Liberals adore the idea of silencing dissent. To this end, and because they believe they hold the moral high ground when contending with heartless, selfish, benighted conservatives, liberals will use a combination of intimidation, threats and dishonesty to destroy or remove any and all critics.
The Obama administration has tried several times to exploit this tendency among its more ardent followers. There was the White House email hotline, [email protected]; there was the running joke that was “AttackWatch” and its Twitter account; more recently, Obama’s flacks have been pushing the Orwellian “Truth Team.” Liberals are also abusing Twitter’s spam-reporting system to trigger automatic blocking of conservative Twitter accounts.
The goal, in every case, is to respond to the outrage that is political dissent in Obama’s America. The means is to threaten, to shout down and to shut up. Dare to express an opinion counter to Dear Leader’s Democratic Party line? Obama demands his violent and foul-smelling Occupy Wall Street rabble “get in your face” and yell at you until you stop talking. This is the “Coming Obama Thugocracy” Michael Barone predicted almost four years ago.
There was a time when liberals told us that criticizing judges for their extra-constitutional interpretations of the law was tantamount to agitating for those judges’ assassination. Today, those same liberals attack the United States Supreme Court if they suspect there exists even the possibility some of Obama’s unconstitutional legislation may be found so. When Democrats did not hold the White House, no less a lib luminary than Hillary Clinton famously screeched that we are Americans, and we have the right to disagree with any administration. Today, if you disagree with Obama, Democrat thugs are supposed to “get in your face” and explain to you the error of your ways.
There is no room for debate; there is no opportunity for discussion; there is no way even to argue, no matter how passionately. No, if you are a conservative, you are supposed to close your mouth-hole, and if you don’t like it, Obama voters can find some union thugs, some club-wielding racists, or some mob of whining communists to beat you until you can’t speak.
Conservatives and libertarians are in part to blame for this wretched state of affairs. We don’t fight well. We don’t stand up for ourselves, nor protect our own. We harrumph and we cluck and we shake our heads, refusing to challenge the logically flawed premises the libs foist on us. We agree with liberal useful idiots that Rush Limbaugh should not call a slut a slut, that what Mitt Romney does with his money is a greater outrage than what Barack Hussein Obama does with your money. We let the enemy frame the “debate.” We let our opposition set the terms. We never simply stand up and say, “I reject your flawed premise … and if you don’t get ‘out of my face,’ I will drop you where you stand.”
Overwhelmingly, we fail to combat the libs’ unctuous methods because we can’t wrap our brains around the notion that liberals lie pathologically, reason illogically and fight dishonestly. We keep expecting rational explanations for irrational behavior. We are doomed to frustration when we apply our morals to the liberals’ playbook.
Never was this more obvious than in Dan Savage’s recent attacks on Christianity. Author, alleged journalist and “gay-rights” activist Savage attended a high school journalism convention, pushing what he claims is his “anti-bullying” program. Savage’s idea of fighting bullying is apparently to bully, hector and insult the only religious group one may still attack with impunity in the United States: Christians.
Savage’s tirade about the ills of Christianity was so offensive, so laced with profanity and so aggressive that it prompted a hundred teenagers to walk out of the convention. Savage responded childishly by further insulting those who left. He has since whined that he has the right to “defend” himself. Just how vehemently insulting a group of teenagers accomplishes this goal, or furthers the lofty ideal of preventing and combatting bullying, is not clear.
More ironically, Savage failed to realize – while he was fighting to take psychotic, rhetorical revenge on those he believes deny sufficient affirmation for those lifestyles he approves – that he wasn’t just attacking those awful, awful Christians. Statistically, if 100 students walk out of a convention, there is a very good chance at least a few of those 100 teenagers (Christian or otherwise) are homosexuals. That’s right: Savage was insulting “gay” students, demonstrating the tolerance and compassion liberals have for their fellow human beings by openly and angrily bullying the very people he claims to be helping.
Imagine the typical teenager. Teens struggle with a variety of emotional issues, most of these attendant to the developmental concerns of their age group. Add to the problems suffered by a typical teenager the burden of grappling with his or her sexuality, and you have someone who almost certainly sat in that audience eagerly awaiting a message of strength, hope and inclusion. What those teens who were also Christians got instead was a cruel act of revenge, a bully behind a bully pulpit who did not care whose feelings he hurt in pursuing his grudge against a religion he hates.
Acts like these, attempts to shout down, intimidate and otherwise shut up anyone who does not share your ideology, are typical of liberals in general. They are the stock in trade of political and cultural operatives like Dan Savage, who last year told Bill Maher he wished all Republicans dead. Online or in person, libs like Savage want only one thing if you disagree with them: They want you to shut the hell up, and they’ll scream at you, swear at you and insult you until you do. They don’t care about collateral damage; they don’t care if some of their own are bludgeoned with the weapon of their caustic rhetoric.
Liberals care about only one thing: silencing political dissent. They will use violence in word and deed to accomplish this. You have only two choices in response. These are complacency or active resistance.
Choose.
