Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Compassion and Immigration Palaver

Well, the Pres. ticked me off with his statement today. It was condescending and offensive to any intelligent conservative that feels strongly about the "amnesty" bill. Or should we call it the "conservative destruction" legislation? But I appealed to my better life, and tried to be persuasive and positive in this letter to George. Of course it is a given that it will be flushed in the great virtual "porta-loo" out back of the White House, but I feel better. Isn't that what really matters?
Dear Mr. President,

No argument seems to sway your current course concerning legislation before the Senate which is now increasingly viewed as "amnesty" by conservatives as it becomes publically digested. Would you perhaps look at this with a even higher perspective? It appears that you view your actions as compassion, and as a Christian, that is commendable. Yet is it in the scope of compassion to not enforce the law? Perhaps if the law was immoral, and against Christian principal your actions would be justified, but it is in the best interest of any country to preserve the "entrance to the house". By not enforcing the law, you give the impression that such laws do not matter, and encourage more to break the law. Could you not have prevented, through effective border security, the breaking of laws by millions of individuals? Is this part of your consideration?

I appeal to your love of God, America, and all humanity. God would not lead you, as the representative of our enforcement, to neglect that duty. Furthermore, the people of America can choose to legally invite many more to this country if that appears necessary. You could champion such a initiative, instead of this back door amnesty. As a further observation, the situation you have created, by not enforcing the law, is creating further problems in the future for America and her neighbors. Subsidizing a whole economy in Mexico will only lead to further erosion of that countries stability, not greater prosperity.

In closing, I would implore you to search your heart concerning what is the correct path. Ignoring the law and the American people is certainly not the correct path, no matter how deeply your compassion for the unfortunate. First enforce the law, then change it if you find it is not representative of our values. Consider who makes up the conservative base, and whether perhaps they are displaying God's heart in this matter. The path of true compassion will not be the path that ignores the law.

Why not push for a large increase in legal immigration? Why not actually enforce the law instead of giving it lip service? You know it is in your power to stop virtually all illegal immigration if you wanted, yet for some reason you can not see that as the compassionate choice. Let people come here "in the light" to start with, and we will build stronger communities irregardless of political stance. Is this not what is right? You want to bring them out of the "shadows", by effectively thwarting the laws we have already. Why are you promoting lawlessness?

In closing, it is very offensive to claim the current legislation is "right", and that those of us reading the legislation and finding fault with it are ignorant. It is no wonder the general population does not trust the government, or view it favorably. To be more specific, you are our representative, have some respect for those who supported you. May God give you grace and peace, illuminating the true path of compassion.

A faithful supporter,

Oh, I cc'd Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, in the hope of fame and fortune of course... Well, I'll pass on the fame. OK, forget the fortune as well, "hope deferred makes the heart sick..."

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Proof Some Democrats Are Fearful Simian Narcissists

This is to good to pass up. Every once in a while you must click through on the blog adds that show up in your own page. I could not resist this one: WHY MOMMY IS A DEMOCRAT. Oh, help me now, why is mommy a democrat? Well off we go to find out! OK, it is a kids book. Mommy is a cute little squirrel (yes, another Dem rodent), and has some cute little squirrellykins. And mommy is apparently worried that her little darlings will grow up to be mean ugly republicans, so she must indoctrinate them now. We get a few sample pages for free, oh goody.

The first sample panel has mommy with her cup of joe looking at her little charges sharing blocks. The text is "Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does." In the background is a obviously rich couple walking past a bum on a park bench. How clever. But what message would the little darlings get who read such? Democrats equal Mommy... The state will take care of us, and make sure we share. Yes, start the victim culture early. Start the class envy from infancy. Makes you feel good all over. Oh, did I mention the clever artist has the letters for democrat on the blocks? But I found doormat as well, who knows what other subliminal messages are there!

Another panel has the caption "Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does." Quite original. The depiction is of a rampaging elephant, and Mommy shielding her little munchkins from sure destruction. I assume the theme continues on, with Mommy becoming the embodiment of all that is wonderfull about big government. Wait, did Dems make sure we are always safe? Didn't quite get that one. The last example panel has Mommy "making sure" that little sponges get to go to school, unlike the bum in the background watching the graduation of the rich kid. Yes, it's the child of those pesky rich people who wouldn't share. But that's not all we get from this website, more gifts abound from actual apes who purchased this Goebbelsian tome.

There is the core of my title to address, and how we do that is click over to the "testimonials" for pure wonderment. You be the judge of this collection of the disturbed. I will express one simple point that this page of accolades exposes so well, liberalism is a religion. They really believe this stuff, and want to indoctrinate their children in the "...long-standing beliefs of a true Democrat." I wonder if one of those long standing beliefs is freedom of choice. You know, like allowing their children to make informed decisions. Oh, that only counts with drugs and abortions. Go enjoy this garish exposition, and remember, liberalism is a religion. A church of narcissists, and dim witted ones at that.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Immigration Bill: Border Fence Lies and Subterfuge

Forget all the swirling rhetoric about the back stabbing sycophant Senators. Nevermind the parade of simian intelect by the Republican leadership. Forget refilling your high blood pressure meds when you hear McCain rasp about another body blow to the base. No, lets just look at a few of the special bits contained in the legislation concerning securing the border.

What I am talking about is the "comprehensive" fence which is becoming the "imaginary" fence. You know the one that is supposed to help secure the border. It has become hypothetical, yet there is legislation passed last year requiring it. So why aren't they building it? Anyhow, it shrunk. Yep, down to 370 miles. And not only that (Sec.106.c):
The Secretary shall construct not less than 370 miles of triple-layered fencing which may include portions already constructed in San Diego Tucson and Yuma Sectors
Yes, lets add it up what that means. We clearly can subtract the 14 miles in San Diego. Definitely they will take off the ten miles of Minuteman fence. Possibly the 75 miles of reservation cattle fence? For Yuma another 20 miles of existing fence. Then the arbitrary length of existing fence in Texas and New Mexico. A conservative guess could be 50 miles, though there is no specifics, hence they may be claiming more cattle fence to upgrade eventually. Who knows? With the numbers above, we have just over 200 miles of new fence to be built, somewhere, sometime. We are being had here, for sure.

Why are they doing this? If we really cared, we could do anything. Close the border completely, like many other countries. We could easily deport most illegal immigrants, not that I advocate that. But why are they not securing the border? Why not just increase legal immigration dramatically? The whole issue has become a twisted push to reward lawbreakers, and invite a new wave of the same. Very strange. We should fight it on principle, and specifically demand that, no matter how many people they want to give our wealth and freedom to, we don't have to see it stolen from us again. Which is easy, build a big, long fence.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

A Typical Day of Flames

I too, get bored at times. To alleviate that boredom, I resort to antagonizing the left. What else satisfies like a good piece of email:
So, the DNC isn't going to have a debate on the FOX News Network.... What are you all afraid of? I thought it was the party of freedom, free speech, free expression. But no, they don't want to answer real questions do they. So, one conservative network vs five liberal ones. Can't take the heat. Hey, when is someone going to ask Hillary the last time she had sex with Bill? You know, like Wallace asking if Romney had premarital sex. Or when is Mathews going to ask Obama "what he hates most about America", oh, yeah, that won't happen either. Gee, what hard question has been asked of any leading Dem? Nothing. Its a plastic fantastic world in the liberal media. Have to keep the appearance up. What a farce.

Hey, I thought the Iraqis wanted us out of Iraq? What happened to your leftist free for all about the Iraq Parliament "resolution" to remove American troops? What happened in the Senate recently? Votes 67 again 29 for? I thought everyone was ready to pullout? I mean that's what libs have been saying... What the hell are those Dems doing! Didn't they win the Senate just to get us out of Iraq? Sheesh, your guys are duplicitous... Sad day for peacenik nutters.
I love the bit about Hill. Questions we all want to know... Anyhow, here is how far gone the left is:
Ah, well, to start with, there is no such thing as the Fox News Network. They don't do the news....

Second, there aren't any liberal news networks, let alone five. They are all corporate owned voices of the right.

A REAL liberal network would carry news from al-jaz for example. None do. They would show the film taken by cameramen in Iraq that show body parts, bodies with holes drilled in them, burning bodies in cars, and a lot of other stuff too. None do. Why? Because the corporate owners of the press know that if the US public saw what is REALLY going on in Iraq we'd have outta there years ago. There just is no hard news available to the US public. It's all rant and cant, fluffy soft don't offend nobody network oatmeal. I sent a flamer to Olbermann the other day when HIS program spent 35 minutes on Anna Nicole and Paris Hilton! I mean, this is NEWS? Since when. The US public is so incredibly stupid, dense and slow, living in it's cheap gas and instant gratification world that most would not know duck poop if one sat on their heads and shat on them. The real problem with democracy is that you ALWAYS get the government you deserve.
Whoa Nelly! Way out there eh? I love days like this.
Ah, I see that you are a open minded "fair and balanced" liberal indeed! So the corporate owned voices of the right are out to get you again! Look out for the Star Chamber minions! Oh those evil right wing corporations... Seriously, how can someone become so isolated from reality? Oh, you answer that! You actually watch Olbermann! You and the four other nutters in the country. Yes, MSNBC, bastion of balanced coverage (if your a white liberal male, like all the hosts). Oh, that is so good, you even sunk down to castigating the objective news leader himself for pandering to ratings. But, you do realize, that his ratings are in the toilet... It is a matter of survival! You should encourage such reporting so he can keep his show!

Now, about this insane crap about the networks showing us what is "REALLY" going on in Iraq. You are in outer space. Beyond Neptune, a very cold and lonely place. It's not enough to to the Jihadists propaganda line, as your liberal journalist nutters do, you want the Voice of Jihad itself! Yes, that's balanced coverage. You can stand both sides of an issue, so long as there are no conservatives. Oh such an open mind!

Lets see, have you seen a single mainstream news report about a successful operation by the US military? Hmmm, why not? We see lots of coverage any time there is a car bomb. Oh, but even that coverage is sterile, yes, where are the shot of the dead children killed by these insane death worshipers? Where are the shots of the maimed civilians? Where are the cameras chasing the ambulances to the hospital? Oh, silence. Yeah, your buddies control the media. They are liberal. They do not want to show anything that would possibly cause support for our troops, in any way. Your full of vile insanity, and you can't even see it. Oh, where is the death toll of terrorists? Silence... Where is the stoning of women for not wanting a arranged marriage? Where are your supposed feminists? Silence. It is all about political power, your liberal buddies would hang their own grandma to further the religion.

You say they are soft and fluffy and don't want to offend anyone, but that is equally stupid. I find it offensive to parade out every second the latest US death toll number. That is sacred to them. They rush to the wires at every roadside bomb, fits the liberal mold. No problem offending anyone there. But bring up 9/11, never. That would offend the victims (and generate support for our overseas policies). No, can't politicize that tragedy!

And to end with that wonderfull assessment of your fellow citizens speaks volumes. That is the attitude of your basic Stalinist. The core behind the evils of communism. The true selfishness of social humanism. "I am smarter, I am more qualified, I should lead you whether you like it or not!" Yes, complain on about democracy. You liberals actually long for something else...

Friday, May 04, 2007

Republican Debate Revelation

There is much to say concerning the debate, but one point seems to rise above the clutter of commentary. That concerns the vast divide between socialist liberals and conservatives in the area of perception. And one debate question sums up that divide: "What do you dislike most about America?" That is it, the core difference between parties, the over arching difference in world view. Liberals dislike many things, and the pinnacle of dislike is hate. It is natural for them to come up with that question. They have many a collective contingent who can answer that question immediately. In fact, we can guess that a large percentage of liberals would answer, "Bush! I hate Bush!" But if not, it would be some other concern in the mold of racism, class envy, abortion, or any other sub-complaint of the socialist liberals. They exist politically at times solely for the things they dislike, and ultimately hate. Hate is a familiar state for those have a strong emotional lead in their personality, and this seems to be common description for a majority of the modern leftists.

This personality state, where emotion leads reason or will, can be a great asset in many jobs. Take acting as a example. One must become a master of emotional display, forming the very core of personal feelings into something alien and out of context. And do it repeatedly. A expert thespian must suppress the self persona on command, a rare skill. Shall we now suggest a simple answer to the preponderance of leftist nutters in Hollywood? Furthermore, this personality trait may fair well in many employs, but it is not desireable in the context of an elected representative. Emotional manipulation will ease the campaign process certainly. And the greatest politicians historically have been actors of a high caliber. But the finest leaders, those who excel in representing America, are not swayed by emotion, moved from rational decisiveness by mere feelings.

Think about it for a moment. What is public sentiment? What is governance by poll? Is it not simply allowing emotion to guide and lead in the decision making process? Look at the record of the Clinton administration. What were the successful policies? Hard to come up with anything monumental. Yet Bill was a master campaigner. A brilliant politician in his ability to motivate and sway. He created energy, made people feel good, moved them to align with him. Yet, what is his effectiveness as a executive? Hard to come up with anything, isn't it? There are many examples throughout history of leaders who had a superb command of collective emotion, yet failed ultimately as executives.

The archtype in this regard must be Adolf Hitler. Here is a leader who could almost hypnotize the public, bring a crowd to a frenzy, move vast numbers to overlook their natural conscience. He created a 'religion of the state' in effect. Yet, was Adolf a good executive? The greatest executives delegate power based on trust, not compulsion. The most successful understand harnessing the ambition of individuals, creating teams who have vested power, allowing the organic evolution of management. They understand innately when to clamp down, and when to ask for help. Ultimately, they realize how insignificant and faulty they are personally, and develope relationships of trust and dependence. This self realization is the true standard, the foundation of lasting effectiveness.

At this juncture, we must relate the initial perspective of conservatives and liberals as it pertains to emotional decision making with the concept of personal realization. On one hand is the individual who comprehends human frailty, perceives their personal shortcoming, and is able to honestly find trusted guidance. This type of person is not swayed easily by the whim of emotion, the swirling current of public sentiment is ineffective at eroding the foundation of their reasoned positions. For the emotionally led, if they fail to find a anchor for reason, a cognitive bulwark, they are susceptible to the ethereal influence of sentiment. Where can one find that stability? For many Americans it is within the context of their faith. The journey of realization that occurs with the exercise of faith produces a strength of character, a empowering ability to fight the tumult of public sentiment.

Faith is not the only source of such strength of course, there are many ways, but faith is central to a majority of Americans in this context. Especially conservative Americans. Now, that must be contrasted with secular humanists, a large contingent of modern socialist liberals in America. No God, no faith, no protection from the whims of undue emotional influence. In fact, they fear those of faith. They resent being ruled by those who can not see there is 'no God'. And ultimately, they hate the representatives of those they fear. Fear, resentment, hate, all emotions that sway the individual away from reason to irrationality.

I contend it is completely irrational for any American to pose as a presidential debate question, "What do you dislike most about America?" There is no good answer to the question, and the purpose of setting up a trap is ill served. It is a parody of the questioner, needing no answer. Yet it was asked, and to many liberals, there is a answer. From this we can see clear distinctions, consistent differences in the decision process. With that clarity, what rational person could possibly support a modern socialist liberal? Even those who hold closely to their personal issues, issues that keep them voting for socialists, should be able to see how poorly they will be served by their leaders.

In conclusion, I would like to throw up our modern conservative hero, Ronald Reagan, as a example of one who could utilize his emotive ability and govern with executive skill. Some would even claim he was a better actor as president than in his previous profession. Clearly he could see his failings, and could see the strengths in those he relied upon. This debate, held in the Reagan library, was touted as the debate "in search of Reagan", but the questions were not searching for such. The questions searched for nothing positive, they simply reflected the flawed emotional consternation of the leftist media. It was a clear revelation of the state socialist liberals have arrived at, a state of fear and resentment. And the fruit of those feelings, hate. It is not Reagan the left is searching for, of that we can be assured.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

From Jimma to Castro, Why Liberals Long For A Stalinist State

I found the new post by zombietime to be most informative. So informative in fact that I had to spread the love to my favorite lib:
Jimma went to Berserkeley to spout on about his anti-semitism apparently. This little album of events is more telling than a hundred articles: Demonstration at the Jimmy Carter Appearance in Berkeley

Oh my, why would leftist anti-semites thank Jimma? Your in a great crowd of the confused it seems, label wise. Reminds me of the evergreen nuts, passionate, evocative, and completely brainless. Progressive indeed... Pretty good representation of the nutters.

How about those Obamaites? Never miss a chance... Here it's the Kucinich wackos. Got their table up all the time. Can't figure them out... So much effort, so little brain. And he is dead in the water. I guess they must figure it's fun or something, then just vote for Obama after Dennis the Menace falls flat again.
Of course we expect something glorious and informative in reply:
Well, when you are wrong you are at least consistent...

Being anti-Israeli government policy is NOT the same as being anti-Semitic or, more accurately, since Palestinians are also Semites, anti-Israel. Being anti-American government policy is NOT the same as being anti-American, or, more accurately, anti-American democracy (which Bush is).

As I say, wrong, but consistently wrong...
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Can I be so wrong? If the shoe fits, and Jimma's seems to. But the far more interesting parallel occurs at the point of claiming Bush is against democracy. Very odd, and harkens back to the theme of liberal moral relativism. But the extension of the parallel is even better:
Ah, your own personal inconvenient truth? Confusion? Try to stay with the flow... Being a supporter of Hamas, PLO, or any other various terrorist organizations bent on Israels distruction is qualification enough for the classic slur of anti-semite. But you don't like it, now you want 'accuracy' and redefinition?

So, Bush is anti-Democracy? Just because he won't do your bidding? You sound like a typical modern liberal, who can't accept democracy if it takes away some of your power. Your all for democracy if you win, but revert to wannabe Stalinist if you loose. Still crying about January 2001, the root of all liberal evil.

Lets investigate this Anti-American government thing.... In a democracy, wouldn't you accept the will of the people? The president is elected by the people, but you can't accept it. Emotionally you reject the fact, you denigrate the majority who voted, and try to thwart the majorities rule. Sounds like you liberals are not to happy with democracy. Sounds like confusion, jealousy, and a lust for power that's been deferred (making the heart sick).

But more nefarious is the attempt at usurping the duly elected Administration through means which clearly benefit enemies and harm America. That is not anti-American government policy, that is treachery. And all for political gain, the cheapest of illicit rewards. What does inspire such action? What common thread inspires the pond scum amalgamation of modern liberal peacenik socialist nutters? We need a example that captures the heart of this question, and to the south, in Cuba, there is such a metaphor.

Why do socialist pig journos love Castro? Why do influential leftist pig Hollywood elites love Castro? Why do duplicitous democrat leaders love Castro? Contained in this heady amour are the clues to modern liberal motivation. Ultimately the adoration connects to Castro's absolute power, and it's what liberals subconsciously want. They naturally gravitate to that power. Why do they long for that power? They internally despise your average Joe, and think he is too stupid for his own good. They resent the majorities values and choices, and want to throw off that control, whether consciously or suppressed deep in the psyche. Castro's power, and any other Stalinist thug, does not depend on the 'whims of the masses'.

From whence springs this resentment? What engenders a individual to loath the values of his fellow countryman? Is not the principal of Liberalism openness and inclusion? Freedom of expression, freedom in all aspects of life... Yet the vocal leaders in this leftist fold look up to a communist dictator. What does this tell us? Are modern socialist scum really willing to sell out the power each individual lends to our government for the comfort of absolute rule? Is the feeling of superiority a posture of defense, isolating and insulating oneself from the ideals of the general public?

It is my opinion that the religion of liberalism either collects individuals who act out their fear in defensive superiority or creates such members through emotional collectivism. Whether absorbed or created, the outcome is the same, they fear the general public, distrust the average Joe, and do not want to submit themselves to a government elected by such. Hence the severe dimorphism of Democrat party members (as in democracy) apparently longing for Stalinist control.

A honest supporter of democracy would embrace the decision of the majority, and if in disagreement, would try to convince the majority of the benefit and positive outcome of the views put forth in future elections. That is not acts or intention of modern liberals. They have no views to put forth, only criticism. They attempt to thwart the decision of the majority, they question the validity of the democratic system, even go so far as to risk national intrests simply for grabs at power.

What is next? Will they turn to more destructive means to implement socialist ideals? If the elected President is the object of ignorant hatered, and a communist thug is idolized, what benefit lay upon the path of these simian nutters? They call for freedom, yet long for a king to rule over them. But I should now retreat from my high perch, denigrating the denigrators, despising the despisers, taking the uber elite stance above the elites. I descend to the masses, and thank God for Grace. There is no average Joe. Every American has the opportunity to excel, as well as the freedom to forgo excellence. Whether fat and happy, or stressed and bothered, we have the greatest country in the history of civilization, and the chance to make it even better. One of the paths to a better America is the exposure of liberal insanity, so end my latest contribution.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Liberal Religious Side Note

More evidence of liberalism as a religion. Time to replace the Bible in the nightstand at green conscious hotels with Gore's little piece of insanity. Yes, that's right, no Gideon, no Truth, just "Inconvenience" so to speak. Of course they are replacing the lights as well, read all for yourself in the piece: California Hotels Go Green With Low-Flow Toilets, Solar Lights. I would say that the green sect is the most powerful in the liberal cult, but the anti-war peaceniks are close. Of course there is quite a bit of crossover... You can be Green and a peacenik, but do all sects mix I wonder? Does Gore wear green robes?

On Modern Liberal Moral Relativism

Here we have a glimpse of the liberal mind, and how putty like it can be:
So, what this about Luis Posada Carriles? He blows up an airliner and we release him on bail? Ah...... Ain't doing something like that terrorism? ah, but he's OUR terrorist!
I dashed off a suitable reply:
Yeah, stuff like that doesn't fit well with your moral relativism...
In confusion the lib responds:
Ah, clearly ya gotta brush up on what relativism means...
So I must take that bait!
Se, you base your action on opinion, opinion derived from a questionable guidance structure. It's inherent in modern liberalism to just move around loosly defining whats is good or bad to suit your opinion. That is the epitome of moral relativism. I think it fits just fine.
Well dear reader, am I wrong? But in defense:
The above is BS. I quote the first sentence from Wikepedia:

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences.

As a first cut, the above is ok by me. There are no moral or ethical universals; moral truth is culturally based. Yup. How that relates to liberalism I'm not quite sure. For example, there are quite a few Catholic liberals, which to me sounds like a contradiction in terms, but not to them......strange world.
Well, don't look a gift horse in the mouth! I was actually aghast at this, how more myopic can liberalism become? Even to deny the obvious, while explaining the said obviousness, in concurrent statements! So we soldier on:
You claim "BS" on moral relativism, yet validate my observation! Pure schizophrenia! Your liberal religion is your moral standard! And its based on opinions and feelings! Completely relative! The gage of 'good' and 'bad' simply moves around based upon your subcultures political desires! It's collective insanity.

How about I use simple terms from your chosen definition? Is it not the preference of your subcult to destroy the Bush administration? Is that not the overarching goal of those thrown together by the political loss in January 2001? Is it not circumstance which binds you together with likeminded socialists, with whom your 'moral' boundaries fluctuate to justify political success? There are a multitude of clear instances substantiating such chaotic behavior within the modern liberal religion.

What is most interesting to me is the statement that you seem to agree with concerning objective moral truths. Is this correct? You can not accept objective truth, simply because it doesn't conform to your subcult's circumstance? That is fascinating. How telling that the left seems to exist for the purpose of establishing its own self serving moral behavior. It is similar to a virus in that regard I guess.

Now, for the last point, nutter modern liberals do not like partial religious converts. "How can a Catholic be a liberal!" Yes, it seems absurd, that anyone who believes in God could be a liberal, doesn't it? But, consider that there are a plethora of 'cultural' Catholics, or any other religious label you prefer. They like the community, the ritual, the society of religion. But have not considered seriously the constitution of their personal philosophy and beliefs. They are easy pickings for the emotionally driven modern liberal subcult. I would suppose if asked to defend their beliefs, it would be easier for them to regurgitate modern liberal rhetoric than profess a experience of God.

To expand on the above, for just a moment, we should consider the emotional 'religious' experience versus spiritual reality. It is easy to supplant good feelings with actual faith. Giving money feels good, listening to a concert on Sunday morning feels good, many religious activities feel good, yet one can exist in perpetuity in those good feelings without ever exercising faith or even believing in God. And as a counter, one can 'care' about specific issues or situations to the point of the suspension of cognition. This is the creation of belief, the faith of the foolish, which is the core dynamic of modern liberalism. Emotional response can supplant the exercise of actual spirituality, and can become a religion unto itself. So the hapless hereditary Catholic mentioned above is doubly susceptible to becoming a liberal, its no wonder there are many such.