Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

Entries in Liberals (5)

Saturday
Dec202008

Why We Love Conservapedia: Converting Liberals Through Death

Our favourite on-line encyclopedia continues to give us joy with its detailed examination of "Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?"

The Conservapedia team has now added the scientific study "What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?" Not quite sure of the methodology, apart from "making up a lot of numbers", but apparently 15% find the conservative light with the "loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values, as in losing a loved one to crime caused by pornography, drug addiction, gambling, etc."



Those dramatic findings in full:



  • 25%: raising or teaching children, and realizing how destructive liberal values are to many of them

  • 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the Bible to heart

  • 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values, as in losing a loved one to crime caused by pornography, drug addiction, gambling, etc.

  • 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values[1]

  • 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as youth was wrong

  • 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead

  • 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways

  • 5%: taking a truthful course in economics, or learning it in the workforce[2]


Monday
Dec152008

An Even More Scientific Update: Why Are There Non-Conservatives?

I know. In the face of Conservapedia's brilliance and truthiness, we should just pack up and go home. However, the latest addition to the discussion of "Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?", offered by one of Conservapedia's inner circle, deserves to be treasured for eternity:

It struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result of incipient or presenting mental illness. Just as it has been widely demonstrated that Liberal beliefs can lead to psychiatric conditions, so there might also be a reciprocal effect.


Sunday
Dec142008

Scientific Update: How Can There Be Non-Conservatives?

Conservapedia continues to amaze us with the rapid development of its special section, "Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?". We're especially impressed with the "scientific" calculations now defining the reasons for liberal deviance.

It's heartening, for example, to see that colleagues and I are responsible for "20% [who] refuse to let go of their...desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers", but I'm personally encouraged by "20% who] refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, to act in a way that conflicts with conservative values, such as irresponsible sexual promiscuity".

Of course, I have asked Mike Dunn to set up our own Enduring America poll to support Conservapedia's findings.



Those Scientific Findings in Full
  • 40%: did not hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them until after they made up their mind, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, and refuse to reconsider

  • 20%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, to act in a way that conflicts with conservative values, such as irresponsible sexual promiscuity

  • 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers

  • 10%: work in a job having a salary dependent on keeping conservatives out of power, such as public school teachers, and refuse to rise above self-interest

  • 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent, and refuse to rise above the animosity.

  • 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas.
  • Saturday
    Dec132008

    Why We Love Conservapedia: How Can There Be Non-Conservatives?

    Our favourite on-line encyclopedia, still reeling in disbelief at the election of Barack Obama ("an apparent Muslim, Obama could use the Koran when he is sworn into office"), has started a special section, "Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?" Answers include the contribution of Conservapedia founder and son of the legendary feminist-basher Phyllis Schlafly, Andrew Schlafly, "Self-destructive or contrarian behavior; some choose to do what is irrational."

    So far there are 18 reasons, but I'm certain Enduring America readers can make valuable additions to the list. (Indeed, I took the liberty of slipping in my own contribution, which sparked an inadvertently comic discussion amongst the Conservapedia moderators.)



    Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

    1. They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.

    2. They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.

    3. They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.

    4. They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.

    5. Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.

    6. They knew a conservative whom they dislike for some random reason.

    7. They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."

    8. They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.

    9. Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.

    10. Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.

    11. Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.

    12. Impressionable individuals buying into Bush derangement syndrome, and reacting with emotion rather than reason.

    13. A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.

    14. A disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.

    15. An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.

    16. Self-destructive or contrarian behavior; some choose to do what is irrational.

    17. Mind-altering drugs.

    18. Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

    Monday
    Dec012008

    Professor Values Watch: How the Academic Left Elected Obama

    Sometimes an article more than speaks for itself. Rest assured that we the evil professors --- previously outed by Conservapedia and by George Will --- did not vote for Obama because of Iraq, the War on Terror, the economic crisis, the rule of law, social provision, the tax system, health care, community service, education, or the perception that this might be a President of intelligence, ability, and a difference sense of justice and fairness than the current resident of the White House.

    We voted for him because he was a radical.

    And a darkie.


    November 18, 2008
    How the Academic Left Elected Obama
    By Paul Kengor
    American Thinker

    Of all the reasons why America voted the way it did on November 4, one factor stands out: young people and first-time voters turned out and voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama.

    MSNBC's exit polling, which is consistent with other exit polling, showed that voters aged 18-29, who made up nearly one in five voters -- or about 25 million ballots -- went for Obama by more than two to one: 66 to 32 percent. Those voters alone well exceeded Obama's overall popular vote advantage, which was roughly eight million. Likewise, 11 percent of voters were first-time voters, and they went for Obama at an even higher rate: 69 to 30 percent. Single (unmarried) voters, which constituted one in three voters, went for Obama 65 to 33 percent.

    While these categories are not monolithic, and overlap, they capture the current generation of college students, who clearly went bonkers for Barack Obama. Why? What are they learning -- and not learning?

    These youth live and learn on college campuses where "diversity" and "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" -- bogus buzzwords that apply only to ethnic, gender, and sexual diversity, not genuine diversity of ideas -- reign supreme. Racial diversity is at the crux of this academic trinity, the source and summit of the faith. It is the molten, golden calf, where much of the intelligentsia and their disciples gather to worship. Political correctness has supplanted traditional religion.

    Thus, when the university community was presented with Barack Obama, a charismatic, impressive, seemingly excellent Democratic presidential candidate -- who happened to be African-American -- the reaction was nearly reverential, bordering on idolatry. The good senator's bracing radical associations -- enough to deny any other American a security clearance -- and which were not coincidental to a man ranked the most leftist member of the most leftist Senate in U.S. history, didn't matter to the academic world. Quite the contrary, those who dared to point out these associations -- FoxNews, talk-radio, the McCain-Palin ticket -- were deemed loathsome Neanderthals deserving of being burned in effigy from the nearest dorm.

    That brings me to another factor in this milieu: McCain-Palin. Neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin resonated with this gang. Given the prevailing orthodoxy in the academic asylum, John McCain's moving personal narrative of military valor had little impact on the college crowd. That McCain was tortured by communists for six years didn't matter much to these people -- the same individuals who endeavor to boot ROTC from their campuses. And as for Sarah Palin, she represented the worst of pariahs at the faculty club: an evangelical so consistently, comically pro-life that she chose to do what 90 percent of women don't do when they're informed of a prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome child -- she delivered the baby. The feminine Palin is seen as an ideological ogre -- an eagerly acceptable target for a torrent of bigotry by the open-minded professoriate and its acolytes.

    This is the atmosphere in which these young people are being educated. That's what they're learning. Equally crucial to this election, however, is what college students are not learning:

    As I noted earlier, Americans don't care about Barack Obama's radical past, including his links to the likes of Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, and Saul Alinsky, because of the failure of our educational system to teach the lessons of the Cold War and horrors of communism. This is especially true of higher education, where the leftist worldview is so extreme and so upside down that America's professors share a hearty contempt not for communism but for anti-communism.

    Think about this: The current generation of college students was born after the fall of the Berlin Wall. These modern products of elite education are not Reagan babies. They were not inspired by the Westminster Address of June 1982, by the Evil Empire speech of March 1983, by Reagan meeting with Pope John Paul II to topple communism in Eastern Europe throughout the 1980s, or by Reagan in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 1987, demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev tear down that cement tombstone to human freedom. No, today's freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, who voted for the first time on November 4, 2008, were born after these historic events. They've received their education on communism from their professors, which means they've received either no education at all on the unparalleled slaughter formally known as Marxism-Leninism, or, to the contrary, they've heard only dark, dire lectures about the malevolence of anti-communism -- of McCarthyism.

    A deliciously fitting -- albeit depressing -- symbol of this came at the very moment that Obama's coronation was announced by the networks. A FoxNews camera-crew was outside the White House, where a contingent of hysterical students from George Washington University hopped up and down in sheer ecstasy. This was a most appropriate image, in light of the fact that it was such voters who delivered the presidency to Obama. I was struck, however, by the conspicuous presence of a beaming student wearing a red t-shirt with a giant Soviet hammer and sickle. No doubt, the young revolutionary was thrilling at the spectacle, awe-struck amid this sea of what his mentor, Vladimir Lenin, considered "useful idiots" -- i.e., naïve liberals incapable of realizing when they are supporting the communists' intentions.

    Ironically, the dupes of, say, the 1950s, would have recognized the young Bolshevik for who he was, but I seriously doubt that the typical student in that crowd had any idea of the true loyalties of their comrade, or sensed that they were celebrating arm-in-arm with a Marxist: Hammer-and-sickle? What's that?

    What's more, I would bet $100 that if some disgruntled conservative within the throng yelled out, "Hey, that guy is a communist!" one of the well-trained university brethren would have quickly denounced the conservative -- the anti-communist -- as the real villain in the mix. They have been carefully trained to view Joe McCarthy as more insidious than Joe Stalin.

    This is an abbreviated way of explaining why Barack Obama's communist connections didn't matter in this election, and how the Ivory Tower paved the road to victory. We won the Cold War but seem to have lost the long-term, crucial ideological struggle at home. We lost not on the battlefield but in the classroom. On November 4, it finally came back to bite us, and at a time (economically and politically) that couldn't be worse.

    Finally, I should add that I've received emails in the last couple of weeks from distraught conservative parents saddened to learn that their college-student children voted for Obama. They shouldn't be surprised; sadly, these parents have unwittingly paid for precisely this. In the vast majority of the nation's colleges, this is what their children are learning at a cost of the parents' lifetime savings. I'm reminded of the statement from the late atheist philosopher Richard Rorty, who said that the job of professors like him was "to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own" and "escape the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents."

    This has been the personal mission of many professors for decades now -- in flagrant violation of the scandalously fraudulent mission statements of the colleges where they teach. They've been enormously successful. The left's gradual takeover of academia is complete -- the Long March a stunning success. Behold: the presidency of the United States of America.

    The fruits of the left's dogged work were on display on November 4, 2008. And now, alas, to paraphrase the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, America's chickens have come home to roost.