Saturday, March 8, 2014

Liberals Prefer the Land of Make Believe

Life is much easier for a liberal. This is certainly the case when it comes to politics, since (as I noted recently) for liberalism, the moral demands are few. Thus, governing becomes a matter of seeking and even manufacturing what is popular, not what is right.

When you operate in the realm of fantasy, it is much easier not only to ignore the truth, but also to manufacture crises and perpetuate false injustices so as to paint oneself as the savior for what needs (or will need) fixing. Thus, “never let a crisis go to waste” is a frequent means by which political power is obtained and kept. Many people are willing to cast their votes for those who promise to “protect” them—from the climate, from the corporations, from the Christians, from the employers, and even from the consequences of their own bad decisions. “Pajama Boy” is the poster child here.

When manufacturing crises, the media—both news and entertainment—are necessary and effective tools. Whether racism, climate change, reproductive “rights,” marriage “rights,” gender “rights,” (How can so much wrong come from so many “rights?”) economic justice, and so on, today’s mainstream media has partnered with the Democratic Party to ensure that the myths live on and liberals continue to get elected.

A case in point is the recent revelation that for several years now, ABC and CBS have completely ignored scientific views that contradict the liberal meme on climate change. Thus, not only do we get the repeated doom-and-gloom forecasts of the warmists, but we are also (directly or indirectly) told that the debate is over. In the State of the Union, no less, President Obama declared, “[T]he debate is over. Climate Change is a fact.”

Along with ABC and CBS, other media outlets got the memo from Obama and the democrats. Late last year, the L.A. Times announced that it no longer would publish letters to the editor from man-made global warming skeptics. The popular website Reddit later made a similar decision. Such is the verdict when useful myths must be protected.

This would be only alarming instead of tragic if billions (perhaps trillions) of dollars were not at stake, and if the U.S. Secretary of State (along with the Pentagon) did not think that climate change was an increasing threat to our national security. Battling the make-believe crisis of climate change is much preferable to a real menace such as Vladimir Putin and a nuclear-armed Russia.

When it comes to dealing with Putin and Russia, as Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard remarks, the Obama administration’s foreign policy is an amazingly “transparent case of pretending the world is what we wish it to be, rather than seeing it as it is.” It’s a lot easier to win battles that are fought in the arena of public opinion than those that employ planes, tanks, and aircraft carriers.

However, it is possible that we will shame the Russians into submission. After all, for a nation stuck using 19th century tactics, it is very doubtful that the Russians, unlike American liberals, are committed to using women on the front lines. An Obama speech on the matter should rile up enough world outrage that the Russians will tuck tail and pull out of Crimea.

If this doesn’t work, the media will still have Obama’s back. If not, phone calls will be made, as they were to the left-wing think tank, Center for American Progress (CAP). It turns out that when CAP bloggers became critical of the Obama administration’s military actions in Afghanistan, senior officials at CAP were contacted by the White House. The bloggers were called on the carpet and “berated for opposing the Afghan war and creating daylight between us and Obama.” Again, no debate will be tolerated.

Adding to the real crisis, the U.S., led by Obama, is basing everything from crippling emissions standards of the EPA to rejection of the job-creating and energy-building Keystone pipeline on the myth of man-made global warming. After all, if elections are to be won based on myth, then sometimes real policy, no matter how devastating, must be pursued.

Also, low, or at least easily lowered, moral standards combined with powerful propaganda weapons make deception much less complicated. This has proven successful since Satan uttered, “Did God really say…” along with “You will not surely die…and you will be like God.”

Without the burden of absolute truth, liberals have been able to convince tens-of-millions of Americans that killing a child in the womb is not only permissible under virtually every circumstance, but a “God-given right.” Such deceit is still common today, even though with modern ultrasound technology and the like, the march of science has revealed what common sense and decent morality already told us: abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.

In the fantasy world put forth by liberalism, abortion isn’t the taking of a human life but merely the choice of a woman to do with her body as she pleases. In addition, this makes it easier to promote promiscuity onto young minds and bodies that are eagerly looking for justification to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and as often as they want sexually.

Such sexual “freedom” has also turned marriage into a farce. Thus, in the liberal land of fantasy, marriage can be defined to be whatever a culture wants it to be, as long as the definition is politically popular. Any attempt to limit marriage to a union of one man and one woman can then be labeled as “discrimination,” because liberals prefer the fantasy world of no “discrimination” to the real world where such things must be defined based on some real moral standard.

A world without such “discrimination” also means that we are not to differentiate stereotypically between humans born with a y-chromosome and those born without one. In other words, to require boys to look, act, and behave as boys (and likewise with girls) is “discrimination.” Young boys, then, who want to dress as girls, play girl sports, and use girl restrooms and locker rooms are expected to receive the full support of every institution and person they encounter.

There is no need for real victims of such “discrimination.” They can be manufactured as well. Anyone who has had his same-sex “wedding” ceremony shunned by businesses that don’t want to participate in something they deem sinful can claim “discrimination.” If enough “victims” to sell the myth can’t be found, they can just be completely made up.

“Hate-crime” hoaxes abound with liberals. Whether Matthew Shepherd, the latest campus racial incident, or the new “victims” of transphobia (in the fantasy world occupied by liberals, along with made-up crimes and victims, you need made-up words to help with the preferred narrative), the left can’t seem to help itself as they try to convince us just how corrupt traditional American values are.

Again, if only we could just shake our heads and get on our knees in prayer. However, laws are being passed and lawsuits are being filed. This isn’t about live and let live. This is black and white, right and wrong, myth and reality. Americans need to decide in which world they want to live.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

4 comments:

  1. "After all, for a nation stuck using 19th century tactics, it is very doubtful that the Russians, unlike American liberals, are committed to using women on the front lines."

    Ummm... Trevor, if not for Russian women fighting on the lines of the eastern front, Hitler would have taken Stalingrad and eventually all of Russia, -which would have provided the Nazis sufficient resources to effectively counter the threat from western forces in Europe. We owe our collective butts to the fact that over 800,000 Russian women did fight on front lines in WWII. The famous Russian statue "The Motherland Calls" is female for a reason. Read here if you want to learn:
    Link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II

    As for "19th century tactics", allow me to ask if our own tactics are more legitimate. ARE they more legitimate? Please refer to recent revelations discussed on the Monica Perez show (Exposing the Shadow Government in the Ukraine (and the US?): Podcast of March 8 program) regarding classified telephone calls recorded and released by Putin that prove US and western corruption and state-sponsored criminal acts are behind the revolutions in Ukraine, Syria, and Egypt. In one call, assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt are heard conspiring to install a shadow government in Ukraine BEFORE the uprisings that ousted democratically-elected President Yanukovych.

    In a second call, it becomes clear that the opposition forces Obama supports in Ukraine hired the snipers who killed their own people so that those murders could be blamed on Yanukovych. It is a cook-book revolutionary tactic that was repeatedly used in Egypt and Libya prior to Syria and Ukraine, -and the USA (specifically the neocon organization Project For A New American Century) is apparently behind all of it. This should be grounds for impeachment and prison for Obama and his neocon co-conspirators. Of course, republicans will never impeach Obama, he is one of their own.
    Link:
    http://themonicaperezshow.com/2014/03/08/whats-really-going-on-in-ukraine/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good to hear from you Kiev! (I saw your letter to The Times. Nice.)

    Yes, the Russians used women (as did other nations), but this was an act of desperation to fend off an invasion. To a great extent, and I will add tragically, the U.S. military has become a testing ground for left-wing social experimentation.

    As far as what is going on in Ukraine, I would put little past the Obama admn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the reply. The podcast of the Monica Perez show I linked in my earlier post contains shocking recordings released by Putin of private phone calls involving some of Obama's top officials that constitute damning evidence of criminal (not to mention immoral and dishonest) acts. If you get a chance, it is worth your time. The point I was making is that Obama is continuing the same regime change policies GW Bush originally implemented. This is happening even though Obama promised change that would take America in a new direction away from those policies. Obama and Bush are two sides of the same corrupt coin, and citizens didn't vote for that. There is no fidelity of the government to the constitutional will of the people, and this has been the case for at least 12 years. Oaths of office have been breached. My impression is you intend to avoid this particular subject, so I won't belabor the point here. Lastly, I have to wonder if it is mere coincidence that the story about the missing airplane in Malaysia broke just a day after these phone call recordings were released by Putin. The missing plane story pushed these revelations about Obama's involvement in Ukraine and Syria completely off the table. Too convenient in my opinion.

      Delete
  3. I've heard other interesting things about Monica Perez recently. (I think I first heard of her only a few weeks ago.) I'll try and check her out.

    I would not put Obama and Bush on the same side of any coin, but I understand your frustration.

    ReplyDelete