The left is not liberal.


What I am about to say may seem kind of strange to some. Mainly because there was a time when the left and liberals were synonymous with each other. However, that is no longer the case. The left are no longer liberal if anything they have become the anti-liberal.

In a ironic twist, the right has begin to shift towards being liberal. Even the alt-right which is made up of some very racist people, have become more liberal then the left is today. Now I understand many people may be yelling at their monitors after reading, but let me make my case.
Most people don’t really know what a liberal is. When they hear the word, they tend to automatically think Democrat or the left.  It’s as if it’s just simply another label used for them and they would be wrong.
However, being a liberal simply means you believe people should be free and independent, or if you will a person believe in Live and Let Live. 
Doing a quick search online reveals the following definition for what a liberal is.

lib·er·al

ˈlib(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. “they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people”

favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms. “liberal citizenship laws”
“the values of a liberal society” (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.

Now that you’ve read that, let me ask you something. When colleges and student groups go around trying to silence others from being heard, is that liberal or is it oppressive? 
These students and colleges that don’t want other opinions to be be heard are literally oppressing another person’s freedom to speak and be heard all because they disagree with it. They’re not open to new ideas, or opinions, they’re not being respectful to their rights and individual freedoms. Instead they’re trying to force their collectivist ideas onto others while being the only voice heard.
At the Berkeley protest, that resulted in violent outbreaks to stop and silence the Free Speech protesters. As well as the violence that broke out the silence Milo yiannopoulos. It wasn’t the left or the progressives talking about tolerance for new ideas and different opinions, it was people on the right who did. It was Trump supporters, even the racist/white supremacist we’re the ones talking about it. Talking about how they disagree with people, but respect their right to be heard. Why the left did everything they could to silence the other side.
Needless to say, I never thought I’d see the day when a white supremacist was on the right side of history for once.

Even when Christians, Christians that belive homosexuality is wrong (not all of us do), refuse to bake a cake they are attacked by the left and sued for not participating in doing what they feel is a morally wrong thing to do.  
Is the owner of the shop free to live their lives how they want, when they are forced to do something they don’t want to do? Is the homosexual couple displaying liberty? How about when religious companies that are forced to pay for healthcare that allows for abortion, effectively making them pay for other people to kill their own born child? Of course not.
A true liberal would let others to speak and not use violence to silence them. They would let the free-market take effect when it came to that baker. They would not force a company and its owners to pay for abortion or birth control. Nor would a liberal sue a company for not baking them a cake.
The pendulum has now shifted, it is the many who are on the right who are becoming liberal. More liberal then left has been in some time. Even hateful racist and homophobic groups now are the new liberals in a ironic twist of fate. As there was a time when the right and those groups on the right didn’t want other groups or individuals with dissenting opinions be heard.
Now with left and progressive behaving as typical fascist do. As they grow more and more intolerant of other who do not conform to their collective mentality and ideas, to the point of useing violence against anyone who is not in agreement with them. They’ve lost the title of liberal. As they cannot tolerate anybody who does not think as they do. 
It is definitely interesting to live in these times and watch as the pendulum swings. Remember there was a time when it was the right who helped free the slaves and fought for people’s individual freedoms and then the pendulum switch to the left.

Now it’s going back to the right. Where it is the people on the right fighting for are individual freedoms and not just gun rights, but also our freedom of speech 

Now I’m not saying the right is any better than the left but I am saying the right is now the liberal side.

Abortion


Human history is riddled with a lot of disgusting and disturbing Acts. With Some of our worst moments having taken place when one group of humans had declared that others are not human, or are some kind of subset of humans. A kind of less developed human being.

Millions of Jews had been sent to the gas chamber. As they had been seen as Untermensch, a term that was used to describe inferior people.

Even slaves had been seen as not being human. Thus, it was fine to do what you wanted to with them.

However, it seems we have not learned from our past. Where millions of our most innocent have been killed because others have deemed them not to be human. Or are said to be a less-developed human.

At least not until they pass through the vagina, as if the vagina is a magical barrier that turns them into a Human Being.

I’m talking about the millions of babies that have been routed out of their mother’s in what is called an abortion. A word that fails to really describe the genocide that is taking place. After all if you described it as crushing skulls or sucking brains out, it could have an effect of humanizing the unborn baby’s. So, other words are used in their place called euphemisms.

Euphemisms are used in order to downplay the barbarism of this genocide. Where words such as abortion and terminating a pregnant are used. They won’t even call it a baby. Instead, they choose to call it a clump of cells, a parasite or a zygote in order to dehumanize the innocent life within.

Why do you think the same people who use such Euphemisms don’t ask pregnant women, at lest women who have are going to have their babies such things as, “Are you going to find out if your zigote will be a boy or girl?” instead choosing to use the word “baby.” Never using the words zigote, blastocysts, even calling it parasite or clump of calls.

Chances are you have never heard anyone refer to an unborn child that way, unless there are talking about killing the baby. Then they use such words. Why because its easier to justify ripping the baby out of the womb if you no longer think of it as a human.

Showing that it is only a human when its wanted, and when it’s not wanted they disconnect it in their minds from humanity. Justifying it by dehumanizing the life and down playing what is done to extinguish that life.

It’s discussing how people feel that it’s ok to take a human life because it’s an inconvenience for them. No one has the right to snuff out the most innocent of us. A person right not to be inconvenienced does not trump the right for that individual human being to live.

To use a common pro-baby killer Euphemism, It is sad to think that the embryo of an eagle is seen as more valuable then that of a human, where terminating the eagle embryo will result in a heavy fine and or prison time. But a human embryo can’t get that same protection.

With this said, we on the side of saving lives must put forth plans and programs that, while they don’t incentivize people to pop out babies for some kind of reword or hand out, we do need to come up with ideas to give mothers reasons to keep the children, while setting up programs to better take care of the children who are given up. And to adopt more children, giving them a home with a loving family.

Because in the fight to save lives, many have forgotten that if you win, there is still a life that needs to be taken care of once born. And the implications, such as truing over the unconstitutional ruling Raw v. Wade without a plan to care for the many children is careless to say the lest.

This is something that must be discussed now, not later. Not after its over turned, not right before it is. Now!

What the best firearm for home defense?


There are places around the world where it is illegal to use a firearm to defend yourself. Some would even say it is even illegal to defend yourself at all using any force. However, in the U.S. You can use firearms to defend yourself and even your property. Personally, I won’t use my firearm to prevent someone from taking my TV. Frankly a television is not worth a person’s life. Even that of a drugged out thief. Then again, I’m not going to ask if they are there to kill me or just take my TV.

There is a debate about what kind of firearm one needs to defend themselves. So, I wanted to put my two cents in and answer what is the best one to used to protect yourself. So, is it a hand gun, Shotgun or a semi-auto rifle?

Now you may not like my answer, but I’ll say it any ways. The best firearm for home defense simply depends on where you live and what threat your most likely to encounter. Because each firearm is better suited for different situations.

(Shotguns)
For example, if you live alone in the city and don’t live in a gang infested area, then a shotgun maybe best. Because, if someone breaks in, you just need to lock yourself in your room point the gun at the door and if they come in, you stop them right there and then. Think of the shotgun as the gun you hold the fort down with.

(Handguns)
However, a shot gun is not always practical. If you have a family, chances are if someone breaks in you need to protect them while they are in another room. As it is hard to open doors with a shotgun in your hand, let alone holding a child in one hand, while holding a shotgun in another. Once you have your kid, book it to your room and grab the shotgun. So, anyway, a handgun may be best for you to have only if you have nothing or another gun waiting. As its easier to control a handgun while opening doors and carrying a child. And if someone already has your child or your child is nearby, using a shot gun may be a bad idea. The best way to think of a handgun in home defense is to think of it more like it made for hostage rescue.

(semi-auto rifle)
Rifles, perhaps the best weapon to defend yourself with, may not always be a good choice for home defense, as the projectiles coming out, do so at such high speed they are hard to stop. Resulting on them going through walls and hitting innocent people unintentionally. If you live in a rural area, where other people live far away and you’re not worried about penetration and where police response can take hours. Then nothing beats a semi-auto rifle. They are easy to use and easier to control than a hand gun. They are also great at protecting oneself from the wildlife.

Lets not ignore how they are also best in areas prone to gang violence. Just the sight of a semi-auto rifle has been known to send groups of gang members running. Even when they themselves are armed. Gangs members often don’t attack or break into homes alone. They do so in groups, and if a fire fight starts with the group, having better control with the ability to fire 30 rounds going to help equalize the situation.

They are also the best firearm to use in areas prone to riots and to have just in case the preppers wet dream happens and the SHTF.

So really, the firearm you need will be dependent on where you live and what kind of threat you expect. You can’t go wrong with all three, but if you can only one, choose based upon what your home defense needs are.