Being a Liberal 

Means having a "moral code" which everyone but a "liberal" is subject to

1. Only Liberals Could Think BANNING School Prayer is How Christian Children Achieve Free Exercise of Religion.

2. Only Liberals Could Think that There Is no Difference Between Catholics and Protestants.

3. Only Liberals Could Think that jews are "g-d's Chosen RACE".

You Know You're *STUPID* If:

You Know You're Conservative If:

A Republican, in a wheelchair, entered a restaurant one afternoon and asked the waitress for a cup of coffee. The Republican looked across the restaurant and asked, "Is that Jesus sitting over there?"
  
      The waitress nodded "yes," so the Republican requested that she give Jesus a cup of coffee, on him.
  
     The next patron to come in was a Libertarian, with a hunched back. He shuffled over to a booth, painfully sat down, and asked the waitress for a cup of hot tea. He also glanced across the restaurant and asked, "Is that Jesus, over there?"
  
   The waitress nodded, so the Libertarian asked her to give Jesus a cup of hot tea, "My treat."
  
    The third patron to come into the restaurant was a Democrat on crutches. He hobbled over to a booth, sat down and hollered, "Hey there honey! How's about gettin' me a cold mug of Miller Light?" He too looked across the restaurant and asked, "Isn't that God's boy over there?
  
    The waitress nodded, so the Democrat directed her to give Jesus a cold beer. "On my bill," he said loudly.
  
        As Jesus got up to leave, he passed by the Republican, touched him and said, "For your kindness, you are healed." The Republican felt the strength come back into his legs, got up, and danced a jig out the door.
  
     Jesus passed by the Libertarian, touched him and said, "For your kindness, you are healed." The Libertarian felt his back straightening up and he raised his hands, praised the Lord, and did a series of back flips out the door.
  
     Then, Jesus walked towards the Democrat, just smiling.
  
       The Democrat jumped up and yelled, "Don't touch me ... I'm collecting disability."

You may be a Liberal if you believe.....

Date: 9/17/00 11:18

That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really want
to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him your
wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.

That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
attributable to the lack of gun control.

That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if
shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to
world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear
weapons.

That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be
ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc.
is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms
control summit.

That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering
butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, and
Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the
people to be secure in their homes," refer to individuals, but "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.

That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a
National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.

That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property
leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal
government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia
purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and
private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military
weapons.

That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for
possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to
have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.
>>
That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a
gun.

That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights
and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable
solution to the "gun problem."

That Illinois' law that allows any government official from Governor to
dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any
private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million
dollar jewelry business, is reasonable.

That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers,
and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.

That with the above, a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and his 300
lb. buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses
only her bare hands.

That Sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex, but gun
safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence.

That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government
forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is
responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school
shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward
availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
shooting spree at any time, BUT anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.

That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that
cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers
involved with guns.

That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids
handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a
"don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is responsible social
activity.

That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and
the increase in crime requires more gun control.

That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and
statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control
are "just statistics."

That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but
in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of
society.

That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use
them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun
shows.

That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only
has 3 million of them.

That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need
guns.

That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can
confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that
constitution.

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, yet a woman with a
gun is "an accident waiting to happen."

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gun makers'
advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that goes 70 mps and
only has 20.

That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population used to support owning slaves.

That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy
has machinegun-toting guards.

That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns,
which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a
woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of
the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it uncompromisingly defends
certain parts of the Constitution.

That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just
like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.

That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger
capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals
alone, and therefore need less ammunition.

That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue
cops beer instead of guns.

> LETTER
>
>              Why Liberals Prefer Unarmed Victims
>
> Thank you for continuing to run Mr. Scamihorn's hate speech. 
> As offensive as it is to civilized people, it does provide a
> valuable insight into the mental makeup of the modern
> liberal.  It really is well to know what one is dealing
> with.
>
> Mr. Scamihorn begins with 'Perhaps you should censure all
> free speech, along with mine, that you and your 2nd
> Amendment gun-toting vigilantes FEAR, and return this
> society back into the days of "Might is Right", and "White
> is Right"'
>
> This is rich, coming from a liberal, whose "politically
> correct" speech enforcement gets people censored on a
> regular basis for not conforming to the liberal party line. 
> They consider any disagreement with them to be censorship
> while censorship is their stock in trade.  But one can make
> any accusation when one feels no sense of hypocrisy. 
>
> As far as his "free speech" us "2nd Amendment gun-toting
> vigilantes FEAR," there really isn't much to fear from
> hateful vulgarisms that make no sense.  No, it isn't fear,
> its something else.  Such "free speech" is about as useful
> to a forum for civilized discourse as the ravings of any of
> the socialists, whether National or International.
>
> Then he accuses others of having "hate-filled eyes and
> ears."  I'm sorry, but the only evidence of hate-filled eyes
> and ears so far has come from Mr. Scamihorn.  I'll grant
> that others have taken him at his word and discussed in a
> serious way what he says, but that comes with the territory. 
> What can you expect when someone is as deliberately
> offensive as Mr. Scamihorn.  Hey, if you can't take the
> heat, stay out of the kitchen.  But if you want to stay I
> the kitchen, be mature and understand that others may
> respond to what you say.
>
> I mean, how should one respond to something like this?: 
> "With both, you and charlatan Heston will rule the world.
> (charlatan, n., from It. charliatano, a quack: one who makes
> untruthful pretensions; an imposter)"
>
> He has deliberately misspelled Charlton as charlatan so he
> can give a suede-scientific air to name calling. 
> Intolerance of this nature is typical of liberals, for what
> else can they do?  And he signs his letters "Respectfully." 
> Obviously not.
>
> On the gun issue Mr. Scamihorn is so upset about, all the
> facts support the rule of law, not his urge to violate it. 
> The fact that the Second Amendment is part of the Supreme
> Law makes him no difference.  There is no loyalty to the
> Constitution liberals so often appeal to at other times.  In
> articles surrounding his diatribes the facts come out that
> his "gun control" raises the crime rate, resulting in
> thousands more robberies, rapes and murders of innocent
> people. 
>
> How would you like to argue in favor of that, based on the
> available facts?  You wouldn't, right.  So why would a
> liberal?  Attempting to discuss the subject with facts would
> mean instant defeat.  So they do the only thing they can do. 
> Since they know and don't care that their agenda will result
> in thousands more robberies, rapes an murders, they argue
> instead from emotional screech.  They pretend they are more
> ignorant than any person can really be, and hold a straight
> face while making the most preposterous emotional spasms
> imaginable.
>
> Here is one:  "As for me, I prefer peace, understanding and
> a sensible solution to violence that has grown to epedemic
> proportions due to the readily accessibility to lethal
> weapons. Fight fire with fire???  I don't (expletive
> deleted) think so.  This is 2001. "
>
> That first sentence contains two things totally unrelated,
> but joined anyway.  Who would use "peace, understanding and
> a sensible solution" while a liberal is murdering their
> children in the living room.  When your child cries out
> "Daddy, help me," you use "peace, understanding and a
> sensible solution" to make the burglar quit stabbing?  I
> don't think so, and no one has to delete expletives from
> what I say.  But what does the liberal do?  They scream,
> they plead, the cover their ears, they shamelessly escape
> "to call the police," and later falsely claim that there was
> nothing they could do.  And because liberalism is so
> entrenched in this country they are never arrested for child
> neglect.
>
> But the second half that "appears" to justify the first
> half; "... to violence that has grown to epedemic (sic)
> proportions due to the readily accessibility to lethal
> weapons." falsely implies that violence is up due to greater
> availability of firearms instead of liberalism.  If violence
> is at epidemic proportions today, what was it in 1968? 
>
> In 1968 a ten year old boy could put a $10 bill in an
> envelope and receive a fine rifle or revolver by mail.  Now
> is that availability or not?  What was the level of violence
> at that time, with that kind of availability, compared to
> today?
>
> It's a fair question relative to the statement.  But you
> won't find liberals lining up to answer it, for it makes
> clear that availability of firearms has nothing to do with
> violence.  If availability produces the violence, then why
> do the cities which pass the strongest "gun control" laws
> achieve such high crime rates afterward?  Any liberals want
> to tackle that one?  No?  Well, why did the gun crime rates
> in England and Australia jump after the victims were
> disarmed?  Come on, any liberals want to discuss the issues? 
> No?  Didn't think so!
>
> And THAT is why we have people like Mr. Scamihorn resorting
> to verbal jibes and barbs fighting words instead of
> discussing the subject in a civilized way.  That is all they
> have to go on.  It is good to see their true nature exposed
> by careless people like Mr. Scamihorn.  So I'm glad to see
> his letters published
>
> If you want to know why the average liberal supports "gun
> control" (victim control), consider where Al Gore got his
> votes.  Statistic out after the election show the counties
> going to Gore have a crime rate approximately nine times
> those filled with "gun toting vigilantes" going to Bush. 
> The reason they want "gun control" is so they won't get shot
> while doing what they do.  Have you noticed in previous
> letters that Mr. Scamihorn has a violent streak and a very
> short fuse?  Violent people prefer disarmed victims.  They
> also judge everyone by themselves, and know THEY can't be
> trusted with a gun, so assume that no one can.
>
> By the way, since he implied that gun owners were racists, I
> think it germane to remember that the first "gun control"
> laws in this country were enacted by Klan controlled state
> legislatures to prevent ex-slaves from being armed and
> equal.  And of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 was
> modeled after Adolph Hitler's own.  So now who is the
> racist?
>
>      Fred Eckert
>      Racine, WI

From - Sat Apr 12 18:25:04 1997 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [206.241.12.2]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA15529; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.1b97218e@vms.dc.lsoft.com>; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:59:51 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV release 1.8c) with NJE id 6627 for WITCHHNT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 11:00:47 -0400 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with BSMTP id 2555; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:59:13 -0400 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Sat, 12 Apr 97 10:59:12 EDT Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id KAA16037 for WITCHHNT@mitvma.mit.edu; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970412105801_1411583068@emout07.mail.aol.com> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:58:03 -0400 Reply-To: Kcwrd@AOL.COM Sender: Is there a child sex abuse witchhunt? From: Kcwrd@AOL.COM Subject: Liberal approach has failed kids To: WITCHHNT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU X-UIDL: 96e6117a86b2b4d82962037ff8867202 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 4059 The following was published in The Denver Post. Copyright Creators Syndicate. For too long, Democrats and their liberal allies in the policy world have held high morale ground on the subject of children. It's time for Republicans to stop being intimidated. The liberal child-welfare regime in America has been a terrible disaster, and only those unblinkered by ideological commitment to the status quo can achieve the reforms that are so urgently needed. According to a new study by Dr. Carol Statuto Bevan of the National Council for Adoption, five children die every day at the hands of their parents or caregivers. Fully half of the 2,000 children killed this way every year are already known to the child-welfare systems of their states. For every child who is killed, many more are beaten, starved and raped. How is it possible that so many children are being left in clearly dangerous homes by a social services system that is meant to protect them? Bevan explains it. The current child-welfare regime, enshrined into federal law in the (ironically titled) Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, is based on the liberal illusion that there are no bad parents, only bad circumstances. If people are torturing or starving their tiny babies, it is because the "system" has failed to give them adequate support. The short-term infusion of services (so-called "family preservation") will help to get the family back on their feet, and the abuse will stop. Foster care and adoption, by contrast, represent "failures" of the system and are to be avoided at all costs. As Elizabeth Barholet, a family law specialist at Harvard Law School, has written, "Policy-makers in this country are overwhelmingly committed to family preservation. . . . The Children's Defense Fund, the Child Welfare League of America and the Clinton administration have tended to equate child welfare with biological family preservation and have done nothing to promote adoption as a means of guaranteeing children's rights to a nurturing home. Abundant research now bolsters what common sense suggests: Family preservation is a failure. Having a bunch of social workers show an abusive mothers how to shop for groceries and punish with "time outs" does next to nothing to prevent further abuse. Some families are simply not salvageable. But the children must be rescued. Bevan's proposed reforms give a flavor of how bad the current regime is. She suggests a child-welfare system based upon the safety and well-being of the child rather than the family. "A child-centered model," she writes, "would establish a 'one strike and your out' policy for some egregious forms of maltreatment. For example, a baby that has been sexually abused should never be returned. . . . There should be a presumption to terminate parental rights when a child has been tortured, abandoned, or a sibling has been killed. Parents should not be given repeated chances at rehabilitation before termination of parental rights is considered in cases of starvation or incest." Has it really come to this? It has. Because the system is so biased -- financially and ideologically -- against terminating parental rights and placing needy children in permanent adoptive homes, children are spending more time than ever in foster care, while the percentage of children who leave the system through adoption is declining. How can liberals, who pride themselves on their concern for the poor and the weak, have created a system that sends victims back to their abusers? Is it perhaps an unwillingness to pass judgment on the poor (since they make up the largest percentage of abusers)? Whatever the cause, Republicans can find an excellent guide to reform in Bevan's monograph, which you can order through the National Council for Adoption (202-328-1200). If Republicans can stand up for abused and neglected children, lives will be saved. And it just might give the Republicans can themselves some much-needed moral confidence.

Copyright @ 2010 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party