Can Liberals be Reasoned With?

A very well-written and enlightening piece from the “American Liberty Report.” Never thought about liberals in this matter. Now, I realize why I don’t have any liberal friends and don’t want any. Makes sense to me. Author Unknown.

 

If you’ve ever tried to explain to an extreme leftist why some policy or ideology is good, bad, right, or wrong- you’ve probably run into a wall of shaming language, blame-mongering, and double think.

On one level, what you’re witnessing in such moments is the refusal or the inability of a person to realize that just because some certain aspect of reality is not optimal, or is unpleasant—that doesn’t make it hateful to recognize the unpleasant fact.

For example, the fact that rape is a viable reproduction strategy in nature is an unpleasant factor in the human condition- but if you say that to a liberal, they will assume you are in favor of rape, condone it, and protect people who do it. This, of course, is wrong. Your liberal friend is then likely to do everything he or she can do to destroy you- never seeing the virtue in facing unpleasant facts.

Where the phenomenon of the liberal mind becomes especially pernicious is where leftists begin to seem not so much unable to discern the difference between evidence based fact and hatred, but when they appear to be using the appearance of said disability in order to retain the favor, support—and indeed the jobs—that their fellow liberals afford them for towing the line. This crony leftism is the very coinage of the metaphor of the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

On this second level of liberalism, where we see cynicism in its truest and purest form, this is where we find the Hillary Clintons, the Barack Obamas, and their like. These are the kind of leftists who manipulate and use the previous, dimmer kind. They are intelligent, well-educated social Marxists who do not believe the things they say—but only work to support the half of the system upon which they depend for their prosperity.

Let us take a moment for clarity. I’m using the word, ‘liberal’ under duress. Ideally, I would prefer to use the term in its classical sense which is much more akin to what is currently called Libertarianism.

Classical liberalism is the time-honored tradition of leaving others to do what they will as long as no harm comes of it. It is the ideology that humans have a natural desire to seek prosperity and to try to be free and that no government, entity, or body has a right to interfere with the innocent pursuit of prosperity and freedom.

This does not describe the liberals of today. Modern liberals believe that the officials of government are your rightful superiors, and should have the right to decide exactly where your freedoms should begin and end and that they need not even explain their reasoning to you. They believe that people exist as inextricable from the groups they belong to- whether or not they are in those groups by choice or by genetics.

For example- men are morally inferior to women because it is generally accepted that men have had it better for most of history, whites are morally inferior to people of every other skin tone because it is generally accepted that whites have had it the best the longest. And so on…

Modern liberals do not look at you and see an individual with a unique experience of life, a unique set of talents and flaws, and a capacity for reason and wisdom all your own. They see your gender, your skin color, and they perceive a presumed level of “privilege” based on those two things.

They do not appear to see the fact that white men are the majority of the homeless and fill out the greatest portion of any suicide statistic. According to a modern liberal, or progressive, an AIDS infected, disabled, homeless, veteran- who is white and male- has more privilege than Michelle Obama. This, my friends, is insane—but I promise you it is not an exaggeration. I wish it was.

So to answer the question- can liberals be reasoned with, we have only to look at what they do to their own kind when their own kind transgress the modern liberal code.

Matt Taylor, the astrophysicist who landed a remote-controlled spaceship on an asteroid- which for the record is like trying to land a grain of sand on a moving bullet—he wore a shirt that feminists didn’t like on the day his great achievement came to fruition.

His shirt had images of conventionally attractive women drawn in comic book fashion on it. Cultural Marxists shamed him so heavily that instead of celebrating his great success, as he deserved to do, he was bawling like an abashed child on national television during a press conference about the landing. And they have not let up on him ever since. He was easy prey.

There is a multitude of similar examples all as good as the story of Matt Taylor, and they all serve to answer our question, Can liberals be reasoned with? The answer is that they cannot.

They are not interested in cooperation, reaching across the aisle, or sharing power. They are interested only in seizing the reins of state, crushing those they see as their enemies, and shaming everyone who views the world in even slightly different terms to themselves.

You cannot reason with these cultural Marxist totalitarian bullies. The best you can hope to do is to defeat them. So let us focus on defeating them, and returning this once great nation to a state of grace.

Originally posted 2016-04-03 17:21:34.

Thank you Mike!

Howdy Colonel, I started reading 03/09/16. I only got to page 14, but I was here by myself laughing and the dogs were looking at me like I’d lost my mind. My entry into the Marine Corps was very similar to yours and I cannot help but chuckle thinking back 45 years.

On 3/10/16 at 2126, I got to page 236. At 2255 on 03/12/16, I finished the book. Needless to say, I accomplished nothing else today. The great reviews I read were all true plus some. I’m not sure I am capable of writing a review to do your book justice, but I may attempt it in the future. I will say this though, I have never read a book where I busted out laughing at some places and my eyes broke out in a sweat in others—many times. It was an absolute masterpiece!

Jordan Point Marina, the James and Appomattox Rivers, and the Chesapeake Bay were some of my favorite boating places many years ago.

Two names that stuck out in your book were Gen. J.C. Fegan and Col. R. H. Thompson. Maj. Gen. Fegan meritoriously promoted me to Sergeant for being the honor graduate of my drill instructor class. As the honor graduate, I was allowed to pick which recruit training battalion I wanted to go to. I didn’t know much about any of them so I asked around. The consensus was “don’t go to first, the CO is a tyrant, and he’ll run you to death.” That’s what I asked for and that’s what I got. I loved it there and never had any problems.

I don’t have the adjectives to adequately convey my thoughts, but it has to be the most inspirational book I have ever read. The country owes Marines like you and those you spoke highly of a debt of gratitude for you service and sacrifice. I am honored to make your acquaintance sir!

Semper Fi! Mike

Thank you very much Mike, I am truly humbled by your comments. However, I must add that you should certainly include yourself in your comment about this country owing a debt of gratitude. You sir, would be at the very top of that list

Originally posted 2016-04-02 16:47:49.

Need Help!

SgtI need your help.

Want to see your name in print? Here’s your chance.

Over a year ago I sent out an email to everyone in my address book asking for some stories about sergeants. My thoughts were to publish another book entitled “Only a Sergeant,” which was a spin-off from a chapter in my book with the same name. To my sheer disappointment, I received three replies— all from enlisted Marines. My officer friends either did not reply or informed me they had none. Are you shitting me? How could someone spend enough years in the Corps to retire and never observe a sergeant (or corporal) exercising leadership to the extent where you were impressed? Poppy cock! If you have none, then my only assumption is you isolated yourself from the troops to the degree where you were not able to observe any acts of leadership. So, come on, don’t give me that guff that you do not have any. That’s a cop out!

Okay, now that I got that of my chest, please allow me to explain my plan. For some reason, perhaps age, I have this feeling there is another book inside me that needs to come out. This is probably a result of what’s happening to our Corps as a result of all the Kool Aid drinkers we have within DOD, as well within our own ranks among senior officers.

If you read my book, one of the takeaways you should have had was that beginning with my days as a corporal and sergeant and throughout the rest of my career, I firmly believed the sergeant (and corporal) needs to run our units, not the staff sergeants or the gunnys, or God forbid the lieutenants. The sergeants (and corporals) are where the rubber meets the road. The sergeant is the one who holds reveille, orders clean up, falls them out for formations, etc. I know I am telling you something that I hope you already know.

I would like to publish another book, note I said “publish,” not write. I want you to write it. Your assignment is to send me one story about a sergeant (or corporal) where he/she exercised a leadership trait or principle to the degree where you were impressed. Perhaps, you were that NCO, so tell me about it. On the flip side, maybe you had a sergeant or corporal who was not a good example for others to follow. As a young Marine, I personally had lots of those early on, but I also had a load of the great ones that taught me leadership. Not ever Marine is an exceptional Marine, in fact, there are a few that aren’t worth a shit—my book points that out very well.

I envision a story (or maybe two if they are alike) per chapter. Each chapter should be about 1,000 words, which isn’t much (so far this doc is 469 words). PLEASE do not worry about such trivial matters as spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. That’s what editors do. Hell, if you had seen the first chapters I sent to my editor, you’d be laughing your butt off. Moreover, all publishers use a specific bible—it’s called the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), and they also use a certain dictionary as well. So, let the editors worry about those things. Just open a word document and PUT WORDS ON PAPER. It’s amazing what will come to mind when you start telling a story. Embellish? Of course, all “war stories” are embellished

Okay, all you Bills, Jim’s, Ron’s, Wayne’s, Ed’s, Marshall’s, Jay’s, Al’s, John’s, Larry’s, Pete’s Nicks, and so on—not to embarrass anyone by using last names—give me something! I will hound you until you do!

Lastly, I’d prefer to not isolate this endeavor to just the Corps. So, my friends from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, feel free to send me some examples from your service.  I’m sure all our services are experiencing problems. Let’s give the young NCO/PO some examples to follow. For informational purposes for those who are unfamiliar with our grade structure our sergeant is an E-5, corporal is an E-4. Speaking of that—Marines, PLEASE do not, repeat, DO NOT send me a story about a “Sgt E-5.” There is no such animal. Most of you aren’t old enough to understand how that bastardization of our grade structure came about. It was between 1959 and 1963 when we had Sgt E-4’s and Sgt E-5’s. Since 31 July 1963 there has only been one sergeant in our Corps, and he/she is a SERGEANT—period. Stop calling them a Sgt E-5!

How about a quick example? Here is a much shortened version of one of the three stories I received that I cannot wait to publish it.

“Our platoon was TAD to Quantico for our annual qualification on the rifle range. We were billeted at the range in a squad bay. One of our three squad leaders was a superb NCO named Sgt Bennett. After firing on prequal day, Sgt Bennett announced that anyone in the platoon who did not fire over 200 today (actually 190 was qualifying as a marksman, but shooting in the 190’s was dangerously low) will muster with him at the 500 yard line berm after chow at 1800. He said, “Bring your rifle, shooting jacket, and score book.”

At 1800 we were all in a school circle and Sgt Bennett began going over some of the problems he believed we were having with qualifying. As he was talking our lieutenant was walking from the chow hall to his car; he stopped and yelled, “Hey Bennett.” Sgt Bennett ignored him and kept talking to us. This went on several times with the lieutenant getting louder each time. Finally, one of the troops mentioned to Sgt Bennett that the lieutenant was calling him. Calmly, he turned around facing the lieutenant and shouted, “Lieutenant, there is no Bennett up here, but there is a Sgt Bennett—Sir!”

Now, tell me that is not an excellent leadership story! Sgt Bennett taught that young lieutenant a great lesson that day, which I am certain he carried with him for the remainder of his career. I shortened the story quite a bit to only 106 words, it was originally 758 words, but can easily be expanded to 1000 words by explaining to the ill-informed (civilians) some details to better understand it.

Lastly, if you want to be named as the author, great. If not, we’ll simply call you anonymous. If you don’t want to use the sergeant’s Corporalreal name, call him “Sgt Marine.” I kept adding “corporals too” when I spoke, so if the person was only a corporal, so be it, he/she is still an NCO striking for sergeant, maybe we’ll just promote him to sergeant—smiles.

OK, there’s your missions should you agree to accept!

PS. You can either click on the comments below and send it to me, or contact me directly at sgt-b@comcast.net. However, I would suggest you create the story in a Word.doc, then simply attach it

Originally posted 2016-04-02 15:29:11.

The Undecided

This is another good one from my favorite contributor, Marine Greg Maresca. You should send it to all your undecided “friends,” that is if you have any. I don’t!

THE UNDECIDED                                                                by: Greg Maresca

At least three percent of American presidential voters are “undecided.” In a tight race, provided the polls are accurate, such a modest percentage (158 million voted in 2020) translates to 4.7 million Americans remain fence sitters and could be the difference in November’s election.

Even Pope Francis is undecided, or is he? The pontiff’s take on America’s presidential race was concise saying, “Both are against life: the one that throws out migrants and the one that kills children.” Francis advised American Catholics to “choose the lesser evil.”

How anyone who is paying attention has yet to make up their mind is astounding. Conceivably, the undecided are more indecisive than anything, yet subconsciously they don’t realize it.

Perhaps the most potent of political questions that transcends every presidential election needs to be asked repeatedly:

Are you better or worse off than four years ago?

A concise examination is revealing and all too obvious.

As Vice President, Kamala Harris was appointed to “stem immigration across the U.S./Mexico border” and permitted the wave of nearly eight million illegal and unvetted immigrants. The results of which continue to flood our schools, hospitals, charities, courts and housing with an annual price of half a trillion dollars. The influx of illegals is dangerous and calculated as Democrats add to their constituencies knowing no illegal will bite the hand that feeds and enables them, while seniors have had to exhaust their savings or find employment to make ends meet.

American foreign policy has been a fiasco starting with the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal that cost 13 American lives while leaving billions in armaments to America’s enemies. When given a choice of supporting the police during the BLM riots, Harris balked. The Keystone pipeline was shelved, and energy expenses skyrocketed that fueled historic record inflation that saw insurance, utility and grocery prices skyrocket.

Harris won’t come clean on her real priorities which amount to the redistribution of wealth by taxing unrealized capital gains, establishing price controls, while you pay for others’ college tuition and Medicare for all – including illegals.

One Harris proposal is a $25,000 down-payment on a mortgage courtesy of Uncle Sam that has nothing to do with buying a house; rather, it’s about buying votes.

Harris will continue with the same economic and energy policies that brought upon the highest inflation rate in decades while identity politics continue to run amuck infesting every institution and level of government. Harris may prove to be more disastrous that Biden, pleasing America’s enemies.

What has been totally dismissed during this campaign is how the trustees from the Social Security Administration have been ringing the bell that the SSI trust fund will become insolvent in 2033, while Medicare’s insolvency will follow three years later in 2036.

Those infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome, which is actually the hatred of conservatives, has caused them to lose objectivity. While the left nonstop compares Donald Trump to Hitler, is it any surprise that attempts on his life continue? Yet, it is the left that continues to assure Americans that the real threat is not the side doing the shooting.

Many will vote for Harris only because of their contempt for Trump, which on the deductive reasoning scale is a zero. Recently at a stoplight, I was behind a Sheetz gas tanker that had an advertisement saying: “I don’t have to think. The app knows my usual.” This is exactly what the left desires in its electorate – no need to think.

Provided he wins, Trump will serve only four years. And for whatever reason(s) you loathe him, his policies were successful in growing the economy and keeping the nation secure.

The deciding voter must choose between someone who changes as the moment dictates or someone who speaks the inconvenient truth, and has endured two impeachments, four federal prosecutions and survived two assassination attempts. One at least loves the country, flaws and all. The other is a disciple of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Steering this ship of state that has lost its rudder takes leadership not a figurehead and definitely not a puppet. Elections have consequences and we certainly get the leaders we deserve.

The direction couldn’t be any more opposed: Capitalism or Socialism.

Still undecided?

Then perhaps you need to sit this one out.

I am convinced that Obama is finishing his third term and hoping for a fourth. Neither of the puppets of the last 3 1/2 years combined don’t have the brains to pull off some of the shit they have.