June 10, 2006

Examples of Liberalism Explained: Zarqawi

In the post Liberalism Explained, I show how Liberals believe that the less successful are so because they are oppressed by the more successful. There is no scientific basis for this belief. Liberals act on this belief by rewarding the less successful, and punishing the more successful. Any student of Darwinism can tell you that in this way Liberals are using the power of the state to oppose evolution, because Darwinism teaches that in evolution, the less successful behavior is not rewarded, and the more successful behavior is rewarded. And in Communist Russia, this worked - evolution of society halted. Nothing improved. Everything stagnated. And everyone suffered. (See the article for additional info and detail.)

The Libs are constantly providing examples of this. Let's look at what Libs had to say about the termination of the terrorist Zarqawi:

Rep. Pete Stark (via Say Anything): "This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."

CNSNews: "Zarqawi Killing Great, but Pull Troops, Say Kerry, Murtha."

Caption for photo, LA Times, 6-9-06, page B11 (no link): "Euphoria: Some Iraqis cheered Zarqawi's death, but terror attacks will likely go on." (Take out the word "likely," and this caption could have been part of the official Al-Qaeda statement.)

As these examples show, the Libs seek to punish the military for their success in this operation, by demanding that they get out of Iraq, and so be seen as a failure, having been forced to leave before Iraq is safely on the road to being a secure Democracy. They seek to punish GWB for this successful operation, with Stark absurdly claiming that success is just a way to avoid having to answer for the sacrifice required to achieve it. And Libs reward the terrorists by seeking to help them achieve their goal of getting the U.S. out of Iraq so that they can make Iraq a terrorist state once again.

As these examples show, the Libs seek to reward the less successful (the Islamofascist terrorists) and punish the more successful (GWB, our troops, and American Democracy). 

Richard Lamm on “How to Destroy America”

Commenter David refers us to this speech given by Former Colorado governor, Richard Lamm, on multiculturalism in 2005. If you haven't yet seen it, it's well worth reading. An excerpt:

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that america is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, lets destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide." Here is my plan:

I. We must first make america a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way:

The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon-all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.

II. I would then invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

Read the whole thing.