Posts Tagged ‘Liberals’
Scientists at UCSD, Harvard have determined what I have suspected for a long, long, time. A given individual’s tendency to adopt liberal values with the accompanying mindset is based upon a genetic predisposition.
According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, ideology is affected by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4.
The researchers determined that people “with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults.” However, the subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.
“It is the crucial interaction of two factors — the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence — that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.
The study was led by UCSD’s James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.
“These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience,” said Fowler, who is a professor of political science and medical genetics.
The conclusion is that without this gene, a person’s tendency to adopt conservative thinking and the accompanying values are not predisposed by genetics; they are based solely upon life experiences, observation and education. By extension, a liberal’s reasons for becoming a Democrat is based less upon these reasons, driven by their genetic predisposition.
In short, liberals can’t help themselves. In addition, there is no use in trying to reason with them as their genetic makeup prohibit them from changing their minds, which is not totally their own to change.
While this study is only the latest, there have been others, some even conducted by clinical psychiatrists who describe them as having “strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded.”
Dr. Rossiter compares liberals to “spoiled, angry children,” who are rebelling against “the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”
You can read about Dr. Rossiter’s research and evaluation of the liberal mind here.
This might give a clue.
Massachusetts may be one of the most liberal states in the U.S. today. Some would argue for alifornia and they might be right, but most would agree Massachusetts ranks right up there at or near the most liberal.
So it really is no surprise that a school board in Massachusetts unanimously votes to offer free condoms to all students in the district without parental consent, sparking national outrage.
If that weren’t outrage enough, and to show there are other states vying for that number 1 slot of “Most Liberal”, the Fayetteville, Ark., Gay Pride Parade will be led by a young man who has made a career out of fighting for gay rights. That young man is 10 years old.
So what’s so wrong with the left, anyway?
Certain liberals of late have worked hard to label Tom Tancredo as a racist. The boneless finger pointing comes as a result of recent comment which he made at a Sarah Palin gathering where he spoke to the audience. The liberals use his comments about the number of uneducated voters who cannot speak English as their evidence.
I do not support Tancredo, but I find it difficult to leap to the same conclusion. While the Dems cry long and hard, getting their panties in a wad and frothing at the mouth while casting this baseless accusation, they have no problems affiliating themselves with a political party whose legacy on racism is appalling.
If liberals actually believed in what they spew, they would distance themselves from it, but they won’t.
So, let’s look back at the Republican Party’s record.
Mississippi Senator Trent Lott recently stepped down from his post as Senate Majority Leader because of racially offensive comments which he made. He was persuaded to take this step by Republicans who believed that his comments were at odds with the principles of their party.
Being the hypocrites they are, Democrats used the Lott affair to paint Republicans as racists. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who had first dismissed the idea that Sen. Lott was a racist, later claimed that his stepping down did not really address the Republican Party’s inherent racism. “Republicans have to prove, not only to us, of course, but to the American people that they are as sensitive to this question of racism, this question of civil rights, this question of equal opportunity, as they say they are,” Senator Daschle said. Among high-profile Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer offered similar comments.
Makes ya wanna puke, doesn’t it?
In both principle and practice, the Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race. Even more importantly, historically and enduring even today, the Democratic position represents racism of the most offensive sort—a patronizing racism that denigrates Blacks every bit as badly as the old racism of Jim Crow and segregation.
The Republican Party was founded on the basis of principles invoked by Abraham Lincoln who often referred to the Declaration of Independence. It can be said the principles of the Republican Party are the principles of the nation. Those principles clearly state that people have rights and that the only role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. They are the rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.
The Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a “positive good.” While Thomas Jefferson, the founder of what evolved into the Democratic Party, had argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the slave owner, John C. Calhoun, had turned this principle on its head: slavery was good not only for the slave holder, but also for the slave.
In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle.
When Strom Thurmond, the praise of whom landed Sen. Lott in hot water, ran a segregationist campaign in 1948, he ran as a Dixie-CRAT, not a Dixie-CAN. When he lost, he went back to being a Democrat. He only repudiated his segregationist views when he later became a Republican.
Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.
Indeed, the case of Sen. Byrd is instructive when it comes to the double standard applied to the two parties when it comes to race. Even those Democrats who have exploited the Lott affair acknowledge that he is no racist. Can the same be said about Sen. Byrd, who was a member of the KKK and who recently used the “n” word on national TV?
“Ah, but this is all in the past,” say the Democrats. “Now we push a pro-African-American agenda.” But the reality differs significantly from the claim.
Take the issue of education. The single biggest obstacle to the achievement of true equality in the United States is not poverty, but education. If Democrats sincerely wished to help the minority children on whose behalf they claim to labor, they would embrace school choice to help such children escape the trap of sub-standard schools. But that would offend the teachers’ unions upon which the Democrats depend for financial and “in-kind” support. So as has often been the case with the group politics of the Democratic party, African-American interests are sacrificed to other groups who have more pull.
“Affirmative action” has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It represents the kind of paternalistic racism that would have done honor to Calhoun. For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a “color-blind society” that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as “Uncle Toms” of “Oreos” by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
If we need the perfect symbol for the true character of the Democratic Party when it comes to race, we need look no farther than Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy. Rep. Kennedy portrays himself as a friend of African-Americans. But his touching solicitude for African-Americans as a group is gross hypocrisy. When inconvenienced by a real African-American woman trying to do her job, Rep. Kennedy shoved her out of his way, giving her arm a yank for good measure. In practice, the Democratic Party as a whole cares as much about real African-Americans as Rep. Kennedy does.
THIS is a Democrat’s idea of democracy in America, 2010.
He will not be missed as his behavior represents just what is wrong with congress today. Indeed, he is a scumbag.
This idiot can’t determine the difference between “there” and “their”. T-shirt says it all.
On the evening of April 14, 2009, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.
Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.
Tancredo was brought to campus by a UNC chapter of Youth for Western Civilization, a national organization of students who oppose mass immigration, multiculturalism and affirmative action.
Inside the classroom, several student protesters screamed curses at Tancredo and Riley Matheson, president of the UNC-Chapel Hill chapter of Youth for Western Civilization.
“This is the free speech crowd, right?” Tancredo joked.
“Fascists are fascists,” Tancredo said. “Their actions were probably the best speech I could ever give. They are what’s wrong with America today. … When all you can do is yell epithets, that means you are intellectually bankrupt.”
UNC graduate student Tyler Oakley, who had organized the protest, said he regretted the broken window but not silencing Tancredo. “He was not able to practice his hate speech,” said Oakley. “You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak.”
A former congressman is invited to speak on a very important topic for all of us only to be shouted down by oppressive, emotionally immature, idealistic youth agitated by their professors to disrupt. Very nice.
Tancredo spoke about the shout-down on Fox News and said their professors were in the audience and incited and participated in the ensuing mini-riot.
So what are our professors teaching our youth? Is it that it’s acceptable to oppress free speech? Or perhaps it is to use emotion and violence as a tool of debate instead of engaging in intellectually driven dialog and – oh God – usher in real and meaningful change?
Folks, we are at a cross roads here. These kids – these morons taught by intellectually lazy professors bent on saving their tuition-driven salaries are our future. Some of them will even find their way into politics. These are our future leaders.
To know what this brings, we only have to look at the White House.