Knowing your liberty

Part 1- The Definition of Liberty

Words are interesting things, and truly language at large is one of the greatest developments of this age. It seems that there is a word for every feeling, every nuance and yet the same word can have two completely separate meanings depending on the context. Anyone who has ever studied a foreign language can attest to how difficult it is to learn the dialect or the subtle differences when the tense or focus of the statement changes.
Our own language has been mastered by very few but has been distorted and twisted by legions more along with various symbols and religious traditions. The practice of propaganda and manufactured re-associations is thousands of years old.
Let me give you an example from the last century, though. We all understand what the term "liberal" means in political circles today. Now, let me give you the formal definition from Websters New World Dictionary, circa 1972:

lib-er-al. -noun

A person who is in favor of reform and progress.[Notice any bias? Keep the time period in mind.]

Now, lets define the root or basis for the word [liber, Latin: to be free] from the same source.

lib-er-ty. -noun

1. the condition of being free from control by others.
2. the power or right of a person to believe and act as he thinks right .

So what exactly does being a liberal have to do with the word from which it was derived? Apparently, absolutely nothing. Liberalism, in its truest form, had more to do with the ideology of modern Libertarianism which has had to create a new name for itself to prevent the confusion which was occurring when progressives hijacked the term "liberal". One more definition for good measure.

lib⋅er⋅tar⋅i⋅an. -noun

1.	a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.

2.	a person who maintains the doctrine of free will .

So root word 'liber', 'liberty' and 'libertarian' all have reference to freedom, but liberal, which one would reasonably conclude means 'one who advocates freedom' does not. I might add that my dictionary from 1972 did not even have this term [libertarian] in it. It does have "progressive" in it with the exact same definition as "liberal". Also, the current thesaurus at dictionary.com lists "progressive" as the #1 synonym for "liberal". Curious, no?

People can say that they hate liberals, and in today's definition, it is understood to mean those of progressive leaning. But the idea that liberals are fighters for individual freedom is untrue and dangerously assuaging in its usage. Sure they may want the "liberty" for themselves to eat only organic foods, not be around cigarette smoke, or wear shoes made from recycled bedpans, but they have no interest in the liberty of anyone who does not. They will legislate anyone's liberty away the second it differs from their agenda and call you uneducated for disagreeing [More on that in Part 2.]. If liberty were so important to those who take up the name of 'liberal' would there not be as much outrage and violent protest now to the governments take over of many of our key industries as there was to the intrusive nature of the Patriot Act?

Think about it. What is the goal, really?

ACORN, SEIU, AFLCIO, NFL and so on...

I may just have to boycott the Superbowl this year.

I come from Pittsburgh, PA originally, and even for a girl, football is in the blood. I do own an authentic NFL Steelers' jersey which I frequently wear in public. My vehicle had at one time touted a customized Steeler vanity plate [I will be getting another one made when I travel home for the holidays this winter.] and my defense of Bill Cowher nearly got me into a fistfight with a bus driver once at Fayette Mall. Oh, yeah, I am hard core...
My husband, for whatever reason, is a St. Louis Rams fan and being the tolerant person that I am, I married him anyway. He has been a good sport over the years, cheering for the Steelers at my side and I as a dutiful wife have tried not to laugh [too loudly] when the Rams are playing. Truth be told, it is a dark day in the house when the Steelers play the Rams.

Hubby and I were psyched at the idea of Rush Limbaugh owning a part of the franchise. I listen to Rush frequently and admire the fact that he is self-made. That is the American dream after all isn't it- to become successful, work your way up and use that success to make your dreams come true?

Now anyone who has watched a handful of NFL games knows that the entire league is as corrupt as the Norwegian Nobel Institute. There are dubious calls, convenient penalties and more money changing hands than on the floor of the US stock exchange. But, until today, I sort of identified with the NFL. I am a worker, middle class, love the sport and to show it I financially support the league and the players with my patronage. I mean, the NFL is all about the working man [or woman], right?

Wrong.

According to the commissioner of the NFL, they do not support freedom of speech or independent thought. Raping girls on cruise ships, animal abuse, shooting up a night club and rampant drug use are all still okay as far as I know, but don't you dare express your opinion. Terrell Owens learned that the hard way when he poked fun at the New England establishment in 2007 for calling them the cheaters that they are.

The really absurd thing about all of this is that the two most ostentatious racists of our time, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, had the audacity to accuse Rush Limbaugh of comments-which he has repeatedly denied and they have never substantiated- that fuel a mentality of hatred and racism, and the NFL gave them the floor. Are you kidding me? These are two men who have fabricated a rabid hatred out of thin air and woven it into a culture war. Both have shown themselves to be completely without any conscience, without virtue and now, without shame. They flock to any open camera while ignoring the true plight of those they claim to champion. Many black NFL players said they would stop playing. Ha! What a bunch of bullsh*t! Their convictions would suddenly take a back seat when they stopped getting paid, I am sure. Where was their self- righteous indignation when they had a real reason to be upset, like when Michael Vick was welcomed back with open arms and quietly got back his lucrative endorsement deals? So what that the guy committed an actual crime, he did his time. We all make mistakes, right? But mistakes are one thing and conservatism appears to be quite another- more taboo than swine flu it would appear. Seems to me these dumb ass jocks are demonizing the very public who gave them their icon status. Sounds vaguely familiar [see Hollywood].

So, it would seem that the NFL has become just another left wing acronym, but instead of National Football League, they can change it to maybe Now Further Left or perhaps Not For Limbaugh since they have come full out into the open.

Is there anyone out there who hasn't sold their soul to the DNC? Is there anyone out there with their brain and reasoning ability intact who can explain to me how this is not a pursuit to further polarize the masses?

I hope the NFL has appeased their race-baiting vocal critics, because the bread and butter of their organization, fans like me, are turning a disgusted eye to the entire League. Way to shoot yourselves in the proverbial foot. Morons...

ACORN is nuts...

Or is it just Bertha Lewis...

Despite the supposed detachment of the state-run media, people on the ground- you know, real people- have seen the videos. They have stood, mouths gaping wide as the ACORN workers didn't bat an eyelash at the story of a prostitute bringing in a troupe of underage illegals to begin a brothel. No problem using my tax money to brutalize children, commit tax fraud or advise a person on how to break the law. No crime actually occurred, you say? While these people were spouting such gems as, "Yeah, there's a way to get around paying taxes. Just don't file a return!" they were being paid tax money. Your money. My money.

Paid by the government while working to defraud the government. Cloward and Piven would be so proud!

Now, I am writing my blog pretty early in the newsday, so I may not be up on the most current opinion Bertha Lewis has chosen to take. She may be calling the attorney general of Louisiana a liar over the assertion that the Rathkye brothers actually stole 5 million instead of the 1 million we believed before. She may be discussing the release of ACORNs [ahem] thorough three day investigation into its voter registration fraud allegations. She may be back on the attack of the two people who ripped open the rotten wound that is ACORN, or she may have gone back to thanking them for exposing the "isolated corruption". Who knows what that kooky lady is gonna say next? One thing does seem consistent, though. Bertha Lewis is pissed. The more I see this woman, she keeps angrily repeating the same script, with greater and greater ire looking more and more like a person not only out of touch with the America that funds her organization, but out of touch with Earth as well.

She alleges that, as with the allegations of voter registration fraud for which they have faced charges in 14 different states, these videos only expose a "couple of bad seeds" in an otherwise noble organization. U-huh, right.

But, is ACORN really even a organization whose "public" goal is noble. ACORN claims that one of its intentions is to help low income families get home financing. Is that really wise? When I was growing up [Keep in mind, I am only 30 so my childhood wasn't really THAT long ago.], it was the middle Reagan years. The economic blow-back from the disaster that was the Carter years was still in full effect. My parents bought their home, with excellent credit, at an interest rate in the low to mid TEENS. My husband and I worked for half a decade to correct credit that was damaged by youthful stupidity and a bad divorce before felt deserved to purchase our first home. With the down payment and closing costs, it cost us every penny we had. And we were proud to have achieved that first piece of the American dream. We aren't upper income by far. Hell, we're barely middle income, but we would not have traded the pride we felt at our accomplishment for anything. We had worked our way up. We paid our bills on time. In the words of our broker, we were "well-qualified".

I don't understand what pride can be garnered from being given anything. The ease with which success is achieved certainly doesn't behoove the holder to strive to maintain it. I contend that, just the opposite, it sets up a mentality of entitlement where those who have not expect to be carried indefinitely. Pride comes from achievement not entitlement.

Did the sub-prime crisis teach us nothing about self-regulation? Are we so incapable of being honest with ourselves about what we truly deserve and have earned that we cannot end our love affair with credit? So few are willing to do the hard work, deny impulses and use some self restraint. Getting out of this recession is going to hurt. For those of us who are going to do it without government aid, it is going to hurt alot. Do we have the intestinal fortitude as a nation to dig in?

Maybe ACORN should make that one of their goals...

And the Left goes marching on...

Okay, back to digest form. This was a big news week with lots to cover. So, let's not dawdle...

"Rape-rape"?

You know I had to start with this.

It seems the new modis operandi of the Left is to defend those who happily exist without any discernible moral compass and attack anyone who even claims to follow a system of self-held values that might reach back to a form of religion. Has it been so long since Mark Sanford and have we completely lost the attention span to launch a decent comparison? Kentucky's court system has struck down the law that made it harder for sexual predators to live close to where children congregate, calling it a violation of the Constitution. David Letterman admits to using his position of authority to exact sexual favors from his female staff and no one, NO ONE calls him out for his hypocrisy. Perhaps Sarah Palin wasn't so off the mark when she worried about Willows safety around the man?
While all of this might give me a raging headache and moderate nausea, nothing knotted my gut like two statements released following the arrest of Roman Polanski. The first which left me furious and gape-jawed was Whoopi Goldberg defining what Polanski had done as not "rape-rape". Apparently, unless Polanski had beaten her to a pulp or killed her afterward, it wasn't really rape. This is not only a slap in the face to every woman who has been date-raped, but also every child who has been molested. Apparently, there is a long list [yes, a list] of Hollywood types who think that its okay to have sex with kids and evade prosecution. I don't think that anyone is surprised by Woody Allen, but Martin Scorcese, Tilda Swinton [Chronicles of Narnia] along with handfuls of nobodies. They argue about the judge running amok with the law in an attempt to make an example of Polanski as an excuse for his flight to Europe. Forget about appeals or anything about that legal process stuff. Apparently, cowardice is as excusable in Hollywood as being an ADMITTED child rapist. The icing was Sharon Tates' sister claiming that the sex was consensual. There is no such thing as consensual sex with a 13 year old, even if you haven't plied her/him with drugs and booze!
Where are the womens' advocacy groups? Where are the groups who protect children? Indeed, it is a dangerous time to be a kid in the US, especially if you live in Chicago, but we'll get to that.

Holocaust comparisons and other "frightening rhetoric"
Leading the charge to censure Joe Wilson, once she discovered it would be political expedient, Nancy Pelosi forgot her own statements about championing FDR because he was a disruptor and loving dissenters for their patriotism. She, also, failed to clarify that this only extends to Liberals. Ignoring the fact that Liberal activists are notorious for their violent protesting, we have the Speaker getting misty because, in her opinion, coarse wording can only lead to violence. When "Dead Face" Pelosi worked up her best to condemn anyone who angrily opposed the governments' attempt to takeover health insurance, she fell short of actual tears [perhaps the copious amounts of Botox numbed her tear ducts], but laid the ground work to prove what a colossal hypocrite she is.
When Alan Grayson D- FL took the floor of the House, complete with props to be certain that even those with hearing aids could understand, he accused the Republican party of wanting sick American to 'die quickly'. This was nothing more than a ploy to scare the elderly, his core constituency, into dropping their loud opposition. To compound his blatant lie, Grayson hit the circuit to discuss his comments at which time he made even more inflammatory accusations, even comparing the lack of movement by Republicans on healthcare reform to an American Holocaust. I have no doubt that this first term Congressman is trying to get his name out there. Hell, it worked for Obama [Five years ago, did anyone know who he was?]. I recognized these comments for the shock value that was intended. I also predicted Pelosi's limp-wristed and party-loyal response to criticism of Grayson. But, let's not forget another of her [in]famous quotes: she was put in her position "to get Democrats elected to Congress", ethics be damned.

The 2016 Olympics
I have to be honest. When Chicago got eliminated in the first round of voting, I started laughing so hard, I nearly fell out of my seat at the Central Kentucky Blood Center. I hadn't expected the news until later and the shock in the voice of the CNN news anchor nearly made me pee my pants. People stared- I was the only person amused-but I couldn't help it. While leaving, I pondered what I found more amusing- how insulted the Olympic committee was by the self-absorbed pleading of the "O"- triple threat or the idea that a city which leads the US in murders and runs double the national average on nearly every form of crime believed it could "inspire the world again".
Maybe, they should have led with a potential slogan: "Come to Chicago! Together, we can beat our honor students!" or how about "The Messiah calls it home, why shouldn't you?"
The arrogance of this president is clearly home bred from a city of people who sincerely believe that they have the right to expect that the world should admire them. Chicago is a black eye to this country, a blight, and what they are famous for is nothing that should be admired, aspired to or emulated. No doubt they will take this news as a way to further fuel the anger for the "injustices" lobbed at them and not as motivation to do something constructive to improve their city.

Kudos to Netanyahu, Shame on Obama
Well, this happened last week, but it deserves recognition. The speech he gave at the UN blasting Iran and its loose-lipped leader was worthy of accolades. He called the UN out, put blame where it was due and proved what an impotent group the UN is.
Obama chairs some stupid vote by the UN Security Council and intentionally suppresses a report exposing Irans' nuclear proliferation for no other reason than to save face! He waits until his glory is documented and he's in Pittsburgh to give a flacid reprimand to the Iranian regime. This act was criticize by French president Sarkozy. He stated that it had been his hope to make the announcement while at the UN to make a stronger statement, but Obamas attempt to "protect the image of success" weakened its strength.

The French are calling Obama weak! The French! And its a terrible shame that they are right...