Moron Times

MSM is not doing their job

2006-06-20T07:01:00.000-07:00

To Bob Woodward:
Thanks for watergate and all but I wish you would have stopped there. Allowing yourself to be made into a hero for future generations of journalists has seriously fubar'd our media.

To MSM:
Get over yourself. You aren't there to change people's minds. Your job is to be a witness. You are not a lawyer. You are not a lobbyist. You are suppossed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I wish we had a judge that could slap you with contempt. You suck as a witness.

Building a tepee

2006-02-20T13:51:00.000-08:00

Take three sticks of fairly equal length. Tie them together at one end. Arrange the sticks in a tripod fashion. Now throw a tarp over it. Viola! You have a fairly stable shelter that keeps out the rain.

Now take two sticks and try to build a stable tepee.

That is a graphic illustration of why society needs to keep religion, politics, and money separated. So that they can balance against each other. The result is a more stable and stronger social architecture.

Drawn to power like moths to a lamp

2006-02-18T16:52:00.000-08:00

There are three sources of earthly power. Religion, politics, and money.

If any two of the power sources combine into one then it becomes dominant over the third. Once dominant it can enforce its will upon the people with or without their support. This is not inhernetly good or bad. Quite a few great thinkers through history have formed an idealized vision of utopia based upon such an arrangement. But none of these visions have worked out. The reason is really quite simple. I call them MSL's.

Meglomaniacal Sociopathic Liars. They are genetically drawn to sources of power. Any source of power will have many of them around it. If the power source lacks appropriate safeguards then the MSL's will overtake it and make themselves permanent. In fact, there are no appropriate safeguards. Sooner or later an MSL will gain control of the power source.

That is the failure of Marx, the failure of Hassan al-Banna, the failure of the iranian revolution, the failure of hitler, the failure of stalin, the failure of Saddam. Too much power became concentrated into the hands of too few people. Once the MSLs have control of two or more power sources then they can not be removed except by war or revolution.

The solution is not to strive for a theoretically perfect social architecture. The solution is not to strive for the perfect human (even if you do find him he will eventually die). The solution is to balance power in such a way that any one entity can be removed by the others. An even better solution is to co-opt the MSL into achieving power by pleasing the people while also pitting the three power sources against each other. Then the MSLs will remove each other in sequence and no single one of them will achieve dominance. Which, by the way, is what we call modern democracy. Is it any wonder why the theocracies, dictators, and communists hate us so much?

Between the left and the right, integrating moslims into western society,

2006-02-16T07:55:00.000-08:00

On another blog a commentor said:

"When i said who is sarsur, i didnt give a moneky's arse who he is because he doesnt represent Islam, for your big brains, there is no one who can represent ISlam, unlike the pope in catholic christianity for example."

Which got me thinking the thought du-jour.

THAT (see above) is exactly the problem. Relating to this Danish thing, that is also the solution. Seriously, any group that would vote for Galloway is desperate for a voice in politics.

European immigrants have been thrown into a foreign culture and offerred no guidance. They are provided with socialist programs to meet their needs and there are many efforts to "respect their culture". But no one has taken the time to show them how to achieve prosperity and power as individuals within this new culture. They clamour to the mosque seeking answers because it is the thing they know. But western rules prevent mosques, churches, synagouges, and temples from possessing power. The net result is that they see western rules as dicriminatory against them.

It is not enough to simply state the rules. There are more moslim immigrants in Europe than in most mideast nations. The method of trial-and-error will not be a peaceful transition. There are far too many immigrants with far too many needs. Western nations must actively teach their immigrants how to play the western game. This spewing off about caliphates and clash of civilizations is pure BS. It is the topic that a small handful wish for us to discuss. There is something far larger and far more powerful that gives both westerner and moslim a reason to work together as brothers. It is a thing that that crosses all languages and all cultures. It is a desire more powerful than politics and - for most - more powerful than religion. It is family.

Specifcially, is there anyone who can deny that moslems have a deep love for their families and children? Our soldiers in Iraq often comment how deeply these people love their children. Have you not noticed?

We need to use this to bring our peoples together. We need to go into the neighborhood and speak to the parents directly. We need to teach them how to organize political parties and unions. We need to teach them about mortgages, contracts, bank loans, and business plans. We need to teach them how to become empowered. What they need is not hollow words, false promises, or hand-outs. What they need is to be taught. Taught how to make their voice heard and taught how to build a prosperous future. We need to go directly into the community and talk directly to the parents. They are the ones who want to build a better house and to guarantee the future of their children. Once they have become empowered according to western rules of empowerment then they will protect those rules. It is human nature to protect your sources of power.

What is in it for Europe? Hmmm ....
1) no more car-b-ques, better integration of immigrants
2) the ability to communicate directly with all layers of mideast society
3) powerful organizations with socioeconomic reasons to oppose radicalism
4) a virtual moslim nation that can excercise global influence and lead by example
5) fresh genes added into the pool of european stock

Swiftboating the radical imams

2006-02-14T09:05:00.000-08:00

Swiftboating is to find a deception that your opponent has engaged in for personal profit and to mercilessly expose it in front of people who have not yet decided to follow him.

For example:
Kerry exagerated his accounts of vietnam in order to present himself as a war hero. He was called on it. Because he exagerrated his initial accounts there were topics that he could not discuss because discussing them would only open more doors for his attackers. The swift-boaters were clever enough to realize where Kerry could and could not defend himself. Knowing this also meant that they knew where they could exagerate their response because their prey was defenseless. There is much more to swiftboating someone than making up lies. The entire process of swiftboating can not begin until your prey tells lies of his own that render him defensless against the assualt.

The radical imams of europe have engaged in deception. The global network of radical imams willingly participated in the decpetion. They have therefore left the entire network of radical imams open for swiftboating. The target audience for this swiftboat assault are the european muslims who have not yet decided whether or not to follow or take action against the politicization and radicalization of their religion.

Yup, it is time to fight politics with politics.

Modern Philosphy

2006-02-13T10:02:00.000-08:00

Descartes - I think, therefore I am
Bushcrates - I think therefour, .... um, ah, err .... I is
MSMcrates - I can lick myself, therefore I do
Republates - I won, therefore you don't count
Democrates - I lost, therefore you cheated
Chomscrates - I can not decide, therefore all things are equal
Librates - You disagree, therefore you are ignorant
Conservates -You disagree, therefore nothing should change
Moderocrates - You disagree, therefore offer an alternative
Terrocrates - You disagree, therefore I should kill you
Sheehanates - I hurt, therefore you suck
Appeasates - I can not think it, therefore it does not exist

certainly there are more.

Whats wrong with Islam.

2006-02-10T07:31:00.000-08:00

Nothing is wrong with Islam.
What's wrong is the west's inability to distinguish between true Islam and the snakes that hide inside it.

enough with the Mohammed Cartoon bullshit, let's cut to the chase

2006-02-09T10:36:00.000-08:00

The west is being duped. completely and inequivocably duped into believing that this is about religion. What a bunch of idiots we have been. They told us that it is a religous war and we bought it. Hook, line, and sinker. God are we stupid or what?

The source of the radical imams power is NOT the religous faith of his pack. It's power, it's venting frustration, and it's getting revenge. The radical imam promises to use Islam as a vehicle to restore the glory and power of downtrodden people and to exact revenge for centuries of real and imagined slights. His power is strongest where emancipation and frustration are greatest. Faith and God are just tools that he uses to deploy his attack dogs on one hand and group the timid ones into protective shelter on the other. Modern day radical imams are no more pure of heart than the catholic priests who sold forgiveness. For crying out loud - look at where these people came from. They came from places where government is run like mafia. They come from places where power is achieved and held through fear and oppression. Get over it. See it for what it is. POWER. They want power.

The radical participants follow the radical imam because he produces results. He waves cartoons and the western media trembles before him. It is power that he promises and it is power that he has been delivering. In their world fear is power. It is quickly becoming that way in our world too.

A link to a superb blog entry (regarding root cause of arab anger)

2006-02-09T06:06:00.000-08:00

Malevolent Effervescence

Nibras Kazimi does an excellent job of explaining some of the nuances of Muslim anger and radicalism. In particular he helps explain the contradiction between moderate muslims beliefs and actions. One of the better pieces I have read. Hopefully the politicians and people in psyops are reading his blog.

What do you call it?

2006-02-07T07:13:00.000-08:00

What do you call it when an imam commits sacriledge so that he might blame it upon others?

What do you call it when the blasphemous imam tours the mideast with his sacrelidge in order to incite a violent reaction?

What do you call it when governments and Imams of the mideast embrace the anger without questioning the clearly falsified evidence?

What do you call it when the devout followers of this blasphemous imam go on a spree of destruction under the banner of Islam?

What do you call it when the leaders of Islam become both the source and distribution conduit of blasphemy?

What do you call it when these leaders become the crusaders for destruction under false pretenses that they themselves have created?

******************************************************
"The Apostle of God said: `There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur'an except its outward form and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it. The mosques will be full of people but they will be empty of right guidance. The religious leaders (Fuqaha) of that day will be the most evil religious leaders under the heavens; sedition and dissension will go out from them and to them will it return.'"
-ibn Babuya, Thawab ul-A'mal

(how prophetic)

Et tu Piere?

2006-02-04T13:18:00.000-08:00

Danish cartoons. What a big stink about nothing.

Here's how it works. We don't fight to the death, we don't draw straws, we don't trace geneology. We seperate the strong from the weak by publicly humiliating them. If a politician or a religion wishes to live in the west then they must succumb to public srutiny and humiliation. It's the way our culture seperates the weak from the strong.

The cartoon stink will blow over and be forgotten. but there will be more. many more. Islam wants to be a major player. There are no free rides.

My theory of God

2006-02-04T13:14:00.000-08:00

I. Proof of God's existence

The first order of business is to prove the existence of God. That seems like a relatively easy task that you can accomplish with a simple home experiment as follows:
In order to conduct this experiment you will need an empty jar. Take the jar and make sure that it is completely empty and completely sealed. Now try to make something appear inside the jar. You can't. In order to create something from nothing you have to operate outside of the laws of the universe. In order for the universe to exist somebody or something had to create it from nothing. For my purposes, that somebody is God. He is the creator of our universe. He is capable of operating outside of the laws of the universe. In fact, before he could create the universe and create the laws which define it, he first had to create the empty space to put it in. So, that's my proof of God. The existence of the universe requires a creator who operates above the laws of nature. For the sake of brevity I shall call this entity "God" and refer to it as "he".

II. The nature of God

Human brains are genetically incapable of understanding something that is not bound by the laws of nature. Human languages are incapable of describing things that do not exist within our universe. Even if we could understand and describe this entity called "god" the enormity of it would far exceed the capacity of the human brain. It would be like trying to fit the ocean into a single bucket. Therefore, the only valid conclusion is that humans are incapable of understanding the true nature of God.

III. The meaning of God
As outlined above, humans will never understand the true meaning of God. Anyone who claims to understand the true meaning or nature of God is a liar. Any religion that claims their God is the one and only is engaging in a lie. Instead of repeating the lies of Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, and others I think it is more productive to rephrase the question as follows: "What is the closest approximation to God that I am capable of understanding?"

IV. A working model of God
God created the universe. He created the empty space to put it in. He created the laws that define it. He created the energy and materials that fill it. He created the life that inhabits it. He did not have to create the universe but he chose to do so anyway. It is our good fortune that he did. Everything that is and ever will be is a direct or indirect creation of God. We can not address God directly so we must show our gratitude and respect by the way we treat his creations. We must treat each and every thing as if it was a part of God. We must treat each and every living being as if they were a piece of God himself. To disrespect, destroy, abuse, oppress, or dimish a creation of God is to disrespect God himself. As humans, with all of our limitations, we must treat everything and everybody as if it is literally a piece of God. The respect we show towards God's creations is ultimately the respect we have towards God.

V. Good versus evil
We are incapable of understanding the true nature of good and evil therefore we need a working approximation that we are capable of understanding. I would propose a working model of good and evil as follows:
The highest amoung God's creations is life.
That which destroys, weakens, or diminishes life is evil.
That which creates, strengthens, or enhances life is good.

knock knock

2006-01-30T06:21:00.000-08:00

knock knock
"who's there?"
"God"
"god who?"

I think I'll try to answer that question in more detail next time.
For now, I'll just say that God created the universe so that he could
inhabit it. He decided upon which laws of nature he wanted, how
many stars to decorate it with, where to add color and life .....
etc. etc. etc. Then he created it and moved in. It is his home.

If anyone wishes to express their beliefs, please do so.
Part of my belief system is that your beliefs are true. When you
express your beliefs that are different you do everyone a huge favor.
You help us to expand our understanding. TIA.

What has George Bush accomplished?

2006-01-28T08:21:00.000-08:00

The current socio-political-religous architecture of the mideast is almost identical to that of medeval europe. Coincidentaly both cultures were dominated by a religion that was approximately 1400 years old. You have monarchs in bed with clerics both of whom use Allah to manipulate the population into hating and attacking their enemies more vehemently than they question the intergrity of their own leaders. You have the self-righteous hypocrisy of killing mass amounts of humans beings from Dafur to Bagdhad to Bali to NewYork City to Beslan while claiming that the death of 10 innocent civillians while targeting Al Queda is an outrage. You have "resistance" distributing videos in Bagdhad showing people being thrown from buildings, fed to wodchippers, beheaded, electrocuted, assasinated, drawn&quartered, buried alive in concrete ... while at the same time their propagandists screech loudly at the inhumanity of an innocent baby killed by an american bomb (that also killed half-dozen terrorists). You have the silent approval of some clerics and other clerics who raise armies. You have the brutal suppression of dissident opinion and the hasty execution of non-believers. It is by all measurable metrics the 21st century version of medeval Europe.

So what caused mideval Europe to stop the crusades, to stop the conquistadors, to stop the spanish inquisition, to overthrow the kings, to stop burning heretics, to stop killing Incas in the name of God? The renaissance.

What will stop radical Islam from doing the same? A rennaissance.

What will happen if there is no rennaisance? A red line will be crossed and millions will die.

What has George Bush accomplished? He has pushed the mideast closer to their renaissance than any man before him. He has laid bare before their people the hypocrisy of Arab politicians, clerics, and holy warriors. If they start asking "why do we follow these people?" then there is a chance that the renaissance will occur before millions have to die.

GWB hasn't accomplished anything yet. But GWB has taken the risk of achieving something monumentally historic and monumentally beneficial to mankind. Most of the screeching of opposition that you hear is from people who do not want see a rennaisance, people who do not want to pay any part of the price, or people who do not want to see a conservative american president achieve historic greatness.

But, for now, GWB has accomplished nothing more than freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam and freeing the Afghani people from the taleban.

evolution versus revolution

2006-01-11T12:28:00.000-08:00

evolution ... something dies of natural causes and it's replacement is slightly different than the original.
versus
revolution ... something is actively eliminated by its replacement

I recently read something by a moderate Iraqi whom I had always thought of as secular. He has spent his entire life in Iraq and continues to live there now. He was objecting to the US opening negotiations with some of the Sunni leaders who have been associated with the insurgency. The tone of his writing was somewhat "off". The US actions were not those of seeking peace. They were those of a duplicitous traitor. It was as if he would prefer continued violence over negotiating with insurgents and FRE leaders. And so I asked myself "from what perspective is this a reasonable point of view?"

Then it dawned on me. He is, quite simply, a revolutionary. He does not see it as a civil war or an occupation. He does not think in terms of sunni versus shia versus kurd. Nor does he think in terms of expanding Iran's sphere of influence. To him, it is quite simply the Iraqi revolution. The old ruling class has been replaced by a new ruling class. With every revolution comes some sort of purge where the wealth and power of the old ruling class are transferred to the new. A time when the old ruling class either changes to embrace the new or is exterminated.

I do not know if he is shia or sunni or kurd. Once I thought of him as a revolutionary, it did not matter. His silent approval of SCIRI and Badr are not because he supports Iran or a religous government. It is not because he seeks shia dominance. It is simply because he sees them as doing the dirty work of the revolution. He has no fear of a civil war simply because - in his mind - the existing government is already winning the revolutionary war. His secular nature is not at odds with 555 because he sees them as a means to an end.

Its an interesting thought. I wonder how many secular Iraqis were willing to vote 555 because they see SCIRI and Badr as the enforcers of a revolution?

Why mideast governments are screwed up

2006-01-09T07:26:00.000-08:00

In a word - oil.
In five words - oil plus lack of innovation.

As long as oil is the primary component of the economy, Iraq will suffer. In any nation or culture there is an endless supply of people wishing to become a dictator. If the economy is dependant upon oil, then anyone who achieves control of the government will also achieve control of the finances required to keep themselves in power - with or without the approval of the people. An oil based economy is destined to devolve into an authoritarian state - which in turn is destined to devolve into oppression as the authorities use the state resources to maintain power.

The key to breaking this cycle does not lie in the distribution of oil revenue. The first thing a dictator will do is change said distribution so that it can not threaten his power. The key is to make the merchant economy much stronger than the oil economy. To do so requires innovation. Economic growth is built on innovative products, innovative financing, innovative labor, innovative transportation, innovative marketing. etc. etc. Innovation however, is not static. It is dynamic and relative to competitors. In order to flourish you must not only be innovative, you must be more innovative than other competing nations and you must sustain the innovation for as long as you wish to compete. In the global economy, the required level of innovation is very high. Even the slightest impediment can be a fatal handicap.

So how does one create innovation? One does not. You must create an environment that encourages, nurtures, and rewards innovators. The foundation upon which such an environment is built is tolerance. Tolerance of ideas. Tolerance of lifestyle. Tolerance of religion. Tolerance of political beliefs. Tolerance, tolerance, tolerance. The more a society encourages people to be unique and to express themselves then the more innovation its economy will reap. There are other ways, but a culture of tolerance is the only way I can think of to sustain innovation across multiple decades. Thus, I would say that until Iraq makes concerted effort to stamp out intolerance then it will slowly devolve towards another authoritarian state. Vive la difference!

Why Western societies are rich and powerful

2006-01-04T14:43:00.000-08:00

Why has the west dominated global politics for the last several hundred years?

That's easy. Because we tried do do what Jesus preached ... tolerance. Everything the west has accomplished has been made possible because of tolerance. Tolerance breeds innovation. Tolerating different cultures means infusing your own with new ideas. Tolerating individuals who are different encourages them to voice their ideas. Tolerance breeds the coexistence of many different viewpoints and ideas. Out of the chaos of intermingling humanity comes innovation. The goal of cultural purity or preservation is a false ideal. Any society that achieves it will intellectually stagnate and fall behind competing nations. With diminishing economic prospects the people will be willing to submit to a dictator. There is no shortage of people wishing to be dictators. Never has been. Never will be.

So here it is. How to rid yourself of kings and dictators. Be forewarned that there are no easy answers. If there were, mankind would have rid itself of tyrants thousands of years ago.

Step 1 - tolerance
Step 2 - innovation
Step 3 - strong merchant/middle class
Step 4 - majority of food supplies dependant upon merchant economy
Step 5 - merchant economy seeks international trade
Step 6 - merchant class opposses authoritarian regime in order to reduce governmental controls and increase profits
Step 7 - general population supports merchants because they like having food
Step 8 - dictator is either overthrown or becomes symbolic (like queen of England)

If you happen to believe that all societies contain some number of gifted people and that humans are an inherently clever species then step 8 becomes a natural consequence of step 1.

Now, I am a big fan of irony. The irony of it all is that the more devoutly the west obeyed the catholic church the further they strayed from tolerance and compassion (I'm talking about mideval Europe here). So in the end it was only after the west rejected the church that it began to accrue benefit from the teachings of Jesus. Ironic, isn't it?

Why I am a Democrat

2006-01-01T06:23:00.000-08:00

Simply put - because I believe that it is right for government to guide society towards change. I think it is government's responsibility to pursue equality and freedom for all of its citizens. I reject cultural equivalency. If the current culture says that gays are inferior, that blacks should be enslaved, or that women should be denied equality .... then I say that government should institute policies designed to change our culture. Specifically, activist judges should implement interpretations of law that favor equality of humans regardless of race, creed, or culture.

Yes, the current democratic party has left me. They accept this ideal only within the borders of the US. Upon leaving US shores they reject this notion and allow cultural equivalency to usurp human equivalency. I cling to the hope that one day soon they will again believe that all humans deserve equality, justice, and liberty irregardless of their nationality.

At present, there is no party that represents my beliefs. The democrats are more likely to return to their roots than the republicans are to abandon theirs. The republicans are inherently conservative and conservatives will inherently resist change. Change is good. The problem is that the party of change - the liberals, the democrats - has chosen to pursue a bad and unjust change. Hopefully, it is just a phase that they are going through. For now, at least the republicans have the brains to reject the absurd notion of cultural equivalency. At least they realize that by accepting the equality of cultures they are also accepting slavery. So I will probably continue to vote republican while retaining my DNC card.

What my crystal ball says about Iraqi election fraud

2005-12-22T09:45:00.000-08:00

The picture is murky and there is great risk in trying to read it so early ... but I'm an idiot and I can not resist the chance to make myself look stupid.

Fraud will be found and sufficient proof will exist that the elections could be recalled. But they won't, we will probably never hear about it, the IEC will publicly declare the election valid becuase the "infractions were not enough to change the results", and the smaller parties will feign deep rejections but claim to accept the results "for the good of Iraq". In a hush-hush backroom deal all parties will reach this agreement but UIA will not get many - if any - of the compensary chairs. The smaller parties will retain the scandal card for future use.

ah, damn. that's it. the crystal ball is changing channels. Looks like a "Leave it to Beaver" rerun. June is doing something in the kitchen. She says "Ward, don't you think you've been a little hard on the Beaver lately?" Hmmm ... this could be interesting ...

The real war has only just begun

2005-12-21T10:11:00.000-08:00

The real threat to Iraq's future lies amoung those who wish to emulate Iran. Until now, America has controlled the future of Iraq and Iraqi politicians have been fighting for the best starting positions when the race to power begins. It has begun. The race to power is on and America is now little more than a spectator cheering on his favorite and trying to intimidate the others with crowd noises. The real war for Iraq has begun.

The first thing to note is that shia compromise over 60% of Iraq. Terrorism and insurgency drives them towards religion and away from secular interests. If they are threatened then they will rally around their Ayatollahs and the hand of Iran will be strengthened. The place to win this battle is in the courts and the ranks of ISF.

Examine the file of Iran and you will see a democracy that has been hijacked by religous courts and enforced by religous militia. Courts that purge candidate lists prior to elections in order to maintain their grip on power. Militia controlled by clerics and used to enforce their will. Defeat these two things and the Iranistization of Iraq is doomed to fail. In the final chapters of Iran's file you will see that the shia people would have elected reformers if not 700 were struck from the ballots. Examine the Iranian constitution and you will see that the grip of the mullahs would have been broken with a reformist majority in legislature. Although the Iranian constitution specifies the postion of the ayatollah and states that the constitution may never eliminate him, it does not preclude a position much like that of England's queen. Hence, the Mullahs must fiercly protect their grip over the courts. If they ever lose it, even once, it may be gone forever.

What lessons may the Iraqi's learn from the examination of Iran? They may learn where the system is weak and how the Islamacists envision seizing power. They may learn which battles are truly important because they will shape the next fifty years. From my examination of Iran, I would offer the following advice to those who oppose the Iranistization of Iraq:
1) Take steps to ensure free and open balotting with free and open candidacy.
2) Take steps to make sure that the ISF is civillian with a full and balanced spectrum of sects.
3) Take steps to prevents clerical control of the courts.
4) Take steps to prevent violence from driving common shia to seek refuge and protection from their religous lists.

Take these steps and Iraq will not become a reflection of Iran. The real battle will be fought in parliment. If the Sunni choose to fight it on the streets with bombs and guns, then the shia are destined to win and destined to strive towards a theocracy.

The Moonbat Prince

2005-12-20T18:31:00.000-08:00

So I am reading this interview with Noam Chomsky and I come across this little jewel. "I mean the level of religious fundamentalism in the United States is beyond any country I know". But it gets even more surreal. He goes on to indicate that 50% of America is so religously fundamentalist that they do not believe in evolution. I was astounded. Could the guy really, truly be that ignorant? Later it occurred to me. He isn't ignorant. He is in denial. His ideology is failing. On the one hand he could assert that 50% of America rejects his ideology on the basis of reasoned analysis. On the other hand he could say that his ideology is failing because 50% of America is a bunch of religous zealots who have lost the ability to reason. In reality, I think it is Noam who has lost the ability to reason. He is stuck trying to defend the indefensible and his ego is too big to admit that his ideology is failing.

My first post

2005-12-19T12:02:00.000-08:00

I think it's about time that us closet liberals start trying to take back the middle ground.
Enough is enough. I am a liberal. I am NOT a neo-liberal. It is time that the DNC marginalizes the neo-libs and takes it's rightful place as the moral and visionary leadership of America.

So what is a neo-liberal? A neo-liberal, also known as a "moonbat", is someone who has mixed "all men are born equal" with moral relativity and arrived at the conclusion of social and cultural equivalence. Poo on that. All men are equal, but the fruits of their labor are not. Human equivalence demands that all people are equal and that all people are treated with the respect and dignity that every human deserves. Human equivalence is all you need to win political battles and moral arguments. It is THE high ground. It is the one morality that reigns supreme throughout all cultures, all societies, and all religions. It is the high ground upon which true liberals stand.

But not the neo-liberal. The neo-liberal thinks that if all people are moral from their own perspective and all people are equal then all morals are equally valid. So goes the neo liberal thought. If all boys play football and if all football players are american .... then all americans must be boys. The neo-liberal does not see this flaw in his logic because he is too heavily invested in the ideology of moral equivalency. He has forgotten human equivalency. He thinks that freedom and human rights were built from moral equivalency. He thinks that giving up moral equivalency means giving up human rights. To give up moral equivalency is to live in a world without freedom. So he thinks. And because of this he will defend moral equivalency as if it is the cornerstone of western civilization. Now when forced to choose between human equivalency and moral equivalency the neo-lib chooses moral equivalency. Poor, poor neolib. How did you ever wander so far off? McCarthyism was beaten with H.E not M.E. MLK made impassioned speeches built upon human equivalency and he changed a nation because he found resonance with people of all colors and faiths. The cornerstone of America is human equivalency.

But you have lost sight of that. You find yourself thinking moral equivalency is the cornerstone and demanding that everything must be politically correct with this vision. You find yourself saying the same things as the terrorists and the dictators. You enjoy your Michael Moore movies and think that the right thing to do was to let the people of Iraq suffer under Saddam. You don't believe that the terrorists are good people. You don't believe that Iraqis were happy under Saddam. You do not wish for America to fail. But in order to defend moral equivalency you must also defend these things that you do not believe.

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Human equivalency has never been better stated.
I am a liberal and I want my DNC back. Be gone ye moonbats!