Here Are The Top 10 Questions To Ask A Liberal
Brian Anderson over at Downtrend has ten questions that liberals can’t answer, and they are spot-on. Ask your liberal friends a few of these questions, grab the popcorn, and enjoy!
10. How many people should we let into this country?
Liberals want amnesty for the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living in America. Let’s say that happens, then what? Do we grant amnesty to the next 20 million illegals that come looking for a better life? There are over 7 billion people on the planet, most of which would certainly have a better life if they moved to the US. I’ll ask again: how many of these people should we let immigrate to our country?
9. How are rules that apply equally to everyone discriminatory and racist?
Liberals say that everything from the justice system to education is racist. They whine that voting laws that apply to everyone equally are somehow discriminatory. Why? I have no idea. If everyone is playing by the same rules there is no disputing that the playing field is level.
8. How are rules that only apply to one group of people not discriminatory and racist?
Affirmative Action set quotas for minorities in hiring and college admissions. Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper program gives funds and opportunities to people of color. There are literally hundreds of liberal programs available to minorities only. Do not disadvantaged white people deserve the same help?
7. Do you know what a pyramid scheme is?Wikipedia tells us: A pyramid scheme is an unsustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public. The people at the bottom of the pyramid do all of the paying and never reap any benefits. Sounds an awful lot like ObamaCare, doesn’t it? In the private sector a pyramid scheme is fraud but when the government does it it’s called progress.
6. Why is it okay to kill unborn children but wrong to kill convicted murderers?
Liberals love abortion but hate the death penalty. Seems a little hypocritical since both involve the taking of a human life. The only difference is, unborn children haven’t viciously murdered anyone. Why do liberals deem the life of a killer more important that that of an innocent child?
5. How does stagnating growth stimulate the economy?
High taxes and needless regulations are two things liberal lawmakers can’t get enough of. They are also the two things that hurt business growth the most. I don’t know if the libs are aware of this, but businesses are those things that give people jobs. When people have jobs, they have money to spend. Our economy grows when more people have jobs and spend money. This is not my opinion; it’s a fact.
4. Does it make sense to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result?
The social safety net, which includes welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and a whole host of liberal entitlements, has failed in its stated goal to pull people out of poverty. Instead, these programs have had the opposite effect, creating generations of people that are utterly dependant on government handouts. If these programs don’t work, why should we continue them? Do liberals think that they’re bound to work eventually? Even worse, they want to expand these failed programs. Now that really is the definition of insanity.
3. How will punishing law-abiding people stop criminals from breaking the law?
Every liberal gun control law either passed or proposed places arbitrary restrictions on law-abiding citizens. These laws don’t apply to criminals because, by their very nature, they don’t follow laws. If someone is going to commit a murder or assault, do you think they care if their weapon of choice isn’t compliant to the local ordinance? No one has ever said, “I was going to rob that liquor store but the only gun I have holds more than seven rounds and that’s illegal in New York.”
2. How can you count to ten if you skip the number two?The first ten amendments of the US Constitution are known as the Bill Of Rights. These enumerated rights were laid down by our Founding Fathers because they felt each of them was essential to ensure we live in a free society. Liberals are enamored with all of them except the 2nd, which guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. They say all of the other amendments confer individual rights, yet claim the 2ndAmendment is a collective right that allows only the government to possess arms. Why would the Framers list 9 individual rights, and one government right? Liberals also don’t seem to understand that the 2nd Amendment protects all the others. Tyrants can’t take speech and voting rights away from an armed populace.
1. Why was George W. Bush a bad President but Barack Obama is a good one?
To liberals, George W. Bush was the Devil incarnate. Their biggest beefs were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bank bailout, and Guantanamo Bay torture. When Obama took office he escalated the war in Afghanistan, gave even bigger bailouts, and after 5 years in office still hasn’t closed Guantanamo Bay. On top of that, Obama ignores the Constitution, spies on every single American, kills women and children with drone strikes, and has saddled the country with a health care law that will bankrupt the middle class and require an insurance company bailout of epic proportions. I’d say, even to liberals, Bush Jr. looks pretty good by comparison.
Liberal policies are filled with contradictions and hypocrisy all over the place.
Found this HERE.
WH Plans to Develop a “Country Within a Country” of 15 Million “New Americans”
The White House has plans to legalize 13 to 15 million illegal immigrants who will then establish a “country within a country.”
The following Mark Levin interview with Susan Payne is shocking but it also puts all the pieces into place.
Susan Payne is a contributor to WCBM, Baltimore and Co-Host of the Pat McDonough Radio Show,
Unbeknownst to the Obama officials, Ms. Payne was invited to listen in on conference calls at an immigration rally. Cecilia Munoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, and 16 members of the White House cabinet were on the first call. White House officials were on all three calls. What Ms. Payne learned needs to be immediately shared with Congress and the public.
It should be noted that Ted Hayes, founder of America’s Black Shield, also listened in on these calls.
The “Task Force of New Americans” and the “Receiving Communities” are part of a plan by the Obama administration to develop a “country within a country” which will eventually form a new, and instantly fundamentally transformed United States.
The conference calls and meetings surrounding the task force made it clear Barack Obama is planning to legalize and protect 13 to 15 million illegal immigrants who will then be moved onto citizenship.
When these “new Americans” come out of the shadows, the communities in which they’ve been placed will be designated as “receiving communities.”
The “new Americans” are considered “seedlings” by the White House and the “receiving communities” are the “fertile ground” to nurture them, according to comments made during the meetings.
Citizens will then be pushed into the shadows as the “New Americans” come out of the shadows.
One member of the task force said they will be forming a “country within a country”.
At the meetings, it was said that “immigrants need to be aware of benefits they are entitled to”.
The participants in the meeting also discussed the fact that these immigrants would not be interested in assimilating. They would “navigate not assimilate”.
Obama’s plan is to treat the “new Americans” as refugees as soon as amnesty is pushed through.
Refugees are given an allowance, housing, food, medical care, education, and an immediate pathway to citizenship.
The meeting participants also discussed the need to convince state and local officials to give no interest loans to the “refugees.” This way we can fund our own destruction.
Video and more found HERE.
Why Rudy and Walker Were Right
This week, the media broke news that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, at an event attended by prospective Republican presidential candidate Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, that he does not believe President Barack Obama “loves America.” This isn’t news. Barack Obama doesn’t love free enterprise, believes founding philosophy was fatally flawed and sees the American people as rubes with antiquated religious and racist tendencies. Sure, we can all agree that Obama likely loves America’s scenery; perhaps he loves America, but doesn’t like her very much. But that’s not what Giuliani was talking about, and everyone knows it.
But in any case, Giuliani wasn’t the media’s true target. The true target was Walker.
Using Giuliani’s comments as a springboard, media members went hunting for a faux pas from Walker. They asked him whether he thinks Obama loves America; Walker responded, quite rightly, “You should ask the president what he thinks about America. I’ve never asked him so I don’t know.” They asked him whether he believed Obama was a Christian; Walker answered, “I don’t know. … You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that.”
For the media, this represented a “gotcha” moment. Anyone who doubts President Obama’s love of country must be pilloried as cruel and inhumane. Anyone who doubts the religious sincerity of a man who invoked Christianity to support lies about his support for traditional marriage, a man who recently compared Christian history with the acts of ISIS, must be publicly scourged.
Naturally, many Republicans have eagerly jumped on the bandwagon. George F. Will said that all Republicans should say that Obama is a patriot (a strategy that worked brilliantly for John McCain in 2008). Matt Lewis of The Daily Beast wrote that no candidate should question anyone’s patriotism or stated faith. The premise seems to be that failing to demonstrate such goodwill touches off media conflagrations that damage conservatives overall.
This misses the point.
Democrats have for years been questioning the decency of Republicans as human beings.
During the Obamacare rollout, President Obama accused Republicans of wanting to deprive people of healthcare; he openly accused President George W. Bush of being “unpatriotic” for raising the national debt. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that Republicans are “indifferent” to hungry and poor children. Anyone who opposes any aspect of President Obama’s agenda has been deemed a racist.
The point here is not the media’s double standard, which is egregious but unchangeable. The point is that this perception of Republicans has pervaded the public arena. Republicans’ fundamental burden is not explaining to the American people that Democrats are great people, but wrong on policy. Their great burden is overcoming the generalized perception that they are money-grubbing Snidely Whiplashes bent on strapping widows and orphans to the train tracks.
You cannot overcome that perception by ardently pleading that the very folks who call you racist, sexist, homophobic bigots are well-intentioned but incompetent. If someone calls you a racist, and you respond by stating that they are a reasonable human being with policy differences, you grant their premise: A reasonable person has called you a racist, which means it is reasonable to call you racist. You lose.
And Republicans have been losing, at least in large part, because they grant the fundamental premise of the left: Democrats are well-meaning, even when they are wrong, and Republicans have evil intentions, even when they are right. That is a recipe for disaster in a country where intentions matter more than actions.
Taken from HERE.