On Liberal Hypocrisy By Vative C. Onser      I suppose it’s pretty easy for some folks to sit around complaining about the current state of affairs in America today, particularly when you consider who is doing most of the griping, how often they do it, and why.  There has been a lot of grumbling since the 2000 election, and it comes as no surprise that the loudest, most vocal crowd would be the ones that were backing a party that had the least to offer, and the most to lose.  Looking back, it still boggles the mind to recall that it was as close as it was, but we all watched the drama unfold as the democrats took to the task of managing the damage control. All the kings’ horses and all the kings’ men began creating the illusion of voter fraud; discrimination, deception and even mechanical failures to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. But alas, there were simply too many fragments of a deteriorated shell to realistically attempt to reassemble, so more nursery rhymes were created. The sympathetic media did their little dances, and the crowd of defeated mourners sang their song of grief. Others voiced their outrage at the unjustness of it all.  The truth was that the people had spoken and the majority had ruled; yet still there was disbelief among the deaf and blind followers of the fallen regime. The true nature of the class was blatantly exposed, and the childish temper tantrums began, with the typical accusations of cheating and collusion leveled against both the opponent and the referees. Good sportsmanship and faith in the democratic system that had served the nation so well through the ages were abandoned, and fault was found with anything and everything that confirmed the republican win.   A classic illustration of how the liberal elite demonstrate their true identity; illogical, problem-focused crybabies who truly believe that they are entitled to hold public office by mere virtue of their existence, and the only votes that ever really count are those cast on the left side of the aisle.   Whenever a wise person is faced with a problem or dilemma, it is typical for them to set about resolving the challenge with the most important tool for that task, which is of course, logic. Logic coupled with pertinent experience enables one to draw rational and well-reasoned conclusions, and ultimately render the best possible solution to whatever dilemma one should encounter.   One of the many problems with the touchy-feely liberal types on the left, is that they are constantly trying to amplify the emotional considerations surrounding a problem that is appropriately and readily solved, using other more firmly grounded methods, such as logic and/or mathematics. When you remove the common sense component from the formula, and replace it with something as unstable and ever-changing as emotion, the result of the equation will be every bit as unstable and unreliable in the long run. Decisions rendered in such a fashion will rarely work well, and inevitably require revision.   As one observes the behavior of the liberal leftists worldwide and is asked to describe them in an honest and forthright manner, it would not be unfair to describe them as a faction completely lacking any trace of common sense. They have no earthly desire to be connected with anything or anyone that would be considered common. Liberals consistently behave as though they are part of an exclusive club that has an altogether uncommon sense of standards. Having set themselves safely aside from the masses, they gather to discuss the one solitary thought worthy of their consideration. The only allowable religion among them, the only acceptable form of commonality is the bond that they have between them in this unholy fraternity. Each is a deity in his or her own right, possessing rare talents that only they can see and comprehend. Gifted at birth with the ability to know what is best for all mankind, willing to take on the arduous task of relieving the outsiders of the burden of thought, responsibility and self-realization so that the inferior ones may be spared the pain of it all. Such benevolent beings!     Perhaps not.       For many years, I have watched these folks desperately attempting to convince the masses that they somehow have a superior thought process, and that we should just roll over and let them have their way, apparently for no reason other than the fact that they are merely entitled to this type of status. Well, I ‘m pretty opened minded, so I’ll consider anything that that makes a bit of sense. I was blessed with some pretty good analytical qualities, and a whole lot of patience, and I can keep listening to these prophetic orators until I’ve gathered enough information to make informed decisions.   I started listening back during the Nixon/McGovern race in 1972. I was in the fourth grade. One day we had a substitute teacher, and she had the bright idea that she wanted to run a mock campaign, and asked for two volunteers to be campaign managers for each candidate. Now, the last thing a bunch bleary-eyed fourth graders wanted to do was study politics, but it was looking like the only people that were really going to have to do anything too serious were the two people silly enough to volunteer. As you might expect, when she asked who would be willing to represent the republican candidate, nobody volunteered. She looked right at me and said, “Would you do it?” I was so embarrassed I just turned white as a ghost and squeaked out a reply indicating that I would. She said “Good. I’m sure you’ll do just fine”. By now, every kid in class was trying to disappear so she would not ‘volunteer’ them. She was really trying to get a volunteer this time, but no one was too eager to do it, and most didn’t even know what the task entailed. I did, because I had an older sister who did it for a classmate running for a student body office in a higher grade. Lo and behold, a girl in my class enthusiastically raised her hand, and said she would do it. The teacher was thrilled, and made some notes.   I, on the other hand, was a bit miffed, because the girl that raised her hand was my first puppy love that broke my heart in a very unkind way, and I knew the reason for her sudden willingness to participate. She made some snotty little comments just to make sure that I knew my place, and then we proceeded.   We were given our reading materials and had the rest of the time until lunchtime to study. I was a real bookworm, and enjoyed reading just about anything. I read everything through a few times, and found it refreshing that we finally got something a little more grown up to read, and I enjoyed it.   Before I knew it, lunchtime was over, and we came back to find that we would have one more period to study the issues, and then we would vote. I was more than a little nervous, and did my best not to let it show as I was called on to begin the debate.   We both stood at the front of the room, and the teacher mediated, asking us questions, and we called on the other kids raising their hands to ask us questions. It seemed to go on forever, but I was getting used to it, and it didn’t bother me so much any more. That wasn't quite the case for the bratty little girl. She stammered and stumbled through every question, completely ignorant, not knowing what to do or say. I became more and more animated, using hand gestures and large words I had picked up somewhere along the way, while she was regretting more and more her hasty decision to put me down in front of the class. When the debate was over, she gave the class a little more time to review, and then we voted. She was very strict about being quiet and not talking while the ballots were passed out, filled out, and dropped into a box.   She gave us our next assignment, and went to her desk to count the ballots. At the beginning of the last period of the day, she brought the class to order and announced the results. George McGovern had collected a total of four votes. The rest of the class had voted for Nixon. It was pretty easy to figure out who it was that cast the four votes… one of the guys in my class who was chasing her around after she kicked me to the curb, two of her man-hater girlfriends, and her.  Everyone else voted for Richard Nixon –very similar to the real election. I remembered seeing one of the teacher’s Volkswagen bug with a McGovern sticker on it, and being bummed because I thought he was hip and cool, but then I realized that he bought into the ramblings of an idiot.   Then came Watergate, and subsequently Gerald Ford. Lackluster, perhaps, but a shining star in comparison to his successor, Jimmy Carter. His was undeniably one of the most pathetic administrations of the century. He campaigned on a platform that promised to reform the tax system he called “a disgrace”, and promised to drastically reduce the number of government agencies in the federal bureaucracy that he referred to as the “worst, most confused, bloated, overlapping, and wasteful in history”. It became apparent that the only reason he called it the  “worst, most confused, bloated, overlapping, and wasteful in history” was simply because it was overseen by a republican president.         Let us not forget that the truth of the matter is that Carter’s predecessor had inherited the weakest economy since WWII. The Viet Nam conflict, government funded social programs, rising unemployment rates and the OPEC squeeze had contributed to an inflation rate of 11.2% and an unemployment rate of 9%. A democrat led congress attempted to block his proposed tax cuts, venomously described as “tax cuts for the rich”. That is exactly what they were. When congress gives tax cuts to those with more disposable income, it promotes spending in the private sector, which results in a tilt on the supply-side of the scale that stimulates economic growth through the expansion of commerce, and ultimately, lower unemployment rates. Not surprisingly, the liberals have never been able to grasp the concept of supply-side economics. In the communistic mindset of a liberal democrat, the only way to generate revenue is by raising taxes in the name of social goodwill. By making people think that they cannot possibly get by without the help of big government, they justify an irresponsible taxation and spending ideology that only exacerbates the original predicament. What they consistently fail to recognize is the fact that the common benefit of lower unemployment rates is the generation of additional tax revenue without raising taxes. Gerald Ford’s conservative economic policy brought the inflation rate from 11.2% down to 5.9%. By the end of Ford’s presidency, congress had gone from blocking his policy to passing The Tax Reform Act of 1976, which would implement tax cuts that were even larger than the president had thought were prudent. One might ask the questions at this point, “What was Jimmy Carter going to do to reform the reform?” What “disgrace” was he going to abolish? His contributions to additional tax reform were so insignificant as to be unnoticeable.   During his run for office, he vowed to deflate the bloated and wasteful administration that was currently installed. In his superior thought process, he brilliantly decided to add the Department of Energy and the Department of Education to his cabinet, and the number of employees on the payroll continued to increase throughout his presidency.   Let us not forget how he bravely stood by and let the hostage crisis in Iran bounce around the airwaves for 14 months while simultaneously championing himself as a pacifist human rights advocate, dickering over human rights issues.       In November of 1979, a group of students in Tehran stormed the embassy and took 66 American hostages. After the United States responded by freezing assets held by American banks and imposing trade sanctions against the Iranians, the captors released only 13 of them. With the Ayatollah Khomeini endorsing their actions, the crisis dragged out for over a year. A U.S. Commando attack the following April and ongoing futile negotiations failed to secure the release of those kidnapped by followers of the Ayatollah.   His image as the leader of America was looked upon as a kind and gentle man of deep thought and compassion by those who shared his ideology, people like the French, who chose to roll over and let the Allied Forces fight their battles for them. He was viewed as a weak and naïve fool who was chosen by a weak and naïve nation to secure the portals of America, by the Middle East factions that would become today’s terrorists. He was voted “Most likely to concede” by the anti-American Soviet and Asian communist regimes. More recently, he was the one who stated, on global satellite networks that “America is the richest nation on earth. It is also the stingiest nation on earth.”  Perhaps the most stomach-turning aspect of his mindless drivel is that he said it in the midst of several massive relief efforts we had going on in a multitude of different countries, none of the least of which was the Tsunami relief efforts where several of America’s wealthiest individuals sent personal checks of a million dollars or more to help with providing food, water and medical supplies to the victims that were affected by the tragedy. I don’t know how much of his personal wealth was contributed to the effort, but it became apparent that he thought he was doing the right thing by attempting to make Americans feel guilty for being so successful, and chastising them for not doing more. He set the United States aside from all the other international kids, and then split us into two divisions: The wealthy and greedy, and the poor and stingy; then he gave America a good old-fashioned, down home, bare-butt peach tree switchin’ on satellite television while all the green-eyed moochers and terrorists of the world looked on with sadistic glee.   It clearly reflects what liberals really think about the people of our great nation. Liberals depict conservatives as mean, greedy, selfish capitalists who couldn’t possibly care less about anybody, and everybody else deserves what we have we have done for ourselves more than we do.   The leftists I’m seeing and hearing childishly regard themselves as gifted intellectuals who are really the only ones capable of deciding how to procure the funds from the American people, and then in turn, how to spend it.     If not for the grave sadness of it, it would be humorous to witness the hypocrisy that always shows through when the talking points and gibberish become meaningless, and action and sacrifice become necessary. If you do not believe me, just watch how they react when you ask them to consider a simple premise.       Here is a favorite little story I have collected that illustrates my point quite simply and humorously. Read on.     A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and had grown to be in strong favor for the distribution of all wealth in America.   She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.   She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying, and that she was taking a more difficult curriculum.   Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary? " She replied, "Mary is barely getting by", she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA" adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies."   To explain further she continued emotionally, "Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."   Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter visibly shocked by the father’s suggestion angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing! She played while I worked real hard!"   The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party!”       When the rubber hits the road, all that warm fuzzy emotion is unceremoniously pushed aside when the time for true sacrifice comes to the surface and all that is left is rhetoric. A great many of the ultra-liberal, anti-establishment, stick it to the man, make love not war, “hell no we won’t go” hippies of the sixties who are still around have either switched sides or opted to go with “moderate conservative”, or as I like to call it, “Liberal Light” points of view, and for a handful of simple reasons.   One reason is that they came to realize, as many youngsters do as they grow up, that there is a great deal of pressure placed on you to take care of your own affairs. The commune philosophy works fine as long as you are content with whatever someone or some collective decides for you. If you are hungry, you can rest comfortably knowing that everyone else is hungry too. If the collective did not delegate someone to patch your roof, it will probably find a place (or places, if you have a family) for you to stay until the rain stops. You won’t have the uneasy feeling of not fitting in because of your choices, because you have turned those over to a (seemingly) competent body that will render a flat-line decision that affects all to roughly the same degree.   All is well and good until you give in to your own individuality. That fact that you like clothing that is more expensive than what they have chosen, or you realize that you love a good steak once or twice a week or lobsters aren’t as friendly as they are tasty. Perhaps you prefer a vehicle that doesn’t smell like everyone else’s dirty laundry. Whatever it is, the vast majority of human beings crave the simple pleasures of deciding for themselves. Most of us want our kids to grow up reflecting the best of what we as parents had to pass on to them. We hope that we have given them enough common sense, vision, and reasoning skills that they can separate the good stuff we gave them from the crap we inadvertently deposited upon them, and the ability to make their own decisions and become who they want to be, based on the teachings of their parents and not some governing body.   It has always come down to that single most important component of success in any endeavor: Responsibility. That essential ability to become solely responsible for yourself and your actions, and if you should choose to procreate, the ability to pass down the finer aspects of this extremely necessary skill to your progeny.      I believe that in days of old, villages were a good place for children to grow up and learn through the diversity of what occurred naturally in the village, and in the region. I also believe that it is and was a good idea for the growth cycle to include traveling to other distant villages. If you grew up on deer meat, it might be interesting to try shellfish, for example. If you grew up on a boat, it might be interesting to try living among mountain people. It is a choice one makes as they mature. Traveling to somewhere unknown requires the ability to be responsible and cautious. We have all heard the tales that befall country bumpkins that run away to the city, or city slickers that get lost in the great outdoors.   The important point here is that when someone (or some society) turns their ability to choose the course of their destiny over to any other entity, a revolution of some sort is virtually guaranteed. One of the interesting philosophies of communist regimes is the fact that with few, if any exceptions, those born into it and forced to live under it are legally and physically forced to remain within the confines of it. They have no true freedom to come and go as they wish, nor do they have the choice to compare their conditions and lifestyles to those living elsewhere. The reason I mention this is that I find it impossible to analyze the philosophies of liberalism and not see the design of communism woven throughout it. Let me recount one recent event that is a classic example.   Near Los Angeles, Mecca to the Hollywood elite and the stomping grounds of many stereotypically left leaning, tree hugger types, a dramatic story was broadcast. I listened with a teaspoon of interest and a truckload of disgust, as some of the aforementioned elitists illustrated exactly the point I made in a previous paragraph. I’ll repeat it here to help drive the point home.   Liberals depict conservatives as mean, greedy, selfish capitalists who don’t care about anybody but themselves, and everybody else deserves what we have we have done for ourselves more than we do. The leftists consider themselves as gifted intellectuals who are certainly the only ones capable of deciding how to procure the funds from the American people, and then in turn how to spend it.   The following is an example of exactly what I’m talking about.     A man by the name of Ralph Horowitz owned some 14 acres of land near Los Angeles, and due to the eminent domain rulings, the governmental powers that be commandeered his land, paying him about 25% of the fair market value, in order to build a waste incineration plant. Subsequently the neighboring communities absolutely refused to have any facility of that kind in their area, so the plan was struck down.   The land was parceled out and the acreage was then provided free of charge to some three hundred Hispanics (how many of which were illegal immigrants?) to live on and farm. After a lengthy legal battle and the expenditure of just under $1,000,000 (that’s right folks, a cool million!) of his own money, he was able to win back the land that never should have been taken in the first place.   In the interim, the “undocumented workers” were allowed to stay rent-free until the plans and legalities were worked out. When the owner of the land began to move forward on his plans to make use of his property, he was met with an unbelievable turn of events. The Hispanics that had been taking advantage of his free land rose up in righteous indignation and demanded he let them keep “their” land! Oh, believe me, it gets much more ridiculous than that…    The selling price of this piece of land at the time this story went to the press was right at $16 million. If they wanted the land, they were welcome to purchase it, if they wanted to keep it. They did not want to purchase it, however, they wanted the land given to them.   At the thought of the presence of movie cameras and news crews, a cadre of well-known Hollywood leftists moved in as advocates for the downtrodden. Darryl Hannah, Martin Sheen, Joan “raze the prisons” Baez, Willie Nelson, Danny Glover, and a handful of other whiny hypocrites made a stand to protect these trespassers from eviction. Darryl made the pseudo-courageous decision to chain herself to a tree in protest, while the others griped about the unfairness of it all, greedy capitalists, and the abuse of human rights. They went on and on, demonstrating how much they care, illustrating how much of a better class of people they are, not because they are rich and famous, but because they were willing to take time out of their busy schedules, give up so much to help those who have so little, et cetera, et cetera.     The media ate it up because it gave them another chance to show just how much the show-biz types really care. The perfect rescue to a slow news day…   At the end of the day, there was one glaring, painfully obvious question that the worshippers never asked. Now, are you sitting there applauding their selfless, courageous benevolence or asking the obvious question?     Obvious Question: Why didn’t these filthy rich do-gooders just quietly stick a crowbar into their own wallets and pocketbooks and chip in their lunch money to help these poor illegal immigrants? Obvious Answer: I’ll say it again.    Liberals depict conservatives as mean, greedy, selfish capitalists who couldn’t possibly care less about anybody, and everybody else deserves what we have we have done for ourselves more than we do. The leftists consider themselves to be gifted intellectuals who are certainly the only ones capable of deciding how to procure the funds from the American people, and then in turn how to spend it.     In short, they know how to spend Ralph Horowitz’ money better than he does. Just like Jimmy Carter, their brilliant thought processes have concluded that it is  a more effective strategy to play the race and guilt cards and chastise America for not donating to causes they think are worthwhile. If they, in their superior mindset deem a charity worthwhile, then everyone should, if they have any sense of decency and compassion, give to that charity. If the government program touches them on an emotional level, then we, the working class simpletons, should pay whatever the amount in additional taxes and voluntary contributions it takes to make their hopes and dreams come true. If you do not share their vision, then you are bourgeois, selfish, and narrow-minded.   There are a handful of nagging thoughts that keep surfacing in my oh-so-shallow mind: What about Mr. Horowitz, the person who actually owns the land? What about his rights? How can they rationally justify their behavior? And finally, why did they cut the tree branch off instead of the chain, or better yet, why didn’t they leave the defenseless tree alone and cut off her hand instead? Where were all the tree hugging libs protesting while this was going on?   I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the branch was carted off and sold to the highest bidder at some black-tie event as some symbol of courage and sacrifice.   I would be interested to see how any one of them would handle it, if they were in the same exact situation. There aren’t a whole lot of people who go around giving away $16 million plots of land to anybody, leave alone a bunch of criminals who sneak over an international border to stick it to us “stupid gringos.” -But I guess Joan Baez would never understand that…     A suggestion to the elitists who made it to the show: Discuss it amongst yourselves, and decide which one of you is willing to do the right thing and buy that piece of land, and pay the tens of thousands of dollars in taxes every year?  Now remember: Only one of you. All by yourself. No help from your sympathizers. No flashy telethons where you become the hero. Just cold, hard, earned it, paid taxes on it, out of the goodness of your heart, sacrificial cash.   Wow!  That place sure cleared out fast!       What a shame, I didn’t even get a chance to tell them that the main reason that they could even afford to dream about doing it is because they live right here in the evil ol’ United States of America.   As I mentioned when I opened this little soapbox jot, it’s so much easier for people like Jimmy, Darryl, Joan, Martin, Willie, Danny, and the rest to sit around lamenting about the selfishness of the American people than to do what it takes to actually solve the problems that we face as a nation and as a race on this planet. It is a small mind thinking small thoughts that conjures up meaningless solutions such as chaining one’s self to a tree in a flamboyant, empty show of solidarity for a cause that is just plain wrong.   When Anhueser Busch wants to reach the masses, it buys exorbitantly priced commercial time on Super Bowl Sunday. When a liberal wants attention, they stage a sit-in somewhere conspicuous where they do what they do best: Sit on their butts complaining, and acting like drama queens.     The pearl or the shell?     The most remarkable thing that was said to illustrate just exactly how compassionate and devoted this elite crowd was to this just and righteous cause, was uttered in a single, quiet sentence. A somber moment that illustrated how truly concerned Darryl Hannah was for the plight of these poor mistreated souls. The rabid media crowd, with their usual flair for honesty, fairness and gritty journalism, somehow found within themselves the kindhearted decency to gloss over this unimportant little sound bite.   When Darryl Hannah was asked if she would consider contributing the money herself, she dryly stated that “she wasn’t in the position to give”. Typical liberal generosity! “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is ours!”   Ms. Hannah can easily afford virtually anything she wants. She and her self-righteous hypocritical peers have frittered away unimaginable sums of dough on sumptuous feasts, elegant designer name wardrobes, glamorous soiree‘s, homes, planes, and limousines, and first class vacations to exotic destinations. Yet somehow it always seems to come down to the “little people” to take care of those icky things that make these elite liberals uncomfortable, as if we were a collection of fiduciary concierges, sitting by the phone waiting to run another spiritual errand.    In all fairness, I must admit that Jimmy Carter wasn’t completely wrong when he made that absurd statement on television. He just failed to think his speech through to a logical conclusion. This is a common mistake when one has the tendency to let emotion be their guide. Had emotion not clouded the issue, it would have been possible for him to render a sound bite that would have had a completely different effect, after all, it wasn’t completely false –America is the wealthiest nation on earth. The absurdity lies in the fact that we are far from being the stingiest nation on earth. The vast majority of Americans who witnessed his asinine lamentation were immediately and deeply offended, whether they gave to his cause or not. It wasn’t a matter of the painful truth where one had to honestly admit that they screwed up or they were deficient, or had exercised poor judgment. It is offensive because it is a crock of crap and it stinks!       It would have been more accurate, in light of the Ralph Horowitz and Darryl Hannah story, to craft a statement that put the focus on the truth.  What would be wrong with Jimmy Carter saying something like: “America is the wealthiest nation on earth. There are a great many extremely wealthy people here who consider themselves to be generous and compassionate liberals and socialists, and yet they, being pillars of the richest civilization on the planet, are also the stingiest people in the world.”  It is an accurate statement, would have only offended a relatively small faction within the United States, placed responsibility on those who truly can give more and choose not to, and it places the focus on those who actually were mistaken, deficient, or lacked reason and prudence.   They pocket the pearl, eat the oyster, and hand back the shell.