Liberalism is the Philosophy of Player Hating

I’ll make this as absurdly simple as I can: the hate I have seen recently from the left is appalling. Whether it be SEIU paid agitators beating down a man they considered a race traitor or the vile and intentional libel of internet trolls in the pocket of the administration, The vast majority of hate in political discourse is created and perpetuated by self-described liberals and progressives. Rather than get into a deep discussion about the roots of this phenomenon, it is infinitely more valuable to observe the behavior of their “leaders” and take notice of how those beliefs translate to the lowliest pawn in the political game. I have always found it to be no small source of irony that the President and Democrats in general are embraced by a hip-hop community that despises “player hating” when that is the best description of modern liberal progressivism. It is also ironic then, that those same ideologues often partner with those they decry for what “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones called “the deep satisfaction of radicals ends.” Despite their claims that they support hard working Americans of every stripe and income level, supporters of the President express their beliefs most often through the language of envy, vengeance, and hate. Enough of me, though. The philosophy of player hating is exposed in their own words:

Barack Obama: “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” (Funny how the President understands ignorance so well…)

Reverend Jeremiah Wright: “We believe God sanctioned the rape and robbery of an entire continent. We believe God ordained African slavery. We believe God makes Europeans superior to Africans and superior to everybody else too.”

Van Jones: “What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about people who come here from all around the world who we’re willing to have out in the field, with poison being sprayed on them, poison being sprayed on them because we have the wrong agricultural system. And we’re willing to poison them and poison the earth to put food on our table, but we don’t want to give them rights and we don’t want to give them dignity and we don’t want to give them respect?” (Maybe, Mr. Jones, you might have made the case for dignity without accusing the greatest country on earth of poisoning people? Maybe you just can’t control it?)

Cass Sunstein: “In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency.” (Perhaps liberty exists in contrast to dependency but it seems to miss the point that America has always promoted liberty as a principle. This man is working hard to take the “soft” out of “soft fascism.”)

Nancy Pelosi: ““[Republicans will] take food out of the mouths of children in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest.” (I’ve never been faced with that choice but why question a San Fransisco liberal on what conservatives believe?)

Mark Lloyd: “The other part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don’t want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community.” (If someone doesn’t agree with you, Mr. Lloyd suggests you complain to the government for policing and, if that fails, just fine them.)

There’s plenty more out there. If you want examples of liberal player hating in their own words, there’s plenty of wealth, no need to redistribute.

Advertisements

3 Responses to Liberalism is the Philosophy of Player Hating

  1. Kimberly says:

    Outstanding – simply outstanding! And the trickle down occurs as the obots receive their letters calling their fellow Americans “right wing domestic terrorists” and then run out to spread the message of hate and envy. How sad that their message is all about divisiveness.

  2. bayouchild says:

    the whole purpose of it in my opinion is to get people so pissed off and discouraged that they quit. I see it all over the blogs, twitter, everywhere. Underneath all that hate is despair that their ideals have failed and that they are following a leader who will not and cannot lead.

  3. Tnelson says:

    what a great site and informative posts, I will add a backlink and bookmark your site. Keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: