The Modern Liberal Part II – Unreasonable Members

See Rule #3.

Visual Aid to Rule #3.

The title could also be “Unreasonable Members (a.k.a the majority of liberals)”, because one does not step into the cesspool of liberalism without embracing a certain level of lunacy. I originally intended to write this post as a short follow-up to The Modern Liberal Part I – Reasonable Members, but I quickly realized that I wasn’t entirely sure how to approach unreasonable liberals.

The more I thought about the issue, the more I questioned even the existence of “reasonable” liberals. Perhaps they’re out there, just hiding in their homes to avoid the negative stereotypes associated with their crazy ilk. If so, I’ve never really met any. In my experience, any liberals who appeared rational on the surface eventually revealed a crazy side once you dug deep enough or hit a particularly sensitive topic. Continue reading


Migration Habits of Parasitic Liberals


Demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution has analyzed Census Bureau data to determine the metropolitan areas with the most and least growth. The results will not shock those with their feet planted firmly in reality, but will garner only finger-pointing and blame-gaming from the slack-jawed liberal masses.

See if you can spot the trend: Continue reading

A Rolling Stone Rebuttal


“Coffee is a basic right. Everybody should have free coffee.” – Jesse Myerson

Rolling Stone recently published an article titled Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For that would be laughable if it weren’t trying to be so serious.  My favorite Facebook page, Being Classically Liberal (if you haven’t checked them out yet, you should), half-jokingly posted the article with the caption “Not the Onion” because the ideas in it are so outrageous it’s difficult to discern whether the author doped up on some of that Colorado weed before taking to his keyboard or it’s just a cleverly subdued satire piece. Continue reading

What Libertarianism ISN’T


If a road is built without government funds, does it exist?

When discussing my political views with friends, family, coworkers, and random strangers on the internet, I encounter a common misconception about the philosophy of libertarianism (and no, not the assumption that roads won’t exist in a libertarian-controlled environment).  The intent of this entry is to elucidate further what libertarianism is as well as what it simply isn’t.  Before I reveal the common misconception, let’s review a few basics about libertarianism. Continue reading

Romney’s Battle Isn’t Over

The M1A1 Romney

A forecasting model at the University of Colorado at Boulder that has accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1980 has predicted a Romney win. Additionally, it predicted that Obama will win only 218 electoral votes (leaving the remaining 320 for Romney or a third party candidate to pick up).

The forecast is fascinating, not only because it has accurately predicted the past eight presidential elections, but because it comes from an incredibly liberal institution.   Continue reading

Today in 2060: Postmodern Politics

President-King Obama Purchases Colorado, Alaska
by Ibn Abu Mahmud Arshad, GNN, July 13, 2060 9:32 a.m.

In preparation for the upcoming 2060 elections, President-King Hussein A. Obama declared his purchase of the states of Colorado and Alaska to further secure his election.

“These are trying times,” he said from the White House balcony, flanked by two Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic assault rifles. “In order to ensure stability of our great nation, it is essential that each and every state stand united under my flag.”

Continue reading

The quest for consistency

During my time in college (the first time), I stumbled upon a personal epiphany.  I wasn’t always right and occasionally I was actually wrong.  This epiphany was strictly internal and no outside influence brought it to the surface.  It was as though a light had been flicked on and I was seeing the world for what it was for the first time in my life:  A disjointed, disorienting, confusing, inconsistent arena of ideas, actions, and reactions.  A questioning and subsequent reevaluation of my faith was an immediate result of this epiphany, eventually leading to my rejection of the church.

My epiphany was an awakening to the number of inconsistencies in my beliefs and my own personal theories.  I suddenly realized that inconsistency was wrong because it led to unfairness, double standards, and confusion.  Failing to keep my political and spiritual landscape on the same playing field said volumes about my character and displayed an inability to objectively view the “big picture” and make sound judgments.

Since this epiphany, I have made it my lifelong goal to ensure consistency within my beliefs and to iron out any of the kinks that may have arisen over the years.  Engaging in thoughtful discussions with friends and family (or a “responsive chalkboard”) is one of the best ways to discover any aberrant thoughts.  Sometimes we don’t realize our own inconsistency until we’ve spoken our thoughts and another person challenges them.

The most disappointing aspect of this lifelong goal is that not everybody adheres to it.  My generation and the generation before mine seem incapable of rational thought, of keeping silent long enough to hear other voices, and are more prone to engage in shouting matches than to question their own beliefs.  This sweltering vestige of stupidity has consumed our government and now threatens our very livelihood.

I’ve found one group in particular that embraces inconsistency and seems to thrive on the chaos it breeds.  They rely on subjective information, say whatever they like to get their way, and are constantly struggling to pass legislation that either promotes inconsistency or discourages consistency.  They are the modern liberal/progressive movement, and they believe the best way to bring one group of people up is by stifling the growth of another.

The liberal movement is so fascinating to me because it is almost impossible to fully extract their thought processes and determine what crazy ideas they’ll come up with next.  They often stand by one statement and defend it to the death, only to say something that completely refutes it moments later.  The most frustrating part is that they are blind to this–no amount of discussion will reveal to them their own consistency, and one may spend hours attempting to guide them to a revelation that will simply never happen.

It is the belief of so many liberals that we must have a “fair result”, which is the backbone of their hypocrisy.  In so doing, they stifle the working class, the rich class, and the poor.  They stifle friends and family because they are so concerned about everybody ending up in the same place at the finish line that they are unwilling to compromise.

Case in point:  The current economic crisis.  Liberals continue to say that the rich must pay their “fair share” and that it’s “not fair” that 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth in this country.  Essentially, they are saying they want more free stuff.  They believe that when we are all born we are given free stuff that we don’t have to work for, free stuff that is just divvied out and inherited, not earned.  They don’t expect to earn it, they expect to be given it.

But mention just once that they should not take as much from medicare or medicaid, or that they need to enter the job market and contribute to society, and the floodgates of anger will open.  This is because their inconsistency has created a sheltered bubble so fragile that the very thought of its destruction leads to rage.  It is a pitiful thing to watch, this desperation.  Most horrific is that our president–the Chosen One himself–Barack Obama, is the most susceptible to this phenomena.

And when the walls of their thinly constructed reality fall apart around them, liberals will immediately begin reconstructing it.  It’s as if they’re little children in a treehouse as a fire burns around them.  When one wall falls, they build it back up while closing their eyes and ears and shouting loudly to drown out the sounds of the oncoming flames.

Emotional knee-jerk reactions are the symptoms of an inconsistent worldview, and liberals utilize this strategy every waking hour of their lives.  Unable to cope with their own extremist viewpoint, they blame it on others (Obama’s favorite tactic).  And they do this in the most vicious, irritating style–such as when Obama called for civility from conservatives after the abhorrent events in Tuscon, then turned a blind eye to Maxine Water’s “The Tea Party can go to hell” statement only a few months later.  Inconsistency.

The Democratic party, and the liberals that constitute it, are a one-trick pony.  Blame the other guys.  But I suppose there isn’t much more to do when your entire platform is adjective-based and completely thought-free.  What do I mean by adjective-based?  They only use adjectives to describe the opposition, as in “the racist Tea Party” or “the warmongering Republicans” or “the stupid libertarians”.  There is no substance to the liberal thought process–just hatred of consistency and a knack for emotionally-driven knee-jerk reactions.

Don’t think for a moment that I’ve overlooked the antics of the religious right.  Fundamental religious behavior leads to witch hunts and stake-burning.  But that is a discussion for a different time–and besides, it would lead to a little inconsistency in today’s blog.