THORNER: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE "LIBERAL" AND THE NIGHTMARE SUCH THINKING WROUGHT
My brief experience as a left-leaning, radical liberal feminist came about quite unexpectedly when in a dream I found myself rallying with other feminist radicals, holding a pink sign that read, “I stand with Planned Parenthood,” and making demands that Trump make federal payments to Planned Parenthood.
By Nancy Thorner -
When the word "Liberal" comes to mind, unknown to many is that the word has a proud heritage. Originally it was a word that described men who were political opposites of modern "Liberals.”
The word “liberal” derives from the Latin word for “free.” As to how the word "liberal" acquired its change of meaning:
The early liberals worked for freedom from burdensome and oppressive old laws and regulations. Liberalism meant action. The ideal of change towardincreased freedom and modernity drifted into accepting change almost for its own sake — or so I conjecture. Many conditions in the world plausibly seemed open to improvement — even in the liberal direction — by changing or adding some laws and regulations.
Leland B. Yeager in his post on March 9, 2011, Reclaiming the Word “Liberal", proposed calling left-liberals what they really are, without qualification, to reclaim the original name of an honorable and old political tradition in the classical sense of the word as a way to align its usage in the U.S. to what exists in much of the world outside the U.S. As such, Classical liberalism "is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism."
The Liberals of the 19th century would be aghast over the outrageous corruption and modern use of the word "Liberal" in respect to how modern liberalism is perceived, which seeks to promote, advocate, and enforce the centralization of all political power into an all-powerful central government.
My brief experience as a left-leaning, radical liberal feminist came about quite unexpectedly when in a dream I found myself rallying with other feminist radicals, holding a pink sign that read, “I stand with Planned Parenthood”, and making demands that Trump make federal payments to Planned Parenthood.
Those who know me would realize the absurdity of that dream, as a staunch Republican conservative my entire life, but I did wonder briefly what it would be like to be a liberal in today's sense of the word.
A few days later, on July 9, 2017, as a subscriber to Burt Prelutsky's three to four weekly subscription articles, I received an astute and witty commentary, LIBERALS: EVIL OR JUST STUPID?, in which Mr. Prelutsky likewise speculated on what it would be like to be a member of the Left. (Mr. Prelutsky's new subscription year starts at the end of August at an annual cost of $150. CLICK HERE for a direct feed to Burt Prelutsky if interested in subscribing.)
Who is Burt Prelutsky?
Burt Prelutsky is an extremely gifted CA writer who was born in Chicago in 1940, but was raised in CA when his family moved to CA in 1946. Burt's home is in North Hills, CA (the San Fernando Valley), where he lives with his wife, Yvonne, and dog, Angel Highlights of his Prelutsky's career include: Film Reviewer for Los Angeles Magazine, 1959-1971; Weekly Humor Columnist for L.A. Times, 1967-1978; Freelance for TV Guide, NY Times, Holiday, Emmy, Sports Illustrated, 1965-1990; TV Credits: Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart,Family Ties, Dr. Quinn, Diagnosis Murder+ 5 TV movies; Blogger: Patriot Post, Breitbart, WorldNet Daily, BernardGoldberg.com; Political Pundit 2000-Present (over 2100 political articles); Author (8 books), Angels on Tap has been made into a major motion picture.
Following are excerpts from Burt Prelutsky's commentary, LIBERALS: EVIL OR JUST STUPID?:
There are times when I try to imagine what it must be like to be a member of the Left. But no matter how hard I try, I find I simply can’t bring it off. Instead, I wind up marveling at their ability.I mean, there are so many things they have to believe that simply aren’t true and to doubt so many other things that are factual.
For openers, they’re required to believe that America is not only not superior to other nations, but is in a great many ways inferior. They have to accept that whereas those who espouse the values of Christianity and Judaism are superstitious bigots, whereas those who pray to Allah are noble in their natures and their spiritual aspirations.
They have to accept the lie that cops, including those who are black, are violent racists, but those who demonstrate in the streets and call for the killing of cops are not.
They are also required to believe that conservative speakers are fascists and should therefore not be permitted to express their opinions on college campuses, whereas those who shout them down and torch buildings in displaying their contempt for the 1st Amendment are to be regarded as defenders of the truth.
In similar fashion, they are called upon to side with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, jihadists who openly call for the genocidal extermination of Jews, while labeling Israel, a western-style democracy, as the latter-day version of Nazi Germany.
Their ignorance is so vast and their reliance on propaganda so absolute that they not only had no trouble accepting the lie that Trump is Putin’s puppet, but ignored the fact that Hillary Clinton turned over a quarter of America’s uranium deposits to Russia in exchange for a massive bribe to the Clinton Foundation and that Obama, after promising Putin to be more flexible after the 2012 election, then stood idly by while Putin invaded Ukraine and Syria.
They have also chosen to ignore John Podesta’s financial ties with Russia while hyperventilating over Michael Flynn’s accepting a check from Turkey.To further establish their fidelity to left-wing nuttiness, they have to pretend that the pampered propagandists at the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC, are objective reporters whose sole allegiance is to the truth, crass partisanship be damned, and that ObamaCare has been anything but an unmitigated disaster.Speaking of which, they not only had to overlook Obama's promise that his radical healthcare bill would allow people to retain their doctors and their current policies if they were happy with them, but the fact that the Democrats in Congress who shoved the rancid bill down our throats saw to it that they didn't have to depend on it for their own healthcare needs.Even their credulity must be strained to the breaking point when they're expected to ignore basic biology and promote the absurd fiction that gender is nothing but a matter of opinion. Or, for that matter, feel compelled to ignore the inconvenient truth that 20 years after Al Gore sounded the climate alarm, none of the nightmarish scenarios he predicted have come to pass.Something else that liberals never stop chattering about is something called income inequality. The amusing part of that is that those doing most of the chattering -- people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters and Chuck Schumer -- are all multi-millionaires who have never done an honest day’s work in their entire lives.And when it’s not the career politicians doing the yammering about the great financial divide, it is cable news hosts who pull down millions of dollars a year for insulting President Trump or the privileged snowflakes at places like Yale, Harvard, Middlebury and Cal Berkeley, where the yearly tuition dwarfs most people’s annual income.Because they have no idea what they’re squawking about, and lack the motivation to question their own privileged status, they never stop to consider the reasons for income inequality or even the dire consequences of arbitrarily raising the minimum wage to, say, $15-an-hour.
Further enlightenment into the mindset of Liberals
Family Guardianship Fellowship has come forward with 60 Hard Truths about "Liberals". Number one follows:
At the most basic level, the Liberal is anti-God. He is an intellectually dishonest, unprincipled, mentally immature, spoiled child who is forever in search of a world without moral consequence. That is why the Liberal makes "The State" his god. The Liberal worships THE STATE. The Liberal attempts to use his god (government) to eliminate all moral consequences for immoral behavior. In the name of "Justice," the Liberal also pretends to make his god (The State) "level" all peoples so that the wise or the beautiful or the genius will have no advantage over the unwise, the ugly and the simpleton in the marketplace. The Liberal calls this tyrannical State of Government, UTOPIA.
For additional information to clarify your thinking, check the e-book written by Ludwig Von Mises entitled "Liberalism", which was published 5/21/1927. Ludwig von Mises was the acknowledged leader of the Austrian School of economic thought, a prodigious originator in economic theory, and a prolific author.
Another excellent article by John Hawkins features 20 Hypocrisies of Liberalism. Hawkins states as his #1 liberal belief:
It's impossible to come to any sort of reasonable compromise with conservatives on anything, but that we can fix our problems with nations like Iran and North Korea by just sitting down and talking things out.
This commentary written almost 10 years ago by John Hawkins(September 21, 2007), Explaining Liberal Thinking In A Single Column, deserves a thorough reading.
Following is the first paragraph of Hawkins' article to whet your appetite.
Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It’s nothing more than “childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.” Very seldom does any issue that doesn’t involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling “nice” or “mean” to liberals. This makes liberals ill-equipped to deal with complex issues.