again *project* their own feelings and wishful fantasies on to a "majority of the public or the military".  Proof isn't required, just yearning.

Louis Vizcaino, spokesman for the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, said Pace's comments were "insulting and offensive to the men and women ... who are serving in the military honorably."

So here are the questions that naturally proceed from the quotes above and the news coverage since...

• Where is the data supporting Meehan's "majority of the public or the military" claim?
• Where is the data showing "support for overturning is strong and growing"?
• Where is any data supporting the claim of 65,000 homosexual troops?
• What is wrong with Pace expressing the view that homosexual behavior is immoral?  It's only been considered such for THOUSANDS of years by most people.
• People have called for Pace to "apologize".  What should he apologize for?  
• Why should Pace apologize for his moral opinion?
• What is wrong with people making "moral judgements" and having opinions on what is moral?
• How IS homosexual behavior "moral"?
• Why aren't there calls for Senator Warner from Virginia to apologize for expressing his moral opinion?
• What is "irresponsible" (according to Sharon Alexander, the deputy policy director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network) about General Pace expressing his moral opinion?
• Why is it *wrong* to view homosexual behavior as wrong?
• As immoral?
• As deviant?
• As aberrant?
• As abnormal?

It is all of those, traditionally (and I suspect to *most* people).  Yet in our great country people are free to engage in it.  I support that freedom too.  I don't care who you, he or she sleeps with. 

I do object to politicizing it.  To attempts to *normalize*.  To how activists flaunt it in everyone's face.  To the efforts to have it acknowledged by people and particularly the government as normal, healthy behavior.  Heck these activists want it CELEBRATED.  This defies virtually the whole of social history.  This defies, what I believe to be, the opinion of the vast majority of people.  No matter how they try to convince us with PR, school indoctrination of our children, and government legislation they'll never beat down that *Ewwwww!* factor that most people in non-public, unguarded venues will express.  The reaction of most people is visceral because homosexual behavior defies human biological design and at an elemental level is disgusting to many, if not most people.  It has nothing to do with fear either. 

Most people (I believe) don't want to persecute homosexuals or legislate their sexual preference.  Nor do I.  Government doesn't need to be involved in people's *PRIVATE* sexual behavior and preferences.  This is just another example of the moral relativist collectivists and homosexual activists campaign to get aberrant, abnormal behavior redefined as something positive, good and normal.  The Goebbel's principle at work.  Repeat the lie often enough and count on the lazy and/or ignorant to adopt it as a truth.

The military is a special case.  "Enforced intimacy", is the term they use.  They have legitimate concerns due to the special nature of their work and missions towards "good order and discipline".  Troops in combat operations can't be worried about being leered at by homosexuals.  No they don't leer at everyone but they do leer at people who attract them.  Then the natural and visceral reaction to such attentions by the normal servicemember will adversely impact their concentration, their morale and their discipline.  You can't get away from behavior that disgusts you or the people who practice it in a close-knit unit in combat operations.

Pace did nothing wrong and has a long and stellar record of service.  He is keeping the pace in our fine tradition and history of the U.S. Military.  Leave him alone!

Nice to know someone agrees with me.

More Content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log
Nik's MySpace Blog

Very well written explanation () of the Shrub Tax policy.

Calling out the "myths" identified by Mr Riedl is important.  Maybe a collectivist would like to try to refute one or all of them.  He follows each with its appropriate refutation.

From Brian Reidl's article ():
Myth 1: Tax revenues are too low. Fact: Revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the postwar historical average.

Myth 2: The tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit. Fact: In 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a 10-year budget projection that assumed a healthy surplus in 2006. Yet even after all tax cuts, revenues in 2006 came in just $58 billion below the projected level. The deficit resulted more from Washington spending $514 billion above its projected level for 2006.

Myth 3: Supply-side economics assumes all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves. Fact: What is assumed is that some, not necessarily all, lost revenues will be replenished. Reducing tax rates encourages the taxed behavior, and the increased economic activity offsets some lost revenues. Whether a tax cut fully pays for itself depends on how much new activity it generates.

Myth 4: Cuts in the capital-gains tax don't pay for themselves. Fact: Capital gains revenues doubled after the 2003 capital gains tax cuts, from $50 billion to $103 billion in 2006. Before the tax cuts, the CBO projected such revenues would rise to only $68 billion.

Myth 5: The tax cuts are to blame for projected budget deficits. Fact: Revenues are already projected to jump from 18 percent of GDP today to a record 23 percent by 2050 -- and repealing the tax cuts would nudge revenues to only 24 percent. Massive future deficits will result from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs pushing projected federal spending from 20 percent of GDP to at least 38 percent, according to CBO.

Myth 6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue. Fact: Revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent. Yet revenues have remained constant at 18 percent of GDP. Thus, boosting revenues requires expanding the economy.

Myth 7: Reversing upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues. Fact: The popular child tax credit expansion, marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent bracket and fix of the Alternative Minimum Tax will combine this year to lower revenues by three times as much as the maligned cuts in capital gains, dividend and estate taxes. The latter tax cuts also produce some of the most positive economic benefits.

Myth 8: Tax cuts help by "putting money in our pockets." Fact: Redistributing money between governments and taxpayers merely shifts -- and does not increase -- total spending power in an economy. So government spending does not "inject" new money into an economy, nor do tax rebates help by "putting money in our pockets." Rather, low tax rates increase incentives to work, save and invest, thereby sparking productivity and economic growth.

Myth 9: The tax cuts haven't boosted the economy. Fact: The 2003 tax cuts lowered rates for income, capital gains and dividend taxes. Business investment, the stock market, job numbers and economic growth -- all of which had been stagnant -- immediately surged.

Myth 10: The tax cuts tilted toward the rich. Fact: The rich now shoulder even more of the burden. Since 2000, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers dropped from zero to minus 4 percent -- meaning the average family in this group got a subsidy from the refundable child tax credit or earned income tax credit. The share of income taxes paid by the top fifth of taxpayers climbed from 81 percent to 85 percent.
End of Mr. Riedl's good work.

These myths, consistently trumpeted by the left and its media lickspittles are a great illustration of collectivist delusion.  They see the economy as a zero sum game.  As a fixed pot of gold, never changing.  They also, in their compassionate arrogance assume that the *poor* are doomed and destined to remain so.  Their only cure is government, controlled and managed by wealthy comfortable people who *know better* than the rest of us slobs.  Why we poor ignorant fools will just ruin EVERYTHING if we are controlled and effectively nannied by our *betters* seeking to feel good about themselves and their *contribution* of telling us what is good for us.

Liberty abhors such arrogance.  Such political classism.  Such collectivist pap encouraging "sacrifice" for we unwashed.  No, they won't and don't sacrifice.  They seek power so they can pursue feeling good about themselves by instructing the "little guy", the "downtrodden", the "minority", who can't possibly help themselves without benevolent government bureaucrats.

Historical fact of the abject failures of collectivism, "public" welfare (taking yours and giving it to who they want) and socialist models don't impinge on their fantasies in the slightest.

Tax cuts that allow free investment, free and fuller employment, increased government revenues (you'd think they'd LOVE that) and more money in the pockets of the people who actually pay for the liberals *benevolence* are anthema to the sheople herders and their mouthpieces.

Read the rest of the piece, its important to know the truth.

Economic freedom is integral to political freedom.  That's why the liberals HATE it.

More Content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log
Nik's MySpace Blog

It is atrocious, it is shameful!! how long will American Sheople tolerate it?  The Federal Behemoth is proposing spending 2.9 TRILLION dollars next year.

This isn't a Democrat problem.  This isn't a Republican problem, although they are bigger hypocrites on spending.  This is an American problem.  A problem with our self serving, power aggrandizing and perpetuating lawyer/political class.  Milking us and our businesses, milking our unprecedented prosperity for the sake of collectivist handouts of other people's money.

Herman Cain identifies the culprits (both parties) AND the purpose quite nicely.

Are there enough Americans who care to say *ENOUGH* and vote for politicians (Like Ron Paul) who will ACTUALLY REDUCE the size, scope, budget and unconstitutional actions of the Federal Behemoth?  I hope the sheople aren't the majority.  I hope this isn't one symptom of the road to collectivist slavery.  If you are prosperous and can watch your TV shows and go buy your gadgets, gizmos and comfort items but are a slave, is slavery ok with you?  Bread and circuses is how the Romans did it too.

Got this in email, worth reading and considering.  Who wants to disagree?

Subject: Our Constitution vs the Supreme Court

Fellow Americans and Christians . . .Who also believe "In God We Trust!"
If we as free citizens of the United States and believers in GOD, are to stop this world and our society/families from imminent destruction, we must take back from the Supreme Court our "Rights under the Constitution" which DOES NOT say anywhere in that document, that prayers, the Ten Commandments, or having God as our guiding way of living as being wrong.  BUT rather are the decisions made by the Liberal Judges of the Supreme Court, having made these decisions according to "their personal bias interpretations of what they 'think' the Constitution must have meant to say", rather then "what the founders of this document actually meant and their words actually imply!"

All it would take is for Congress to rule in this matter, and to strip from the Supreme Court their power of "Liberal thinking interpretations" and instead, to force the Supreme Court to rule in matters regarding the Constitution, so that the "Constitution is enforced 'as it is intended' and written", to have God and prayers, and the 10 Commandments honored as a protected part of our society, and on which this country was founded and therefore to be put back where they belong!

The Supreme Court  functions under their own umbrella of authority in this issue, and NOT by any power given to them by Congress, and as such "is a tyranny" which contradicts itself as it begins every session with prayer asking God to watch over their decisions in all matters . . .and yet they have by their majority votes, ruled that it is wrong to pray in schools or have the 10 Commandments on public property. If *WE* don't stop this downward spiral it will soon be that no where will God be allowed to be openly worshipped in any way, including the possible ultimate removal of God from the Pledge of Allegiance, the United States currency and perhaps even some day in our Churches.

We as Americans and Christians, must do all we can, to bring to a vote of the citizens of this country, as part of the election process regarding this issue, just as is done for countless other much less important issues, so that "We the People" can express to the United States Congress how we feel they and the Supreme Court should rule according to the the Constitution as it is "written and intended to be lived by" and NOT by what the Supreme Court "thinks" it is meant to be interpreted as "by their liberal and bias mentality".

If each of us wait for someone else to take up the banner for God, we may be held accountable by God for not showing our love for Him, in return for how He showed His love for us through Jesus! Jesus said "If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my Father in heaven!"

Is it possible that we as Christians, who are standing by passively and letting God be removed from open display of our loyalty and love for Him, something that God one day may ask us about when we come before Him saying to those of us who did nothing "Why were you not willing to give your all standing up for Me, as you know I gave you My best through Jesus in wanting to save you!"

Draw a line in the sand today and in some way, do what you can  to "Stand up for God" and let your United States Congress know your feelings in this issue and tell them to strip from the Liberal Supreme Court the power for 4 or five people in black robes, to decide for this country what is right or wrong, according to their own personal bias interpretations, as this is tyranny plain and simple!

Catch up and join up with opinions, news and insights from real people.

Yes, people with jobs, mortgages, no notoriety.  All types of politics and cultural values.  The best difference is our guidelines that foster civil, thoughtful debate instead of vitriol, venom and spleen amongst our contributors.

Sure there are tons of blogs out there but most aspire to the punditry which we do not.  We aren't in it to get rich or get noticed (although reading visitors ARE nice).

We want to develop a model of *average* Americans (and our participants tend to be way above any "average") stating common sense opinions.  Not the emotionally charged flame throwers that comment at Huffington post or the Red State blog.  Not rich lawyers and media insulated pundits nor academic fossils or intemperate wailers.

This week we've discussed; a strange metamorphosis, education costs and bureaucracy, use of language in the culture, a claim that "culture changes" and we should just accept it and a couple of book reviews.

We aren't read too widely but if you want some person in the street, real American's views you should check it out.

I hope and pray that this group of Muslims and Arabs are successful and very active in their attempts to persuade other Muslims to live in the modern world.

May some of the Palestinian apologists will endorse these (few) types of efforts rather than worrying about the *evil* Israelis.

The "moderation" needed to progress to peace in the Middle East and the World is lacking PREDOMINANTLY (not exclusively) amongst the Muslim radical fascist jihadis.

More Content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log
Nik's MySpace Blog

They would defend it as "being polite" or "trying not to offend" but that is pretty lame.   Maybe they would or will say their technology doesn't support allowance of some words and they proscribe them "just to be safe".  Perhaps it is the fear of multiple, if frivolous, lawsuits by parties of aggrieved who choose to be offended by certain words regardless of the context of use or the topic being discussed.

I was writing a post on the silliness of the Coulter brouhaha and the hypocrisy of the left in what they choose to take offense at.

The Townhall Blog system (which is kind of buggy in its RSS feeds and posting functionality) censored a couple of the words I used when doing this commentary on a topic that is ALL OVER the blogosphere and news media.

The words were the politically heinous (unless your are black) word that starts with an N.  The famous "N word".  The censor warning on that word I can understand somewhat, as all of American culture that isn't black has caved to the nonsense that this word is or should be prohibited regardless of the context of its use.  Yes even Townhall.com has caved to this political correctness.  If this word is used as a general EPITHET or against an individual as an insult or as a racial stereotype label I can understand and agree with disallowing it.  However blanket disallowance of a word also disallows discussing that word, its social and political impact, its misuse and a myriad of other things that might involve the word itself but not its use inappropriately.  Sigh, even the conservatives scuttle under the PC tent.

The other word was a word for unusual, strange, bizarre, out of the ordinary that starts with a Q.  Now THAT is a mighty qu33r thing to do wouldn't you say.  What is offensive about that word.  Sure some ignorant slobs use it as an epithet for homosexuals.  That isn't its primary or even second dictionary definition.  Craven cowardice?  Afraid of the big bad homosexual activist groups?  Lawsuit phobia again?

Interestingly the repeated use of the word "faggot" wasn't proscribed (yet?).

Why is Townhall so opposed to "The N word" when a large sub-culture of Americans use it daily in their lives and their music?
Why is Townhall opposed to a perfectly good and useful word like "qu33r" just because its been co-opted by people to use as an epithet against homosexuals and by homosexuals to describe themselves, their "social theory" and various aspects of their "lifestyle"?  You, I and Townhall know that homosexuals refer to themselves and their like-practicing individuals as "qu33r" and "faggot" with regularity.  It's only an "insult" when the unapproved person uses either.  Same case for the "N word".  Galls me to even have to type "N word" when discussing the word in this context.

When you seek to offend no one you are much more likely to offend everyone.  To purport a grouping or effort as "conservative" or as an outlet for freedom and then to ban words simply for the words sake is ridiculous.

It is also disappointing.  Come on Townhall, you're better than that.  I'll write to Mr. Garthwaite and Mr. Hewitt and see what their response to this issue might be.

Humorous post script:  As I was spell checking this post it stopped on my use of the faux word "qu33r" and offered the actual proscribed Q word as a solution!

Yes, I know.  Preaching to the choir, shouting in the wilderness, pointing it out redundantly.  Do most Americans note the hypocrisy?  Are they aware and just blow it off as the blatherings of nabobs?  Or does one of the Goebbels' principles actually work?  Repeat the lies often enough and most everyone will believe it.  Do Americans even care about it.  Certainly the ones who blog or comment on blogs, both left and right, do care.  How many of us are those?  They say in talk radio only a miniscule portion of listeners actually call the shows.  Is this same in the blogosphere?

Today we call out the two faced reaction (and lack of reaction) to what comments most polite or decent people wouldn't probably make in public.

First we have Ann Coulter's use of the term *faggot* which most people are too politically correct to speak or type, preferring "f**got" or "the other f word".  As if the term is equivelant of blasphemy or profanity.  It isn't.  Its use, just as racial epithets are common parlance terms that are insulting to those who choose to be insulted by them.  They cause no real harm and aren't viscerally offensive as blasphemy is to the religious or as sexual, or exrecratory profanities are to the normal decent folks.  They are socio-political terms used to manipulate the social and political words and actions of the ignorant.  A "faggot" is a bundle of wood or sticks or a flaming brand orginating from fire making and fire starting in its usage.  It is no more offensive (unless the hearer chooses to be offended) than is the adoption of the word *gay* (which means happy and/or lighthearted) to be used as a synonym for homosexual people.  As Coulter pointed out on Fox News, "faggot" is a common schoolyard insult which has no connotation as a specific reference to sexual preferences.  Surprise!  Just as is a saying such as "that is so gay" used commonly by youth today.  Only to those seeking to be offended and trying to manipulate public consciousness to accept their socio-political aims are such terms "vile" and "unacceptable" by homosexual political activists and politicians compelled to mouth political correctness at all times.

What is more blatant and, to me, astonishing is the inversely proportional lack of outrage or even comment when things are uttered by collectivist yappers that are directly insulting to individual people.  Coulter's use of "faggot" wasn't objected to as insulting John Edwards, it was her *daring* to use the word itself that was objected to.  Yet Joy Behar's glee over Dick Cheney's blood clot and Bill Maher's supposition that a lot less people would die should Cheney have been assassinated garnered no significant national outrage.  This has been pointed out by Mike Gallagher, Michael Medved and many on the right but hasn't seemed to impinge on the national consciousness much.  Again, do Americans pay attention to or even care about the discrepancy?  

Typical of the Orwellian left is to deny such a discrepancy exists by simply ignoring it in their media outlets.  Also, I believe, that they ignore it or don't perceive it at all due to their collectivist thinking and world view.  So is the hypocrisy planned and purposeful by socialist/leftist types or simply fundamental to their intellectual processes?

These types of things are indicative of the typical leftist collectivist pattern of activism and commentary.  Assign the very motivations and behaviors the left uses to their opponents.  Loudly, vociferously and continuously.  Talk about how and who conservatives "hate" and "attack" by and while using despicable hateful attacks themselves.  Again, loudly, vociferously and continuosly.  Its ok if blacks call each other "n*gger" (word disallowed by Townhall PCness and fear) but should be a crime in anyone unapproved does so.  Its ok if homosexuals and liberals call homosexuals "faggot" or "qu3er" (word disallowed by Townhall PCness and fear) but should be a crime and is "hate" if anyone unapproved does so.

The hypocrisy boils down to clear and plain *pot calling the kettle black" behavior then denying it while reasserting it as a factual reality over and over again.  Unfortunately, the kettle is brass while the pot *IS* black.

I agree with one of Medved's basic points in his observations on the Coulter brouhaha.  I try to practice it as well.  Most conservatives and libertarians I observe and read seem to as well.  Name calling is rude.  Calling a position "stupid" isn't name calling.  Calling a person "stupid" is.  I personally think it is improper, rude, inappropriate and ignorant to call someone "n*gger" (word disallowed by Townhall PCness and fear) or "faggot".  That is MY CHOICE of behavior though.  I also think it is wrong to censor people's speech no matter how rude or ignorant *I* consider it to be.  One of the reasons I can laugh so frequently at the collectivists is their incessant name calling based on nothing but ignorance and how they *wish* things to be.  Do your own survery of vitriol.  Visit the contributors here, both columnists and bloggers.  Then visit some of the *progressive* blogs pointed out by "The Rogue Jew".  He has good links to more examples too.  An interesting article points out a comparison of liberal versus conservative use of *profanity* in blog posts.

Spike Lee's (mediocre) Movie had a title that is sensible guidance.  Do the right thing.

More Content:
The American Freedom Net Web Log
Nik's MySpace Blog

The paroxysms of *outrage* by the left induce great giggles to any thinking person.  Similar to the media driven *outrage* cycle over Hardaway's "I hate gays" comments (at least he said "gay") is the recent tempest over Ann Coulter DARING to use the word "faggot" at CPAC.  This illustrates the left/collectivist/liberal continuing hypocrisy regarding speech.

As I "condoned" the opinion of Hardaway (in a previous post) I also condone Coulter's use of the word "faggot" in her CPAC speech.  Particularly in the context in which it was used.  Typical of Coulter's biting wit (if you find it funny) she was making 3 points at once very clearly to anyone who actually read or heard the speech.

Edwards is rather *prissy* (metrosexual?) in his appearance and presentation
Political Correctness gone wild causes people to believe or pretend that use of a word requires "rehabilitation"
Words are just that.  Words.  Harm must be intended for harm to occur and words on their own, intended or not, cannot intrinsically cause harm.

She also was making a joke that was pretty funny to those not politically required to be or inherently thin skinned.

An even better point and illustration was unintentionally made by the automatic and narrow response of the left and the media to the comment.

Just as Pavlov's Dogs would salivate at the sound of a bell.  Use a *forbidden* (by the left) word and the collectivists will react vociferously.  Not to point being made or the context the *forbidden* word is used in.  No.  Rather to the word itself. Bark, bark, bark, drool, drool, drool!  So much easier to uniformly and automatically express *outrage* about a word rather than to have or make any sensible response to ACTUAL POINT being made.  I have yet to see ANY response to Coulter's ACTUAL POINT that included the "vile" (according to the PC) and "inappropriate" (according to the polite and the PC) word "faggot".

This is one of the primary social discourse shields of the collectivist left.  Since their positions, programs and ideas (if any) can't effectively counter those favored by lovers of freedom and liberty, they attack words.  By extension of attacking the *forbidden* word used they attack the worth and character of the person who DARED to speak or write the *forbidden* word.  This way they can neatly avoid discussing issues and solutions since none of their's have or will work.

This has been a very effective tactic.  One wonders (as we do elsewhere) how many Americans are taken in by this tactic.  I often wonder if this tactical reaction is automatic or contrived by some, most or all of those who are of collectivist bent.

In his Townhall commentary, John Hawkins illustrates the irrational panic and ad hominem attacks that are routine towards Christians in the American Media both old and new and by many is not most adhering to the secularist collectivist left.  These crazy assumptions and inaccurate assignments can't be demonstrated by ANYONE to have ever been the case regarding mainstream American Christian believers.  Instead the most extreme fringe wacko cases are trotted out as indicative of all Christians.  Its pretty disgusting.  When pressed all these folks can do is trot out "The Crusades" (usually inaccurately represented), "The Inquisition" (also usually inaccurately represented) or the "Salem Witch Trials" (also usually inaccurately represented).

Christian faith is predicated on love, forgiveness and submission of our own imperfect (fallen) natures to the salvation provided freely by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ through his work on the Cross.  Christians are told to love their neighbor as themselves and as they love Christ.  Doesn't seem to be a creed oriented towards domination or dictatorship does it?

Another thing Christian Americans realize is how to have a sense of proportion and fairness.  Secular people, humanists, atheists and agnostics all want their views, aims and values accurately and appropriately fowarded and defended by government and their elected representatives.  Yet when Christians pursue their aims, values and views in the political process they are excoriated as wanting to "impose their religion" and "set up a theocracy".  The founders were predominantly Christian believers and THEY didn't want such.  Why would Christians today?  No, Christians simply want their views, aims and values accurately and appropriately fowarded and defended by government and their elected representatives.  Just as any other grouping of citizens do.

Why the fear of Christian believers?  Christians know that you can't *make* someone believe.  They understand the adage about leading a horse to water but not being able to *make* the horse drink.  What is the threat?  Christians want to be free to spread their good news as their Lord has commissioned them.  No significant grouping of Christians are in favor of a State Religion.  Where do the vitriolic paranoid fervent claims of the left come from?  Fear.  Liberalism as defined today is a political and social stance based on emotion and on selfishness.  Despite the mouthings of care for the "little guy" liberals want to feel good THEMSELVES individually.  They are patently afraid of ANY standard not of their own individual making.  They don't want to have deal with any bad feelings or be held to any account not their own.  So they gather and group together with like feeling people to outlaw that which makes them feel bad.  Any consistent standard of right and wrong of good and evil terrifies the left.  So they attack it as "intolerance" and "hate" thereby projecting their OWN behaviors on to that which terrifies them.

Political activists amongst homosexuals, Union members, blacks, hispanics, women and any other demographic you choose.  Socialists, collectivists of all stripes and humanists don't want this though that is their claim.  They are the ones who want to suppress, eliminate and legislate away that which isn't proper in their minds.  The ones who want to control people by the tyranny of government.  That which they determine is incorrect, wrong or intolerable they want to make illegal.  Now this can be said of some Christian positions as well.  Many Christians believe killing the unborn is wrong and should be legislated away.  Some want to censor movies and music by law.  I haven't ever seen it demonstrated that most Christians want such things, particularly at the Federal level.  Abortion is an exception because Christians value life and consider life to begin, as is biblical, at conception.  Other social positions held by some Christians, and it varies, are generally not majoritarian views.  Christians think families should control the media consumed by their kids.  They work the MARKET to try influence content.

Christians don't "hate" as a rule.  It contradicts the very faith itself and what believers are called to do.  Christians founded this free Republic, Christians built it, defeated slavery, contributed to women's suffrage and give more than ANY OTHER segment of society.  Sure they preach.  So does the left.  Sure they want government and society run in as close accordance to their values as is possible in freely elected government.

Christian belief is predicated on freedom.  Liberalism is predicated on collectivist control of those *inferior* to those who "know better".  Humanism and atheism are predicated on SELF.  The weakest cog there is.  It FEELS GOOD to imagine or wish that people are by nature good.  History, society and the daily news (and if you look honestly in to your OWN heart and brain) belies that.  Christians follow a faith that is based on a gift freely given to those undeserving by nature, yet FREE to accept or reject that gift (some Calvinists would disagree but I don't claim to be a theologist).  Grouped together in FREELY associating congregations.  Giving back to society FREELY to their communities with money, projects, aid, gifts and services.

I am often struck by the shrill and nasty lengths some will go to in order to mischaracterize Christians in order to not have their poor emotions impinged in a way they might not be comfortable with.  When you look to see who wants to force others to their will it won't be a Christian.  It will be a social collectivist and/or humanist atheist seeking to buttress their internalized fears of having to cope with the real nature of human kind and society.

Wouldn't the honest and open minded note the *good* (giving, caring, contributing) Christians far outweigh and outnumber the fringe wackos *claiming* christianity that so many of the leftists/collectivists/humanists/atheists try to hold up as the norm?

Reading an article by Niall Ferguson linked through RealClearPolitics certainly raises some questions.

Why is it so common and popular to "hate America"?  Suprisingly, as Ferguson points out, it isn't America's "enemies" that hate the U.S. the most.  Nope, not the Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans or North Koreans.  Who hates America the most?  Why it is the very people who we (or at least the media and official government mouthpieces) regard as "allies" and "friends".  Yes in polls in Europe, Canada, Meso and South America the U.S. is seen as a problem or THE problem.  Seen as a "threat to world peace".  Seen as the root of all (or most) of what is "bad" or "wrong" in the World today.

Isn't it fascinating to be (supposedly) "hated" by the folks who benefit the most from the U.S. and its role in the world.  Besides Americans that is.  Of course there are quite a few Americans of the leftist/collectivist type that "hate" America on a pary with any Euro, Muslim or Asian.

I think maybe Chris Hitchens has it right in his opinion.  They'll hate us until they need us to save their bacon once again.

Strange how people's perceptions work.  It is kind of like the people who equate a liberal parliamentary democracy with a corrupt rogue state "governed" by terrorist murderers and thieves as here.  Making the good people bad and the bad people good (or at least not so bad) is practiced by moral relativists who can't discern good from evil due to the "gray" that their emotional views of the world cause.  It has to be "gray" or it isn't "fair" and they can't feel good about themselves.  Evil SHOULD cause discomfort so you react to defeat it.

Newsbusters has a great transcript of Joy Behar and Rosie O'donnell again waxing ignorant on daytime TV.  Behar calls the current administration "liars and murderers" and no one peeps and the audience cheers.  Not as liberal (?) Elisabeth Hasselbeck makes some weak statements about "fringe liberals" then says she doesn't think that includes her co-quackers.  What is most hilarious is O'Donnell complaining that the President doesn't go to Dover AFB every time the bodies of KIA's come home.  She says, "Every other president has met the bodies and attended the funerals."

Now what kind of moron thinks that FDR did that?  LBJ or Nixon?  Think Lincoln or Truman or Ike did?  No, sorry that isn't what Presidents have EVER done.  Not even Newsbusters picked up on this ignorance.

Further illustration of the prosperous consumption oriented culture that even allows such leftist ignorance.  Isn't it fascinating how America's very success breeds such nincompoops and rewards them with millions?

If you watch this video (which you should and comment on) you'll see the typical display of the hypocrisy of those who most frequently posture about "tolerance".

The video in question is a presentation by 3 self-described "ex-terrorists" talking about the benefits of being American and the high esteem in which they hold this country.  The presentation was at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor MI.

Many of the muslims and leftists in attendance heckle, strut about and attempt to shout down the presenters.  These same folks may be ones you see on media whining about their own "free speech" and about "tolerance".

In my experience, conservative and/or open minded audiences listen to presentations respectfully saving their questions, complaints, points and disagreements for the proper time.  Q&As are routinely part of such presentations after the prepared remarks.

Leftists and islamic radical (are they radical?) supporters first response to criticisms such as this one is that those such as I don't respect THEIR free speech rights.  They conveniently overlook how their "protests" are nothing but an attempt to silence those they can't/won't tolerate.  They have no tolerance from ANY point of view that doesn't match their own and wish to suppress, silence or shut down those expressing *incorrect* opinions.

Look at this video again and note the intolerance of those most likely to espouse "tolerance".  Share this video with your friends and acquaintances and stand up for ACTUAL tolerance, not to mention simple dignity, towards all points of view.

Why is it that so many in the media and the mainstream of politics can't or won't point out what is broken with our governments and political systems?  An exception is U.S. Representative (TX) Dr. Ron Paul.  Can he win?  No you say.  Well, why not?

Even the most "conservative" voices out there operate from the politically evolved (incorrect) precept that government exists to "do" things "for" the constituents.  This is diametrically opposed to what our founders intended.  Government wasn't/isn't instituted among men to *provide* things.  Government's purpose isn't to create programs, to shepherd things, to *give*, enact or create things.  Not money, not opportunity, not chances and not even equality.  For 220 years our Federal Government has grown, created laws and worked to propagate itself and its influence.  This also isn't what the founders intended.  They did well until the crises leading to the Civil War.  Union was deemed more valuable than liberty and Union was justified as the ultimate protector of liberty.  I'll buy that.

Unfortunately the Government's frequent, and since TR, consistent and cumulative usurpation of the rights, liberties and powers reserved to the States and the People has been the unintended consequence.  Unintended by the founders and those who love liberty that is.  The political class intends for the perpetuation of their power.  The collectivists intend it because they see themselves as *knowing better* than the huddled masses of flyover country.  Many lazy Americans don't intend it but also don't care about it as long as they malls are open and the cable TV works.  Other emotionally based Americans, lazy Americans and dishonest Americans intend it so they can get something for nothing because they *want* it or they *deserve* it or that's what they feel is *fair*.  Too many in our society hold their wants, what they feel they deserve or is fair, far above the common interest in freedom and liberty.  The lawyer class (of all political stripes) also benefit from the perpetuation of Federal growth and scope of power.  It is their meal ticket and they control much of the system that enables and perpetuates the enslavement of the citizenry to the power of Government.  Many if not most of these folks aren't *evil* and actually intend *good*.  Their real or supposed altruism and feelings do nothing but continue our slide into craven servitude.  If Dr. Paul "can't win" these are reasons why.

Radley Balko makes some very interesting points in his article about Dr. Paul's candidacy

Ron Paul is "exploring" a run for the Presidency.  His positions merit careful consideration.  He is the only candidate who believes in *ACTUAL* constitutional government and speaks to the real intent of the founders on Federal power and constitutional scope.

All the other candidates, well meaning in fact or only in speech subscribe to the now common view that government exists for the purposes described above.  To give, provide or enable things.  Many of them have no more interest than in the expansion of their own power, ego and *legacy*.  Selfishness.  Thomas Sowell points out the political means and motivations of most candidates.

The Federal Government was instituted to provide common defense of the sovereign states and as a guarantor of the INHERENT RIGHTS of all the people.  Not to feed, house, educate, provide jobs or money or to subsidize legislatively or financially ANYONE.

Dr. Ron Paul whether electable this cycle or not should serve as a catalyst for freedom loving Americans who wish a return to actual constitutional government as designed and intended by our founders.  I encourage you to find out more about Representative Paul, explore his positions and support his candidacy for President.  Imagine if the power over your lives and the lives of your community were returned to the lowest level of government as our founders intended. 

Let Freedom Ring!

The Islamic Fanatic's (Fascist, Nazi, Fundamentalist, Extremist) War on the world targets those who most want to surrender in Iraq as Dinesh D'souza eloquently points out.

So isn't it amazing that the ones who most want to run away are the first ones that a Sharia conquest would target.  Cindy Sheehan would lose her head nearly immediately for her public and unveiled antics.  George Soros would be put to death as an atheist.  Barack Obama would be executed as an Apostate.

Sure the conservative and libertarian Christians would be dhimmi and subject to excessive taxation and government control.  So would the practicing Jews.  They are "people of the book".  They wouldn't be executed out of hand like secular humanists and atheists would be.

Where does the *tolerance* logic of the liberal, loony, left stop?  It is like tolerating (nor defending yourself from) the home invader who intends to rape and kill you and your family.  The one who CALLS YOU beforehand to announce it too.

The radical islamists aren't shy about their intent nor their wishes for world domination (caliphate).  Yet the ones most opposed to fighting and defeating them are the very ones the islamists will first kill.

Talk about self-defeating, WOW!!