Ready for more corrupt liberal duplicity and stupidity?

Well here goes… but first I want to expand on the comments in an earlier post (The Liberal Mind, is it Political Madness?), I want to say that in addition to not believing that all liberals are stupid or crazy, I also do not believe that everyone with a liberal viewpoint is evil, corrupt or wants to destroy America. In fact have a number of close family members and friends who are on the opposite side of the political fence from me. These are smart caring people, I just believe that they listen to too much of the biased main stream media and are thinking too much with their hearts.

One of those to whom I am very close, as well as love and respect highly (but will not identify) said during a recent conversation about  my study of the founding documents and the constitution , that it was as if these documents were “inspired”.

I was actually quite struck by the comment considering that this person staunchly supports Barack Obama and his administration. While I, on the other hand, agree with Ted Nugent who said recently that if people can’t see that this administration is, “wiping its a** with the Constitution you’re living under a rock some place”. Even now I’m a bit perplexed that someone could believe the Declaration and Constitution were inspired and yet support an administration that clearly has no regard for those principles.

There are countless liberals in positions of power, leadership and influence or who just have a loud mouth and a mouthpiece like Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin, that spout rhetoric which is completely devoid of any semblance of intellectual honesty, logic or reason, yet act as though they speak from some lofty moral high ground.

While liberals claim to be the party of tolerance, they typically display none, toward those who disagree with them. They cry out for civility and co-operation while being rude, crude or divisive and completely against compromise unless it’s giving in to their will. They claim to be all about fairness, equality, and helping the poor or disenfranchised, while their policies do little toward those goals, and most often have the opposite effect.

The latest example is enveloping rocker Ted Nugent who during a speech at the NRA convention two  weeks ago not only gave the earlier quote, but said that “if Barack Obama becomes the president in November, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” Those on the left had a collective mental breakdown, and claimed that the statement is a threat of violence toward the resident.

I find this all quite laughable considering that no one over on the left was the least bit disturbed when in a campaign speech in June 2008 and again at a Philadelphia fundraiser in January 2011; Obama said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Interesting rhetoric from a man who lectures on civil discourse, and doesn’t believe that free people should even be allowed to own guns.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz who continues to proudly display her partisan stupidity in public statements, has also ripped into Nugent’s comment, saying, “Mitt Romney surrogate Ted Nugent made offensive comments about President Obama and November’s elections this weekend that are despicable, deplorable and completely beyond the pale.”

Wow, really? Can anyone reading his statement please show me anything in it that amounts to a threat or has any violent overtone? I’m sorry I just don’t see it, and by the way neither did the Secret Service who interviewed Nugent about the comment less than a week later. Remember, it is a Federal crime for anyone to threaten Obama.

Los Angeles Times editorial writer Jon Healey told Democrats to relax, that Nugent is just a rock ‘n’ roller. “Nugent is no more a surrogate for Romney than the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is for Obama,” Healy said, adding “Just because someone with a microphone urges people to vote for a candidate doesn’t make him or her a ‘surrogate’ for the campaign.” I wonder if the DNC Chairwoman has the brains to grasp that.

Nugent’s reply to Wasserman Schultz’s comment was simple, “By no stretch of the imagination did I threaten anyone’s life, or hint at violence or mayhem. Metaphors needn’t be explained to educated people.” In a radio interview on the Dana Loesch Show Nugent explained, “I’ve never in my life threatened anyone’s life. I am incapable of threatening anyone’s life because I’m about positive change.”  The liberals once more are attempting to make something controversial out of a comment made by a conservative voice with a following, larger than any on their side.

My interpretation of his comment was that he fears that as an outspoken critic of the Obama regime, that under an unrestrained second term, he might well be jailed as a domestic terrorist or be the victim of another of Obama’s “extrajudicial killings” like that of another U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

So who’s right, the typical divisive ranting from the left, or a more reasoned explanation like the one I just gave? Considering Nugent’s statement that he has never threatened anyone in his life, and the fact that the Secret Service walked away considering the case closed, I guess once more logic and reason win out over the stupid rantings from the loud mouths on the left.

Rob