Thought Crime Act of 2009

Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.
-- Nineteen Eighty-Four

It's amazing to see how far we've come since George Orwell published his sadly prescient, dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Sadly, we have yet another example of the United States' government enacting legislation which is designed to control not just the speech and actions of the citizenry, but their very thoughts. Of course, in today's politically correct version of Newspeak, such legislation is called "Hate Crimes."

Sadly, as socialist (both the economic and social varieties) gain more and more power in this country, such concepts gain greater and greater traction and acceptance.

But back on point, The Chosen One has recently signed a new law (the law was signed on 10/28/2009) which does two things: the first is add additional money to the fiasco in Afghanistan and the second is attack the very central concepts of free speech in this country.

It's amazing how Congress can design a law which is able to do two incredibly different things, both of which inherently destroy as many lives as possible.

Anyways, the Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, henceforth known as the CrimeThink Act of 2009, expands the 1969 Federal Hate-Crime Law to:

• include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability
• removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity (such as voting)
• gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in thought crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue
• provides $10,000,000 in funding for 2008 & 2009 to help state/local agencies pay for investigating thought crimes
• requires the FBI to track statistics on thought crimes against transgender people (other "protected" groups are already tracked)

Probably what amuses me the most about this rather un-Constitutional law is who it is named after. Sure, James Byrd, Jr. and Matthew Shephard were killed due to the thought crimes as described in the CrimeThink Act of 2009, additionally, those individuals responsible for killing the two in question were never charged under a thought-crime legislation.

Of course the simple fact that there was no thought crime legislation under which they could be flogged didn't stop their killers from being caught, tried and convicted.

But hey, what does that matter to those evil folks who push thought crime legislation through our governments? They care less about the fact that those responsible for killing someone were arrested, tried and convicted than they do that they weren't arrested, tried and convicted for saying things that they don't agree with.

Above all of this, heck, even above and beyond the concept of free speech, this is something which the United States Federal Government should have never brought to life. It is inherently un-Constitutional for reasons even above and beyond the free speech one.

First, there are serious repercussions regarding double jeopardy. The way this law is worded, Federal Prosecutors could charge, and convict, someone for a thought-crime, for which said person was acquitted of the actual crime.

Think about that: you could be charged and convicted because of THOUGHTS which lead to the beating/death of someone, for which you are legally (and possibly even actually) innocent of. Worse, you would receive a lengthier sentence than if you had been convicted of the actual crime of beating/killing someone.

Now think about this, our Constitution provides clear and concise limits on the power that Congress has. There are things Congress is allowed to do and things that it is not allowed to do. This concept was reaffirmed back in 1994 in United States v. Lopez. Of course, Congress has ignored the concept once again as it scrambles to draw more power to itself.

The thing is that back when the Constitution was actually relevant to our way of life, one knew that police powers were almost exclusively within the domain for the States. Additionally,it has long been understood (at least until Thought Crime legislation started making the rounds) that (and here I'm quoting the dissenting opinion of Justice Frankfurter for the case: W.Va. State Board of Educ. v. Barnette) "Law is concerned with external behavior and not with the inner life of man."

Why have we forgotten that?

Oh wait, we haven't--provided that the law in question is related to sexual deviancy, or what two consenting adults choose to do within the confines of their own home. Of course, simple things such as your thoughts and beliefs, well, you'd have better luck asking for a fire to not burn you than expect the government to not try and control what you think and believe.

And that has become a fundamental aspect of our rulers: they want to control every aspect of our lives. They expect us to bow and kowtow to their whims on everything to how we can improve our personal property to whether or not we have health care insurance.

Such tryanny used to be called such. It used to be understood in this country that totalitarian regimes were not a good thing.

Sadly, such wisdom has been lost in our leaders rush to provide us with such a thing.

A Clinton That Is Right?

Who knew that this day would come? Who could imagine that such a piece of Constitutionally CORRECT information would ever emerge from a politician's mouth, much less a Democrat.

What am I talking about you ask?

Well according to a News.Com.Au article, Hilary Clinton has gone on the record telling us all how bad anti-defamation legislation in regards to religion is. In fact, her exact quote said that freedom of speech and religion should be equally upheld.

Like I said, color me amazed.

Buy that digression aside, here's the quote from the news.com.au site:

"I strongly disagree. The United States will always ... stand against discrimination and persecution ... But an individual's ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others' freedom of speech," Clinton said.

"The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse," she added.

Imagine it, a politician actually interested in upholding Constitutional precepts.

Of course, I am left wondering if she got permission from the Exalted One before she spoke such specific terminology?

After all, it was only last month, that the UN Human Rights Council adopted a draft resolution submitted by Egypt and the United States which brought attention to "negative racial and religious stereotyping of religions and racial groups."

Basically, it was the United States endorsing anti-speech measures in order to stop criticism of religions based upon verifiable trends of that religion's population.

What that long sentence of dollar words means is thus: Egypt doesn't like people pointing out that Islam can't be a "religion of peace" if they refuse to condemn and try to stop suicide bombers, and the U.S. supported the concept.

Unfortunately, this is but a small step towards a more Constitutionally-correct government (opposing International "law" which erodes or outright attacks the fundamental concepts upon which our society is based), and I have no doubt that the thought of less legislation on the books attacking our freedoms left a bad taste in a host of Liberal's mouths.

In truth I'm not holding my breath hoping that Mrs. Clinton starts espousing such concepts as gun rights, small government and personal responsibility. After all, she has spent too many years as a big-government, Big-Brother advocate to see the proverbial light.

But any step is a good one...

Now for some blatant emotionalism!

I despise emotionalism. I hate it in church. I hate it at work. And above all things, I hate it in my politicians. To me, there is nothing more cowardly, and despicable than a politician who takes someones tragedy, and then tries to create an unconstitutional law in order to score political favor-points off of it.

What am I talking about? Why the recent Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act which was introduced into the House by Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK.

Well, there's a nice list of those despicable, cowardly politicians I was talking about.

Of course, now you're probably wondering just what it is about this law which has earned it, and its writer, such harsh and severe descriptions? Well, frankly, what this law is trying to do is make me a felon. The thing is that the way I wrote this blog post alone, is enough to get me sentenced to no less than 2 years in a federal penitentiary according to this law. Here's the meat and potatoes of this law:

`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `communication' means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

`(2) the term `electronic means' means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'.

What this translates into is that anyone who tries to coerce someone through aggressive words (which the entire point of this blog is to coerce folks to my line of reasoning, and I'm not above using aggressive and severe words to do so) can be charged and sentenced under this proposed law.

My only guess is that list of despicable, cowardly politicians above just did not get that whole First Amendment thing.

I also have to question if they truly understood their Oath of Office where they swore to protect and uphold the Constitution. Of course being politicians, I guess they figured that they were above such petty things as the Law of the Land.

I'm sorry that Megan Meier lacked the moral fortitude, and the thick skin generated by traditional play yard play, that she felt the need to kill herself for what someone wrote on the internet. Yet that is no excuse for what these despicable, and cowardly politicians are trying to do in her name.

Ms. USA -- but only if you have an approved list of beliefs

The interwebs are in an state of shock. Gay, gossipist and all-around freak, Perez Hilton, is all sorts of a titter, and calling someone who calmly, and succinctly spoke her beliefs a "bitch."

The 21-year old Miss California is even now getting death threats and what not.

In case you have no clue what I'm talking about, during the Miss USA contest the other day, Perez Hilton (one of the judges) asked Miss California what she thought of gay marriages. Miss California, whose actual name is Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

She wasn't ranting. She wasn't being mean. She responded with her beliefs, her familial and religious point-of-view on the topic being given.

A response which ultimately cost her the crown of Miss USA.

And created a firestorm of hate, and death threats and name calling from the lunatic left. Which, sadly to say, is a large cross-section of all of the left.

Of course, as is often the case, these things just get more, and more inane. In the related story, Fox News reports that

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement. "As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."

...

I have to admit that I'm truly and utterly confused by Mr. Lewis' statement. In the same breath, he says that he is hurt and saddened by Miss Prejean's comments, then he also states that religions should be able to create whichever marriage unions that they see fit. Then he continues his rather insane talking point on how government shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone, and concludes the statement with how religion has no politics in the Miss California family.

So why exactly did she lose the crown? If politics and religious beliefs had no bearing on the decisions, why did she lose. And why is Perez Hilton ranting and raving against her?

Of course, I know the reason. It's fundamentally simple.

The average, run-of-the-mill Liberal cannot succinctly and intelligently argue their beliefs. This is a fundamental truth to the liberal agenda. It's the reason that rather than discussing the politics behind the TEA Parties over the past few weeks, the liberals out there just hurl insults and mockery. It's the reason that when the gay-left lost the Prop8 vote last November they ranted and raved, and beat up little old women. It's the reason that liberals are trying so hard to get translate conservative concepts into Hate laws. It's the reason that those preachers of Tolerance, cannot tolerate any concept that doesn't fit squarely into their little round holes of political concepts.

Their entire belief structure is built upon pipe-dreams, and lollipops. Everything from charity-under-duress welfare to the magical barriers called "no-gun zones." Liberals react with their emotions and plan what new law they can enact to a) provide them more power, and b) make-believe that something bad won't happen.

Personally, I'm proud of Miss California. I'm heartened to see someone get up in front of, what is effectively a hostile crowd, and unequivocally stand for her beliefs. Regardless of the fact that it cost her the Miss USA crown, and regardless of the name-calling and death threats from the left.

It doesn't matter who walked away with that crown. I believe that Ms. Prejean is a better display of what an American is--someone who stands for their beliefs, regardless of the repercussions--than any of those leftists who react to the beliefs, values and ideals of others with hatred and a general lack of real tolerance.

Oh Noes! Not Orson Scot Card!!

I had originally considered posting this on my SF blog, No Krakana, yet the more I wrote, the more I realized that it would fit better here. So, on with the show.

io9 has directed my attention to an interesting discussion that's been popping up around the SF/F genre blogs. Mainly, that Card has won the Margaret A. Edwards award, which is defined as thus:

The Margaret A. Edwards Award, established in 1988, honors an author, as well as a specific body of his or her work, that have been popular over a period of time. The annual award is administered by YALSA and sponsored by School Library Journal magazine. It recognizes an author's work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world.

Anyhow, they brought into specific focus, Card's two complementary novels Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. Truth be told, these are two wonderful stories, with great overtones dealing with human nature, civilization, and just how a child transforms into an adult.

Yet, what's brought up the most hassles are some of Card's other writings, specifically his thoughts and opinions on homosexual marriage.

One can imagine the joys of the SF Feminist blog and (amusingly enough) the School Library Journal, and one can't forget the diatribes over in the comments for the article on io9. Overall, they've been along the lines of "well, he's evil incarnate for saying the things he does in his non-fiction essays, but you know, we'll just sweep it under the rugs."

Frankly, I'm amused by this whole thing. I can admit to being conservative (a night upon unforgivable sin in the world of the SF/F genre fandom) yet there have been liberals who have received lifetime achievements awards; though I despise Streisand's stance on gun control, that doesn't mean that I dislike her films or music.

But ultimately, that's an irrelevant point. Who cares if you can or can't separate the art from the artist.

Has Card not entertained, and taught a generation of children the joy of books? Do those books not teach us to try and see the other? Whether that other is the alien "buggers" or the bully who wishes to kill you?

As far as the Award is concerned, that is what matters.

Beyond that though, why the angst over his opinions? I don't agree with John Scalzi's politics but I absolutely adore his novels. I agree with Card's politics, and I absolutely adore his novels. Wow, imagine that, I love well-written novels that I find intriguing, regardless of the world views of the authors.

Fortunately though, the SF Feminist blog is more interested in actual discourse and discussion about Card's opinions and essays (including a well written dissection of one of Card's essays on the Mass. Supreme Court's fiat creating same-sex marriage in that state).

But that's not relevant to the discussion here, as it's a discourse on the existing articles rather than what we're talking about here.

What I find oddest is that all the comments that I've read have fallen on one of two sides of this divide. The first is that Card should have never gotten the award for being such an evil right-winger. The second is Card should have gotten the award because the two books in question are good, but he's still an evil right-winger.

And I do mean all, I've just spent the past three hours looking at every blog entry concerning this, and every comment on those blog posts. Maybe there will be additional thoughts from people on my side of the aisle now that io9 has pushed it out, but sadly I'm not counting on it.

I for one, am offering up a heartfelt "Congratulations, Mr. Card."

I don't think he's evil; I don't think he's ignorant or unlettered. I don't even think he's an "asshat" (sure the rant referenced in that article is nigh upon incoherent, but that doesn't mean he's evil, just that he has a hard time separating criticisms of his novel from criticisms of himself--an affliction which other authors have had many times).

In fact, I'm going on the record as stating that I believe the same way as Mr. Card regarding homosexual "marriages." I believe they are an attack, by liberal elites (socialists/communists), directed against the fundamental building blocks of Western civilization. Consider numbers, 25, 26, and 40 on this list of ways that Communists planned on destroying Western Civilization.

• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
  
• Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
  
• Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

In fact that the number of items on that list are completed, or nearly so, is disturbing.

But, I do want to know what is it about genre fandom which breeds liberalism?

Timeless Morality

Time magazine has a "Morality Quiz" up on their website at the moment. Oddly, they take their approach to Morality from an odd source. Consider this quote which is at the top of the article:

The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you. And human ego notwithstanding, it's a quality other species share.

I'm confused. I have NEVER heard of morality having anything at all to do with empathy. The encyclopedia gives three principle meanings to morality

1. morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.
2. an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions.
3. synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

The dictionary is simpler, it gives these as definitions:

1. concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
   
2. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
3. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
4. Virtuous conduct.
5. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Yeah, where exactly does empathy have anything to do with morality there? And just to be fair, let's look at the definition of empathy:

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another

Let's say this again, empathy has nothing to do with morality. Whether I understand what hurts you would feel the same to me is quite irrelevant to the moral decision to do something. Of course, using the simplified morality quiz provided by Time, one has to wonder if morality is anything above and beyond life or death situations. These are some of the scenarios they provided:

• Could you kill a baby to possibly save the life of a group of adults?
• Could you kill an injured man to possibly save the life of a group of adults?
• Could you save kill a man to definitely save a group of adults?
• Standing close enough to push that man forward, could you kill him to save a group of adults?
  

Then all the possible answers are "Kill them!" or not. There are no options for sacrificing ones self in order to save all the others. Apparently that part of morality just doesn't exist for Time. Understandable, since they are liberals, and sacrifice is an abstract concept to them, which can only be imposed upon others, not something that wells up from within.

Truthfully, I'm uncertain why this quiz annoyed me so much, yet it did. Maybe it's just my ornery nature. Or maybe, I'm just getting older, and less willing to flow with the annoyances of socialistic policies and ideals which try to subvert tried and true methodology and ideology.

So, here's the scenario:

An out of control trolley is heading down a track toward five unsuspecting people and will surely kill them all. You could throw a switch diverting it to a siding, but an equally unsuspecting man is standing with you on a bridge. Could you push him onto the track into the path of the train? Could you do that, killing one to save the other five?

Pick one of these three options:

1. Yes, I could push them onto the tracks (65% on the quiz)
2. No, I could not push them onto the tracks (35% on the quiz)
3. I would jump on the tracks myself (the answer I would have chosen, if it were available)

See? That's how such a question should have been worded. But, maybe that's just me....

Tolerating Intolerance

In one of the comments I have recieved since I added the commenting capability, someone accused me of misquoting Mr. Chesterton via the slogan of the KrashPAD which adorns the banner graphic. "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction." And truthfully, fifty years ago, I would have seen that. Fifty years ago, tolerance still meant "a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior or a permissible difference."

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Tolerance has shifted definitions in the wider context of our society, what Josh McDowal called "the new tolerance." If tolerance still meant putting up with someone or something in spite of the fact that I do not like or agree with the idea or person (which I am all for) then I would not dream of having that quote on my banner. Unfortunately, today tolerance now means that we not only have to put up with those ideals or people, but to actively embrace and celebrate the views and practices of others, and that we also value those views and practices that we don't agree with to the degree that we value our own. This is a statement and belief that I cannot, as a Christian, accept. There are some things, some ideas which are fundamentally against my religion.

And this also applies to some ideas and concepts in my political beliefs as well.

Voltaire stated, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." This is no longer an acceptable form of tolerance. Today, we cannot disagree with one another, and this has lead to the only thing which is not allowed to be tolerated is intolerance.

Of course where I have issues with a lot of this not tolerating intolerance, is that the intolerance label is applied to my beliefs almost exclusively. Pro-Lifers are called intolerant because they do not believe abortions should be legal, while abortionists do not have to tolerate the pro-life position. Creationists, and proponents of Intelligent Design are intolerant (as well as considered backwards and stupid) because they do not believe in the Theory of Evolution, while evolutionists are court-protected against having to defend their ideals while indoctrinating the minds of children. We must celebrate Islam within schools, but consider it intolerant if our children have a Christmas break.

It is this which lead Mr. Chesterton to make that statement, and as long as tolerance is defined as such, I proudly wear the badge of intolerance.

Barney Frank, Fighting for Gay Marriages

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) believes that an "angry, divisive" fight is coming to Massachusetts. What is this fight? Why a proposed Massachusetts constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages that amendment proponents are attempting to get on the 2008 ballot.

The Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) has gathered 124,000 certified signatures (double the number required). MFI's president has gone on the record as saying "All they want is an opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage."

What is Mr. Frank's response? Why he's quoted in an AP interview as saying "Basically, they're the disturbers of the civic peace, we now have social peace in Massachusetts. They're the ones who want to stir it up…This is a non-issue in Massachusetts."

Wow, Mr. Frank sure is in-touch with his constituents. If he was, then he would see that the 124,000 certified signatures do mean that this is an issue in Massachusetts. What Mr. Frank means when he says that this is a non-issue, is what any liberal means by that statement: we have the rules in place, now anyone who does not agree with them needs to shut up and sit down.

Whenever pressed, normal, run-of-the-mill Americans have resoundingly supported bans on gay marriages. That is the reason that those pushing the homosexual agenda turned to the courts. They know they cannot win if this is put up for a vote which normal Americans must vote on. Now that they have this moronic ruling in place, they are trying their best to ensure that it stays there. If that means ignoring huge segments of the voting populace's desires, then so be it.

What gets me is that while MFI was gathering these signatures, there was no angry, divisive fighting. MFI gathered signatures quietly, and turned them in without that much hoopla. Oh, but once they were turned in, then the divisive fighting started. KnowThyNeighbor, a pro-gay marriage website has published the full listing of 124,000 people on the list, because they are certain that there's fraud afoot. I personally have no doubt that there may be some folks on the list that should not be, as the company that was chosen to do the actual signature gathering has had trouble in the past with fraudulent signatures.

Regardless, If those people who wish to redefine the fundamental concepts of marriage and civilization really believe that the people of Massachusetts see this amendment as a non-issue, and they believe that the citizens of Massachusetts truly support the slow destruction of marriage, then they would have no problems allowing this amendment to go to the ballots. The problem there lies in the fact that those who believe so, know that the citizens of Massachusetts would vote for the amendment which supports the definition of marriage.

They do not want this to go to the ballot, because they want to ensure that a cornerstone of our society is changed, and not for the better. Of course, if we keep poking holes into the foundation of our society like this, pretty soon, our foundation will not be able to support our society.

Free Speech, Democrat Style

While I would not personally hang a picture of a sitting President in my home or office, I would consider hanging a Presidential seal, or something similar. Of course not everyone shares my sensibilities. Case in point, a business owner in Lancaster County, PA has a photograph of Mr. Bush hanging in his stall. David Stoltzfus owns and operates the Upper Crust stand, when opening his business two years ago, he thought it would do well to display a picture of the sitting President. So he did, and it has been displayed there for two years now.

Of course, now that the Democrats have lost the election (okay, so it should be now that the Democrats were humiliated at the polls) a Democratic City Councilman is up in arms over the picture being displayed. Mr. Nelson Polite (the Councilman in question) went up to Mr. Stoltzfus on November 12 and asked the picture to be taken down. What were Polite’s reasons? Why since this was a public place, there should be no political paraphernalia, and since Mr. Bush did not carry Lancaster County, “it is like rubbing salt in a wound.” At least those are the ones he gave the reporter later on (click here for the newspaper article).

Let’s deal with that first reason to start off with. First, while yes the market may be a public place, Mr. Stoltzfus pays rent, as such he is able to display anything he deems fit. Secondly, our great nation allows us to have no lines on expressions of political speech. That is the essence of the First Amendment. If Mr. Stoltzfus wished to display a mock picture of Kerry and Little John in bed, that is Mr. Stoltzfus’ right as an American.

Of course, that is not the true issue that is affecting Polite. Polite is upset that Kerry lost. Now, in true Democratic fashion, he is trying to throw away anything that reminds him of his dashed hopes. So he’s trampling on the rights of a fellow citizen, Polite as a Liberal and a Democrat are only concerned about the rights of fellow citizens when such rights further liberal and socialist agendas. At any other time, rights are things to be stepped upon. Polite in his demands of city council to legislate free speech says “there should be rules.” Ah, the joys of being a Democrat, if you don’t like something, then you can legislate it to death.

Of course, Polite’s propensity to trample the rights of others notwithstanding, Polite’s comments reveal a deeper issue where Liberals are concerned. That of course is the plight of the offended. On November 12, when Polite first approached Mr. Stoltzfus, he requested that the picture be taken down because it offended him and other city Democrats (ah, that old salt feels good in those wounds). What this translates from liberal speak as is “I don’t agree with what you are doing or saying, so you need to stop.” Whenever a Liberal claims offense for their selves or some other group, what they are saying is that what the speaker is saying they cannot agree with nor can they logically defend their position against it.

The “OFFENSE” label has become the bane of logical discourse, for anything can offend someone, but of course the only people that get to claim offense at the actions or speech of others are liberals and those groups (or more accurately those who vote liberal in those groups) that are classically defined as liberal. Groups that are conservative and members of liberal groups that vote conservative are not allowed to claim offense. Just look at how liberals treat Mrs. Rice and Justice Thomas. Liberals, rather than being proud of what these two minorities have accomplished routinely insult and denigrate them because they are conservative.

Of course the entire appeal of liberalism is that it makes you feel good. It is government through emotionalism, which I consider the worst thing since religion through emotionalism. Of course maybe if enough Liberals learn there is no Santa Claus, they will grow up and stop living by their emotions. Government and business should both be approached with common sense and logic. If Legislation makes you feel better about yourself, then there’s probably something wrong with it.