(Almost) Everything I Ever Needed To Know About Liberals, I Learned From Watching Zombie Movies

by Thomas Gilleece, Guest Contributor

Recently, while strolling through one of the few remaining video-rental stores, I stumbled across the 2004 remake (or “re-imagining” as they like to claim these days) of Dawn of the Dead, the 1979 cult-classic about zombies and humans clashing in a Pennsylvania shopping mall. Not surprisingly, I find it sandwiched between remakes of other movies – some good, some not so good – with titles like Clash of the Titans, The Crazies, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Death Race, and The Departed (yes, even that 2006 “Best Picture” winner was based on a foreign film.)

Looking around at all these, uh, re-imaginings – and contemplating all those coming soon – I consider that perhaps brain-dead zombies really do exist, and they are behind all of the “fresh” ideas coming out of Hollywood. With a mixture of disappointment (I usually hate remakes) and excitement (I love zombie flicks), I bring my “new” release home, burn some Jiffy-Pop Popcorn (definitely NOT as much fun to make as it is to eat), and slide the disc into my DVD player.

About an hour into the gore-fest, it hits me! It hits me with all of the bone-crushing impact of a fireplace poker being slammed through some chubby zombie’s eye socket …

Liberals will get us all killed!

I know that may seem a little dramatic, but bear with me.

Here is a zombie movie, from Hollywood no less, that perfectly illustrates the dangers presented by today’s liberals and their misguided ideology. Surely, that was not their intention, but for the discerning eye, it becomes all too obvious.

Let’s dissect, shall we?

(Warning: For those who still have not seen this film, spoilers lie just ahead!)

The movie begins with our heroine, Ana, returning home from her extended shift as a nurse at the local hospital. She greets her rollerblading young neighbor, Vivian, hops into bed with her husband, and proceeds to fall asleep. The next morning, hubby awakens to the sight of Vivian standing eerily in the hallway. After the little tyke takes a bite out of his carotid, Ana slams the door on the zombie-girl and immediately tends to her doomed lover’s wound. He dies quickly, only to rise again with evil intent. He attacks her and she crashes through the bathroom door and into the tub (somehow finding time to lock the door behind her). Her crazed (former) spouse continues his mindless, relentless assault on the (un)locked door and she finally plunges through the tiny bathroom window and into the early-morning sunshine of a world turned upside-down. She speeds away through the nightmarish opening credits, leaving her cookie-cutter neighborhood – and all her new zombie neighbors – behind.

So far so good.

In short order, Ana hooks up with four other desperate (and disparate) survivors – a tough city cop, a sensitive TV salesman, and an expectant interracial couple (interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, the screenwriters never makes this an issue – no doubt to assure us of how progressive and open-minded they are). This uneasy and unsteady group converges on a huge mega-mall and quickly force their way in.

They soon run into the self-appointed stewards of the shopping structure – a trio of NRA card-carrying conservatives. These men practically have the sobriquet “redneck” stitched into the pockets of their blue collar uniforms. The one-time mall security guards, especially their leader C.J., even speak with slight southern accents (although the movie, which was “outsourced” to Canada, takes place in Milwaukee) and sprinkle cornpone comments throughout. Suddenly, these “Tea Baggers” are faced with a terrible decision: remove this motley crew, or risk their own safety by letting total (and possibly infected) strangers into their haven? Their reactionary instincts suggest the former. Although many would agree this is a harsh decision, it is ultimately the correct one. However, after some persuasive pleas, they allow the newcomers to share their space.

Mistake number one.

The next few minutes shows us how the strangers can work together – strengthening the security, putting painted signs on the roof to alert possible airborne rescuers – and even includes a noteworthy scene in which the star of the original film appears as a preacher on television blaming the current crisis on gay marriage, killing unborn children, man on man sex, etc.

The redneck signals his primitive approval.

Before long, a truck races into the mall parking lot. Ana wonders aloud, and shrilly, what they are going to do about it. C.J. argues, correctly, it turns out, that some of the passengers may be infected, that they may threaten the lives of everyone, and that he is responsible for keeping everyone safe. He suggests they do nothing. He points out that they may be letting the “wrong” people in. Ana quickly seizes on this, and smugly asks, “Who are the ‘wrong’ people?” trying (as is the liberal way) to turn it into a race or class issue. C.J. cleverly responds, “The infected ones.”

Ana (the liberal, in case you hadn’t already guessed) is having none of it. She and the others – including the requisite sensitive security guard, who easily betrays his brothers – ambush the two remaining rednecks and throw them into a holding cell. They then open the doors to the newcomers, which almost immediately gets them all killed.

Mistake number two.

Let me just say that liberalism, as portrayed here, is not necessarily an evil thing. Its intentions, I’m sure, are somewhat noble. But it is a misguided, naive, and simpleminded philosophy. The liberal says: we can’t turn those people away even if they are infected – even if it gets us all killed – because I feel it’s the right thing to do. She doesn’t ask the opinions of the others; she just assumes they will all agree with her. She arrogantly risks, and ultimately sacrifices, the lives of everyone around her because of something she “feels.”

The conservative, on the other hand, knows that in the real world sometimes ugly, unpopular truths must be faced. Tough decisions must be made and he is willing to make them – even at the risk of the group’s derision. He says: we are alive, and I’m going to keep it that way. She says: we are alive, and I’m willing to risk that. How nice of her.

Back at the mall, one of the infected newcomers succumbs to her wounds. Like Ana’s husband earlier, she immediately rises again and begins to attack. Ana, her own life threatened, easily dispatches the living dead with the aforementioned poker through the eye. Hmm.

A conversation ensues and it is determined that the bites cause the deadly infection. Michael (a moderate) decides that they must eliminate those who have been bitten (a difficult decision, to be sure, but the right one). Ana, who only moments before had announced her medical findings, switches to full liberal mode – questioning her own nursing expertise (“What if I’m wrong?”) and challenging Michael and the others to call off their murderous plans. The dialogue is telling and worth repeating:

MICHAEL (clearly agonizing over what must be done): “Would you rather we waited for him to die, and then he tries to kill us?”

ANA: “Yes. No. I mean you can’t just kill him.”

MICHAEL: “I’m sorry.”

ANA: “He’s got a daughter!”

So, if he were a bachelor she would be cool with it? Sure. Nonsensical, bleeding-heart arguments. Sound familiar? As if that weren’t enough, she then rushes to the infected man’s side and announces, with all the sensitivity you’d expect from a professional nurse:

“Frank, Michael’s coming to shoot you!”

After Frank explains that he’s all his daughter has left (as if they haven’t all suffered losses), Ana turns and, suddenly filled with self-righteousness, glares at Michael. “Well, Michael,” she says defiantly. “What are you waiting for? Go ahead, kill him.”

Michael, full of shame, lowers the gun – and his head. I told you he was a moderate.

When, as expected, the man comes back from the dead, Kenneth, the cop, quickly sends him to heaven. If this zombie had gone on a rampage and taken a few innocents with him (including his beloved daughter), that could have easily been BIG mistake number three. One wonders what Ana would have said to the victims as they lay dying. It was Bush’s fault? She inherited this mess? 

The movie then races toward its exciting climax, an ending brought about by a young girl who must be a member of PETA (she forces a search and rescue mission because of her concern for a stray dog – a dog she already knows the zombies are not the least bit interested in). There are two interesting points that bear mentioning:

– When the interracial couple finally have their baby, it is infected. Ana, who is clearly against murder of any kind, shoots the baby in the head without hesitation. What is it with liberals and killing babies?

– In the final minutes, our remaining survivors appear trapped with a mob of zombies rushing toward them. C.J., our lone remaining conservative, stays behind so the others can get away, intentionally blowing himself up (and half of the ravenous undead) in the process, and creating a flaming blockade guaranteeing everyone else’s escape. Including, of course, Ana’s.

The moral of the story is clear: Liberals will get us killed; conservatives are our best hope for survival.

TBP Roundup – the week’s best articles

If you missed these articles earlier this week, this is your chance to catch up with columnists and contributors ~ Clio

From JWT’s Journal:

What Does the Government Know About You?

In a world that almost relies on Social Media for many types of interactions, where we tell strangers our location, what we are doing and how long we will be doing it – is privacy something we even care about anymore? Yet, the Constitution of the United States; specifically, the Fourth Amendment under The Bill of Rights guarantees the protection of our privacy…

From The Patriot’s Notepad


by Thomas Gilleece, Guest Contributor

I wonder if historians will judge radical anti-abortionist Scott Roeder as favorably as they’ve judged radical abolitionist John Brown. Why is the fight against slavery almost always considered heroic, while the fight against abortion is generally considered controversial?

The Evil Spirit of Liberalism
by Robert Arvay

The flaws in modern liberalism are so huge, and so obvious, that one wonders how anyone could possibly be fooled by it. Perhaps liberals are not fooled. Perhaps they are not victims of shoddy thinking, but rather, opportunists hoping to cash in on a perceived train wreck…

The Evil Spirit of Liberalism

by Robert Arvay

The flaws in modern liberalism are so huge, and so obvious, that one wonders how anyone could possibly be fooled by it. Perhaps liberals are not fooled. Perhaps they are not victims of shoddy thinking, but rather, opportunists hoping to cash in on a perceived train wreck.

The current liberal policy dominating our national economy is breath-taking in its absurdity. It rests on three obvious blunders:

1. Spend more money than you have

2. Borrow more money than you can repay

3. Print more money to cheapen the value of what little you have left

No intelligent person can reasonably think that any of these are good ideas. Taking all three together, they are not a program of anything except national destruction. One need not be an economist to understand this.

I would rather believe that liberals are stupid, than to believe that they are greedy, but with few exceptions, the evidence is growing that greed, not naïve altruism, guides liberal thinking. They have twisted the noble principle enunciated by John F. Kennedy into its opposite, which is this:  ask only what your country can do for you.

The liberal talking heads on television seem always to be smiling, polished in their delivery, and well informed as to the facts, but their facts are cherry-picked. Their arguments, however polished they are, are as nonsensical as that of the accused bank robber in court, who, when told that 10 witnesses saw him commit the robbery, replied that he had a hundred witnesses who would testify in his favor – that they had not seen him do it. A gullible public nods in agreement.

Conservative spokesmen, on the other hand, often appear unsmiling, and clumsy in their delivery. They present the facts, but somehow manage to understate them, as if “everybody knows that.” Only a few erudite conservatives, mostly women, hammer home the points that need to be made.

Why? Why would seemingly intelligent people defend liberal policies that are so obviously destructive to the nation? Alas, many of them are expecting to survive the crash, to not only survive it, but to prosper from it. As evil as that is, at least one can recognize a perverse sense of reason in that expectation.

More mysterious, however, is the fact that intelligent people can actually ignore the facts, and remain loyal to a personal ideology, even when those facts are counter-productive to their stated ideology. For liberals, this ideology is called, “fairness.” Barack Obama expressed it best during his first national campaign. He was asked by a reporter why he would raise taxes, when history demonstrates that raising tax rates results in less money to the government, whereas prudent tax cuts have always increased money to the government. Obama’s response was typical of the liberal attitude: lowering taxes is unfair, because it benefits taxpayers (duh), especially the rich ones. People who never pay taxes do not get tax cuts. In other words, Obama considers it more fair to sink the ship for everyone, than to keep it afloat, because some people reside in the expensive cabins, while the rest live in second class quarters. That way of thinking is an error of (pun intended) titanic proportions.

It is not only the insanity of it, but more so, the moral bankruptcy of liberalism that is destroying America. A so-called abortionist who literally murdered innocent babies, born alive, is ignored or downplayed by most major news media, while the killing of a baby seal for its fur is considered little short of a war crime. The killing of a seventeen year old black youth by a “white Hispanic,” during a struggle, is denounced by liberals as murder, while the blatantly obvious murders of thousands of black youth by black people receives little or no coverage at all.

A Christian wedding photographer, citing his religious beliefs, refuses to accept as customers two homosexuals, and he is held up as an example of Christian bigotry. Meanwhile, the policy of countries governed by Islam is to kill homosexuals, but you would never know that based on liberal news sources, because Moslems are portrayed by the press as “peaceful.” It seems the ultimate irony:  liberals condemn the very Christians who practice forgiveness, while applauding the very Moslems whose eventual aim is to kill or forcibly subjugate liberals and homosexuals.

How can we understand this? Is there any explanation? There is none, at least not in the physical world. None. It is physically impossible for seemingly sane, rational people to adopt insane, irrational beliefs to the degree which liberals have done. The only possible explanation is spiritual.

We find that explanation in the Bible.

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” (1 Timothy 4:1, 2)

Is there any better description than this, of those who are destroying America? If so, it is yet another excerpt from the Bible, this time in The Revelation Chapter 17:

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

The irony of which is this:  the very beast upon which the harlot rides will, in the end, kill even her.

16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Can liberals actually believe that they will “cash in” on the destruction of America? Here is a clue:

Rev 18:7  How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, . . .  she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

This is the grand deception, the willful self-deception of liberalism and those who follow it. Mystery Babylon is indeed a mystery, because there is no physical explanation for it. Only with our spirit can we make sense of it all.

We cannot persuade liberals with facts and logic. We can only pray for them, that they will “resist the devil” (James 4:7) and make him flee. Until then, God save us.


Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Patriot’s Notepad 


by Thomas Gilleece, Guest Contributor

I wonder if historians will judge radical anti-abortionist Scott Roeder as favorably as they’ve judged radical abolitionist John Brown. Why is the fight against slavery almost always considered heroic, while the fight against abortion is generally considered controversial? 

Let me be clear, I’m not saying I condone what Scott Roeder did. But, I’ve noticed how historians consistently praise John Brown’s actions. Howard Zinn wrote favorably about Brown, and the recent Matt Damon-produced TV special “The People Speak,” even featured Josh Brolin doing a dramatic reading of Brown’s courtroom speech to much applause.

Scott Roeder, for those unfamiliar with the name, is the man who shot and killed “late-term” abortionist George Tiller (one of only three in the nation) in 2009. Tiller, according to his own words, had aborted over 60,000 unborn babies, many that were perfectly healthy and completely viable. Many of these abortions were performed very late-term (he once bragged that he’d aborted a baby one day before its due date). The vast majority were aborted without the physical or mental health of the mother being a factor.

John Brown was an anti-slavery zealot who some historians credit as a primary catalyst for the Civil War. He believed violent action was needed to end the cruel practice of slavery and, in 1856, he and his sons killed five pro-slavery settlers in Kansas, hacking the men to death with their broadswords.

Three years later, in October of 1859, Brown led 19 men in a raid on the Harpers Ferry armory. His plan was to take the weapons stored there and arm slaves as he swept through the South. During the raid, Brown’s group killed four men (including, ironically, a freed black man) and wounded nine others. He was soon captured by a force under the command of Robert E. Lee, and was put on trial for murder, insurrection, and treason. He was found guilty and hanged on December 2, 1859.

The similarities between John Brown and Scott Roeder are eerily similar.

John Brown was a devout Christian, as was Scott Roeder.

Both men were considered unstable – even mad – by those who knew them well.

Brown was responsible for the deaths of five men in Kansas; Roeder shot and killed George Tiller in Kansas.

Both strongly believed that they were fighting for a cause much greater than themselves; both believed their violent actions would prevent further acts of violence against innocent victims, and both truly believed they were martyrs.

Both rebelled against practices which, although highly disagreeable, were still legal at the time.

Neither expressed remorse at their trials.

Both were quickly found guilty.

There, however, the similarities end. Brown caused the deaths of nine men. Roeder killed only one. Brown fought against the evils of slavery and Roeder fought against the evils of late-term abortion, but, for some reason, only slavery is ALWAYS considered evil. Yet slavery, as repugnant as it was, rarely led directly to death; in every single late-term abortion, a living being is killed. Of that, there can be no doubt.

There are huge differences in the way these men were covered at the time of their trials, as well. Some of the most famous writers of his day (including Victor Hugo and Ralph Waldo Emerson) expressed sympathy for Brown and even tried to obtain a pardon for him. Songs, plays, and poems were written praising him. Abolitionists and anti-slavery groups hailed him as a hero. Numerous books have been written in his name. Roeder, on the other hand, has been almost universally condemned – even by religious leaders and pro-life advocates.

Today, as I noted earlier, historians and biographers heap enormous praise (one called him “an American who gave his life that millions of other Americans might be free”) on John Brown for his valiant efforts to end an ugly practice.

I wonder how historians will remember Scott Roeder.

Time will tell.

TBP Roundup: popular commentary and features

TBP Roundup is back! Below is a list of the current top content on TBP – please feel free to share your comments ~ Clio

Baton Rouge Justice for Trayvon Rally a Democrat GOTV Event

by Cap Black

As an ‘old school’ American brother hiding in plain sight within Black America’s cultural woodpile, I get unequalled access to the liberal world (of all colors) which often eludes more mainstream conservatives…

The Government is Like Fire: Necessary and Dangerous

by Robert Arvay

There is an old adage that says, fire is a useful servant, but a cruel master. Fire is useful when it is restricted to the fireplace, but when it escapes into the parlor, fire is destructive and deadly… The Government is Like Fire

Can America Save Money? What We Could Learn from Calvin Coolidge – JWT’s Journal

It is no secret that America is consumed by fiscal debt that threatens the survival of the entire nation. This is, in fact, something of a world crisis that appears to be even worse in other nations than here at home…

What Happened to Our Beloved America? Part 1

by Jim Mullen

Surely, it’s been a million lies ago since the media hoisted Marxist Barack Obama upon their disreputable shoulders and placed him on his majestic throne in that big White House on Pennsylvania, Avenue…

The Technology Nightmare is Here

by Robert Arvay

The more complex a system is, the easier it is to destroy it. This is why one can cut a simple animal like a starfish in half, and both halves will live, while a mighty elephant can be killed with a single bullet…

The Government is Like Fire: Necessary and Dangerous

by Robert Arvay

There is an old adage that says, fire is a useful servant, but a cruel master. Fire is useful when it is restricted to the fireplace, but when it escapes into the parlor, fire is destructive and deadly.

The government is like fire. It is both necessary and dangerous. When kept to its proper confine, i.e., to the Constitution, it is the servant of the people. When government becomes its own special interest, it ceases to be a servant, and becomes the proverbial cruel master.

This has always been the case. So why is the present any different from the past?

The answer is that today, technology has given to the government new powers that were never foreseen by the Founders. In 1776, the government could not keep tabs on every citizen’s every conversation. Today, it can, at least to a very large extent.

Technology is power. Power, when it is in the hands of only one or a few individuals, is almost certain to be abused. 

Even if today the government is benevolent and responsible, tomorrow it can turn on a dime, and become oppressive. The old saying, the lament of peasants for millennia, was, “Let us hope that the next king will be a good one.” That wish was rarely fulfilled.

The Founders did not rest their hopes on wishing for a good king. They wisely did not trust that the government would be reliably honest and benevolent. The framers of the Constitution deliberately designed a government that is never to be trusted, but rather, to be restrained by, and held accountable to, the people. The government rightly owns no power, none, zero. Power belongs only to the people, and the people lend power, not give it, to their servants in government. We can withdraw that power upon our whim, without permission of the government. At least, that’s how it is supposed to work.

Today, the intent of the Framers has been thwarted. No longer are there three independent branches of government, each keeping the others in check. Instead, there are numerous fiefdoms, various departments of government, each vying to become the preeminent power over all the others. Envelope please . . . and the winner is, the Executive Branch, the White House, the Presidential throne of power.

The president and his minions have not been shy about “working around” the other two branches of government. “If congress will not act, then I will,” or words similar to those, have been spoken by the president. He has openly issued thinly veiled threats to the Supreme Court whenever it has ruled in ways of which he disapproves.

Perhaps the most pernicious abuses of power have arisen from the National Security Agency (NSA) and similar agencies of government. Here, the threat need not be clearly spoken aloud. If you do not grant me the unquestioned powers needed to defend you from terrorist attacks, then terrorists will murder thousands of you.

This unspoken threat is all the more intimidating because there is a basis to it in fact. The nation does indeed need to use secrets and covertness to outmaneuver those who would kill us. If we demand that the government have no secrets, then our enemies will exploit our vulnerabilities with deadly result.

We are caught on the horns of a dilemma. How do we keep secrets from the enemy, without granting secret agencies of the government unaccountable powers that are sure to be abused, if not now, then eventually?

How do we defend our nation, while at the same time, ensuring that it remains worth defending? How do we defeat tyrants without installing one in our White House? How do we thwart terrorists, without spawning terrorists within our own government? How do we intervene in Syria without becoming Syria?

The answer is to restore Congress to its proper role as the watchdog. Here are two steps that should be taken immediately.

First, no unelected bureau of government should ever be permitted to enact regulations without the express consent of Congress. Every bureaucratic regulation should be examined by Congress prior to its taking effect. Every regulation should be voted on by both houses of Congress, the same as with any law.

Second, Congress should appoint its own inspectors general to oversee each and every agency of the federal government. These inspectors must have full and constant access to everything that the executive does, with only those exceptions already exempted by the courts. The inspectors must answer only to Congress and the American people. Such constant and intrusive inspections would have prevented such atrocities as the gunrunning operation that has killed thousands of Mexicans and one U.S. Border Patrol agent. They would have detected the abuses by the Internal Revenue Service before harm could have been done.

Unfortunately, Congress has failed to do its duty to the people who elected it. The members of Congress have become the dukes and duchesses of the modern American kingdom, not the rebellious nobles who forced the king to sign and comply with the Magna Carta.

The king is not complying. He is reigning.

Now it is up to us, the people. If we accede to slavery, then slaves we shall become, but if it is freedom for which we yearn, then we must prepare to pay the fearsome price it demands. However high that price is, it is as nothing compared to the horror of having sold our children into cruel bondage.

We must hurry, for the fire is already in the parlor.

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Patriot’s Notepad