Being Liberal with Hypocrisy

So, the very director she used to vindicate herself is now being questioned/demeaned. And after she got on Trump's case for pointing out the timing of his accusers, she turns around and does the same thing. She's a hypocrite and liar. I hope she gets the 10 years she deserves - Martha Stewart 2.0.

The worst part about all of this is her voting base - the same people who were using FBI director, James B. Comey, to protect their candidate just last week have now taken up their torches and pitchforks against the man in light of his pursuit of material fact. The same people who were ganging up on Trump, when he made statements the system was rigged, are now cheering for Clinton as she does the same thing. This is typical of the left - it's O.K. for them, but it's not O.K. for you. This ideology has also been seen in regards to Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, who was venerated by left, even after being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in a sexual misconduct lawsuit, and subsequent impeachment (source: 1). Bill Clinton was also disbarred for 5 years and ordered to pay a US$25,000 fine (source: 2), as well as a US$850,000 settlement to one of his accusers, Paula Jones (source: 3).

During Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment debate (video below), the comments from the Democrats were not only ignorant, but downright despicable. Representative Karen Thurman (D) of Florida states:

"President Clinton, being merely a human, gave into lust. With the shame and embarrassment of that flaw being discovered, he deceived us. Those of us who voted for this man can forgive him. We can see what he has done not only for this nation, but across the world. We can see that this president has much more to give as a president. But those on this floor who are calling for impeachment never voted for him, never supported him. They have pursued him relentlessly, and they cannot forgive or accept and imperfection in this man. Just as lust a deceit are sins, so are hate and envy. Just two years ago this house took disciplinary action against the Speaker, for intentionally misrepresenting information to the House Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee recommended and this House adopted, on a bipartisan basis, reprimand over censure - a penalty which allowed the Speaker to stand for reelection. I don't know how to reconcile the hypocrisy of the House in holding the Speaker and the President to two different standards."

If you know anything about the charges against the Speaker of the House at that time, Newt Gingrich, you would know there is no equivalency between his case and the case of Bill Clinton. Speaker Gingrich had eighty-four charges filed against him (all by Democrats), with only one violation being found - using tax-exempt funds to favor a political party. Gingrich violated House ethics rules, but he did not break the law (source: 4). Bill Clinton, on the other hand, did break the law by committing perjury and obstructing justice. The other major difference between the two is that one man used tax-exempt money to create a conservative video for a university course, while the other was forcing himself upon women and receiving oral sex from one of them in the Oval Office.

Nonetheless, this type of logic shouldn't surprise you coming from the left - liberals are always the victim. They'll turn a blind-eye to anything their party does, while calling for the public hanging of a Conservative for merely making a statement. They will also attempt to defame information based on it's source - now that their candidate is under fire from hacked e-mails released by Wikileaks, they pretend the information is not reliable as it's "from the Russians". Well, last time I checked, 2+2 = 4 regardless of who says it, and definitely regardless of whether or not it upsets someone.

"...you're a tyrant and not as open-minded as you claim to be."

Those are words I read from a close friend, yesterday. I had a long time to think about those words and came to a few realizations.

In my 32 years on this Earth I have had the time to analyze what I will support, stay neutral on, and fight against. I have traveled to many places around the world, been surrounded by various cultures, ideologies, and societal structures, and have had experiences which the greater populace has not. Point being, I have an ample amount colors on my pallet to paint my positions.

At this point, the aforementioned colors have shown me some definite things:

1.) I am a Christian; although I am not even close to being the "model Christian", I do try to be. And as I grow older, this is becoming more and more important to me. So yes, I do believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I do go to service (or as we call it in the Armenian church "badarak"). I do believe Christ's message to love all people, but that doesn't mean the world is pity party for those who choose not to contribute or help themselves if able. I do believe in charity, if it is out of the kindness of the heart and soul, not if someone if forced into it. And, of course, I believe in the morals set forth by the religion.

2.) I am a conservative. No, not the evangelical Christian conservative that tells everyone they're damned to hell if they have a belief counter to mine. I am the type of conservative that believes in civil liberties, the right of choice (within certain limits), and minimal government interference is one's life. I believe in family values, hard work, and commonsense. I believe in the free market, capitalism, and am completely against socialism in any form.

3.) Unless you are family or a close friend, I don't care about your feelings. Feelings do not take precedence over fact - ever. The more we entertain emotion over truth, the more we travel away from fact-based common sense and logic. As an example, the Armenian Genocide is factual historic event, with evidence as far as the eye can see; however, in the current state, is it the best move for the United States to recognize it? On the political stage, probably not so much; morally there is no question - the answer is yes.

4.) Not sharing certain opinions doesn't automatically make someone a "bad" person. Outside of views on extremes such as pedophilia, rape, non-justifiable homicide, abuse of people/animals, and a few others which automatically make people complete scum if they are party to them - differentiating views do not generate an automatic negative epithet. Let's take the very words which spurred this, "tyrant" and "closed-minded" (condensed from "not as open-minded as you claim to be"). Would those labels have been given if views were in-line, regardless of the approach? My gut feeling is they wouldn't have been. Not aligning with your beliefs doesn't make me any more closed-minded than you telling me I am "closed-minded" for not believing what you do.

5.) It's important not to label people until they have actually committed an action which warrants the label, especially, when with epithets such as "racist", "sexist", any "-phobic", "bigot", etc. If you label someone without evidence, you’re actually the one worthy of the label.  If you come across someone like this, it’s most likely not worth your time to engage them in discussion, as they are void of reason.  Ad hominem attacks are the weapon of choice for the left. They will use them regardless of politeness or substantiated evidence. There is simply no détente.


6.) Again, there is no détente. Knowing this truth, speak bluntly and to the point. Do not concede simply out of fear of being labeled, disliked, or even of losing a friend. No matter what, you are going to deal with this is one way, shape, or form, so just say what you mean and mean what you say. Beating around the bush will only prolong the discussion and open the door to “so what you’re saying is”, and your words will quickly be twisted into an abridged version of “Mein Kampf”. (Disclaimer: I am not evoking Godwin’s Law.  I am, however, using Hitler as he is the only person the left seems to be aware of.)


7.) Religious views follow everyone to the voting booth, and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s when the government starts directing religious establishments or vis-à-vis that we have a problem. No one should be forced by the government to go against their religious views if no one is in danger, period.

I could add more, but I am simply short on time. 

While writing this I came to the understanding I have been pushed into to many of these realizations by my personal debate experiences or dealings with leftists, because of how they are quick to judge based solely on emotion.  Till this day I have never ended a friendship with someone who was a leftist, and I have never labeled someone without evidence. On the other hand, I can name at least a dozen times this has happened to me.  Whatever you do, don’t fall into these types of traps or display the same behavior.  Stay calm, provide evidence, and don’t let emotion take over. Let them degrade their own argument and character through your composure.

P.S. To my friend who was the catalyst for this piece – don’t take everything I have written on your shoulders, as much of it doesn’t apply to you.

An extreme lack of historic understanding

An extreme lack of historic understanding

The U.S. wasn't a "country", when settlers came. There were no borders, there was only tribal governance. Now, I am not saying that was either good or bad, but to make it seem as though there was a functioning nation state is preposterous.

Every nation in this world, for the most part, is based on the settling of lands. There are exceptions to the rule in terms of nations of ancient peoples, but it's a rarity. Most of Europe came out of Anatolia in the beginning, so is the man going to tell the reporter to go back to Anatolia instead of Germany, for example? Also, that would mean he'd need to take himself back to where he came from. On the same (unfortunate) note, slavery was standard practice during those times. Africans were enslaving Africans, Caucasians enslaving Caucasians, Arabs enslaving Africans, Indians, and Caucasians (search: Barbary Slave Trade), Chinese enslaved the Chinese, etc. Europeans didn't start slavery - they ended it.

**Side note: Native Americans were the last people in the United States to free their African slaves. They fought tooth and nail to keep them, with some Native tribes joining the Confederate Army. I wonder if Mr. Go-back-to-where-you-came-from knows that.**

The whole notion of not standing for the flag due to an embellished and, sometimes, downright false accusations is asinine, but it is a Right granted to all U.S. citizens and nationals by the First Amendment, which I strongly support; however, just because you have the right to not stand, doesn't make you any less of an asshole for not doing it. People like Colin Kaepernick, who is half Caucasian, makes US$19 million a year, and who was adopted by white parents, speaks about "oppression", and protests it by not standing for the anthem and flag of the very nation that forwarded him the opportunity to become so successful, even as a 2nd rate QB. Now, due to his status and fame as a NFL player, people are blindly following suit.  And "Quanell X", another ill-informed and self-victimizing "community activist" (read: everything is whitey's fault), is there to herd the sheep under the same false flag.