HOW LIBERALS SUCCESSFULLY SILENCE DISSENT / Exclusive: Phil Elmore challenges conservatives to start fighting for keeps (WND-WORLD NET DAILY COMMENTARY) by PHIL ELMORE 05/03/12)
Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/how-liberals-successfully-silence-dissent/
WND} WORLD NET DAILY
WND} WORLD NET DAILY Articles-Index-Top
Publishers-Index-Top
Liberals adore the idea of silencing dissent. To this end, and
because they believe they hold the moral high ground when contending
with heartless, selfish, benighted conservatives, liberals will use a
combination of intimidation, threats and dishonesty to destroy or
remove any and all critics.
The Obama administration has tried several times to exploit this
tendency among its more ardent followers. There was the White House
email hotline, flag@whitehouse.gov; there was the running joke that
was “AttackWatch” and its Twitter account; more recently, Obama’s
flacks have been pushing the Orwellian “Truth Team.” Liberals are
also abusing Twitter’s spam-reporting system to trigger automatic
blocking of conservative Twitter accounts.
The goal, in every case, is to respond to the outrage that is
political dissent in Obama’s America. The means is to threaten, to
shout down and to shut up. Dare to express an opinion counter to Dear
Leader’s Democratic Party line? Obama demands his violent and foul-
smelling Occupy Wall Street rabble “get in your face” and yell at you
until you stop talking. This is the “Coming Obama Thugocracy” Michael
Barone predicted almost four years ago.
There was a time when liberals told us that criticizing judges for
their extra-constitutional interpretations of the law was tantamount
to agitating for those judges’ assassination. Today, those same
liberals attack the United States Supreme Court if they suspect there
exists even the possibility some of Obama’s unconstitutional
legislation may be found so. When Democrats did not hold the White
House, no less a lib luminary than Hillary Clinton famously screeched
that we are Americans, and we have the right to disagree with any
administration. Today, if you disagree with Obama, Democrat thugs are
supposed to “get in your face” and explain to you the error of your
ways.
There is no room for debate; there is no opportunity for discussion;
there is no way even to argue, no matter how passionately. No, if you
are a conservative, you are supposed to close your mouth-hole, and if
you don’t like it, Obama voters can find some union thugs, some club-
wielding racists, or some mob of whining communists to beat you until
you can’t speak.
Conservatives and libertarians are in part to blame for this wretched
state of affairs. We don’t fight well. We don’t stand up for
ourselves, nor protect our own. We harrumph and we cluck and we shake
our heads, refusing to challenge the logically flawed premises the
libs foist on us. We agree with liberal useful idiots that Rush
Limbaugh should not call a slut a slut, that what Mitt Romney does
with his money is a greater outrage than what Barack Hussein Obama
does with your money. We let the enemy frame the “debate.” We let our
opposition set the terms. We never simply stand up and say, “I reject
your flawed premise … and if you don’t get ‘out of my face,’ I will
drop you where you stand.”
Underlying Team Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America is a
secret language of the left, neither understood nor even recognized
by most Americans. This secret language – with roots in the teachings
of Marxist tyrant and mass-murderer Mao Zedong – is exposed as never
before in May’s groundbreaking issue of Whistleblower magazine,
titled “THE ALINSKY CODE.”
Overwhelmingly, we fail to combat the libs’ unctuous methods because
we can’t wrap our brains around the notion that liberals lie
pathologically, reason illogically and fight dishonestly. We keep
expecting rational explanations for irrational behavior. We are
doomed to frustration when we apply our morals to the liberals’
playbook.
Never was this more obvious than in Dan Savage’s recent attacks on
Christianity. Author, alleged journalist and “gay-rights” activist
Savage attended a high school journalism convention, pushing what he
claims is his “anti-bullying” program. Savage’s idea of fighting
bullying is apparently to bully, hector and insult the only religious
group one may still attack with impunity in the United States:
Christians.
Savage’s tirade about the ills of Christianity was so offensive, so
laced with profanity and so aggressive that it prompted a hundred
teenagers to walk out of the convention. Savage responded childishly
by further insulting those who left. He has since whined that he has
the right to “defend” himself. Just how vehemently insulting a group
of teenagers accomplishes this goal, or furthers the lofty ideal of
preventing and combatting bullying, is not clear.
More ironically, Savage failed to realize – while he was fighting to
take psychotic, rhetorical revenge on those he believes deny
sufficient affirmation for those lifestyles he approves – that he
wasn’t just attacking those awful, awful Christians. Statistically,
if 100 students walk out of a convention, there is a very good chance
at least a few of those 100 teenagers (Christian or otherwise) are
homosexuals. That’s right: Savage was insulting “gay” students,
demonstrating the tolerance and compassion liberals have for their
fellow human beings by openly and angrily bullying the very people he
claims to be helping.
Imagine the typical teenager. Teens struggle with a variety of
emotional issues, most of these attendant to the developmental
concerns of their age group. Add to the problems suffered by a
typical teenager the burden of grappling with his or her sexuality,
and you have someone who almost certainly sat in that audience
eagerly awaiting a message of strength, hope and inclusion. What
those teens who were also Christians got instead was a cruel act of
revenge, a bully behind a bully pulpit who did not care whose
feelings he hurt in pursuing his grudge against a religion he hates.
Acts like these, attempts to shout down, intimidate and otherwise
shut up anyone who does not share your ideology, are typical of
liberals in general. They are the stock in trade of political and
cultural operatives like Dan Savage, who last year told Bill Maher he
wished all Republicans dead. Online or in person, libs like Savage
want only one thing if you disagree with them: They want you to shut
the hell up, and they’ll scream at you, swear at you and insult you
until you do. They don’t care about collateral damage; they don’t
care if some of their own are bludgeoned with the weapon of their
caustic rhetoric.
Liberals care about only one thing: silencing political dissent. They
will use violence in word and deed to accomplish this. You have only
two choices in response. These are complacency or active resistance.
Choose. (© 2012 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. 05/03/12)
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY