5 Myths Liberals Have Created About Themselves

by John Hawkins
11th December, 2012

Liberalism is like a restaurant with ugly decor, terrible food, overflowing toilets and roaches scurrying across the floor -- that stays packed every night. Sure, liberals may be sanctimonious, mean spirited and advocate policies that don't work, but you can't help but admire the excellence of their public relations network. They can laud themselves for courage because they take a stand everyone they know agrees with, pat themselves on the back for their compassion as they maliciously insult someone that disagrees with them and congratulate themselves for their charitable behavior as they give other people's money away. Liberal mythology is one thing, but what it actually looks like is a different beast entirely.

1) Liberals love science: As Ann Coulter says, "Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional. Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution." The liberal commitment to science consists entirely of talking about how important science is when they believe they can use it to further the liberal agenda. On the other hand, when science shows that adult stem cells actually work better than embryonic stem cells, millions in Africa have died because liberals needlessly insisted on banning DDT or the evidence shows AIDS is never going to take off in non-drug-using heterosexuals, liberals have about as much interest in science as they do in supporting the troops.

2) Liberals care about education: If you define "education" as doing as much as humanly possible to toss plums to the teachers’ unions who help fund and elect Democrats, liberals love education. Alternately, if you define education as the rest of us do, making sure our kids learn as much as possible and are prepared for the working world, liberals don't care about education at all. They fight merit pay, oppose firing bad teachers and try to kill even effective school choice programs. Any time there's a divergence between what's best for the teachers’ unions and what's best for the kids, the kids ALWAYS lose with liberals.

3) Liberals are tolerant: In a very real sense, liberals don't understand tolerance. To them, tolerance is promoting whatever position they happen to hold while excluding all competing views. So, if a conservative speaker shows up on a college campus, liberals try to shout him down. Liberals have tried to censor conservative talk show hosts with an Orwellian "Fairness Act." They work tirelessly to try to silence Fox News, which is the one center right network up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They block professors for their conservative views, blacklist conservative actors and lock conservatives out of almost every major newspaper in America. That's not open-minded; it's a level of dogmatic intolerance that could rival the most radical cult.

4) Liberals don't moralize: Liberals believe in allowing children to have abortions over the protests of their parents, they want to force churches to perform gay weddings that violate their Christian beliefs and they demand that the Catholic Church provide abortion and birth control over its strenuous moral objections, but then they turn around and deny that they're moralizing. Getting beyond that, they couch their arguments about tax rates, government programs and economics in distinctly moral terms. After all, what is the term "fair share" if not an appeal to morals? If liberals are going to continue to pretend that they don't moralize, at least they should admit that they’re morally inferior to conservatives.

5) Liberals love the poor: For both philosophical and practical reasons, conservatives believe in helping the poor escape poverty. We agree wholeheartedly with Ben Franklin's words of wisdom,

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

On the other hand, liberals "love" the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who're claiming the destitute can have better lives when any "compassionate" person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That's not love; that's a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.

How to Brainwash the Sheeple into Doing Anything You Want

By Mike Bundrant
December 10, 2012

A few hours ago I was cycling through an nearby neighborhood.
As I approached a mother and her two children walking down the sidewalk, the cutest little four-year-old piped up.
“Hi…!” she said.
“Hi…!” I replied.
At that point, mom jerked the little girl by the arm, bent down and whispered something hushed and intense in her ear.
As she continued to watch me ride by, I saw the girl’s expression morph from happiness and curiosity into pain, fear and confusion.
“Well, there you have it,” I said to myself. “Fear is once again hammered into an innocent child’s psyche. How sad.”
Children have no way to question their parents’ wisdom. If mom says strangers are dangerous, they are, no questions asked.
In this case mom did more than just tell her I was dangerous. She activated physical pain and fear during the child’s interaction with me. In NLP we call this “anchoring.”
By associating an intense state of mind/body – fear and pain – with strangers, the mother hopes to condition her child to avoid them.
The next time the girl finds herself in a similar situation, she will most likely experience fear, pain or confusion.
Over time, she will lose her desire to reach out and connect with people she doesn’t know. By avoiding strangers, she hopes to avoid the negative feelings associated with them. Classic Pavlovian conditioning!
Needless to say, there are other more effective, yet non-traumatizing ways to teach children about their own safety, but that is a topic for another article, coming soon.
Anchoring is remarkably effective if done well. Think about it. How many of your responses during the course of a day are preconditioned? Do you stop at red lights?
Shake someone’s hand when it is extended to you? Do you pull over when you see flashing red lights in your rear view mirror? You don’t have to think about any of these responses. They are anchored in, ready to be employed when triggered.
If you want someone to be in your herd, then find a way to condition them. Fear works best for creating sheeple.
We could do a warped experiment, for example, on a small child. Find any common object – say a red ball. Hold up the red ball and then terrorize the child into a state of intense fear by yelling or screaming at him.
Then, put the ball away and return to normalcy. Repeat this sick little ritual daily.
Before long, all you will need to do is hold up the red ball and the child will respond with anticipatory fear. Soon, the ominous red ball will haunt the child’s dreams.
If you want to expand your power over the child, the red ball is now a nifty tool. Teach the child that the only way to escape the fear inducing red ball is to do what you want.
For example, teach him that if he bends down to touch his toes, you will put the ball away immediately. Soon, all you will need to do is pull out the red ball and he will touch his toes without even thinking about it.
His fear may then generalize. When he sees other red objects, he may feel afraid and bend over for them, too. He may even start to bend over compulsively, in anticipation of any potential new red objects that might show up unexpectedly.
Yes, he is now running from the red balls in his mind!
At this point, he might develop a ritual. To prevent any and all red objects that day, he bends over 10 times every morning, noon and night. In other words, he is now a slave to fear.
To control him, all you need is a red ball (or to know how to get him to think of one) and a warped conscience.
Much of counseling is devoted to undoing unfortunate anchors that were conditioned in childhood.
If the counseling is successful, the red balls of life lose power and new, more positive anchors are put into play – intentional anchors for greater personal power, joy, confidence and so on.
Most people are raised with some version of the red ball. Do what I say or else you’re gonna get it! Do what I tell you or I will reject you, abandon you, hurt you, scare you or otherwise make you feel miserable. 
Negatively conditioning a child in this way is the perfect set up for creating sheeple. All you need to do to herd them is stimulate their fears. People do the most amazing things to avoid fear.
If I were a twisted tyrant creating a country of sheeple, here’s what I’d do:
First, I’d champion principles like conformity, consumerism, instant gratification, social status, and intolerance for personal sacrifice. All of these are wonderful “red ball” kinds of tools that can be used to induce workable positive and negative feelings.
Of course, I’d be grateful for all of the lazy, immature parents who help tremendously by enslaving their children to fear. Then, I would:
1. Scare the living hell out of everyone, probably by creating a catastrophe that could “happen again if we don’t take measures to stop it” (we want red balls floating around in people’s imagination).
2. Associate some visual symbol or keyword to the horror of the event.
3. Repeat the keyword or show the symbol at key times or whenever I want to manipulate people. Doing what I want is a way for people to escape the fear that I conditioned in them.
With this system firmly in operation, I am now free to subject my sheeple to all kinds of degrading practices that will keep them in their place, permanently.
I can do almost anything I want, given their fears. Amazingly, they will not only cooperate, but even think I am doing them a favor as I degrade and humiliate them!
“We’ve got word that someone in the vicinity may be carrying a red ball! Alright everyone, bend over and let’s inspect your junk. It’s for everyone’s safety.”
The ultimate mind bender is that people end up willingly subjecting themselves to what their parents most feared – molestation by a stranger.
Thank you for protecting me from the dreaded red ball, sir! The inspection wasn’t that bad, either.
Wait, where’s my wallet?
What an ironic mess it would be, if such a society existed!

New York Times: Arms Shipments ‘Secretly’ Approved by Obama Admin. Ended Up in Hands of Islamic Militants

10th December, 2012

The Obama administration “secretly” approved arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, however, U.S. officials quickly became concerned as evidence suggested Qatar was handing the weapons over to Islamic militants, The New York Times reports, citing a number of United States officials and foreign diplomats.
There is no evidence available that suggests the U.S.-approved weapons were involved in the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, which left four Americans dead on Sept. 11. But the revelation is sure to ignite speculation.
More from The New York Times:

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.
The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from other countries.
The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement, according to current and former administration officials. But they said the United States has growing concerns that, just as in Libya, the Qataris are equipping some of the wrong militants.
The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers on the ground in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam” than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official.

“To do this right, you have to have on-the-ground intelligence and you have to have experience…If you rely on a country that doesn’t have those things, you are really flying blind. When you have an intermediary, you are going to lose control,” said Vali Nasr, a former State Department adviser who is now dean of Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.
The startling revelations raise even more concerns regarding the Obama administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East.


The secret transactions began in the early months of the Libyan rebellion that ended in Qaddafi’s death. Various officials sought to assist the rebel forces trying to oust the Libyan dictator.
It was a short time later that Mahmoud Jibril, then prime minister of the Libyan transitional government, voiced his concerns to administration officials that the U.S. government was allowing Qatar to arm Islamist militant groups that were against the new Libyan leadership, anonymous U.S. officials said.
The Obama White House has not learned where all the weapons, paid for by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, ended up in Libya, according to officials.
Qatar is accused of shipping machine guns, automatic rifles and ammunition by air and sea. Some of the weapons have since ended up in the hands of militants with ties to al-Qaeda in Mali, where radical Islamists have implemented Shariah law in the northern part of the country, according to a former Defense Department official. Other small arms have gone to Syria several American and foreign officials and arms traders told the Times.