About Me

Name: BrianR
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

The Christmas Care and Feeding of Liberals

A Light-Hearted Peek Through the Looking Glass

 

 

I believe there are some basic tenets of Liberalism that, if clearly understood, may help us deal with our deluded brethren and sisteren in a more humane and understanding manner, a worthy goal at this most wonderful of Seasons. For those of a liberal bent who might be reading this essay and not understand my reference, I mean the Christmas and Hanukkah Season, of course!

For those who may be inclined to chastise me for not mentioning Kwanzaa (as well as for probably spelling it wrong), my bad. I don’t know anything about it, don’t know anybody who observes or practices it, admit I probably spelled it wrong, and, frankly, don’t much care.

Now, if we look in the animal kingdom, we find that elephants exile their males to solitude once they reach early maturity. Elephants are a matriarchal society. If we look at liberals, we see that it is a philosophy driven by female supremacy. “Wimminhood” is a totem, any male who acts at all masculine is driven away by the herd, so I must conclude that liberals share genetic traits with elephants.

The irony is that the political symbol for the GOP is the elephant! Of course, as the GOP becomes less conservative, the irony also lessens. But the Democrats scored a “Bingo!” with their selection of the jackass as their party symbol!

To the liberal mind, man is basically an animal who, if left to his own devices, will yield to his basic atavistic nature and turn into a slavering, raping, pillaging, polluting beast… in other words, a conservative.

Because they believe this, they believe Government must take total control of all aspects of life, define what is acceptable in thought, deed, and action, and leave as little as possible to individuals to decide for themselves. Can’t have toooooo much of that there freedom a-goin’ on out there!

They have a very pessimistic view of human nature, and feel it’s not to be trusted at all under any circumstances; that left to its own devices, human nature will turn toward unsavory desires, like freedom, scorn of governmental control, a desire to selfishly keep the money one earns, and a yen for target shooting and big SUVs.

Liberals are endowed with ESP. For example: “
’The Arctic is screaming,’ said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.” (link). As a lawyer, John Edwards used to “channel” the voices of dead fetuses. Hillary Clinton used to “channel” Eleanor Roosevelt. This is a very handy skill. It allows liberals to speak for dead people and inanimate objects without fear of contradiction, because normal people can’t talk to dead people and inanimate objects.

Liberals suffer from a syndrome known as “collectivist mania”. Anyone who sticks out from the herd must be driven down like a Whack-a-Mole. Rich people and other achievers are despised, so every step is taken to “level the playing field”, by which they mean using all the powers at their disposal to bring the entire country down to the lowest common denominator. That way, everyone can be equally miserable, but not suffer any loss of self-esteem.

Liberals believe inanimate objects have inherent moral codes. For example, guns are evil; incredibly uncomfortable small cars suited to Barbie-doll-sized people are good.

Liberals are schizophrenic. Any unborn baby can be killed and thrown away, but no depraved murderer should be painlessly put to sleep. Somehow, “society is debased” when a murderer is executed while at the same time remaining morally superior as tens of millions of unborn babies are slaughtered. Of course, this is understandable when you bear in mind liberals believe felons should still have voting rights. Convicted murderers are potential Democrats; unborn babies are too young to vote. Worse yet, they might turn into conservatives.

Hopefully, this primer will help you make it through the Holiday Season without going postal on your liberal friends and neighbors for being so blindly obtuse. Now you understand why they are the way they are. If you’re “lucky” enough to have an actual liberal in your family, when you’re preparing that holiday feast always remember that most liberals believe “free range” food is politically correct, so make sure to roast a wild turkey. And save some Wild Turkey for yourself; you’ll probably need it.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (98) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Original Intent" and the Dynamic Tension of Liberty



In the current Presidential election season, we’ve heard the Giuliani camp talk about appointing “Originalist” Appellate and Supreme Court justices as vacancies develop. Parker(Heller) v. District of Columbia(Fenty), a case addressing the Second Amendment, has been granted certiorari by the Supreme Court, meaning it has elected to take the case for adjudication, a case hinging on whether or not the “right to keep and bear arms” is one possessed by individual citizens. Libertarians, including many who support Ron Paul, assert that our involvement in the Iraq War is unconstitutional. Many states have passed laws telling owners of privately owned establishments that they can’t allow smoking on their own premises. California has passed laws mandating that people can’t smoke in their own cars if children below some certain age are also in the car, even if those kids are the driver’s own children. Cross-dressers have sued employers who don’t allow cross-dressing on the basis of a violation of the cross-dressers’ civil rights. Spanish speakers have sued their employers who mandated that English be the only language used in the workplace in the normal conduct of that company’s business. Government prints election ballots in many languages other than English.

What do all of these, and uncountable many more issues all have in common? They all hinge on some interpretation of the Rights and Responsibilities delineated in the United States Constitution. Curiously missing are the Limitations.

Every special interest, no matter how outrageous, tries to find a foundation for its claim in the Constitution. That’s the final arbiter, the Umbrella of Last Resort. That’s because the Constitution itself mandates that all other laws, at any governmental level, must conform to the Constitution in order to be legal and binding. The individual states are certainly given great latitude for experimentation, but let’s face it. They can’t experiment with a Holocaust. Nor can they experiment with their own definition of what “murder” means, tying into my last essay (
here ).

In any nation comprised of a large number of people, all intent on exercising their rights, inevitably the rights of some are going to conflict with the rights of others, creating a dynamic tension. In the past, people would try to work out a resolution among themselves, but we’ve entered an era of litigiousness in which many no longer view accommodation as the ideal, because typically that requires some form of compromise. No, we’ve entered the Age of Confrontation, and court is now the first resort as parties try to assert the supremacy of their own rights over the rights of others. This is particularly true of the Left as they attempt to create new “rights” from whole cloth with a view toward increasing governmental control over ever-larger areas of our culture.

A great example of this falls into the arena of business regulation. Now, private sector enterprise is financed by private individuals staking their own money on the success or failure of the company, be it a small sole proprietorship or a large corporation. The government has no financial stake in the issue (we’ll leave small business loans out of this as irrelevant). So it behooves the operators of the business to earn a profit, so the stakeholders realize a return on their financial investment. Therefore the business operator should have the final say on all issues regarding company operations as long as no crime is being committed. He’s the one with his money at risk. The free market will determine his success or failure based on how well he runs that company and meets the needs and expectations of his customers.

That’s not good enough, though. In California a strip club was forced to provide handicap access for strippers, putting the “rights” of non-existent handicapped strippers at higher priority than the right of the owner to run his establishment as he saw fit. Now, I would have to assume that if that club owner did at some point hire a stripper in a wheelchair, he’d have made sure she could have access to the pole. But nope, not good enough.

Companies with dress codes are regularly sued by cross-dressers demanding that their “right” to look silly take precedence over the right of the owner to expect his employees to represent his company in a manner he has determined fits his business needs.

Companies that require English only be spoken in the workplace are regularly sued by non-native English-speaking employees claiming discrimination, regardless of the fact that clear and consistent communication by employees in a common language is efficient for business, as well as being a great stopguard to employee disruption of the environment.

Neighborhood bars can no longer allow their patrons to smoke inside when they stop by to have a drink.

There are many more examples, but the point here is that employees seem to have come to the erroneous conclusion that they have some “right” to their job, in conditions that they get to define, that supercede the right of the employer to run his business as he sees fit. Further, the government has become the silent partner with all the decision-making authority.

Obviously, in a free society, there’s no way people can exercise their rights without at least occasionally rubbing up against other people exercising conflicting rights. That’s inherent to, and the very nature of, liberty. But rather than work out their differences, nowadays people want their own desires to take precedence over those of anyone else, and are in many cases even unwilling to acknowledge the validity of the other point of view.

This is very dangerous to a free society, because the typical resolution of these conflicts is through the enactment of laws and regulations. By definition, laws proscribe the actions people can take, and thus any law whittles away at liberty by narrowing the choices people can make for themselves. Further, we’ve completely lost sight of the idea that the Constitution – and in fact all regulation – is supposed to be limited in scope. Government is not supposed to be the final arbiter in all human affairs. That’s what I meant earlier by Limitations, and Original Intent.

The Founders knew this, and gave us all the room we needed to work things out among ourselves without resorting to government as the Big Umpire in the Sky. That was their hope for us, and was best summarized by Franklin’s warning that the Founders had created a Republic, “if you can keep it”.

That seems to be turning into a pretty big “if”.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (83) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »