Column: Liberals, trained in USSR, clearly 'heart terrorism'

Wednesday, October, 29, 2008; 12:00 AM | 11 | | Print

Share


TOPICS: column liberals socialism

As the final hours of the election tick away, we have seen some exceptionally vicious comments from the right.

"Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God," said Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) at a rally two Saturdays ago, and while as an Obama supporter I'm disturbed by these comments, it is my sad duty to admit that what Hayes said is absolutely true. I'm more independent than liberal, but being from the communist part of Virginia (Leesburg), outside what Gov. Sarah Palin recognizes as Real America, gives me a special insight into the liberal mind. Too long have my liberal brethren languished in shadow; it's time to come clean, and though a certain voting bloc may find this column unpopular there are things that simply must be said.

I'll start with the most important crisis affecting our everyday lives: gay marriage. When liberals argue about gay marriage they use words such as "civil rights" and "equality," or they point out that the arguments against civil unions for gay couples are the exact same that were used against interracial marriage. Don't believe them. These arguments are part of an overall pattern of substitution that liberals use in public to confuse the electorate as to their true goals.

According to the Secret Liberal Agenda Field Manual (Glasnost Edition), "legalizing gay marriage across the country is only the first step. We then establish gay centers in every district and begin active recruitment at all levels using the Amway sales model. Everyone knows that being Gay is a choice, and by introducing 'The Gay' to children at a very young age, for example, we can convert 92 percent of the population by 2042, ending all childbirth by 2075 and thereby destroying America."

There is also significant empirical evidence that merely living next to a gay couple has the potential to destroy your family; 34 percent of couples were magically turned into salt pillars during the first half of 2008 alone.

Fortunately I'm not alone in my creation of imposing-sounding numbers. Recently, Dr. James Dobson received a letter from a Christian living in the post-apocalyptic nightmare that is 2012, after four years of an Obama presidency. The letter describes a grim future, with lots of explosions and partial nudity. Future Christian Jonah Elzorps' more harrowing predictions include a universal ban on speech, mandatory homosexual education in the womb and abortions for all. The letter lays the blame for this calamity squarely where it belongs: young, foolish evangelical voters who provided the slim margin Obama needed to defeat McCain. Sure, some might see this as a blatant attempt at fear mongering to keep younger evangelicals in line, but it's important to remember that liberals hate God.

Elzorp also mentions four U.S. cities hit by terrorist attacks (and throws Iran nuking Israel in there because if we don't keep reminding ourselves why we hate Iranians, it will be that much harder to invade this latest Paper Tiger), while Obama hides under his desk.

David Frum, Bush speechwriter and all-around Republican lackey, illustrated this Democrat foolishness recently on "The Rachel Maddow Show." "We are certainly going to have a Democratic Congress, maybe with an expanded majority. And that opens the way to some potentially very destructive changes, both at home and abroad ... there are people on the Democratic side who don't want to see the truth about the threats to America in the world."

Continue Reading: 12 Next » 

Leave a comment 11 Comments Write a letter to the editor

Anonymous | # October 29, 2008 @ 7:47 AM — Flag Comment

I dont know if the world will turn into such radical predictions. But i think you hit some good points with sleeper socialists and sleeper communists. Just look at those parties platforms from the 20s-50s and see how they relate to the modern Democrat platform.

Reply to this Top


hokie teacher | # October 29, 2008 @ 8:31 AM — Flag Comment

funny how "the right" is the ONLY political affiliation who practices divisive political tactics. Thank goodness that the people "other then the right" are so adept at practicing inclusionary politics, and are so accepting of people who disagree with them. (TIC)

Reply to this Top


Brad | # October 29, 2008 @ 9:32 AM — Flag Comment

hokie teacher, the author asserted nothing of the sort. You are misrepresenting his stance in a straw man argument. He simply uses the right to illustrate his point, as the right has been more obvious with these tactics than the left during this cycle, and the past few. Obviously, pointing out the flaws in one side is not an argument for another side. Such is the reason I'm tempted to vote third part or write in.

Reply to this Top


Karl Marx | # October 29, 2008 @ 11:03 AM — Flag Comment

The last paragraph was a stroke of genius. Yes, yes...the rest of the article was all a joke...don't look at the man behind the curtain....

Reply to this Top


Hokie_1997 | # October 29, 2008 @ 11:26 AM — Flag Comment

Wow - that was just like an article from the Onion. Minus the subtley. And the funny parts.

Reply to this Top


Anonymous | # October 29, 2008 @ 3:26 PM — Flag Comment

Plagiarism at it's finest.

Reply to this Top


Hokie08 | # October 29, 2008 @ 4:38 PM — Flag Comment

Great article! Bravo

Reply to this Top


jeburch | # October 29, 2008 @ 9:09 PM — Flag Comment

Loved it. And I hate to be cheap but can't deny a wish that 3:26pm's "Anonymous" would have checked their grammar. Its, dear, not it's (= it is).

Reply to this Top


Suck it Kyle | # October 30, 2008 @ 9:53 AM — Flag Comment

You read that right.

Reply to this Top


Kyle Minor | # October 30, 2008 @ 8:27 PM — Flag Comment

Was that aimed at me? If so, you're going to have to explain your animosity to me - because quite honestly, it doesn't make any sense. This column highlights the spin tactics of the right, and a similar column (which likely won't appear in this paper) could potentially highlight similar tactics engaged by the left. Please direct me to a comment where I have smeared anyone and I'll be happy to retract it. Else, simple disagreement isn't really reason to get hostile. Disagreement is what propels the country forward.

Reply to this Top


argument news jobs weekly | # November 2, 2010 @ 3:29 AM — Flag Comment

Usually Procedure,town read investigate volume evening theatre play wrong management rich county judge facility not although sample suitable speaker fruit over instead proposal repeat parent pool politics enough material division sound tiny early animal associate tape attach conflict him incident close hate variation under enterprise newspaper kind put deep species chance whole achieve welfare asset initial leader alone man then cell treaty under few fine information sum quick newspaper else approach supply move want style telephone estimate odd her general beat demand deliver society notice increasingly smile community constant

Reply to this Top