Separating the Liberals From the Leftists

I was reading Victor Davis Hanson (a writer who worked as a Professor for many years, runs a family farm, and is a pick-up truck kind of guy), and thought some of his words were worthy of repeating. He writes about a college professor who advocates:

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Hanson answers that by writing:

Note Seidman’s use of “evil,” which tips his hand that our great moralist is on an ethical crusade to change the lives of lesser folk, who had the misfortune of growing up in America — a place so much less prosperous, fair, and secure than, say, Russia, China, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Spain, Greece, Italy, or Japan and Germany (in the earlier 20th century history) . When I lived in Greece, traveled to Libya, and went into Mexico, I forgot to sigh, “My God, these utopias are possible for us too, if we just junked that evil Constitution.”

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That's a sensible caution. I remember another time, in my youth, when feminists did just that, heedlessly.

• They fought for women to have alternatives, if they were pregnant without a husband. Then, some of them, once they'd achieved that goal went further.


• They declared that father weren't necessary. Then, they insisted that fathers were positively detrimental to their children's future. Last, they insisted that ALL fathers could pay enormous sums of money to support their children - and made it a CRIME to fall behind on payments, for ANY reason.


• They insisted on women having a right to get an abortion. They flat-out made up statistics about the numbers involved. Then, they started to advocate for completely divorcing sex from reproduction, and, worse, love. They cheered for the "Girls Gone Wild" behavior as "helping women to be sexually free". They didn't stick around for the heartache that followed.


• Women who needed to work needed reliable day care. All right. Then, they insisted on changing the rules, so that women who didn't want to leave their pre-schoolers with a sitter for 10+ hours a day were vilified as "leeches". The tax laws were changed, and are still being changed, to favor the dual working couple. (Did you know that Obamacare is allowing employers to subsidize worker coverage to make it affordable, but then allowing them to price coverage for the rest of the family at a high level? And making it OK to refuse to cover a spouse who can get coverage elsewhere - even if the coverage is lousy. Check it out)


• Oh, BTW, that feminist complaint about women not working being a drain on society? Doesn't apply to mothers on welfare.


• And talk about making ONE of the pregnancy "choices" more likely - Obamacare WILL cover an abortion for a child, up to age 26. What it WON'T cover is pregnancy for that same "child".


• There's a "rumor" that Muslims will be exempt from Obamacare. Snopes.com says that's FALSE. What you DON'T see in that statement is that, no, the Muslims weren't exempted in the original bill, but a provision WAS made for groups to be exempt due to religion. Even Snopes admits that the rules regarding this option aren't in place. In other words, the government hasn't YET made them exempt, but could, anytime they like. And Muslims have a LONG history of spurning insurance products.
  
  Here's the specific words from Snopes:
  
  

  Whether Muslims would qualify for an exemption from the health insurance requirements is more difficult to define, as Islam is a much larger religion with practices that vary according to sect and region. Although Islam does have a tradition of barring conventional insurance products because they "involve an element of uncertainty, gambling and the charging of interest, which are prohibited by the Koran," some Muslim groups make exceptions for insurance which is required by law (such as automobile insurance), and some Muslim groups do not have objections to medical insurance. Most likely, though, Muslims would not qualify for an exemption from U.S. health insurance requirements because U.S. Muslims do not have a tradition of spurning Social Security (which is viewed more as a form of caring for those who are unable to meet their own needs than as something which involves elements of uncertainty, gambling, and interest payments), and no Muslim group has ever qualified for an exemption under the guidelines which define which religious groups would be exempt from the health care law.
  
  The PPACA does not specifically "deny special exemptions to Christians and Jews," but it is unlikely that either of those groups would qualify for the religious conscience exemption, as neither of those groups has a history of disdaining or prohibiting the use of insurance among their membership.
  Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp#owqlFtJHxbBEbSsC.99

  
  
  

Many Liberals - MANY - have admirable and compassionate intentions. Leftists, on the other hand, don't give a rip about the truly horrible consequences of their acts. At this point, the Liberals - both Democratic and Republican - are being led around by Leftists, who speak softly of a wonderful future, IF ONLY:

• They give up their Constitutional protections - which were designed to protect the Citizens from Government.


• They change the culture COMPLETELY, and eliminate any interference by parents, churches, and non-multicultural peoples.


• They give up control over what their children are taught.


• They accept restrictions on what they do in the privacy of their homes - smoke, own a gun, listen to talk radio, teach their children, whether it's academic, or how to have a relationship with God.

There's more - much more - in the Hanson article. I suggest you read it in full