October 27, 2015

Liberals vs. Liberty

Theo CaldwellArchive

What’s in a name? As Canada is about to rediscover good and hard, “Liberal” has precious little to do with “Liberty.”

You know the story. If there’s someone telling you what you can say, what you should eat, what car you’re allowed to drive and where you can smoke (answer: nowhere, you racist!), chances are they’re a liberal.

It is possible the starry-eyed younger voters who allegedly propelled Liberal leader Justin Trudeau to victory in last week’s federal election might not mind so much, being the generation of playdates and bicycle helmets and having everything planned and monitored for them. Then again, as always with these things, it is a matter of degree, and experience.

Justin’s priorities read like a liberal Luther’s list of approved pieties, with the sanctity of gay marriage and abortion on demand prominent among them. True to leftist form, there is no tolerance for dissent, either within his party or, increasingly, in the country at large.

On gay marriage, one can hear the squeals already: “It’s the law of the land! Don’t tell me who I can love! Go back to Alabama!”

Fair enough. But what is significant about this issue is the revisionist history and totalitarian mindset it represents.

What is most Orwellian is not the redefinition of marriage, but the way in which we are all obliged to pretend this was always the way of things. Twenty seconds ago, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and even Canada’s two previous Liberal prime ministers, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, assured the public that “gay marriage” was something they opposed.

Now, we are all meant to pretend this was a ceaseless, decades-long struggle for “equality” in which the forces of darkness were, at long last, defeated in the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States.That Twilight Zone aspect to the gay marriage debate (as much as there is one anymore) is peculiar enough. But then we get to the liberty-squelching overreach at hand.

What is gay marriage, really, other than the government dictating to religious people and institutions the new terms of their most important sacrament?

Spare me the silly-bears about about “telling people who they can love” (the disingenuousness of that plaint only slightly more grating than its dreadful grammar). Love whomever you like, it says here.

Like most limited government advocates, I concur with Dennis Miller’s philosophy on sexual matters: I don’t care if you enjoy stuffing an armadillo down your pants, just don’t ask to borrow my armadillo.

Indeed, having experienced the bureaucratic nightmare that attends even traditional marriage, I propose that government should get out of the nuptial game altogether. Where are the “separation of church and state” warriors on this one?

Marriage does not belong to government – or at least, it should not – but, in the liberal mindset, everything does.

This is why they gush molten idiocy like, “Government is just another word for the things we choose to do together.”

No it isn’t. “Government” is a word for the next thing liberals want to control.

If you oppose, or even question, the liberal agenda, you are plainly corrupted by bigotry, or Big Oil, or the Koch brothers or, of course, the Bible (Incidentally, is the Koran okay with gay marriage? Could someone please check?)

But oh, yeah – “love wins.”

Speaking of which, the Bible comes in for a lot of grief from people who haven’t read it (conversely, the Koran gets Spartans at Thermopylae-type defence from people who haven’t read it, either).

Differ even slightly from politically correct orthodoxy and some liberal theologian with a nose ring will be right there to tell you to keep your Bible off her body.

And yet, there are more rules in a campus conduct code than in the entire book of Leviticus.

Even Moses came down the mountain with only Ten Commandments. Thanks to liberals, there are more than that for putting out your trash.

Jesus had two main instructions: Love God and love one another.

Liberals are at their insufferable, preening worst when lecturing Christians on what Jesus would do. These are people who embrace and proclaim the caricatures of Christians as either paedophile priests or the town elders from Footloose.

Return to the topic of abortion from my previous column, and the comfort of men like Justin and Obama with ending the life of a fully formed baby, or leaving it to die on a table if it survives an abortion attempt.

On whose side do you think Jesus would come down – that of the wealthy, well-fed doctors and their liberal enablers, or the mewling infant, struggling for life?

Jesus was on the side of the powerless. In our culture of victimhood, the powerful are those who can accuse others of bigotry. That option is unavailable to speechless infants, in a world where we are ordered to declare an unborn child’s life is “between a woman and her doctor.”

Justin defends his abortion stance as wanting “to protect people from having the beliefs of others imposed upon them.” But how is ending a baby’s life in the name of extremist ideology not precisely the opposite?

Liberals want to take away every liberty that little person will ever have.

Jesus had a temper, and he hated some things – lies and hypocrisy come to mind (wealthy environmentalists who fly around on private jets while lecturing others on how to live might consider how this is applicable).

But being as they are so often in error yet never in doubt, I swear, if he were around today, liberals would accuse Jesus of not being Christ-like.

To be sure, Jesus loved his fellow man (so much so, he gave his life for them), but that didn’t mean he went about grinning like an imbecile, bro-hugging everyone like a Burning Man hippie no matter what they did.

He didn’t tell the adulterous woman, “Keep up the good work.” He said, “Go, and sin no more.”

But sin, to the liberal mindset, is very much as Obama defined it: “Being out of alignment with my values.”

Nice work, if you can get it: You get to decide what’s right and wrong, both for yourself and, if you are fortunate enough to achieve high office, for everyone else as well.

Speaking of Obama, a mantra of American liberals is that his presidency failed because Republicans fought him on every issue. Lost on them is that this is precisely how the government is supposed to work. Congressional Republicans were also elected, by the half of America who do not share Obama’s worldview.

Justin will have no such institutional impediments, as a Canadian prime minister with a majority is not inconvenienced by the checks and balances of the American system.

Even so, those of us who speak out against him know we will be labelled enemies of “progress.”

Again, liberals are unacquainted with liberty, benighted to the notion that other visions might hold merit, and therefore all opposition is considered insolence, if not blasphemy.

“Conservative” is similarly a misnomer, by the way, albeit less significant at the moment, as Justinian the First takes up the seat of St. Pierre.

We who aver that government should play a smaller role in daily life, colloquially and as a matter of party affiliation, are termed “conservative.”

In fact, rather than wishing to conserve old systems, we are eager to engineer new ones, part of which involves getting government out of things they have controlled for some time (and for many of us, this includes decriminalizing marijuana and ending America’s idiotic “War on Drugs”).

We believe your property should be yours to do with as you see fit, that your words should be your own to speak and defend, that all lives matter, no matter what colour or how small, and that you, as Thoreau articulated, should be free to live the life you’ve imagined and go confidently in the direction of your dreams.

But again, it is liberals, not conservatives, who hold power today. And don’t they know it.

Liberals are the speech police, the diversity enforcers, the abortion absolutists, the peanut allergy pantywaists, the no-smoking scolds, the conformity Cosa Nostra, and the environmentalist goon squad. But they are not champions of liberty.

(Theo Caldwell is a quiet man who’s had enough. Contact him at theo@theocaldwell.com)

JOIN TheRebel.media FREE for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Help TheRebel.media expose media bias once and for all:
DONATE HERE to give ordinary Canadians a chance to be heard!

NEW! ”Don't blame me: I voted Conservative"
The t-shirt and bumpersticker that says it all — ONLY from TheRebel.media store!


You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-11-01 10:55:06 -0500
Opening the concept of marriage to include gays is the government regulating it less. Trying to limit it is just some to most Christians trying to force their ideology on others. Some sects let accept gay marriage and you want to disbar them because your way was first. In Canada at least the government won’t impose others religious beliefs on you. So if your church wants to hold gay marriages it can, if it doesn’t it won’t.
commented 2015-10-30 10:53:58 -0400
Liberals are to liberty as pigs are to flight.
commented 2015-10-30 02:51:42 -0400
“Gush molten idiocy” Now, is that anything like describing a fictional character some deluded folks call Jesus who was invented in fantastical fictional stories written by gay monks who lived in the 14th century but were writing about old wives tales that originated more than a thousand years before they were born? Or, is that ‘molten idiocy’ simply another way of referring to an old book called the bible that remains the centrepiece of a fairly widespread, but declining in popularity, religious cult? Oh well, just a lot of nonsense anyway. Man cannot make an ant, but he is forever creating gods. Who said that, eh? LOL
commented 2015-10-29 20:13:57 -0400
This is the best article you have written THeo. YOu are dead on. THanks and congrats, bro!
commented 2015-10-29 13:23:53 -0400

a) I have elsewhere indicated that if a fetus is unwanted yet capable of independent survival, it should be delivered alive and adopted as soon as reasonably possible. Actual termination is your right, I don’t believe it should be the first choice but at the same time, I won’t judge those that do.

b) Ezra has every right to publish them … however, his intent was solely to be deliberately inflammatory. Free speech ordinarily implies people with enough maturity and discretion to use it appropriately. Ezra’s lack of ethics is the real story there, the internet equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. Being deliberately inflammatory does not help the debate, idiots like him are the reason things get banned in the first place.
commented 2015-10-29 07:26:10 -0400
Kenneth Lawrence commented
JT is a dictator in his heart and soon in reality.

Like father like son.
commented 2015-10-28 15:05:32 -0400
JT is a dictator in his heart and soon in reality. Persecution of Christians will increase under JT’s Liberal dictatorship.
commented 2015-10-28 02:11:50 -0400
Andrew did you support Ezra when he fought the HRC over those cartoons he had every damn right to print?
commented 2015-10-28 02:11:05 -0400
Andrew a late term baby is alive when it is aborted , how is it still a matter of choice in that case??
commented 2015-10-28 00:03:49 -0400
Liberty for some seems to be about doing anything you want, approaching anarchy, and then having the state forcing others to accept it or even pay for it. Rights are questions of right and wrong. Instead we have personal opinions and preferences imposed by the state. Forget about the right to life of the human being (not a lifeless ‘blob’) in the womb who should be in one of the safest and most protected places in the world. Don’t like slavery, then don’t have one! Don’t like stealing, then don’t steal!
commented 2015-10-27 22:22:36 -0400
Bill Elder: I would like to be able to quote your entire post " Good rant Theo…." How can I?
commented 2015-10-27 21:57:10 -0400
@andrewstephenson I realize that I cannot stop someone determined on having an abortion from having one. Even if it were made illegal here it would still go on here and even if it was so scrutinized making it impossible to happen here they would simply travel abroad and have it done where it is legal. In this sense a woman truly has the final right of life and death in her hands. My point is simply for all the so called rights you claim that no one should be able to interfere with you tread over other people’s rights with complete disregard. Why should I be surprised? If a human life can be destroyed by simply defining it as biological tissues I’m not really shocked that a person taking responsibility for their body means we’re the ones paying the tab.
commented 2015-10-27 21:37:02 -0400
Good rant Theo
Then there is this – “You know the story. If there’s someone telling you what you can say, what you should eat, what car you’re allowed to drive and where you can smoke (answer: nowhere, you racist!), chances are they’re a liberal.”
The people who identify as being “liberal” who presume to have the moral authority to make personal decisions for you are NOT “liberal” they are busybodies, arrogant meddlers, intolerant martinets and sundry other sociopaths who are hiding under a liberal label – in effect they are authoritarian statists who wrongly assume the power of the state exists to force universal conformity to their narrow intolerant world view. The last thing they are is “liberal” – Hell, I’m Liberal and I think these people are just happy face autocrats with some appalling fascist reflexes. The Liberal brand is placed on some very malefic ideologies these days. Truth is not served by referring to these various bully ideologies as “Liberal” – start referring to political gangsterism for what it is – uncivil, despotic, control freak, pathocracy, kakistocracy, neo-fascism, neo-puritanism – anything but “liberal”. The liberal ideology has degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. Many liberals support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of any perceived conservative principles (which actually reflect the historic liberal values), while lacking an actual ideology or values of their own.

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how Franklin Delano Roosevelt ( the liberal archetype)opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can’t be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties free from undue influence. Yet today, decades later, liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they “donate” money to partisan election campaigns in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Original meaning: Liberalism
Liberalism is a historic political philosophy with individual and civil freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties, equal rights, and the classless open society but, in post WWII era, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with historic Liberal values such as absolute moral values and legal traditions derived from Northern European Christian reformation. A misclassified “liberal” supports many of the following political positions and practices:

• the significant disastrous economic policies the Eurozone due to government debt which will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of practical economic ideologies
• Denial of true science in conflict with contrived narratives
• Government’s omnipotent ability to solve all socio-economic problems
• The belief that terrorism is not threat, and one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
• Brainwashing voters with propaganda
• Taxpayer-funded eugenics and population control
• Censorship
• Statist Socialism
• Unsuccessful Keynesian economics as opposed to sound free market economics
• Civilian disarmament/State monopoly on the use of force
• Political and social Elitism
• Tenets of Fascist statism
• Pseudo-intellectualism
• Anti-Americanism
• Bigotry of low expectation (Affirmative action)
• Race and gender nepotism
• Authoritarian government
• Social Darwinism
• Subverting the moral foundations which western liberal democracy was built on.
• Universal Tax-funded and government-controlled public education retooled as a political indoctrination tool
• Limiting individual freedom and legal rights – denying the right to free speech and opinion is an example of this.
• High taxes as a form of class warfare against some hated nebulous group collectively labeled “the rich”.
• Placement of women in dangerous jobs like law enforcement and the military
• Slowly eroding social institutions through radicalism.
• State enforced normalization of abnormal behaviours.
• Tax and spend economics and unsustainable public debt
• Accepting situational and relative morality/ethics in their public office holders
• Direct interference in private commerce and markets
• Denial of factual history and the creation of fallacious alternative historic narratives .
• Spreading of linguistic fascism via political correctness
• Rejecting individual liberty for conformist subservience
• Non-syndicalist labor unions
• Encouraging sexual ambiguity through sexual identity reorientation conditioning rather than teaching abstinence or minimal recreational or experimental sex as a good health choice.
• A “living Constitution” that is unilaterally reinterpreted as political pressure groups prefer, rather than how it is written or in the intended context of the drafters and signators. Unilateral Judicial changes to the constitution rather than those made through the parliamentary formula mandated in the document.
• Government programs to rehabilitate unrepentant pathological criminals
• Bestiality, pedophilia and bigamy as a human right
• Abolition of the death penalty for 1st degree murder, willfully taking a life means a free college degree.
• Anti-Democratic Global governance
• Mandated authoritarian secularism.
• Opposition to individual private property rights.
• Legislating and court action against dissenting opinion in press/media(vexatious litigation)
• Soviet styled price/supply control marketing boards rather than a laissez-faire demand economics
• Opposition to Constitutional divisions of jurisdiction. Liberals seek to expand federal power at the expense of provincial authority and silence any constitutionalists who hold them back, violating the water tight compartments of section 91 and 92 of our constitution act.
• Denial/condemnation of traditional gender roles
• Support of socially irresponsible financial policies
• Advocating policies which are proven to be incorrect or unworkable
• Destroying the cohesive family unit as the social core and replacing it with state wardship of progeny (big brother as “co-parent”)
• Encouragement of climate alarmism as a public manipulation tool
• Rejection of logical standards and critical thought processes
• Persecution of Christianity and Judaism with deference to intolerant theocracies, such as Islam.

Nothing there can be construed as “Liberal” in the proper meaning of the term. Let’s stop using the term in relation to these civil abominations.
commented 2015-10-27 21:23:08 -0400
@edward Jobin
“My problem with your definition of pro choice is it leaves me no choice but to have to pay for your choices and thereby violate my conscience which you seem to be completely comfortable with. No respect whatsoever for our choice not to pay for what we believe is wrong.”

So your objection is purely fiduciary in nature? You’d be content to endorse this freedom if it was delisted from MSP?
commented 2015-10-27 19:35:35 -0400
“Liberals have the ability to become whatever will gain them the most votes.” Power by any means and cost, preferably at the cost of taxpayers, God forbid they spend their own money!
commented 2015-10-27 19:32:27 -0400
What’s a millstone going for these days? I should get into the millstone making business cause we’re going to need a lot of them
commented 2015-10-27 19:32:09 -0400
“Like most limited government advocates, I concur with Dennis Miller’s philosophy on sexual matters: I don’t care if you enjoy stuffing an armadillo down your pants, just don’t ask to borrow my armadillo.” Indeed!
commented 2015-10-27 19:16:52 -0400
Andrew Peterson: “Social issues like abortion, assisted suicide, gun control, and who you can marry should SOLELY be individual issues. Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t like guns? Don’t buy any. Good with both? Have at. That’s what liberty is. Personal freedom and personal accountability. Legislated morality removes both”. My problem with your definition of pro choice is it leaves me no choice but to have to pay for your choices and thereby violate my conscience which you seem to be completely comfortable with. No respect whatsoever for our choice not to pay for what we believe is wrong. I also have concerns with assisted suicide which has already been shown to be subject to abuses in some countries. I also couldn’t help but seeing the results of our wide spread abortion in now there is a shortage of people needed to fund the next generation of retirees. Can’t help but thinking we kind of deserve it for our callous disregard for killing the unborn children.
commented 2015-10-27 18:57:51 -0400
" What happens when people demand to marry multiple men, or men multiple women, or women and sister, or man and dog?" The dog can’t consent, so that fails the basic test. Polygamy? Well, perhaps that should be allowed.
commented 2015-10-27 18:26:43 -0400
I mean this seriously. What happens when people demand to marry multiple men, or men multiple women, or women and sister, or man and dog? How can we say no?
commented 2015-10-27 18:05:43 -0400
Deborah Graupner,
Yes, I have herd about that. I have thought that they may start to get rid of Senior Citizens, who may have gone to Hospital, for a broken arm or wrist and are never seen again. Left Wing Politic, is a dangerous platform. Dihmini Trudeau is stupid enough to follow the dogma of his Muslim Puppet Masters and probably agrees with them..
commented 2015-10-27 17:22:09 -0400
Yes Bravo, when they start relegating gays to the back of the bus, maybe the left will start getting it.
commented 2015-10-27 17:16:31 -0400
Liberty, apparently, means telling other people how to live their lives. Social issues like abortion, assisted suicide, gun control, and who you can marry should SOLELY be individual issues. Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t like guns? Don’t buy any. Good with both? Have at. That’s what liberty is. Personal freedom and personal accountability. Legislated morality removes both.
commented 2015-10-27 15:48:24 -0400
Keith Barnes – I’m concerned that they will do what Merkel is doing in Germany, she is evicting the white people, and installing refugees in their homes, and their jobs. Merkel did this by using the guilt of the German people! We know what’s coming down the pike, so now we must prepare for the inevitable.
commented 2015-10-27 15:39:52 -0400
Deborah Graupner,
Thank You, you have just increased my depression ten fold, Just joking!. Right now, Justin is dreaming about the new color scheme for his official Air Liner, he did not approve of how Harper had it painted. He will leave his team of idiots to handle all the mundane details of shafting Canada. His Muslim backers will, of course, be doing the most of this work.
Soon he will be announcing the reduction of our Armed Forces. We will be left with a Company of Horse Cavalry and perhaps a couple of Tiger Moths.to defend ourselves with. Next will come the reduction of the Police Force, what is left of them will all be Muslims and armed with AK 47s. He will be cutting Senior Citzens Pensions but will increase Welfare payments, so that the Muslims can live a normal life. It’s a strange strange world we live in.
commented 2015-10-27 15:32:38 -0400
Ron Voss – I wish I wasn’t right, but this is the UN’s Agenda, and all the useful idiots have fallen for it, and they are going to be working overtime, using false narratives, and inciting the rent a mob crowd’s hatred, to make people fall into line. Eventually, when we no longer have a stable economy, then those who refused to fall in line, will be killed off. That will be the line that I will be in, because I for one, won’t be bending over for their lies, anytime soon. In fact, I am going to be doing my best, to let people know the agenda, and just what they are trying to do to our individual freedoms, that we were granted by our maker. Governments of the world do not own humans, they can only control you, if you bend over, and don’t stand and defend your rights. Some things are worth dying for!
commented 2015-10-27 14:59:27 -0400
DEBORAH GRAUPNER there is merit in your observation, “This is why the UN had to get rid of Harper, because Harper wasn’t buying their bag of tricks, and lies”, as per this article, “The Obama Machine Takes Over Canada”:
commented 2015-10-27 14:40:33 -0400
Keith Barnes – the Liberals and NDP have bought into the UN’s Agenda 21plan. This will be confirmed in November, when Notley will be sacrificing AB, on the alter of the UN’s climate change hoax, in order to steal money and power from democracies, and to destroy our way of life. This is why the UN had to get rid of Harper, because Harper wasn’t buying their bag of tricks, and lies. They did this by spreading lies, and mistruths, and inciting hatred, with the full support of the MSM, and their unions. It appears to have worked, and now their focus will be on spreading false, and misleading stories, against those who don’t bend over for the plan. So now they will keep the public incensed emotionally, by spreading lies, and false stories, to complete the downfall of democracy. And at the same time, they will flood our country with unscreened refugees, like they are doing to Germany, so that they can kill off democracy, for their plans of a one world government.