[satchmodog9]

pretty much

[Darkwolf377]

Although my kneejerk reaction was "Yes!" I think this writer is way off. He gets it SO wrong here:

Liberals want to forget this. Through idealism, they want to believe that people are naturally cooperative, that a peaceful world will arise spontaneously, and that if certain people remain violent or unsatisfied with the system then there must be some vast injustice or mistake.

Liberals don't believe this at all. They believe that adults are basically children and need to be guided by a core group of elite, "intelligent" people who "just know" what's right and wrong.

[EnigmaticAnomaly]

Spot-on...

[pabianice]

And THIS is why Liberals are psychotically anti-gun. Self defense is unacceptable to a Liberal because it involves some level of courage. Gutless Liberals, instead, shriek that the "state" (i.e. other people) protect them.

[boris]

My take is different. Liberals are insecure regarding their own morality. So they must make public displays of morality and "compassion" to convince themselves that they are more moral and compassionate than others. The problem is that they discovered that other people could be forced to pay for their conspicuous compassion. And there is a "ratchet effect"--each act of "compassion" fails to satisfy, so they have to invent an even more splashy and extravagant display--paid for by onerous taxes on others.

The black hole in the souls of liberals is insatiable; it will eat the world if not curbed.

--Boris

[Tolik]

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[Natural Law]

I think you have too narrowly defined them. Liberalism is the quest for a life without consequences. Whether it is sexual behavior, artistic pursuits, foreign policy, work ethic, etc., Liberals want someone else to absolve them of any adverse consequences.

[Cruz]

ON TARGET, big time.

[Ancesthntr]

Instead, they latch on to some neutral object as the “real cause” of crime. Guns are always a favorite....

Well, of course!!! Ignorant right-wing Constitutionalist gun nuts, don't you understand that there was no crime committed before guns were inve... uh, never mind.

[Personal Responsibility]

This is an excellent article. I agree with the headline. It really hits the root cause of Liberalism on the nose!

[GOPJ]

...what we call “crime” is simply the decision by some people that the strong should take advantage of the weak. “Might makes right” is a simple credo that appeals to people who feel more powerful than others. That is why the vast majority of criminals are poor young men. Coming into the world with fresh eyes, they see its obvious absurdities. Why should all the money belong to old, fat bankers while the strong and healthy remain poor? In one-on-one physical combat the young would obviously prevail. So why not reduce the world to one-on-one physical combat? That is what muggings are all about.

The same holds true for rape. What is rape except the conviction by certain men that women whom personal preference and social convention make unavailable to them should be available anyway? Reduced to a matter of sheer one-on-one force, these men have the upper hand. Why shouldn’t they take what they want?

Wow! William Tucker understands crime, rapists, totalitarian thugs, and Hollywood elites. Same MO - same underlying belief systems. I'm impressed. Best post this year... Thanks for the ping.

[bmwcyle]

is an effort to avoid confrontation with the perpetrators of violence by constantly misdirecting anger toward safer targets

COWARDS

[EyeGuy]

I've always thought that the lack of physical bravery is why liberals are so anti-military.

They just cannot believe that these young men (and women) serve not because they are brainless dupes of the "military-industrial complex", but simply, among other reasons, because they have more raw physical courage in the third metatarsal of their little finger, than in the whole pale, withered, pony-tailed body of say, your average college professor.

[from occupied ga]

The only thing that the average person has to protect him or herself against this logic is that vast conspiracy of the weak against the strong that we call “the law.”

This guy missed the boat on several things. I'll just comment on this one to the effect that "God made man, Sam Colt made men equal"

[Lancey Howard]

Pretty good theory. Psychiatrists around the globe have been trying to solve the riddle of the "liberalism" mental illness for decades. This guy's theory is as good as any.

[Edgerunner]

I LIKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PsyOp]

“Conservatism, we are told, is out-of-date. The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so. The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the Conservative political position is based have been established by a process that has nothing to do with the social, economic and political landscape that changes from decade to decade and from century to century. These principles are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not. To suggest that the Conservative philosophy is out of date is akin to saying that the Golden Rule, or the Ten Commandments or Aristotle's Politics are out of date. The Conservative approach is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply the wisdom and experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today.” – Barry Goldwater, The Conscience Of A Conservative, 1960.

Barry Goldwater, The Conscience Of A Conservative.

[TexanToTheCore]

I have to agree with the author's analysis.

[GOPJ]

So it is with the War on Terror. Browse the letters to The New York Times on any given day and you will find half a dozen readers blaming George Bush for Muslim terror. Amazingly, Times' readers also lay the North Korean missile launching at George Bush’s feet—if he hadn’t done “X,” then it never would have happened. It is much safer to rail at the President than to confront the real enemy.

The Times itself plays this game when it reveals military secrets. It knows the American government is too civilized to retaliate. But when it comes to confronting Muslims—by printing the Danish cartoons, for example—the Times and the rest of the press completely chicken out. The risk of real violence is too serious.

What liberalism amounts to, then, is an effort to avoid confrontation with the perpetrators of violence by constantly misdirecting anger toward safer targets—abstract “root causes,” inanimate objects, innocent third parties, and ultimately the very people who are trying to respond to the problem. You might not want to call this “cowardice,” but if you can think of a better word, let me know.

Great read ping...

[Liberty Valance]

"It is much safer to rail at the President than to confront the real enemy."

Nail on the head.