1. Because their politically correct nonsense is stupid and evil. The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute has a training guide for the military. When describing who the "extremists" are in this country, they say this: "Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place." Well, I am for all of the above, so label me "extremist." (Yes, I know the history of southern states trying to maintain their segregationist laws under the guise of "states rights." That is not what this guide is talking about. It is referring to conservatives who believe in a smaller federal government, and greater power in the states and more individual liberties.) And it warns to watch for groups that have "tea party" or "patriot" in their names. (Still think the IRS targeting of conservative groups was just an isolated incident?) An example of an extremist group is "the colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule..." (From the 8/29/13 IBD.)
2. Because they will not accept the truth. Recently, Neil Cavuto on Fox ran a tape of President John Kennedy speaking in favor of lowering taxes. He received a number of emails from liberals accusing him of editing the tapes to make it look like Kennedy favored lowering taxes, when they knew he did not. Therefore, he subsequently aired many different Kennedy speeches arguing for lower taxes. It is not just that liberals will believe whatever they want to believe. (Remember, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality.) More importantly, the above reflects how little knowledge and understanding today's liberals have about how far their party has moved to the far left. They cannot digest that a democrat pushed for lower taxes. They have not only come to believe in socialism, they believe their party always did; and they will rewrite history if necessary - just like the Soviet Union did.
3. Because their politically correct nonsense can be deadly. It turns out that the NYPD has been labeling radical mosques "terror organizations," giving them far more flexibility in investigating and preventing future terrorist attacks. On the other hand the Feds - the FBI - were living in their politically correct world. The world that says mosques are no different than other houses of worship. Therefore, the Feds did not know about the ties the Boston bombers had to the local, radical mosque. Their incompetence can be directly tied to their political correctness; which, in turn, can be directly tied to the deaths and injuries caused by the Tsarnaev brothers. (From the 8/29/13 IBD.)
4. Because they twice elected the most divisive president in U.S. history. Obama spoke at the 50th anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech delivered by the late Rev. Martin Luther King. Obama could not overcome his nature and simply give a speech that would be unifying, as Dr. King did. No, at all times and in all places he must attack his opponents. (Recall his unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court Justices for their "Citizens United" decision, while they were seated directly in front of him at his State of the Union speech.) No, Obama had to criticize "entrenched interests - those who benefit from an unjust status quo (and) resisted any government efforts to give working families a fair deal, marshaling an army of lobbyists and opinion makers to argue that minimum wage increases or stronger labor laws or taxes on the wealthy who could afford it...that all these things violated sound economic principles." In other words, he had to attack those evil people who oppose his policies. But MLK's speech had a unifying theme, speaking of a time when "little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." MLK also said: "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." (From the 8/29/13 WSJ.) That would be the cup from which Obama regularly sips.
5. Because they buy into all the Palestinian propaganda and believe that Israel is the worst country in the Middle East, if not the entire world. Laurent Fabius is the French Foreign Minister, and recently met with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. Afterwards, Fabius said this: "Even if we speak of other neighboring countries - the dramatic conflict in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt - the fact remains that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is one of the issues, PERHAPS THE CENTRAL ONE, for the region." (Emphasis added.) Another leftist moron. Over 100,000 dead in Syria, due to a civil war that has nothing to do with Israel. Egypt - the Muslim Brotherhood gets elected and the Egyptian military throws Morsi out in a coup. Nothing to do with Israel. Iran's nukes a threat to the entire region and world - obviously not a big issue for Fabius. Israel is a democracy and has had nukes for decades, with the region and the world understanding that those nukes were for defensive and deterrent purposes only. Israel's nukes have never been a threat to any country. But if Israel just allows yet another Islamic, terrorist state on its borders, one sworn to Israel's very destruction, then there will be peace in the entire region.
6. Because the liberal media will only criticize the right, but is blind when it comes to the harm caused by the left. Recently, the New York Times editorialized about the "bizarre" and "unconstitutional" bill pending in the Missouri legislature. The bill apparently declares federal gun safety laws unenforceable in Missouri, and would subject federal agents to arrest if they attempted to enforce such laws. My son also asked me if such a proposed law would not be unconstitutional. Indeed it would be, pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, declaring the Constitution and laws of the federal government to be the "supreme law of the land." However, I explained to my son that such apparent lawlessness was to be expected when the President and top government officials ignore the law themselves. Need some reminders? Obama "declares" he will not enforce federal immigration laws, stopping deportation of those under age 30, even though Congress declined to pass such a measure.
* Obama "declared" that his Administration would not enforce the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act; stating he did not need to seek Congressional approval for not enforcing a law on the books because we are not in a "normal" political environment. Obama has now also "declared" that he would not enforce the cap on out-of-pocket expenses in Obamacare. Obama unconstitutionally "declared" the Senate to be in "recess" in order to make political appointments he did not believe the Senate would approve. Just recently, Obama's Attorney General "declared" he would not pursue federal drug charges in all cases because of the mandatory minimum sentences imposed by Congress in the 1980's. The proper approach, of course, was to ask Congress to reconsider the effectiveness of their decades old policy. But why do that when you can just "declare" which laws will be enforced, and which will not be enforced.
* One of the the liberal media supported this lawlessness by the top law enforcement officer in the country, saying: "If members of Congress resent Holder's exercise of prosecutorial discretion...they can reassert their authority by accomplishing the same objective through legislation." (Los Angeles Times editorial from 8/13/13.) Wow! First, it is not prosecutorial discretion to state you will ignore a law passed by the Congress of the United States. Second, and more importantly, the Times endorses this lawlessness, and says the only thing Congress can do is pass a law consistent with Holder's policy. That is exactly backwards - it is the Congress that sets policy and it is up to the President and Attorney General to enforce those policies. The New York Times concurred, indicating they would have preferred that the Missouri legislature "set a law-abiding example of government responsibility." Apparently, they have no such preference for the most lawless President and Administration in my lifetime.
7. Because the liberals have no tolerance for disagreement. Earlier this year, a family owned bakery in Oregon (Sweet Cakes By Melissa) was in the news for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. As Christians, they did not believe in gay marriage. A complaint was made by the lesbian couple with the state's Bureau of Labor and Industries. The couple also went to the local media - TV and newspapers. But the LGBT crowd could not await the legal outcome. They threatened to kill the family - including the kids. Then they threatened to shut down any company that continued to do business with the bakery by providing their supplies. That was the end of the line for the family owned business. I would guess these same thugs have the "Coexist" bumper stickers on their cars. Except that they would never try such tactics on a Muslim owned bakery.
8. Why am I mad at liberals and non-conservatives? Because they no longer respect our Constitution nor our system of government, with its checks and balances. They no longer respect the free speech rights of others nor even that others may think differently. They no longer have respect for the religious among them (unless they are Muslims). They no longer believe that those who hold contrary views should be able to make a living. The American idea of "live and let live" is gone. The fact that the President of the United States and his top advisers can denigrate a major media outlet (Fox News) because they dare to disagree with him smacks of a totalitarian dictatorship; as does Obama's lawlessness. But all I can get from liberals is a big yawn - and maybe an attempt to still blame Bush.