Many ultra-liberal focus groups behave in strange ways. They include Move On, Environmental Liberation Front, Greenpeace, Homosexual Rights groups, Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Washington, WikiLeaks, Loose Change, Stop Global Warming, and other similar groups. All of them have at least some of these faults or fallacies that work against them:




Instances of bad science:

  • Genetics of homosexuality
  • Causes of global warming
  • Predicted effects of global warming
  • Net pollution changes caused by building a new road
  • Why the World Trade Center buildings collapsed
  • Weather control caused the Hurricane Katrina disaster
  • The cause of UFOs sightings
  • The point at which life begins
  • How life began

As soon as the bad science is discovered, it destroys their entire case. Yet, they continue their bad methods, and they continue to make the claims supposedly "proved" by the bad methods:

  • Sampling the wrong population
  • No control group
  • Controlling for the dependent variable.
  • Wrong scientific theory
  • Using science fiction as though it were science
  • Wrong statistics
  • Ignorance of the real science involved
  • Using social science methods on physical phenomena
  • Confusing correlation and causality
  • Interpreting the results wrong
  • Conclusion does not match the data collected
  • Misleading charts and displays


Some make allegations that can not possibly be proved. Examples:

  • A politician "knew" about a something being wrong long before it was made public.
  • A group wanting to improve education was accused of wanting to bring prayer back into the schools.
  • Several conspiracy groups accused the Bush administration of perpetrating the attacks on 9/11/2001 to start wars.
  • They say that Republicans are against making it easier to vote, because the Democrats will get more votes if voting becomes easier.
  • They always say there was a conspiracy to cause (whatever bad that happened). They even came up with some kind of "weather control" conspiracy allegation to blame the Hurricane Katrina damage on.

Note that it is impossible to prove that something didn't happen or something doesn't exist. The reality behind the allegations:

  • Unless the politician left notes, recordings, or other materials, it is impossible to prove when (or if) he first knew something.
  • Those making the school prayer allegations really wanted to stop the school vouchers the group said would improve education by weeding out the bad schools.
  • President Bush wanting to start a war makes no sense, because George Bush was trying to reduce the size of government before the attacks occurred. A war does not reduce the size of government.
  • Republicans are against making it easier to vote, because it will make it easier for the radical left to cheat.

    Question: What is it about voting that makes it so much harder for a Democrat to cast a vote than it is for a Republican to cast one?

  • Conspiracies are the exception, not the rule. Stuff happens. Nobody can stop a nut. And nobody knows how to control the weather.


Some make false allegations against their enemies;

  • They continue to say that George Bush faked knowledge of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to start a war in Iraq.
  • A local Republican politician was accused of operating his business without a proper zoning variance.
  • They say the US started a war with Iraq to get the oil there.
  • Opponents to the Interstate 69 extension say the purpose is to move jobs out of the US and into Canada and Mexico.

The truths behind those allegations:

  • When he was captured, Saddam Hussein admitted faking a memo about weapons of mass destruction to catch a double agent. US Intelligence had obtained a copy of that memo, which is what started the war. But the news media still will not admit that this is true. They slanted the news to blame Bush, to get for themselves the "free" health care the Democrats promised.
  • That local politician's business was there long before the zoning ordinance was passed, so it was exempted by the grandfather clause.
  • If the US wanted the oil in Iraq, then why weren't the soldiers guarding it against terror attacks? The oil facilities were left totally unguarded for the entire time the US was there.
  • The truth is that the I-69 extension is being built to alleviate the congestion along the existing Interstate highways running along a general line connecting Detroit with eastern Texas.


When liberals find themselves opposed, they start calling names. Examples:

  • Names implying malfeasance
  • Derogatory names, such as "slimy" and "scumbag"
  • Names implying a lack of moral character
  • Obscene names.

Usually the name calling begins when the name callers have no valid argument to present.

  • Sometimes the name calling is used to imply wrongdoing without explicitly stating it.
  • Name calling shows that the name callers have a third-grade mentality. They are behaving as though they are still little children in elementary school. Do they really think that this childish behavior gives them an advantage?
  • Name calling is a sign of highly charged emotions. Are they so blinded by emotion that they don't really think about what they do?
  • The result is that they look like little children attacking others with pejoratives. The rest of us are right to ignore them because of their childish behavior.


Some of them twist the truth around to frighten people, so they can get their own way.

  • Opponents of the Interstate 69 extension used the diagrams printed in the Environmental Impact Statement to imply that the freeway would be elevated on an embankment with concrete retaining walls in every major metropolitan area. This, they said, is unsightly, and cuts the urban area in half.
  • Claiming that the stock market failure was engineered by rich corporations to cheat millions of people out of their homes.
  • Blaming President Bush for the debt.
  • Telling people they will be better off with government requiring them to buy health insurance.

    The real truth is often enlightening.

  • Those diagrams are required to be present in every Environmental Impact Statement filed. They are the "typical examples" of what might be built in an urban area that are part of the form. Of course, the Democrats who designed the environmental impact statement documents chose the scariest possible diagrams to include as required images, because they are against highway construction. The actual highway will have an at-grade or depressed profile in most areas. In Bloomington Indiana, the existing roadbed will be used at the existing level.
  • The economic failure was actually engineered by Democrats who won't control how much tax money they spend. They raised taxes in almost every state to "replace the revenue" lost in the small recession caused by the existence of Homeland Security. Of course, their tax increases deepened the recession.
  • The General Accounting Office numbers show that most of the current national debt was caused by the spending spree the Democrats went on when they took over the Congress in 2007. The war spending amounts to less than 25 percent of the total debt.
  • Insurance will cost about $20000 per year once it is required by law.


Some of them invent motives about why someone did something that have absolutely nothing to do with the truth:

  • They say that George Bush wanted to get into a war for his "legacy."
  • They say the US started the Iraq war for the oil.
  • They say that the Interstate 69 extension is for more international trade, nicknaming it "The NAFTA Highway."
  • They think the purpose of big corporations is to take all of the wealth away from the majority of the people.
  • They say conservatives hate the poor.
  • They say conservatives hate the arts.

The truth tells all:

  • If they believe Bush acted for his "legacy," why don't they ever complain about President Clinton's "legacy" wars? Bush acted because the US was attacked.
  • If the US wanted the oil, the soldiers would have been guarding the oil, rather than protecting the people from terrorists.
  • The purpose of I-69 is to alleviate the overloaded I-75, I-70, I-55, I-44, I-30, and I-35.
  • Big business is not taking any money away from anyone, other than the money people spend on their products. Government is the entity that is taking money away from the people. The business taxes make the products cost twice as much. Note that the housing market and mortgage loans market failed because of this excessive taxation. And they will take even more from the poor if the Health Care Plan is not repealed.
  • If anyone is taking money away from people, it's the health care industry.
  • Conservatives would rather do the things that really create jobs, instead of doing the things that don't work that the Democrats say will create jobs. And handouts do not help the economy - they depress it by destroying wealth.
  • Conservatives realize that the arts are luxurious baubles, not necessities. The arts don't help the economy, so they don't need funding. Money spent on baubles destroys wealth. When the budget needs balancing, baubles are what government needs to be spending money on the least.


Groups file frivolous lawsuits for the following reasons:

  • Using up the monetary resources for the project they are trying to stop.
  • Delaying the project until they can get their people into office to stop it.
  • Hoping that a judge with their beliefs gets the case.
  • Believing the judge (or jury) will believe their misreading of the statutes involved, and will rule in their favor.
  • Harming contractors, so nobody will bid on the project.

It doesn't work, because:

  • The government budget for defending lawsuits and paying judgments is separate from the budget for the project. In the case of government projects, the Attorney General's office bears the legal costs, and any judgment would come out of the general fund, not the budget for the project. And the judge will probably make them pay for the court costs and attorney fees for their frivolous lawsuits instead of awarding damages.
  • They are such a tiny minority that only the bias effect of the Plurality Voting System could get one of their people into an office.
  • Any rationally thinking judge will see the folly of their arguments and throw out the case.
  • The contractors so harmed have the right to recover damages from their frivolous suits, so they countersue and win.


These people have false beliefs:

  • Believing that government can do anything: All legislation passed will happen as intended.
  • Believing that one government, acting alone, can stop a war
  • Believing that government has the power to create wealth: They think that, because government can print money, it can create wealth for that money. But money is not wealth without work to back it up.
  • Believing that government spending helps the economy
  • Believing that government has the power to create jobs
  • Believing in global catastrophe from global warming
  • Believing in conspiracies where none are present
  • Believing that government can pay for health care for everyone
  • Believing that government somehow orchestrated a natural disaster
  • Believing that US interference in the Middle East is the reason for the terrorist attacks
  • Believing the terrorists chose the World Trade Center because it was the tallest building in the US, or an example the entire world would see

The truth is about as far from these beliefs as is possible:

  • There are a lot of things government has no power to do. See "Expecting Government to have Magic Powers" below.
  • One government can unilaterally stop a war only by totally surrendering or by totally obliterating the enemy. Otherwise, as long as the enemy continues to wage war, the government that wants to stop the war can not do it.
  • Government has no power to create wealth, but politicians say it does. The news media wrongly believe them.
  • Most of the things government spends money on are not helpful toward the economy. They destroy wealth instead.
  • Government can create jobs only by getting out of the way.
  • The same global temperatures existed in the days of the Roman Empire. The world cooled off in between then and now.
  • Some people always want a conspiracy. They won't believe one person can do so much harm.
  • Government can't even pay its own bills, let alone the doctor bills of the entire population.
  • Some believe in conspiracy, no matter how fantastic the premise is. They won't believe that stuff just happens.
  • The normal American way of life violates the version of Islam the terrorists practice. They want to get rid of religious freedoms, elected governments, forms of entertainment, fashion clothing, and permissiveness toward sexual immorality everywhere in the world.
  • The terrorists chose the World Trade Center because they thought they could really stop world trade by destroying it. They didn't realize that it was only the name of an office building complex.


Many don't think that legally protesting from available property is enough. They feel they must break the law and invade private property:

  • They enter private property to do their protesting. The authorities then come and arrest them for violating private property rights.
  • They invade private property without obtaining permission from the owners.
  • They commit criminal trespass by entering property to commit crimes, damage property, steal property, or prevent others from using it.
  • They deprive others of their rights to use property.

They need to realize the following:

  • People have the right to freedom of speech, but they do not have the right to enter private property to do their protesting. They must do it from public property, where anyone is allowed to be, or from private property where the owner of that property has given them permission.
  • It is illegal to enter property without the permission of the owner. In the case of businesses open to the public, permission is assumed to be granted. But that does not include entering the property for purposes other than doing business with the proprietor. Entering the property to park a vehicle while going to a business across the street is trespass, and the car can be legally towed away.
  • Criminal trespass is entering property for the purpose of committing a crime, damaging property, stealing property, or preventing those who have the right to use the property from using it.
  • Conversion is the taking of property belonging to others, and either wrongly taking ownership of it, or depriving the rightful owner the use of that property.


Most of them believe that, because it is a government of the people, they have a right to enter any government property.

There are two kinds of government property:

  • Some government properties, such as streets and parks, are open for anyone to use, provided they obey the law while using it. But it is a crime to act in a way that deprives others of this right to use that property.
  • Other government properties, such as prisons, construction sites, military bases, and other restricted areas, are not open to public use. Special permission is required for any person to enter these lands. Trespassing on these lands is a criminal act.


Some of them actually think they are helping their cause by damaging the property of others:

  • They cause damage to make the project they are protesting cost more.
  • They damage the offices and property of their political opponents.
  • They obstruct normal business and employment activity.
  • They deny others the normal use of the property.

Nobody has a right to cause damage to others.

  • There is no right to damage or destroy property belonging to government or to others.
  • There is no right to do anything that costs someone else money or prevents normal business activities.
  • There is no right to keep people from going to or performing their jobs.
  • There is no right to occupy property in a way that prevents those with a right to that property from using it.

Anyone who has damages caused by any of the above actions, or by any other act by a person, business, or government, has the right to sue to collect damages:

  • If the damage was caused by negligence, the plaintiff has the right to collect only enough to put things back the way they were before the negligent act.
  • If the damage was caused by a deliberate act, the plaintiff has the right to collect three times the amount of actual damage.


They think that damaging property somehow helps their cause.

  • They damage equipment intended for use on the project they are protesting.
  • They childishly break windows, deface property with paint, and destroy office equipment.
  • They set fires to destroy property.

Their actions are no different from those of hoodlum teenagers with nothing better to do than to break things.

  • It further shows their childish mentalities. "If I can't have my way, nobody is going to have anything."
  • They don't care what they do to other people.
  • And they can expect to be sued for repayment of the damage they caused.


The real extremists think nothing of breaking the law.

  • They think that's how to get publicity for their cause.
  • Some of them don't even bother to find out what the law is. They just do, acting on emotion.
  • Some of them think the law is like what they see portrayed on TV. Somehow the hero gets away with battery, destruction of property, and other crimes as he rescues the innocent. The screenwriter wants all kinds of action, but doesn't depict all of the damage suits and criminal charges that would result if those acts had been committed in real life.
  • They think that the alternative is so dire that their lawbreaking is justified as an emergency case.
  • Some of them think nothing of breaking the law, because they use illegal drugs on a regular basis.
  • They believe that some liberal politician with power will rescue and pardon them from the persecution of the law.

They think only of their cause.

  • They don't find out until afterwards that they have broken a lot of laws. The utopia they dream of has no such laws.
  • They do not care about how the criminal records they are accruing will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
  • Others, including law enforcement, somehow do not see the direness of what they are protesting.
  • The judges will throw out their fallacious arguments and sentence them anyway.
  • Any politician who comes to their rescue can be impeached for abuse of power.


Many of them think of only their cause, and nothing of violating the civil rights of others:

  • Some think nothing of property rights being civil rights, because they have weird beliefs that all property should belong to everyone.
  • They think nothing of depriving people of their employment rights, preventing them from going to or performing their jobs.
  • They disrupt job fairs to protest companies present for recruitment, preventing those who are looking for work from finding it.
  • They somehow think that the right for everyone to seek employment somehow interferes with their union rights.
  • They forget that all people have the right to do business with whatever entrepreneurs they choose.
  • Often they want special rights that others are not allowed to have.
  • They want to take away everyone else's religious rights so they can have "freedom from religion."
  • They want to take away everyone else's religious rights so they can have free health care (and force the ID card that comes with it upon those whose religions forbid it).
  • They want to take guns away from law abiding people.

They are trying to get something for nothing.

Their behavior shows their selfishness. People have the following rights.

  • All people have the right to freedom of religion.
  • All people other than convicted criminals have the right to bear arms.
  • All people have the right to prevent searches without a warrant for a specific crime.
  • All people have the right to own and keep property, provided they pay for it.
  • All people have the right to do business.
  • All people have the right to work at their jobs.
  • All people have the right to use public property open to the people.
  • All people have the right to be free from maliciously caused damage, injury, or death.


When some of their members are arrested for breaking the law, they concoct wild stories about why they were arrested:

  • They claim it is a government conspiracy to keep their side from being heard. Never mind that they broke the law.
  • They claim that their lawbreaking is somehow "justified" by the "direness" of the situation they are protesting. This "somehow" means that that they should not have been arrested for breaking the law.
  • They claim they were arrested because their beliefs are different from those the government wants people to believe.
  • They are ignorant of what the law is, and make up a conspiracy story to explain their arrests.
  • They believe that if they all break the law, they are somehow not guilty of committing the crimes,

Their members were arrested because they broke the law, not because of any imagined conspiracy against their movement. The following crimes are valid reasons for arrest, and most of them date back to the beginnings of ancient legal systems:

  • Criminal Trespass - Entering property without the consent of the owner for the purposes of committing a crime, damaging property, or depriving the owner of the use of the property. This includes squatting (living on property without the owner's permission).
  • Racketeering - Preventing a business from performing its normal business activities through threats or conversion. This includes gang and union activities that prevent a business from operating, and preventing employees or customers from entering or leaving the property. The name comes from the extortion rackets from the 1920s.
  • Extortion - Using the threat of illegal force to make others commit illegal acts, to make them do what they do not want to do, or to keep them from doing things they want to do.
  • Conversion - Taking the property of someone else without permission, for the criminal's own use, or to prevent the owner from using it.
  • Destruction of Property - Deliberately damaging or destroying property belonging to others. This includes vandalism and graffiti.

You can protest all you want, but you do not have the right to interfere with the lives or business of others. The criminal acts tarnish your credibility. They are badges of shame, not honor.


Whenever these groups are sued by private companies, they claim that the suits are part of a conspiracy:

  • They claim government wants businesses to file lawsuits against them to stop their protests.
  • They call these suits Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
  • They claim that government is orchestrating these suits to cost them enough that they quit.
  • They don't even think that they are being sued because their actions caused others to lose a lot of money.

As usual, these groups hurt their own reputations by claiming a conspiracy where none exists. There are no SLAPP lawsuits, because government has enough trouble with clogged court calendars. These lawsuits are filed to recover actual monetary damages caused by the actions of the protestors. These damages include:

  • Physical damage to any property belonging to others: This includes damaged fences, broken windows, graffiti, and damage to vehicles.
  • Loss of business, due to the protestors blockading the entrance to the property, preventing customers from entering.
  • Lack of employees at the business, due to a blockade. The employees can also sue the protestors for the wages they lost, because they were not allowed to enter their place of employment to go to their jobs.
  • Intangible damages caused by threats or intimidation. Employees who are threatened can also sue the protestors for damages.
  • Anything else done that costs someone else money.
  • If the damage was done deliberately or maliciously (as opposed to accidentally), the plaintiff can sue for three times the damage.

You can protest all you want. But you have no right to trespass, make threats, damage property, or cause monetary losses. Again, the lawbreaking damages your credibility.


  • They justify their lawbreaking by stating that the "dire consequences" if they are not heard and obeyed justify it.
  • They think that the alternative is so dire that their lawbreaking is justified as an emergency case.
  • They believe that what they are doing should not be against the law, and plan to fight the law itself in court.
  • Some of them believe that all law is deliberately written to persecute the poor.
  • Some of them think nothing of breaking the law, because the law makes drug use illegal, so the law is wrong.
  • Like most liberals, they believe everyone else thinks like they think, so they don't believe any judge or jury would convict them.
  • They believe that some liberal politician with power will rescue and pardon them from the persecution of the law.

Their lawbreaking is not so justified to others:

  • Like President Clinton when he committed the felony of perjury, they think the lawbreaking they did is minor.
  • Others, including law enforcement, somehow do not see the direness of what they are protesting. Neither do the victims or the courts.
  • Those who are out thousands of dollars in property or expenses do not see any justification to their lawbreaking.
  • They believe that the arrests are the results of a government conspiracy, so they think the jury will not convict.
  • The judges will throw out their fallacious arguments and sentence them anyway.
  • Since judges and juries do not believe as they do, they will be convicted anyway.
  • Any politician who comes to their rescue can be impeached for abuse of power, or voted out of office.


Too often, these groups picket offices or companies not directly related to the reason for the protest:

  • They picket the legislature or the executive's mansion to protest the actions of other elected officials.
  • They picket a contractor who was hired by government to work on the project.
  • They approach or picket the wrong government (e.g. asking state government to stop a federal project).
  • They file suit in a court that has no jurisdiction over the case.
  • Sometimes they picket a company with no direct connection to their cause, other than that company could benefit from the results of a project.
  • They sometimes attack the wrong thing. One tree conservation group attacked the construction vehicles of a project the group had agreed with. Their members thought something else was going on.
  • Picketing an official who does not have direct supervision over another official is futile. Often this is done because the other official has an office in a secured part of a government building.
  • The contractor has no power to stop a government project. If he leaves the project, the government will just hire another contractor.
  • A government without jurisdiction can't do anything about something another government is doing.
  • A government without jurisdiction can't do anything about something a private business is doing.
  • A court without original jurisdiction (the ability to start a new case on the issue) has no power to act on the issue.
  • Blind attacks do nobody any good.


They misunderstand what government is allowed to do, and what government is not allowed to do. Examples:

  • Demanding illegal funding transfers from one tax base (e.g. roads) to another (e.g. schools)
  • Expecting lawsuits to use up money from the government project being sued
  • Expecting higher taxes on the rich to solve government funding problems
  • Expecting government to tax the money in stocks and use it for other purposes
  • Disrupting the business of contractors hired by the state to use up project funding
  • Thinking that large corporations have most of the world's money stored away in bank vaults (a common Democrat mantra)
  • Demanding the even redistribution of all wealth.
  • Demanding the Greek utopian world where nobody has to work (which is predicted by the Keynesian Economic Theory)

They should study the reality of government, business, and the economy:

  • Funds collected by special taxes can not be mixed with other revenue sources. Roads and schools are funded by different kinds of taxes.
  • Lawsuits against government use up the Attorney General's budget. Judgments come from the general fund, not the project appropriation.
  • There are not enough rich people to fund all that the Democrats want to do. The truth is that Democrats want too much money to spend. Government takes too much money out of the economy, destroying jobs.
  • The money in the stock market exists in two places at once, because it is borrowed. Removing it from the stock market causes one of the two copies to completely disappear. This is because that money invested in stocks is lent out in the form of mortgages and business loans, and is an asset in a stock only on paper.
  • Interfering with a business contracted by the state for a project does not use up project funds. It uses up business operating funds that would otherwise pay the wages of the people working for that company. Illegally blockading a business hurts the workers, not the project. Some could lose their jobs as a result.
  • Government has most of the money, taken from the economy to fund wasteful spending. The money corporations have in cash accounts is usually the payroll for the next month. Any long term investment money is not in a bank vault, but is loaned out by that bank for home mortgages and business loans. It is not in a form that the business can recover it from, until after the investment term ends.
  • If all of the wealth in the world were evenly redistributed, each person would get about $2500 (once). There would be no jobs, because nobody would have enough to hire. All of the money in loans and stocks would totally disappear, because it was wealth only on paper. The total wealth in an active economy is larger than the amount of money, because the money is constantly circulating.
  • In a world without work, there would be no products to buy (since it takes work to make them), so everyone would starve to death without any food. Without work, this stupid planet can't feed any level of human population. The Keynesian Economic Theory has been proved wrong, because it is missing some variables that change the outcome.
  • That Greek utopia ran on slave labor. The liberals would not like that. So we have to work to live.


Some of these groups have used dishonest means to distort government collections of public opinion, including:

  • Raising both hands when the moderator asks for a show of hands
  • Stomping their feet as well as clapping when the moderator uses an applause meter to collect opinion data
  • Taking the real comments people submitted out of the comment box and replacing them with comments their people prepared
  • Voting multiple times or stuffing the ballot box when a vote is taken
  • Talking past the allotted public comment time at the microphone, and not yielding to the moderator telling them their time is up.
  • Bringing every member they have to every meeting, and claiming that those attending are only a small sample of their size.
  • Forging letters supporting their view using a list of registered voters for names. This came to light when a response to a letter alerted the citizen that his name had been forged.
  • Signing multiple names on petitions.
  • Trying to change the subject to one not on the agenda.
  • Trying to continue debate on a decision that has already been made.

Their dishonesty just shows the childishness of their actions.

  • They cheat, because they are afraid they won't win in a fair assessment of public opinion.
  • Their cheating shows that they know that they are not the majority they claim to be. If they were the majority they claim to be, they would not have any reason to cheat.
  • They justify their cheating by stating the "dire consequences" if the opposing side wins.
  • Even though the decision has been made, they continue to try to open the debate on the issue again. This serves no purpose, other than to show how confused they are about public processes.
  • They refuse to believe they have lost, even though work has already begun on whatever they were trying to stop. Reality escapes them.
  • There should be laws against such dishonest behavior in official public functions.


Some of these groups have used dishonest means to alter the outcome of elections:

  • Keeping old ID cards so they can vote in more than one place
  • Using fake IDs to vote more than once
  • Impersonating other voters to steal their votes
  • Mailing false documents to voters, so they show up at the wrong precincts
  • Claiming that damage caused by faulty vote-counting machines are attempts to vote
  • One cheat made a false water line leak, so the city would dig a ditch in front of a polling place looking for it
  • Sending false change of address forms to the voter registration office
  • Adding or substituting spoiled ballots as though they were real ones
  • Going to court to change the election law in a way that their side wins with the votes they have
  • Causing a power failure at a polling site (someone shot at an insulator)
  • Threatening voters with harm, or with dire consequences if the other side wins
  • Calling for endless recounts and filing lawsuits when they lose

Their dishonesty again shows the childishness of their actions.

  • They cheat, because they are afraid they won't win in a fair election.
  • Their cheating shows that they know that they are not the majority they claim to be. If they were the majority they claim to be, they would not have any reason to cheat.
  • They justify their cheating by stating the "dire consequences" if the opposing side wins.
  • They cheat to get the free stuff from government their party promises.
  • They cheat because they want the rights to do wrong things their party promises.
  • After losing the election, they keep trying recounts and lawsuits until their candidate wins.
  • Their rational for believing the other side cheated is that they lost the election. They refuse to believe the people would vote for a candidate who is so "obviously wrong." Reality escapes them.
  • Their cheating disenfranchises the voters in the majority who ended up losing the election.
  • There should be stronger laws against election cheating, and safeguards against it.


Often these people expect government to do things far beyond the capabilities of givernment, such as:

  • Changing natural laws
  • Controlling what people think or do
  • Predicting the future
  • Detecting criminal activity before it occurs
  • Being supercompetent, knowing the correct thing to do every time
  • Keeping everyone perfectly safe
  • The ability to create wealth, jobs, or prosperity
  • Paying for everyone's health care
  • A living wage for everyone
  • Controlling the economy
  • The ability to legislate the end of a war, even though the other side will not stop fighting
  • Making people want to buy nonessentials, such as art, sculpture, and tickets to sporting, entertaining or artistic events
  • The ability to make people act against their own beliefs
  • Preventing disasters
  • Controlling the weather
  • Getting rid of religion

Governments have no power to do anything beyond what a court of law can do:

  • Government certainly has no supernatural or super powers. It is made up of ordinary men who won popularity contests.
  • Government is composed mostly of layman idiots who have nothing better to do than to try to boss others around.
  • The power of government depends entirely on the consent of the governed.
  • Government is not omniscient, supercompetent, or omnipotent. It is more likely to be omnioblivious, superincompetent, and superinept.
  • The only way to detect criminal activity before it occurs is to violate civil rights.
  • Government more often produces dislaboration, rather than collaboration.
  • The world is an inherently dangerous place. It is impossible to keep everyone safe from harm.
  • Government has absolutely no ability to create wealth, jobs, or prosperity, other than by getting itself out of the way.
  • Nothing that costs money can ever be a civil right.
  • Nobody (other than a government worker) can ever have a wage higher than the product of his work can be sold for (minus taxes).
  • Government has the same kind of power over the economy that a judicial writ has over a tornado.
  • If the other side keeps fighting, no government can unilaterally end a war.
  • Government can not control the tastes and desires of individuals.
  • Nobody can change the beliefs of others
  • In the long run, everyone dies in this world. Government can not prevent that.
  • Attempts at getting rid of religion usually result in getting rid of the government that tries to do so.


Too many activists try to influence court trials:

  • In the 1990s, several black activist groups tried to influence the trial of the man accused of beating Rodney King. They mailed leaflets to all of the potential black jurors in the area.
  • Child abuse activists tried to influence the Casey Anthony trial, to get justice for Caylee Anthony. They didn't care if the right person was convicted - they wrongly wanted revenge for Caylee, no matter who was wrongly convicted in the process.
  • Too often, Jay Leno's jokes have wrongly implied that the person charged in a famous case committed the crime. This could wrongly influence a jury.
  • The Democrats asked that people write letters demanding President Clinton's acquittal at his impeachment trial.
  • Other attempts to subvert justice occurred at Michael Jackson's murder trial, at the trial of the doctor who possibly killed him, and at the trials of several police officers who killed children who acted like they were drawing weapons.

They often end up defeating themselves:

  • Most of these attempts are crimes: jury tampering, obstruction of justice, and possibly bribery.
  • The judge rules that every potential juror who got one of those leaflets was tainted, and excused for cause from serving on the jury.
  • The one thing missing from the Anthony case was proof of who killed Caylee. They don't know what happened. They didn't even have any proof that a murder took place, just some duct tape found with the body. Everything else was conjecture on the part of the medical examiner and prosecutor that did not stand up in court.
  • Jay Leno was called as a witness in one case just to silence him.
  • The Democrats could not see that their request for letters was an attempt to obstruct justice, any more than they could see that Clinton's lies on the stand were attempts to obstruct justice. They wanted their own way, no matter what crimes they had to commit to get it.
  • In each of these cases, the protestors had only their own cause in mind, not any desire to find out the real truth. The truth should be uppermost in the mind of anyone demanding justice.


Most protestors display total lack of logical thinking. They want what they want, no matter how impossible it is.

  • Expecting most other people to think the way they think, and to want what they want.
  • Many of them expect to get something for nothing. They want a life free from having to work.
  • Many don't know what they want, other than they want government to make conditions better than they are.
  • Many of them expect to somehow get the money that is now invested in the stock market.
  • Expecting the kind of utopia the Democrats often say they are trying to create.
  • Expecting their minority view to prevail over the majority view, because it is "better."
  • Expecting people to believe their scare tactics are true.
  • It seems to be a disease fostered by liberalism that most liberals think that everyone else in the world should agree with their thinking. But they are wrong in this belief, because most people (including other liberals) don't think the way they do.
  • Democrats make false promises that people can have something for nothing, such as a life free from having to work.
  • Stocks are not money. They are debt. They are like IOUs - a promise to pay at some future date. There is no way they can be converted to money, other than by selling them to other investors. Likewise, they can not be taxed.
  • Democrats may want a utopia, but they have no power to create one. Government spending will do no good, because government can't create any wealth. Those who want a life without work will find a life without either wealth or products. Work creates wealth, and products don't make themselves. The Greek utopia the Democrats cite ran on slave labor.
  • Without work, there is no food. This stupid planet can't feed a human population of any size without work being done.