Angry, sore losers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 17, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
What happens when a liberal thinks for himself and opposes the "accepted" progressive view?
KA-BOOM!
Other liberals pull out the big guns and aim for the head and heart. They disown and destroy, professionally and personally.
They're like children throwing a tantrum – screaming, yelling and throwing themselves on the floor – out of control until they get what they want. They figure that by being incredibly obnoxious, their embarrassed parents will give them what they want.
Liberals fancy themselves adult and rational and reasoned and accepting and tolerant and nonjudgmental and accommodating and … and … and …
They don't consider themselves perfect, but in their own minds, they're on the side of the angels – or would be, if they believed in things like that. Of course, that's as long a people agree with them. If not, watch out.
Just ask Scott Eckern
Who's he? Scott Eckern is the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, or CMT, in Sacramento. He's worked there for 25 years, been the company's chief operating officer and been artistic director since 2002.
Let me correct that.
Eckern is the former artistic director of CMT. He's out of a job and faces blacklisting in a profession that brags about its tolerance of all views and lifestyles.
Eckern quit last week after the No on Proposition 8 "gay" and liberal crowd put the squeeze on him, threatening to boycott the theatre and raising the specter personal professional retaliation.
"Squeeze" is hardly the word for what happened. His supporters say he's a victim of intolerance, persecution and violation of free speech and civil rights.
Those doing the pressuring consider him a traitor.
Poor Eckern. He was under the delusion he had the right to think for himself, support issues he believes in and vote his preference.
Apparently, that's not the case if you go against a politically correct view – especially, if it's the view of politically powerful and financially fueled activist "gays."
Anything pro-gay is sacrosanct. Disagree, and you're automatically a pariah, deserving of a public and private drubbing.
What did Eckern do? As a private citizen he donated $1,000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign, which was a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 California ballot to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It passed 52 to 47 percent. Three lawsuits by homosexual activists were immediately filed against it, claiming "gay" rights were denied. The Pacific Justice Institute filed to defend the amendment. The legal battle is set.
In 2000, Proposition 22 passed 64 to 38 percent defining "marriage" as only between a man and woman. The law stood until earlier this year when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom deliberately violated it and allowed gay marriages. In May, the state Supreme Court, 4-3, overruled the law and legalized gay marriage. Prop 8 was on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, beyond the court.
The lawsuits challenge that. It's a legal snarl.
As for Eckern, he was identified because state law requires political donations of a thousand dollars or more note the donor's name, city and occupation.
When "gay" activists saw his name on the list, word spread like wildfire among show business people across the country. CMT was flooded with calls and e-mails threatening boycott and blacklist.
CMT executive producer Richard Lewis issued a statement: "Any political action or the opinion of Scott Eckern is not shared by California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their longstanding support." Yeah, that's gutsy! The local "Yes on 8" campaign manager, Frank Schubert, sent a letter supporting Eckert. He told the Sacramento Bee that Eckern was harassed and intimidated because he had the courage to defend traditional marriage.
Eckert wrote that he expressed his view through the democratic process and is "disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most."
He said any harm or injury was unintentional and he "… chose to act upon his belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved."
He noted that California domestic partnerships have all the legal rights of marriage and added, "My sister is a lesbian and in a committed domestic partnership relationship. I am loving and supportive of her and her family, and she is loving and supportive of me and my family."
The Sacramento Bee reported Eckert "plans to donate $1,000 to a nonprofit committed to achieving equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."
In some circles, that's called extortion.
At the very least, it's pandering to activist gays who seem to dominate show business.
It's amazing how those liberals who rant and rave against what they label "McCarthy blacklisting," resort to just that when their ox is gored.
It's not safe today to speak ill of anything "gay."
"Gays" took to the streets. They picketed Mormon, Catholic and other Christian churches, which believe in traditional marriage and had financially supported "Yes on 8."
They disrupted church services, scuffled with police, berated blacks and Hispanics and targeted individuals and businesses supporting "8." They're picketing and boycotting businesses even if just one employee donated and, they demand a boycott of Utah.
"Gays" equate this with the civil rights movement. Three lawsuits have been filed in California demanding a state Supreme Court ruling.
Scott Eckern thought had a right to personal views.
Not so. "Gays," with a vengeance, set out to destroy him, which only reflects their own intolerance and bigotry.
CMT said, "The views and opinions of its employees do not necessarily represent those of California Musical Theatre."
They added Eckert's service was appreciated.
After 25 years! Gee, thanks.
Eckert is lucky to be done with them. He's a courageous man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is liberalism political madness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 15, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind.
~ Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter Jr., M.D., "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" (2008)
Are liberals clinically mad? This controversial question has been proposed and written about by many political pundits and conservative intellectuals, most notably, Dr. Michael Savage, a visionary radio talk show host from San Francisco, in his 2005 book, "Liberalism is a mental disorder." However, Dr. Rossiter, brings a solid background as a psychiatrist and non-partisan, and years of clinical experience dealing with mental disorders of every conceivable type – making his findings singularly unique, objective and difficult to ignore.
For 25 years, I myself have studied and written about political liberalism, which traces its origins to the 16th and 17th century and the Age of Enlightenment; particularly the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Kant, Diderot, Jefferson and others.
Political liberalism continued to modern times in the politics and political writings of William James, Walter Lippman, Herbert Croly, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ, among others. I have also studied liberalism in all of its permutations and presuppositions, including democracy, natural law, natural rights, humanism, Marxism, utilitarianism, socialism, communism, progressivism, pragmatism, moderates, neoliberalism, conservative liberalism, the welfare state, etc.
While neither Dr. Rossiter nor myself postulate that all liberals are ipso facto clinically mad, there are many characteristics of liberalism that are associated with the classic symptoms of madness, including:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
At Savannah State University, where I teach American government, international law and American judicial process, I am constantly waging intellectual warfare against my college students to forsake dependent, slavish ideologies rooted in emotivism, like liberalism, socialism, welfare statism and feminism, and instead to embrace critical thinking in all of their intellectual pursuits.
Recently during a mock presidential debate I had organized where I played Sen. John McCain (as if he were a true conservative), I even slammed my fist on the table and in the spirit of Justice Clarence Thomas' grandfather, who told young Clarence as a child, "The damn party's over!" I reacted to the SSU students openly praising FDR statism and the virtues of socialism or forcibly taking money from one group of people (produces) and giving it to another (non-producers). While the TV camera was rolling, I emphatically told the students at that debate to "Get off the damn plantation!"
The students, administration, faculty and staff were perhaps shocked at my characterization of the welfare state and its inimical effects on the black family, but I thought it had to be said so that we don't loose another generation of black students to failed, genocidal policies of the past.
Dr. Rossiter conveyed those same sentiments but in a much less emotive tone when he wrote: "Like spoiled, angry children, they [liberals] rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
Whether you have a Ph.D. or a GED or fall somewhere in between, any government system or political philosophy based on taking trillions of taxpayer dollars and giving it to some lazy bum who didn't earn it and doesn't deserve it in my opinion is sheer madness – as is any political organization like the Democratic Party that achieves and seizes power by seeing people not as the Constitution's framers saw people, as individuals ("We the People"), but uses them as a cynical means to an unholy end – using Machiavellian, Marxist and Alinsky tactics, divide people into warring factions: men against women, blacks against whites, Jews against Muslims, proper against the perverse, handicapped against able-bodied, workers against employers, straight against homosexuals, "the haves vs. the have nots."
It's all madness. Objectively speaking, liberalism is national genocide!
Let's apply Rossiter's theory that liberalism is a psychological disorder to today's politicians, Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton, two unashamed, big-government socialists. Rossiter writes:
A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do … A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.
The key phrase is "human nature." There is a profound ignorance and loathing in the political philosophy of liberalism against human nature. Where it is discussed in polite company it is done so in context of casting maledictions, ridicule and contempt upon Christians, Christianity and their belief in the synthesis of legality and morality; an idea adopted by the framers of the Constitution and held as absolutely indispensable to the survival of America's republic.
To your average liberal intellectual or humanist academic, the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's framers were the lowest, vilest, murderous hypocrites on the face of the earth and only deserve our utter condemnation. We see this displayed daily on the liberal media, in the judicial system, in the Democratic Party, in its leadership, its committees and the policies they champion, both domestic and foreign. Virtually every word uttered, printed or recorded by liberals is a dishonorable, unbroken litany of treason against America's laws, economics, culture, society and her most sacred values.
Rossiter said that liberalism is "based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions; modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded."
Using legal logic and deductive reasoning, if, as Dr. Rossiter brilliantly delineates, liberalism is a psychological disorder tantamount to political madness and America just elected Barack Obama, who according to the National Journal is the most liberal member of both houses of Congress, who ran on a socialist platform of resurrection of the welfare state of FDR, then what does that say about our American citizens who have elected these people to have Stalin-like control over every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave?
Can you say UAA, United Asylum of America?
Why Dogs, Not Liberals, Are Man's Best Friend
by Burt Prelutsky
Some people are convinced that a compassionate conservative is an oxymoron. But, I know better. I'm not suggesting I am one, but I do know a few. They're the people who occasionally take me to task for being too critical of liberals.
They'll insist that some of their best friends are liberals. Liberals, they'll inform me, make fine neighbors and positively first-rate relatives. I patiently explain that they're preaching to the choir. I know first-hand that liberals can be all of those things, and more.
My only problem with liberals is that they're hypocrites and they can't help lying.
Perhaps, like my friends, you now think I'm too harsh in my judgment. On the contrary, I think I tend to give liberals the benefit of the doubt. I happen to believe they are so besotted by their emotions that they can't help painting themselves into indefensible corners. To blame a liberal for lying and blatant hypocrisy would be as heartless as blaming an alcoholic for drinking. In fact, I suspect that, like alcoholics, liberals suffer from a chemical imbalance. Otherwise, how would you explain the enormous gulf between what they say and what they do?
For instance, how often have we read newspaper editorials arguing for Affirmative Action in schools and in the work place? In most cases, those pieces are not being written or edited by members of a racial minority group. So, if they were sincere, shouldn't these journalists clear out their desks and surrender their jobs to somewhat less qualified, but far more deserving, blacks and Hispanics?
Or consider, if you will, how consistently liberals object to tax cuts. They prattle on incessantly about how much the wealthy benefit, ignoring the logic that if there's a 10% reduction across the board, it figures that the person who pays more will save more. But, when liberals blather about the inequities of tax cuts, you realize they actually believe that if a millionaire saves fifty thousand on his tax bill, the guy who only earns, say, thirty grand-a-year should get the same return!
Liberals, for reasons that some of us will never comprehend, are convinced that the federal government can be trusted to spend money more wisely than the people who actually earn it. When Bill Clinton was in the White House, he said as much.
They're entitled to their beliefs, you say. Where does the inconsistency come in, you ask? It's simply this -- liberals spend just as much money as conservatives on shrewd attorneys and clever C.P.A.'s, attempting to lower their own tax liability. There is nothing in the tax laws, after all, that prohibits an American citizen from paying Uncle Sam more than he owes. But, I have yet to hear of a liberal, even one as rich as George Soros, who claimed that, even though he belonged in the highest bracket, he so admired the way in which Congress spent his money, he was going to send the I.R.S. 70 or maybe even 80 percent of his earnings.
Finally, I have never heard a liberal speak out in favor of school vouchers. Instead, they wave the flag for public schools, even though everybody in his right mind knows that, in spite of the No Child Left Behind program, a majority of public schools in America are a disgrace. The system has routinely passed along youngsters who wound up graduating from high school lacking self-discipline and even rudimentary math and reading skills. Yet, every liberal in Congress can be counted on to pay lip service to public education, although not one of them has a child enrolled in the Washington, D.C., school system!
So, while I acknowledge that liberals can be as loyal and steadfast as cocker spaniels, I have found it is nearly impossible to paper-train them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 17, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
What happens when a liberal thinks for himself and opposes the "accepted" progressive view?
KA-BOOM!
Other liberals pull out the big guns and aim for the head and heart. They disown and destroy, professionally and personally.
They're like children throwing a tantrum – screaming, yelling and throwing themselves on the floor – out of control until they get what they want. They figure that by being incredibly obnoxious, their embarrassed parents will give them what they want.
Liberals fancy themselves adult and rational and reasoned and accepting and tolerant and nonjudgmental and accommodating and … and … and …
They don't consider themselves perfect, but in their own minds, they're on the side of the angels – or would be, if they believed in things like that. Of course, that's as long a people agree with them. If not, watch out.
Just ask Scott Eckern
Who's he? Scott Eckern is the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, or CMT, in Sacramento. He's worked there for 25 years, been the company's chief operating officer and been artistic director since 2002.
Let me correct that.
Eckern is the former artistic director of CMT. He's out of a job and faces blacklisting in a profession that brags about its tolerance of all views and lifestyles.
Eckern quit last week after the No on Proposition 8 "gay" and liberal crowd put the squeeze on him, threatening to boycott the theatre and raising the specter personal professional retaliation.
"Squeeze" is hardly the word for what happened. His supporters say he's a victim of intolerance, persecution and violation of free speech and civil rights.
Those doing the pressuring consider him a traitor.
Poor Eckern. He was under the delusion he had the right to think for himself, support issues he believes in and vote his preference.
Apparently, that's not the case if you go against a politically correct view – especially, if it's the view of politically powerful and financially fueled activist "gays."
Anything pro-gay is sacrosanct. Disagree, and you're automatically a pariah, deserving of a public and private drubbing.
What did Eckern do? As a private citizen he donated $1,000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign, which was a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 California ballot to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It passed 52 to 47 percent. Three lawsuits by homosexual activists were immediately filed against it, claiming "gay" rights were denied. The Pacific Justice Institute filed to defend the amendment. The legal battle is set.
In 2000, Proposition 22 passed 64 to 38 percent defining "marriage" as only between a man and woman. The law stood until earlier this year when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom deliberately violated it and allowed gay marriages. In May, the state Supreme Court, 4-3, overruled the law and legalized gay marriage. Prop 8 was on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, beyond the court.
The lawsuits challenge that. It's a legal snarl.
As for Eckern, he was identified because state law requires political donations of a thousand dollars or more note the donor's name, city and occupation.
When "gay" activists saw his name on the list, word spread like wildfire among show business people across the country. CMT was flooded with calls and e-mails threatening boycott and blacklist.
CMT executive producer Richard Lewis issued a statement: "Any political action or the opinion of Scott Eckern is not shared by California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their longstanding support." Yeah, that's gutsy! The local "Yes on 8" campaign manager, Frank Schubert, sent a letter supporting Eckert. He told the Sacramento Bee that Eckern was harassed and intimidated because he had the courage to defend traditional marriage.
Eckert wrote that he expressed his view through the democratic process and is "disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most."
He said any harm or injury was unintentional and he "… chose to act upon his belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved."
He noted that California domestic partnerships have all the legal rights of marriage and added, "My sister is a lesbian and in a committed domestic partnership relationship. I am loving and supportive of her and her family, and she is loving and supportive of me and my family."
The Sacramento Bee reported Eckert "plans to donate $1,000 to a nonprofit committed to achieving equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."
In some circles, that's called extortion.
At the very least, it's pandering to activist gays who seem to dominate show business.
It's amazing how those liberals who rant and rave against what they label "McCarthy blacklisting," resort to just that when their ox is gored.
It's not safe today to speak ill of anything "gay."
"Gays" took to the streets. They picketed Mormon, Catholic and other Christian churches, which believe in traditional marriage and had financially supported "Yes on 8."
They disrupted church services, scuffled with police, berated blacks and Hispanics and targeted individuals and businesses supporting "8." They're picketing and boycotting businesses even if just one employee donated and, they demand a boycott of Utah.
"Gays" equate this with the civil rights movement. Three lawsuits have been filed in California demanding a state Supreme Court ruling.
Scott Eckern thought had a right to personal views.
Not so. "Gays," with a vengeance, set out to destroy him, which only reflects their own intolerance and bigotry.
CMT said, "The views and opinions of its employees do not necessarily represent those of California Musical Theatre."
They added Eckert's service was appreciated.
After 25 years! Gee, thanks.
Eckert is lucky to be done with them. He's a courageous man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is liberalism political madness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 15, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind.
~ Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter Jr., M.D., "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" (2008)
Are liberals clinically mad? This controversial question has been proposed and written about by many political pundits and conservative intellectuals, most notably, Dr. Michael Savage, a visionary radio talk show host from San Francisco, in his 2005 book, "Liberalism is a mental disorder." However, Dr. Rossiter, brings a solid background as a psychiatrist and non-partisan, and years of clinical experience dealing with mental disorders of every conceivable type – making his findings singularly unique, objective and difficult to ignore.
For 25 years, I myself have studied and written about political liberalism, which traces its origins to the 16th and 17th century and the Age of Enlightenment; particularly the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Kant, Diderot, Jefferson and others.
Political liberalism continued to modern times in the politics and political writings of William James, Walter Lippman, Herbert Croly, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ, among others. I have also studied liberalism in all of its permutations and presuppositions, including democracy, natural law, natural rights, humanism, Marxism, utilitarianism, socialism, communism, progressivism, pragmatism, moderates, neoliberalism, conservative liberalism, the welfare state, etc.
While neither Dr. Rossiter nor myself postulate that all liberals are ipso facto clinically mad, there are many characteristics of liberalism that are associated with the classic symptoms of madness, including:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
At Savannah State University, where I teach American government, international law and American judicial process, I am constantly waging intellectual warfare against my college students to forsake dependent, slavish ideologies rooted in emotivism, like liberalism, socialism, welfare statism and feminism, and instead to embrace critical thinking in all of their intellectual pursuits.
Recently during a mock presidential debate I had organized where I played Sen. John McCain (as if he were a true conservative), I even slammed my fist on the table and in the spirit of Justice Clarence Thomas' grandfather, who told young Clarence as a child, "The damn party's over!" I reacted to the SSU students openly praising FDR statism and the virtues of socialism or forcibly taking money from one group of people (produces) and giving it to another (non-producers). While the TV camera was rolling, I emphatically told the students at that debate to "Get off the damn plantation!"
The students, administration, faculty and staff were perhaps shocked at my characterization of the welfare state and its inimical effects on the black family, but I thought it had to be said so that we don't loose another generation of black students to failed, genocidal policies of the past.
Dr. Rossiter conveyed those same sentiments but in a much less emotive tone when he wrote: "Like spoiled, angry children, they [liberals] rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
Whether you have a Ph.D. or a GED or fall somewhere in between, any government system or political philosophy based on taking trillions of taxpayer dollars and giving it to some lazy bum who didn't earn it and doesn't deserve it in my opinion is sheer madness – as is any political organization like the Democratic Party that achieves and seizes power by seeing people not as the Constitution's framers saw people, as individuals ("We the People"), but uses them as a cynical means to an unholy end – using Machiavellian, Marxist and Alinsky tactics, divide people into warring factions: men against women, blacks against whites, Jews against Muslims, proper against the perverse, handicapped against able-bodied, workers against employers, straight against homosexuals, "the haves vs. the have nots."
It's all madness. Objectively speaking, liberalism is national genocide!
Let's apply Rossiter's theory that liberalism is a psychological disorder to today's politicians, Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton, two unashamed, big-government socialists. Rossiter writes:
A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do … A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.
The key phrase is "human nature." There is a profound ignorance and loathing in the political philosophy of liberalism against human nature. Where it is discussed in polite company it is done so in context of casting maledictions, ridicule and contempt upon Christians, Christianity and their belief in the synthesis of legality and morality; an idea adopted by the framers of the Constitution and held as absolutely indispensable to the survival of America's republic.
To your average liberal intellectual or humanist academic, the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's framers were the lowest, vilest, murderous hypocrites on the face of the earth and only deserve our utter condemnation. We see this displayed daily on the liberal media, in the judicial system, in the Democratic Party, in its leadership, its committees and the policies they champion, both domestic and foreign. Virtually every word uttered, printed or recorded by liberals is a dishonorable, unbroken litany of treason against America's laws, economics, culture, society and her most sacred values.
Rossiter said that liberalism is "based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions; modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded."
Using legal logic and deductive reasoning, if, as Dr. Rossiter brilliantly delineates, liberalism is a psychological disorder tantamount to political madness and America just elected Barack Obama, who according to the National Journal is the most liberal member of both houses of Congress, who ran on a socialist platform of resurrection of the welfare state of FDR, then what does that say about our American citizens who have elected these people to have Stalin-like control over every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave?
Can you say UAA, United Asylum of America?
Why Dogs, Not Liberals, Are Man's Best Friend
by Burt Prelutsky
Some people are convinced that a compassionate conservative is an oxymoron. But, I know better. I'm not suggesting I am one, but I do know a few. They're the people who occasionally take me to task for being too critical of liberals.
They'll insist that some of their best friends are liberals. Liberals, they'll inform me, make fine neighbors and positively first-rate relatives. I patiently explain that they're preaching to the choir. I know first-hand that liberals can be all of those things, and more.
My only problem with liberals is that they're hypocrites and they can't help lying.
Perhaps, like my friends, you now think I'm too harsh in my judgment. On the contrary, I think I tend to give liberals the benefit of the doubt. I happen to believe they are so besotted by their emotions that they can't help painting themselves into indefensible corners. To blame a liberal for lying and blatant hypocrisy would be as heartless as blaming an alcoholic for drinking. In fact, I suspect that, like alcoholics, liberals suffer from a chemical imbalance. Otherwise, how would you explain the enormous gulf between what they say and what they do?
For instance, how often have we read newspaper editorials arguing for Affirmative Action in schools and in the work place? In most cases, those pieces are not being written or edited by members of a racial minority group. So, if they were sincere, shouldn't these journalists clear out their desks and surrender their jobs to somewhat less qualified, but far more deserving, blacks and Hispanics?
Or consider, if you will, how consistently liberals object to tax cuts. They prattle on incessantly about how much the wealthy benefit, ignoring the logic that if there's a 10% reduction across the board, it figures that the person who pays more will save more. But, when liberals blather about the inequities of tax cuts, you realize they actually believe that if a millionaire saves fifty thousand on his tax bill, the guy who only earns, say, thirty grand-a-year should get the same return!
Liberals, for reasons that some of us will never comprehend, are convinced that the federal government can be trusted to spend money more wisely than the people who actually earn it. When Bill Clinton was in the White House, he said as much.
They're entitled to their beliefs, you say. Where does the inconsistency come in, you ask? It's simply this -- liberals spend just as much money as conservatives on shrewd attorneys and clever C.P.A.'s, attempting to lower their own tax liability. There is nothing in the tax laws, after all, that prohibits an American citizen from paying Uncle Sam more than he owes. But, I have yet to hear of a liberal, even one as rich as George Soros, who claimed that, even though he belonged in the highest bracket, he so admired the way in which Congress spent his money, he was going to send the I.R.S. 70 or maybe even 80 percent of his earnings.
Finally, I have never heard a liberal speak out in favor of school vouchers. Instead, they wave the flag for public schools, even though everybody in his right mind knows that, in spite of the No Child Left Behind program, a majority of public schools in America are a disgrace. The system has routinely passed along youngsters who wound up graduating from high school lacking self-discipline and even rudimentary math and reading skills. Yet, every liberal in Congress can be counted on to pay lip service to public education, although not one of them has a child enrolled in the Washington, D.C., school system!
So, while I acknowledge that liberals can be as loyal and steadfast as cocker spaniels, I have found it is nearly impossible to paper-train them.
