I was checking out some of the fantastically unhinged rants over at Democratic Underground, which bills itself as "one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards".  I also noticed that they stated "Visitors may also participate in our discussion forums, which have become one of the most popular places on the Web for members of the political left to share ideas and discuss the issues."

'That might be fun!' I thought.  After all, where better to have a real discussion about the issues of the day than those with those whose views are opposite mine?  How better to gain an appreciation and understanding of the Liberal mind than to chat with some Liberals and maybe, if we're all lucky, find some common ground? 

I just knew that they themselves would welcome such a discussion, even a chance to bring me over to their views on some issues.  After all, don't Liberals see themselves as "progressive", "all-inclusive", and "open to all points of view"?  Aren't the Democrats billed as the "big tent party"?  Don't they proclaim that patriotism is best shown by debate and questions?  Anticipating some really rousing debate, I navigated to the register page to set up an ID and meet my new debate partners.

Alas!  I read the rules of the site and realised my hope of a good debate was in vain.  It seems the progressive, all-inclusive, open-to-all-views members of the big tent party don't welcome opposing points of view after all!  They openly tell visitors to the site that they're not welcome if they dissent from the Liberal agenda!  Read for yourself, and weep for the "tolerant" Left that isn't so tolerant, it seems, of the dissent they pretend to admire.

"If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#welcome

Wow!  What could be more fair, progressive, tolerant, all-inclusive, and "liberal" than that?

So once again, the America-haters joined up with the Bush-Bashers, time-lost burned-out hippies, and fanatical ostrich-imitating terrorist appeasers ("Peace at ANY cost!") under the all-embracing red banner of the Communists to bring us another treat: the sight of a group of losers frothing at the mouth with hatred of America and especially President George W. Bush parading through our nation's capitol.

Oh, joy.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News has put up a few assorted photos of some of the assorted idiots who think that running away from trouble is the best way to deal with it, with links to many more: http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2003_10_26.PHP#001450

"The demonstration was co-sponsored by the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) and United for Peace and Justice."
http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/102503report.html

So we know who sponsored the demonstrations, now don't we?  Why does that matter?  Well, would YOU attend a pro-troop rally if it was sponsored by the KKK? (Yes, I know they were founded by Democrats, but I'm making a point here.)  I certainly wouldn't.  So who attends these things?

"Al Sharpton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, exhorted the crowd not to be content with the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/war_protests

So we know who endorses them, too.  Who else spoke at this Communist-sponsored rally?  And can we trust any of those who did so to run the country they hate so much that they join up with Communists -- remember them, the totalitarians who enslaved half the world until Ronald Reagan drove the U.S.S.R. to its knees? -- to protest its policies? I don't think so.

Do you?

Well, the Liberal mind strikes again... in entirely the wrong direction, as usual.  It seems that (to my utter shock) the BCIS (formerly known as the INS) is actually doing its job, enforcing the law. According to an Associated Press "news" story published yesterday (thinly disguised Liberal op/ed, as usual), half a million illegal aliens have been deported since 1996 and -- get this -- America is at fault for the criminal activities they commit back in their home countries.

The U.S. government calls them criminal aliens, but they are as American as drive-by shootings and crack cocaine.

Whatever happened to baseball, hot dogs and apple pie?  It's great how this writer starts right off with his anti-American vitriol, so we know where he stands, isn't it?  Some of them try to disguise it, pretending to be unbiased. Not this guy.  When he thinks of America, it's drive-bys and crack. Nice.

Many came to the United States as children, often in the arms of men and women fleeing poverty and war. They went to school here, but usually not for long. They came of age on city streets from Los Angeles to New York. Eventually they broke the law.

Well, that would make them criminals, then, wouldn't it?  I love how the story makes it sound inevitable that they would break the law, possibly against their will.  Then again, Liberals believe people are not capable of deciding their own behavior.  That's why they're not to be held responsible when they just happen to break the law.

In 1996, Congress banished them from America for life and directed immigration agents to hunt them down. The biggest dragnet in U.S. history is now well underway. Already, more than 500,000 have been rounded up and deported, according to government figures, and this year they are being banished at a rate of one every seven minutes to more than 160 countries around the world.

All I can say is, "Yaay!".  Then I can wait seven minutes and say it again.  They're criminals. They're aliens. They're outta here.

The culture of drugs and guns many carry back to their native lands is wreaking havoc in nations that receive them in substantial numbers.

This is how Liberals view the United States. "The culture of drugs and guns".  No wonder France hates us... they must read a lot of AP "news" reports.

Despite the profound impact of the criminal deportations, few Americans know anything about them.

That's probably because the "profound impact" is positive... for Americans.  Hmm... fewer criminals on our streets.  Fewer criminals in our jails living at our expense.  It's a win-win situation for American citizens.

Under the 1996 U.S. law, every non-citizen sentenced to a year or more in prison is subject to deportation, even if the sentence is suspended. Deportable crimes can be anything from murder to petty theft. The law is retroactive, making immigrants deportable for crimes that did not warrant deportation at the time they were committed. And the law eliminated nearly all grounds for appeal, making deportations virtually automatic.

You mean if you come here and commit a crime, you have to go home? What a great law!

They are an army of social misfits - drug addicts and drunken drivers, robbers and shoplifters, rapists and wife-beaters, drug traffickers and gang members.

All the more reason to get them the hell out of our country.  The plaque on the Statue of Liberty says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:  I lift my lamp beside the golden door."  It doesn't mention criminals.

Deported after serving sentences for their crimes in America, the criminal deportees are simply set loose upon arrival, usually with little or no money and with no prospects for work.
To survive in what for most of them are unfamiliar surroundings, many turn to the skills learned on the streets of America - to drug dealing, stealing, extortion, sometimes even murder.

But Liberals make the same excuses for repeat offenders right here at home. "Its not their fault, it's all they know!" Look, I've lived in America all my life. I didn't learn those skills on "the streets of America".  Why is it America's fault when people become criminals?  I will never understand why Liberals refuse to hold people responsible for their own behavior and choices.

In El Salvador and Honduras, many of the deportees become victims before they can become victimizers. Regarded as pariahs in their native lands, they are hunted by vigilante squads, some shot down within days of stepping off the unmarked U.S. Marshal's Service jetliners that carry them into exile several days every week.

Sounds like a matter for the governments of El Salvador and Honduras to deal with.  Maybe we can send all of our Liberals down there to help them become more enlightened.  They can learn to give criminals free housing, three meals a day, and cable tv. They can heavily tax the citizenry to pay for that and other social programs.  Before you know it, they'll be just like America!

But unlike citizens, aliens who commit crimes can simply be sent home.

Right. Because they're here as guests of this country.  If they break our laws, they SHOULD leave.

What I want to know is, what does AP writer Randall Richard want done with non-citizens who commit crimes in our country?  I didn't notice his solution to the problem in the story, just a lot of whining about how America is to blame for the world's woes.  Should we just keep them in US jails at US taxpayer expense? Grant them citizenship -- which, apparently, many of them never bothered to apply for -- so that we have to turn them loose on OUR streets instead?  THAT would be great, wouldn't it: come break our laws and get your citizenship free!  Act now! Operators are standing by!

I think we deserve more from "news" organisations than these pathetic laments backed by violins playing for the poor, poor victims of America.  Would it be asking too much to request that writers who point the finger at the bad old USA offer a suggestion of their own on how to fix the matter, instead of just whining on about how bad America is?

Yeah, that'll happen.

It's interesting to see how far a penchant for keeping up with current events combined with a talent for seeing patterns could take one down the road to rampant paranoia.

As a case in point, read this story in today's Houston Chronicle about an alarming jump in flu cases in Texas recently:

"Texas Children's has identified 85 flu cases in the past 10 days, an enormous leap over the typical flu season caseload of nine a week. Two children are in intensive care. At Ben Taub, which is part of the Harris County Hospital District, doctors are seeing 80 to 100 pediatric patients a day and 85 percent are flu cases, said a spokeswoman. Similarly, the volume at LBJ Hospital has doubled."
"Unpleasant as the illness is, causing high fevers, body aches, coughs and general malaise, there's very little doctors can do with the flu. Antibiotics don't help because flu is caused by a virus. Caught early, antiviral drugs may decrease the duration of illness."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/front/2174056

Then recall this line from David Kay's report on Saddam's WMD:

"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

Next, read the flu-like list of symptoms of Brucella infection: 

Aches, chills, fever (undulating)
Drenching sweating
Fatigue, myalgia, muscle weakness
http://biosun.bio.tu-darmstadt.de/infekt/Gram-minus/tsld021.htm

Paranoid?  Probably.  Then again, remember the Iraqi operatives caught in March trying to get themselves smuggled across Mexico's border into Texas... where the inexplicable increase in people with "flu-like symptoms" are.

"This week law enforcement sources said they uncovered a plot by an Iraqi terror team to get smuggled into the U.S. through Mexico, in an effort to reach the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas."
http://www.visalaw.com/03apr1/4apr103.htm

You can see how easy it would be to put two plus two plus two plus two together and get... what? Are we being too paranoid?  We won't know until, say, Texas declares a state of emergency due to an epidemic of Brucella.  The thing is, we can never be sure our enemies aren't trying to kill us.  Can we afford to put people into office who want to return to the pre-9/11 state of complacency, thinking "it could never happen here"?

The hypocrisy of Liberals, especially those in the media, apparently knows no bounds.  One of the bubbles of marsh gas rising in the Democratic swamp right now is the story of Army Lieutenant General William Boykin, who said while speaking in his church -- a private meeting place, not a government or public forum -- that the "real enemy" is Satan and that he felt that God put George W. Bush in the White House at the right time to deal with the threats we face today.

Immediately the Liberal Meat Grinder formerly known as the free press revved into action, attacking the General because his personal beliefs might offend the terrorists who are trying to kill us. "Public statements by a senior military official of an inflammatory, offensive nature that would denigrate another religion and which could be construed as bigotry may easily be exploited by enemies of the United States and contribute to an erosion of support within the Arab world and, perhaps, increased risk for members of the U.S. armed forces serving in Muslim nations," read part of a letter from Senator John Warner (R-Va) (I'm shocked) and Senator Carl Levin (D-Mi).  It also said, "there are limits on the right of expression for service members." 

When did THAT happen?

When did it come about that a man cannot even speak his mind in a private gathering?  He wasn't giving away State secrets.  He wasn't speaking in his capacity as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He was expressing his personal opinion in a church.  When did that become a crime deserving of death, as Nina Totenberg of NPR immediately advocated when she said "I hope he’s not long for this world"?  She immediately backtracked, saying "In his job, please, in his job."

It may have been the part where he spoke of a Somalian warlord who taunted him by saying that Allah would protect him that upset the Left.  "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol," Boykin said, referring (as he later explained) to the warlord's "worship of money and power."

If General Boykin had stood in a mosque and denounced President Bush, calling HIM a representative of Satan instead of Osama bin Laden, he would have been instantly lionised by the media instead.  If anyone had dared to criticise those statements, the media and the ACLU would have been screaming bloody murder about the repression of his right to speak his mind, and his freedom of religion.

General Boykin exercised his First Amendment rights of free speech and practicing any religion he chose.  When those things become crimes, book me on the next flight out.  Since he wasn't speaking in his official capacity, or even in a public place, his rights ought to be protected as much as those people who, like most of the Democratic Party, viciously attack the President and accuse him of perjury without proof.  As Donald Rumsfeld said about Boykin's remarks, "It is not our statement; it is his statement."  Maybe the members of the press ought to stop exercising their First Amendment rights to attack someone for exercising his First Amendment rights.

To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons...
UN Document A/CONF.192/15 Part II Section 2
http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.html

Though they piously claim that their purpose is to stop illegal trade in small arms around the world, the United Nations' drive for global gun control is all about one thing: declaring between 60 and 65 million law-abiding Americans (according to the 2003 NRA factsheet) instant criminals. The UN wants to oversee all sales of "small arms" -- including handguns, rifles and shotguns. The resolution demands that "henceforth licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process." They want to track all guns from manufacturer to owner to owner, and "prevent the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession of any unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons" (which must include all existing guns, since these marks have not yet been created). In other words, if you own a gun manufactured before the new marking is determined, you're in violation... you and tens of millions of other Americans exercising the rights protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

The Second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The Founding Fathers were extremely clear on their purposes regarding gun ownership. (Again referring to the NRA factsheet) Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Richard Henry Lee wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."  Some people might argue that a militia is no longer necessary to the security of the country. Some of those people might argue that if a militia is no longer necessary, the people have no right to keep and bear arms. Reading the Constitution, I find no place in it where that or any right is specifically granted; therefore the rights the Constitution was designed to protect were pre-supposed to exist independently of and prior to its existence. There is certainly no precedent in the Constitution for removing the rights of the people, however... nor should there be.

If the United Nations succeeds in removing your right to own a gun, they will have succeeded in circumventing the Constitution of the United States, rendering it inferior to the will of the United Nations. Many "multiculturalist" (meaning "anti-THIS-culture") Liberals would think of that as a good thing, since (in their opinion), the United States is neither capable nor worthy of self-determination. To say the least, I disagree with that opinion.  The Amendments in the Bill of Rights were designed to protect one thing: our freedom. An armed citizenry need never fear falling under the sort of totalitarian dictatorships that comprise many of the United Nations members, for instance.

11. The U.S. Military...
a. exists to protect America from harm, as aggressively as necessary.  They're all heroes.
b. is too powerful; any use of America's overwhelming military might is unfair.
c. is accurately portrayed in movies like Oliver Stone's "Platoon" as a bunch of swaggering testosterone-drunk bullies, just aching to murder foreigners.

12. Osama bin Laden...
a. sits in a hidden cave issuing threats. It's just as important to dismantle his organisation as it is to find him... maybe more so. He doesn't carry out operations himself, you know.
b. is the most important member of al-Qaeda and our only legitimate enemy. Once we've captured him this "War on Terror" should be over, and we can stop being so aggressive and other countries won't hate us.
c. is only practicing his faith; it's unfair to keep harassing him this way. Try seeing the world from his point of view before you go around trying to kill him!

13. The Democratic Presidential hopefuls...
a. are mostly a joke. All they do is bash Bush like a bunch of angry children... not a thought or plan among them, except to raise our taxes some more.  Who are they again?
b. will hopefully win the election, if they can come up with some really good platforms. Who are they again?
c. HAVE to win in 2004, no matter who ends up getting the nomination or what his ideas are. Who cares who they are, as long as they beat Bush?

14. The Democratic Party leaders...
a. were calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein five years ago based on Saddam's known weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian crimes, violation of UN resolutions and support of terrorism.  They are the lowest of hypocrites for attacking the President (after the fact, of course, and after voting in favor of military action) just for political gain.
b. are finally making their voices heard in a Republican-dominated Washington.
c. should openly revolt and force Bush out of power, at gunpoint if necessary!

15. Filibustering judicial nominees...
a. is an attempt by the Democrats to hijack the Constitutional process. The same hypocrites that vehemently opposed the mere threat of filibustering Clinton's nominees are now leading the fake two-year filibuster on Bush's. The Constitution does not support them; their actions violate it. Is it even legal to block a nominee from even being voted on just because you're afraid you might lose? That's called democracy.
b. is acceptable, if the Senators really feel that the nominee is unqualified.
c. is acceptable, if the nominee is a Conservative right-winger nominated by a Republican.

16. Hillary Clinton...
a. became a partner in her law firm only because her husband got elected Governor, and became a Senator only because her husband got elected President. She has no actual qualifications to hold any office, yet some people are so star-struck they want her to run for President?  At least Arnold had experience owning and managing his own companies before running for Governor!
b. should run for President, because it would be great to have a woman President!
c. should run for President, because she might get enough votes to beat Bush!

17. Iran...
a. is harboring and supporting terrorists (especially Saad bin Laden, who they said they expelled last year), and certainly seems to be on the verge of building a nuclear bomb.  If they don't prove to the IAEA by 31 October 2003 that they aren't... they're in serious trouble. (And they can look east and west to find out what "serious trouble" means.)
b. is in danger of incurring the wrath of the United Nations, which will almost certainly issue resolutions and sanctions to teach them they should cooperate!
c. is sure to be the next country illegally invaded by Bush, when they are doing nothing to deserve it any more than Iraq or Afghanistan were.

18. Conservative talk radio hosts...
a. are entertainers who exhort people to think for themselves instead of blindly obeying politicians and media elites spouting messages of gloom, doom and fear.  They often point out inconsistencies, shading and outright lies in media stories, which is why they're hated by the Left.
b. are mean, inhuman people who rant in front of millions of brainwashed followers, just like Hitler.
c. are dangerous because so many people listen to them... and people are merely sheep who NEED a shepherd.  If we don't make them stop preaching their evil messages of disobedience and anti-political correctness, people will run wild, offending each other and voting Republican! They have to be silenced.

19. Gun ownership...
a. is a right of all responsible, law-abiding free Americans, protected by the Second Amendment.  Non-law-abiding people will get them no matter what the law says.
b. should be restricted so that only people who really demonstrate a need for them should be able to get them.
c. should be stopped!  The only kind of people who own guns also drink beer and watch NASCAR, for crying out loud... and who wants a bunch of drunk, testosterone-soused redneck bullies running around waving guns? The unwashed masses are too stupid to own guns. People need to be protected from themselves.

20. Cuba...
a. is an oppressive totalitarian Communist regime guilty of violating human rights, which people risk death daily to escape.  We need to push for democracy for the Cuban people.
b. is a shining example of a Communist country that works, to counterbalance the oppressive Captalism of the USA. They have no unemployment, and no poverty!
c. is run by a great, wise, benevolent leader, and all the people adore him and are blissfully happy.  No, I've never been there, but that's what celebrities like Oliver Stone, Ed Asner and Danny Glover say, and THEY have.

So, how did you score?

Mostly a's: No, you're no Liberal. You're a fine human being with a good grasp of the issues. Make sure you vote next November!
Mostly b's: Yes, You're a Liberal, but there's hope for you. You can be reasoned with. You need to get over the brainwashing you've undergone at school and by the Liberal media, and start thinking for yourself.
Mostly c's (or, you're utterly brainwashed): If you hate this country so much, why are you here?  You'd enjoy Canada or France, or perhaps Cuba or North Korea MUCH more, I'm thinking, and create a job vacancy for a REAL American by your absence.

BONUS: If you refused to take this test because tests are inherently unfair... then you, my friend, are definitely a Liberal.

Take Part 1 and Part 3 of this test for the full effect. By the way, the "c" answers were all paraphrased from actual arguments I've had, mostly online.  The other side, of course.