The REAL differences between
"Liberals"   &   "Conservatives"
Pages   1,   2,   [ 3 ],   4
    [  http://great-liberal-insights.org/liberal-leaders.html ]   

Jesus set forth ideals of liberalism so high that most people can't achieve them  and many of his so-called followers have turned their backs on those ideals and have chosen instead to follow the easy, extremely conservative path pioneered by Paul of Tarsus.  See LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/salvation


        People like George W. Bush, on the other hand, despise "liberals".  Are these not words that Karl Rove could have written for George to proclaim as his?

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests.  It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.  Today Christians stand at the head of our country.  We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.  We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press-in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during recent years."

Adolf Hitler. ( in his first radio address to the German people after coming to power July 22, 1933; from My New Order, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1, pp. 871-872, Oxford University Press,London, 1942.)


        Anyone who hates liberals is in questionable company.  I challenge anyone to take the short quiz below.  It challenges the reader to guess which of 14 liberal-bashing quotations are from Adolf Hitler and which from Ann Coulter.  All you have to do to beat my score is to be right half the time!

www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/gradequiz.php

The following table is taken from the conservative site quoted above, showing the kinds of people they don't want to be associated with.  We liberals thank them for assembling such a great "honor roll" of liberals (although we might quibble over a few of the entries).

"Liberal Control" of the Media

We have been told over and over and over again that America's mainstream media is "controlled by the liberals".  When is the last time that we heard this supposedly liberal media publish anything flattering about liberals?  The truth is that it takes millions, if not billions of dollars to own important communications media.  When has any union, a minority group, advocates for seniors, the handicapped, women, children or the environment had enough money to buy such media?  Only very rich individuals and corporations have that kind of money to spend and nine times out of ten such people and entities are very Conservative, not liberal.

One example of the total control Conservatives have is their ability to perpetuate the absurd lie that they, the Conservative owners of the media, are helpless to get their own Conservative views expressed in the media they own!  One of the arguments put forward most often by Conservatives to "prove" this absurdity is a survey of Washington journalists that revealed that some 92% of them regularly vote "liberal Democrat".  Let's accept that on face value.  First of all, all this proves is what these journalists do in the privacy of the voting booth, not what they do in their public broadcasting.  Now, if liberals had the ability to write and speak publicly about that very survey, Conservatives would be horrified to see or hear the public being informed that 92% of those who really know what goes on in Washington, those who spend their whole lives watching and investigating politics in the nation's capital, those who have teams of people studying who does what in the nation's capital, almost ALL endorse the Democratic

Party in the voting booth, although their jobs require that they keep their personal opinions to themselves – they succeed in doing 99% of the time.  Conservatives LOVE the Fox Cable Channel because it is obvious to them how blattantly Conservative the news and commentary is there.

        Thanks to their almost total control of the Republican Party, their partnership with the wealthy TV "evangelists", and most of the major news outlets (radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, and publishing houses), wealthy conservatives have succeeded in making the "L-word" so bad as to be unmentionable!  What we have been told is that liberals are irresponsible "beatnik" types who don't believe in any kind of rule or discipline, that they believe in giving public funds away to poor people for no good reason and with no results, that they are atheistic socialists at heart, etc., etc.   When do we ever see or hear liberals getting the chance to defend themselves in the mainstream media?  On the one side, there is a constant barrage on radio, and now on television, and in most newspapers of extremely explicit attacks on liberals and praise of everything Conservative.  And on the other, there are supposed "liberal" journalists, who may well have liberal views, but who have to watch their every word, out of fear that any actual explicit manifestation of their "liberal bias" show they will be attacked viciously by the right and even lose their jobs.

What Liberalism really is :

Here is much, much more on the so-called "Liberal Media bias"

Why a "Liberals Arts" education is so highly regarded :

To get a good, solidly based, well rounded education is to get a "Liberal Arts" education, often certified by the awarding of the prestigious "Bachelor of (Liberal) Arts", "Master of (Liberal) Arts", and finally the "Doctor of Philosophy" degrees.  The word "liberal" is held in the highest esteem in the world of higher education.  Since there is a great deal of truth in the dictum "Knowledge is power", reading books (the Latin for which is "liber") and getting an education have always empowered those subjugated to others to gain "their liberty".  The more they learned, the more power they developed until their oppressors could hold them down no longer.  And the result was "equilibrium", another cousin of the word "liberal".  Not surprisingly, the richer, and more powerful and more privileged people are the more likely they are to be Conservative. 

And the more educated people are (except when their education is in certain narrow fields), the more likely they are to be liberal.

For liberals, the ideal is to share knowledge, wealth and power as equally as possible so that there is an "equilibrium" in society that reduces the likelihood of friction and crime, and enhances everyone's chances to enjoy "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in peace and harmony.  Crazy these "liberal" ideas, aren't they?

Conservatives on the other hand, long for the "good old days" :

In the Dred Scott decision, Justice Roger B. Taney, the extremely conservative Chief of an extremely conservative Supreme Court. proclaimed that the Constitution and the nation's legal history offered no suggestion that blacks should have the rights other Americans enjoyed.  The laws defined them as property, not people, he insisted, so they couldn't be citizens.

Similarly, Scalia's dissent from June's landmark ruling that invalidated anti-sodomy laws argues that the Constitution and the nation's legal history contained no explicit mention for treating gay people equally – the law could, therefore, provided no fundamental right for gay Americans to engage in the private, intimate relations other Americans take for granted.

"Love it (America), or leave it!"

Conservatives often respond to criticism of their government with taunts like 'If you don't like it here, why don't you go to . . . ?'  The next time Democrats are in charge in America, if Conservatives want to emigrate to some more conservative country to avoid living under what they view as either "socialism" or "communism", they could always move to one of these great places :

Iran,   Iraq,   Somalia,   Ethiopia,   Saudi Arabia,   Singapore,   Sierra Leon,   or Bosnia.

        [ Note: Even the fine countries listed above have embraced some form of "socialized medicine" – which Conservative Americans still believe only their own richest country on earth can't afford  !  And although Conservative spokesmen keep insisting that all of the people who live in such countries are unhappy with their universal health care plans, the world has yet to see a single one of these countries go back to any American style for-profit private health care system. ]

        When liberals, on the other hand, look for a left-leaning refuge from Conservative Republican administrations, they have a choice of any number of the most developed countries in the world !  According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html the 2005 United Nations "Quality-of-Life" rankings, the best places to live in the world today are :
1. Norway, 2. Iceland, 3. Australia, 4. Luxembourg , 5. Canada, 6. Sweden , 7. Switzerland, 8. Ireland , 9. Belgium , 10. United States, 11. Japan, 12. Netherlands, 13. Finland, 14. Denmark, 15. United Kingdom, 16. France, 17. Austria, 18. Italy, 19. New Zealand, 20. Germany,

Note the changes since George W. Bush has been president:
1) Norway, 2) Sweden, 3) Canada, 4) Belgium, 5) Australia, 6) the US , 7) Iceland, 8) Holland, 9) Japan 10) Finland, 11) Switzerland, 12) France, 13) Britain, 14) Denmark, 15) Austria, 16) Luxembourg, 17) Germany, 18) Ireland, 19) New Zealand and 20) Italy.

        If "Socialism" is so bad, then why are the best places to live decidedly "Socialist" while most of the worst places to live are decidedly "Conservative" ?:  And why fall for the Greedy Old Party line and their friends throughout the U S media when they tell you that you should dial 911 or the F.B.I. whenever you hear the words "liberal", "progressive" or "socialist"?

There are any number of similar examples that could be given to show that in so many ways, it's countries that are more liberal or socialist than the U.S.A. that have the best records on the kinds of things in which we should be excelling. Here's another:

Why the Nazis called themselves "Socialists"


        Although I grew up in the shadow of World War II, it wasn't until I was over 70 that I learned why the "National Socialist German Workers Party", who were called "Nazis" for short had the word "Socialist" in their name. Contrary to what some conservative propagandists would have you believe, it wasn't because there was anything "leftist" about them! Here's the reason, spelled out in a great biography of Hitler at http://referaty-seminarky.sk/adolf-hitler-biography-3/ :

        "Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party (which had only 54 members when he had joined). This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party.

Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany. Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end. In February 1920, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its first programme which became known as the "25 Points". . . To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education."

The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party :
        "Unlike Drexler (the founder) and other party members, Hitler was less interested in the "socialist" aspect of "national socialism" beyond moving Social Welfare administration from the Church to the State... Himself of provincial lower-middle-class origins, he disliked the mass working class of the big cities, and had no sympathy with the notions of attacking private property or the business class (which some early Nazis espoused)."

Hitler on the alliance of Fascism and Catholicism, vs. Liberalism :

A few days after the signing of the Lateran Treaty (between the Pope & Mussolini, the precursor of the Reich Concordat between Hitler and Pope) , Hitler wrote an article for the Volkisher Beobachter, published on 2/22/1929, warmly welcoming the agreement.

"The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism, shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than (it) did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms."  { One huge problem the Catholic Church had with the liberal Wiemar Republic is that it had tried to divorce the state from the church and put a stop to the state subsidizing churches and their schools in Germany.  In contrast, Hitler tripled those subsidies once he got what he wanted in the Vatican Concordat with Germany in 1933. }  Turning to the German situation, he rebuked (the liberal Catholic leadership of the "Center Party") for its recalcitrant attachment to democratic politics.  " By trying to preach that democracy is still in the best interests of German Catholics, the Center Party . . .  is placing itself in stark contradiction to the spirit of the treaty signed today by the Holy See."

The conclusion of his rant contained a gross distortion as well as a remarkable intuition of future opportunities:  "The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy. . .   proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity (i.e. Catholicism) than (to) those of Jewish liberalism (i.e. "Liberals Like Christ") or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people."  (p. 115, Hitler's Pope).

The "Bad Faith" of our nation's Fathers :

"As Richard Drinnon has shown in his book Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire Building , America's revered founding fathers were themselves activists in the anti-Indian genocide.  George Washington, in 1779, instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack the Iroquois and "lay waste all the settlements around...  that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed," urging the general not to "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected."  Sullivan did as instructed, he reported back, "destroy[ing] everything that contributes to their support" and turning "the whole of that beautiful region, the character of a garden to a scene of drear and sickening desolation."  The Indians, this writer said, "were hunted like wild beasts" in a "war of extermination," something Washington approved of since, as he was to say in 1783, the Indians, after all, were little different from wolves, "both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape." ( p. 89)
        And since the Indians were mere beasts, it followed that there was no cause for moral outrage when it was learned that, among other atrocities, the victorious troops had amused themselves by skinning the bodies of some Indians "from the hips downward, to make boot tops or leggings."  For their part, the surviving Indians later referred to Washington by the nickname "Town Destroyer," for it was under his direct orders that at least 28 out of 30 Seneca towns from lake Erie to the Mohawk River had been totally obliterated in a period of less than five years, as had all the towns and villages of the Mohawk, the Onondaga, and the Cayuga.  As one of the Iroquois told Washington to his face in 1792: "to this day, when that name is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of their mothers." ( p. 90)

They might well have clung close to the necks of their mothers when other names were mentioned as well – such as Adams or Monroe or Jackson.  Or Jefferson, for example, who in 1807 instructed his Secretary of War that any Indians who resisted American expansion into their lands must be met with "the hatchet."  "And...  if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe," he wrote, "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi."  Continuing: "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them."  These were not off remarks, for five years later, in 1812, Jefferson again concluded that white Americans were "obliged" to drive the "backward" Indians "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains"; and one year later still, he added that the American government had no other choice before it than "to pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach."  Indeed, Jefferson's writings on Indians are filled with the straightforward assertion that the natives are to be given a simple choice – to be "extirpate[d] from the earth" or to remove themselves out of the Americans' way.  ( p. 91)

Had these same words been enunciated by a German leader in 1939, and directed at European Jews, they would be engraved in modern memory.  Since they were uttered by one of America's founding fathers, however, the most widely admired of the South's slaveholding philosophers of freedom, they conveniently have become lost to most historians in their insistent celebration of Jefferson's wisdom and humanity.

  ( from American Holocaust, p.119-121 )
The Encyclopedia Britannica warning against "Despotism".

"Christian Conservatives" vs. Human Progress

We "Liberals Like Christ" have been outnumbered through much of the human history.  Here are a few examples to get the ball rolling, but I invite people to send me more examples (with sources, whenever possible) :

  • Conservative Christians rioted to prevent medical schools from using dead bodies to train medical doctors because they thought that autopsies might keep the dead from going to heaven.
  • Conservative Christians have fought in-vitro fertilization which has allowed millions of infertile couples to bear children.
  • Conservative Christians are still fighting against sex education programs which include "safe-sex" techniques, such as condom use, which help prevent the spread of deadly diseases such as AIDS.
  • Many historians also think that Ronald Reagan's slow response to the AIDS crisis was partially motivated by his conservative Christian belief that AIDS was a punishment from God against homosexuals.

More great material :

An interesting article on
Liberal vs. Conservative Christianity in the U.S.
and
What Is Conservatism and

What Is Wrong with It?
[ polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html ]

by Philip E. Agre, an associate professor of information
studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.
and
Liberalism set to music
and
A great collection of international documents
regarding Human Rights ( vs. Human Wrongs) :
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diana/documents.htm


www.politicalamazon.com/fcf.html
reveals many of the diabolical schemes of "The Free Congress Foundation", including exposés on Richard Mellon Scaife, Paul Weyrich, Laszlo Pasztor, Pinochet, Jerry Falwell, Richard Viguerie, the Coors family,

The Political – Christian Right.
        Admitting that he and his colleagues are not conservatives in the traditional sense, Weyrich has described the New Right as 'radicals who want to change the existing power structure.' He was one of the earliest commentators to advance the idea that the United States is engulfed in a cultural civil war."

Describing this "cultural civil war," Weyrich once said, "It may not be with bullets, and it may not be with rockets and missiles, but it is a war, nonetheless. It is a war of ideology, it's a war of ideas, it's a war about our way of life. And it has to be fought with the same intensity, I think, and dedication as you would fight a shooting war."


        One of the best comparisons that I have found on the www of the major political philosophies in the U.S.A. is http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/li2005_over.htm , which views them all through the libertarian lens, but does so very objectively and intelligently.

do-gooders

        For much more detail, see What Liberals REALLY Believe, at the outstanding "Liberalism Resurgent" website , created by Steve Kangas, whom I believe was one of the many great liberal activists who have died a martyr's death at the hands of Conservative assassins.
Curious about how liberal your city is compared to others in the U.S.A.? 

Check out http://www.epodunk.com/top10/liberal/index.html

And here's a great forum to participate in :visit a hopping political forum

The natural flexibility of the Human Mind, an enlightening experiment :

See how long it takes you to read the following unusual paragraph:

"I cduoln't blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.  The phaonmneal pweor of teh hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deson't mttaer mcuh in waht oredr the ltteres in a wrod are. Teh olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in teh rghit pclae.   Teh rset can be a taotl mses and you can slitl raed it wouthit a porbelm.  Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Such a cdonition is arpoiatelpy cllaed "Typoglycemia" :)- Amzanig huh?  And eyverbdoy tknihs slpelnig is so intpmorat."


Wehvoer dgnesied the hmaun mnid had to be a Lraibel !

Pages   1,   2,   [ 3 ],   4
The REAL differences between
"Liberal"   vs.   "Conservative"
Contact  
email image
Ray@Liberal-Insights.Org
There is much more
where this came from, at
Liberal insights
and/or
Liberals Like Christ