leftist insanity

...now browsing by category

 

Fiery Mexico Violence

Monday, September 3rd, 2007

From the Associated Press:

Police fired tear gas to prevent hundreds of leftist protesters from reaching the venue of an international folk festival in Oaxaca, in the worst outbreak of violence in the troubled Mexican city since November.

Some leftists in Mexico decided to start burning buses and causing violence. See the video.

Becky Garrison the anti-Christian propagandist

Thursday, July 26th, 2007

So on our Common Sense Journal myspace profile we got a friends request from Becky Garrison, the leftist “Christian” who has written a book that supposedly picks on both left wing and right wing Christians. From her myspace profile:

In my book Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church, I take aim at the battles between the warring political factions in America’s churches and illuminates both the plank in the Religious Right’s eye as well as the speck that blinds the Progressive Left.

The weird thing is is that I’ve already gotten a friends request from her on 4 or 5 different myspace profiles I run for other political organizations or religious web sites. Is she sitting there adding people all day? Or using a friend add bot?

I accepted her friends request and posted a comment. I said basically that who is she to say who has the speck and who has the plank in the eye? What’s worse, killing a baby via abortion or newborn murder (born alive infants) or throwing a baby into the dumpster (a left wing “virtue”), or wanting to lower taxes, a more conservative virtue? Isn’t it conservatives who have the speck, since they are at least not advocating murder and are for responsibility, and leftists who have the plank, who advocate abortion and are soft on crime such as murder and rape and try to find excuses to blame society or the victim?

What about conviction, the concept of sin and redemption, and personal responsibility?

I don’t necessarily toe the line on some Republican issues, for example, I am for the right for people to defend their house with a gun, but not for assault weapons. Not surprisingly, gnostic-”Christian” Brian McLaren has enorsed her book as well as a web site called Landover Baptist that bashes the church using the Straw Man fallacy, but doesn’t offer any good examples of a church. I also asked as a side note if she uses a Friend Adder bot since I’ve gotten so many requests from her on multiple profiles.

I predicted she wouldn’t approve the comment, since leftists only are tolerant if you agree with them, and therefore are not tolerant at all.

The next day she wrote back, after of course not approving the comment:

I don’t use a bot adder but add sites that I feel might want to dialogue – if you don’t want people adding you, then you can set your settings to private. BG

No duh! I didn’t mind the friend invite and I actually approved and commented. So I wrote back, paraphrase:

Becky Garrison:

I didn’t mind your friend invite, I was just wondering why you keep adding all these different profiles I run, and if you use a spambot or something. You say you want to dialogue, so then why didn’t you approve the comment? Do you only approve comments from atheists/leftists/gnostic christians, or people who disagree with you as well? Do you only appove comments that bash Christians? You didn’t approve our comment, but you approved a comment that featured a person throwing the cross into a garbage can. Interesting.

You don’t want dialogue, otherwise you would have e-mailed me and approved the comment. Feel free to post a comment on our profile, and we can respond for dialogue.

I didn’t hear back, so I went to my sent folder and noticed that she had blocked me. So much for “dialogue.” She doesn’t add people she wants to dialogue with, but rather she adds people to hawk her book that bashes anyone who is a follower of Christ who is also conservative and not a leftist. And if you post any dissention to her leftist and misguided/ignorant dogma on her myspace, she blocks you.

She wouldn’t approve a comment with meaningful dialogue about how she cherry picks from the bible and only quotes verses that agree with her leftist dogma (not really any verses like that, but they can be taken out of context and twisted to “fit” leftist stance. The devil tried to use scripture for his purposes as well). But Garrison approved the comment of a person throwing away the cross in a trash can, as well as these comments, all on her profile as of July 26, 2007, many of which are from many months ago. She could have deleted them or not approve them:

becky garrison myspace sicko
A person named Nick left this comment yesterday, which Garrison approved. Apparently Garrison’s version of “Christianity” involves torturing people. Interesting.

whores of babylon
The whores of babylon were sure to post a comment.

sex workers show
Garrison allowed the Sex Workers organization to promote their porn and prostitution on her myspace page. Didn’t Jesus say “go and sin no more” to the prostitute? Oh wait that would require common sense and a moral guide.

bush
Bush featured as a mullet-wearing inbred.

smoking pot
Garrison let someone promote illegal drugs on her profile as well.

castro
Someone supporting Fidel Castro the communist dictator and comparing some conservatives to a fictional villain from G.I. Joe commented this idiocy.

sicko porn promoting
Garrison let this “pornifier” promote himself on her profile, saying he has written a “sacrilegous work” that is pornographic.

bong
Another bong company.

bush
Comparing Bush to the devil is an lazy way of not actually debating.

idiots
Another violence-advocating image, this one features a bear mauling President Bush.

anti-semite
Uh oh, cue the obligatory leftist anti-Semitism! I wonder if Garrison owns a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

idiot
Classy.

dumb
Garrison approved a photo that makes fun of a girl crying.

seinfeld
Garrison let her profile promote a video that compares black people to monkeys.

classy
Classy.

atheists
Atheists promoting themselves and comparing a belief in a higher power to a belief in a flying plate of spaghetti.

truck
An image that makes fun of handicapped people, or is an advertisement for a spambot friend adder?

atheist idiots
An atheist promoting his site on Garrison’s profile calling Jesus Christ a “superfraud.”

sex workers
Yet another advertisement for a pornography business.

lie
An image falsely stating that America is the biggest purveyor of violence in the world. Actually, Islamic terrorism is.

So to summarize, Garrison pretends to be tolerant but only tolerates porn, dehumanization of women through prostitution, militant atheism, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic comments but won’t approve a comment that challenges her misguided/errant leftist dogma. She doesn’t add people to dialogue, but rather to hawk her book, even if those people she adds aren’t people but just other spammers.

Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer vs. Free Speech

Friday, June 22nd, 2007

Drudge linked to an interesting investigative piece that shows that 9 out of 10 of “journalists” who donated to political campaigns donated to Democrats. Surprise, surprise.

Now after hearing how talk radio in part helped inform the public about the idiotic shamnesty bill that congress tried to pass, some senators want to curb the freedom of speech of talk radio hosts in order to make the public less informed about the political process! So they can attempt to hoodwink the American public into accepting shamnesty, since if we have an open debate about it it’s obviously not going to pass. We need border security with a huge concrete fence, not reward criminals.

Since conservative talk radio is MUCH more popular to say the least than leftist talk radio, the markets have shown that conservative talk radio is more successful. No big deal. Conservative senators are not out calling for CNN to be banned and other liberal outlets to be curtailed simply because they dislike their bias. But we have two leftist senators–Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton, calling for “legislative fix” for talk radio! This is unconstitutional! The government cannot censor things just because they disagree with them. There are exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, libel, slander, false light, obscenity, but none of these apply. These two anti-free speech leftist Senators want to curb the freedom of speech of talk radio hosts because they disagree with them! What a bunch of fascist pigs!

Hear the radio interview.

Is YouTube Run by Extremist Leftists?

Friday, May 25th, 2007

It’s understandable for some companies from Silicon Valley to have a liberal bias, but this is over the line. Extremist leftist propaganda that compares Bush to a Osama Bin Laden? Nevermind that we try to not bomb civilians while terrorists actually aim to kill civilians. Then all the nutroot leftists comment on the video with ignorable lies. The “Stop the Clash” video is the video featured both on the front page list as well as the top director videos, hand picked by the people behind YouTube to be featured. The video blames America for the Sept. 11 attacks. As Jon Stewart told Susan Sarandon, asking “why they hate us” is like asking white the guys in hoods hate blacks. It’s just wrong, no asking “why.” Besides, they didn’t attack us because of real or perceived American “imperialism.” They attacked us because we’re not adherents of Islam.

YouTube Leftist Bias

 

Book Review: End of Faith by Sam Harris

Thursday, May 17th, 2007

I read The End of Faith, a book by a militant atheist named Sam Harris. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, is a meandering polemic against faith and people of faith.  It pretends to be “scientific” but ends up being even more unreasonable than most of the people he criticizes.  For example, he is against the idea of a divine creator of the universe, but he himself believes in psychic phenomena, reincarnation and other meaningless, improvable New Age bells and whistles, Eastern voodoo and “denying self consciousness” poppycock.  He brings up a few isolated incidents of extreme intolerance such as the Spanish Inquisition, where a few thousand people died in horrible and sickening murders, and then unscientifically generalizes those isolated incidents to “prove” that faith is the cause of all harm in the world.

If we look at it by the numbers, more people that DID NOT believe in God have murdered others than the number of believers who have taken up the sword.  Take, for example, the Nazi regime as well as the millions killed by the atheistic cult of Communism.  Stalin killed way more people than any believer in history.  Although fellow militant atheist Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett fail to realize this as well. 

How does Harris try to deflect this inconvenient truth?  He says that Communism was a “religion” too.  There are more recent examples as well.  It was two unbelievers–the Columbine killers–who denied God, or at least hated Him and murdered a Christian martyr for her belief.  Of course most Christians are smart enough to realize that this doesn’t make all atheists murderers, unlike Harris’ fallacy of association. 

The positive aspects of this text deal with his points against political correctness when it comes to criticizing Islam. 

He also points out how moral relativism is a self-contradictory stance, which is refreshing from someone who is secular. 

But his intolerance goes very far:

“Given the link between belief and action, it is clear that we can no more tolerate a diversity of religious beliefs than a diversity of beliefs about epidemiology and basic hygiene.” (46)

Harris notes that the Bush White House has small prayer groups and says that this should “trouble us as much as it troubles the fanatics of the Muslim world.” (47).

He compares believing in a higher power to believing in a Greek myth such as Zeus (47)

Crisis queen Harris also says we must stop believing in God or the we will not survive the next few centuries or even decades.  (47) 

“We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of our world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.” (48)

He also complains that kids are “killing themselves over their books.”  He does not point out that only Islamist suicide bombers are the only ones killing themselves for their book.

He points out that violent offenders are sometimes paroled to make room for drug offenders.  This is the either-or fallacy.  Why can’t we just make bigger jails?  What about crack cocaine, which ruins people’s lives?

Harris, after complaing about a few religious people in history who killed people for not believing (although non-believers have killed many more believers by far), he advocated killing people just for believing!: “Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people.  If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense.” (53)  So is Harris really advocating killing people because of something they believe, even if they are not threatening the non-believer? This is evil.

Unlike most of his liberal kin, Harris advocates more war: “We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.” (53)

On the positive note, Harris does point out how many liberals are unwary or unwilling to recognize the terror threat: “He [writer Paul Berman] also points out that liberal thinkers are often unable to recognize these terrors for what they are.  There is indeed a great tradition, in Berman’s phrase, of “liberalism as denial.”  The French Socialists in the
1930s seem to have had a peculiar genius for this style of self-deception, for despite the billowing clouds of unreason wafting over from the East, they could not bring themselves to believe that the Nazis posed a problem worth taking seriously.  In the face of the German menace, they simply blamed their own government and defense industry for warmongering.

Harris says, “What constitutes a civil society?  At minimum, it is a place where ideas,
of all kinds, can be criticized without the risk of physical violence.” (150) But wait a second, Harris just advocated killing people because of their ideas!

Harris goes beyond Glover’s (Humanity, 140) pining for a UN international force and world court and calls for one world government: “We can say it even more simply: we need a world government.” (151)

Complains that “we are the “last civilized nation to put ‘evildoers’ to death”
(157) and is against capital punishment but later justifies war deaths.

Harris then strangely tries to separate religion and mysticism: “Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not.  The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion.” (221)

Speaking of consciousness, Harris also states, “we know enough at this moment to say that the God of Abraham is not only unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.” (226)

Harris equates faith with “ignorance, hatred, greed” and even calls it “the devil’s masterpiece.” (226)

Harris then tries to blame all societies woes on the scapegoat of faith, even though non-faith has led to more death and misery. “Western leaders who insist that our conflict is not with Islam are mistaken; but, as I argue throughout this book, we have a problem with Christianity and Judaism as well.  It is time we recognized that all reasonable men and women have a common enemy.  It is an enemy so near to us, and so deceptive, that we keep its counsel even as it threatens to destroy the very possibility of human happiness.  Our enemy is nothing other than faith itself.”  (131)

While admitting that the Nazi and Soviet communist regimes were anti-Christian, he points out that some church leaders throughout history have been anti-Semitic and that the Nazis merely “inherited” this hatred from Christians.  Harris also blames the Holocaust on none other than the Jews themselves: “The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles on themselves.  This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth.  Prior to the rise of the church, Jews became the objects of suspicion and occasional persecution for their refusal to assimilate, for the insularity and professed superiority of their religious culture-that is, for the content of their own unreasonable, sectarian beliefs.  The dogma of a ‘chosen people,’ while at least implicit in most faiths, achieved a stridence in Judaism that was unknown in the ancient world.  Among cultures that worshiped a plurality of Gods, the later monotheism of the Jews proved indigestible.  And while their explicit demonization as a people required the mad work of the Christian church, the ideology of Judaism remains a lightning rod for intolerance to this day.” (93)

He also says, “It seems little wonder, therefore, that it has drawn so much sectarian fire.” (94)

Harris pretends the existence of children born with no limbs, species that no longer exist, and the emergence of Hitler and the H Bomb are proof that God does not exist, calling the consideration of free will bad philosophy and bad ethics. (173)

He also compares unborn children (human fetuses, blastocysts in his words) to non-human animals, saying we have to understand the relationship between mind and matter to know how we should treat them. (174) and he says to “not think.”

Harris calls the God of Abraham a “ridiculous fellow” and “capricious, petulant and cruel” (173)

Harris does finally admit there are many examples of good people with faith: “It is true that there are millions of people whose faith moves them to perform extraordinary acts of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others.  The help rendered to the poor by Christian missionaries in the developing world demonstrates that religious ideas can lead to actions that are both beautiful and necessary.  But there are far better reasons for self-sacrifice than those that religion provides.” (78) Harris never lists these reasons.

He calls people that have faith “mad.” (71-72)

Not surpisingly, Harris supports the killing of human embryos to learn more about the body.  He errantly says that the cells only have the potential to become a human being, but they are already a human being, scientifically.

He also misleadingly states that Christians would then believe that cells from a nose a humans as well, since we can take any cell and insert it into an egg using nuclear transfer to clone a person.  He mockingly asserts, “whenever the president scratches his nose he is now engaged in a diabolical culling of souls.” (166-167) No, Harris, a living embryo is a human being, a single nose cell is not.

He then lied and stated that the U.S. House of Representatives “voted effectively to ban embryonic stem-cell research on February 27, 2003.”  Did he lie? Yes. They may have curtailed federal funding for the killing of embryos, but it was not outlawed.

Wacko Harris then insanely says that a fly is worth more than a human embryo! “No rational approach to ethics would have led us to such an impasse.  Our present policy on human stem cells has been shaped by beliefs that are divorced from every reasonable intuition we might form about the possible experience of living systems.  In neurological terms, we surely visit more suffering upon this earth by killing a fly than killing a human blastocyst, to say nothing of a human zygote (flies, after all, have 100,000 cells in
their brains alone).”

He states that “the point at which we fully acquire our humanity, and our
capacity to suffer” remains an open question. Really? So a newborn is not a person? Peter Singer would agree.

He states that those which acknowledge life begins at conception have nothing but “ignorance” to bring to the debate and equates them with flat-earthers. (167) Give me a break. Science is on the pro-life side: human life, scientifically, begins at conception. Those that deny this are the flat-earthers.

He also complains about Bush’s opposition to abortion and calls it “unreason.”  (167) Do you really believe that? That saying it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being is unreasonable?

Overall, I did get some good points from Harris, but he fails to convince a reasonable person that religion has done more harm than good. To combat unreasonable intolerance, we should not preach more intolerance, as Harris does.  There’s also a helpful review of three of these books on National Review.

Evil Racist Kamau Kambon Calls to “Exterminate White People”

Sunday, May 6th, 2007

This is a clip from a few months ago on YouTube. Sickening and evil racicst activist and bookstore owner “Dr. Kamau Kambon, who taught Africana Studies 241 in the Spring 2005 semester at North Carolina State University spoke live on cspan” where he reveals his Nazi-like opinion to “kill all whites.” This is like C-Span covering a speech by a member of a neo-Nazi clan rally. If that happened it would be all over the news. I don’t remember hearing much about this a few months ago. Someone tell this guy to shut up, and for the guy in the audience to stop clapping. Evil racists.

Luckily, most video responses were negative of the racist. There were some comedic repsonses as well, like this one made by two African Americans making fun of black racists.

Video: Leftist Loons and Anarchist Goons

Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Zombietime is Hilarious

Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Some of the photos on zombietime.com are quite frightening, but the captions he puts on there are quite hilarious.  From the sickening pro-aborts at the Walk for Life rally, to the recent anti-Semite “anti-war” protestors who are not really against violence and intolerance since they are violent and intolerant as well.  From this post, my favorite quotes:  “Which pleople?” and “When a mask for the rally you select, into account its effect on people you must take.”  See link to understand.

Aliens Demand “Right” to Vote

Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

Give. Me. A. Break.

 

Anarchist Idiots Defile Capitol Steps

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

The Moron of the Moment award goes to a group of anarchists in Washington, D.C. From The Hill:

Anti-war protesters spray paint Capitol building
By Jackie Kucinich 
Anti-war protesters were allowed to spray paint on part of the west front steps of the United States Capitol building after police were ordered to break their security line by their leadership, two sources told The Hill.

According to the sources, police officers were livid when they were told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse andDeputy Chief Daniel Nichols.  “They were the commanders on the scene,” one source said, who requested anonymity. “It was disgusting.”

After police ceded the stairs, located on the lower west front of the Capitol, the building was locked down, the source added.

A second source who witnessed the incident said that the police had the crowd stopped at Third Street, but were told to bring the police line in front of the Capitol.

Approximately 300 protesters were allowed to take the steps and began to spray paint “anarchist symbols” and phrase such as “Our capitol building” and “you can’t stop us” around the area, the source said.

Morse responded to these claims in an e-mail Sunday afternoon explaining that the protesters were seeking confrontation with the police.

 Morse replied that anarchists were “looking for a confrontation” with police and added,

“It is the USCP’s duty and responsibility to protect the Capitol complex, staff and public while allowing the public to exercise their First Amendment rights … at the end of the day, both occurred without injury to protestors or officers.”

Yet, the sources who talked to The Hill were furious that protesters were not stopped before reaching the Capitol.

“To get that close to the Capitol building, that is ridiculous,” the second source said. “[Police] were told not to arrest anyone.”

The second source added that police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti.

Perhaps Mr. Morse needs a lesson in First Amendment rights. Speaking your mind, holding up signs, writing a letter to the editor–these are how civilized, intelligent people exercise their freedom of speech. Vandalism of public property does not fall under this. These are the same kind of anarchists who throw molotov cocktails in San Francisco, who throw bottles through store front windows, and who refuse to get a job and are a burden on society. What a bunch of idiots.  Can you imagine if this were a group of pro-life protestors? It’s not, because pro-life protestors believe in reason and most of them are intelligent. They protest orderly. Anarchists throw fake abortion balloons at them and try to attack them.

Michelle Malkin has photos of the anarchists.