Liberal Hypocrisy

Liberals have an impeccable record of being civil libertarians when a Republican is President. During the Bush years, the left cried out against George Bush’s usage of “enhanced interrogation tactics” and wiretapping of US citizens, however, once Democrat Barack Obama came into office in 2009, their moral opposition to torture and drone strikes turned into support.

Regardless of how many people he kills or extralegally arrests,  Obama’s supporters seem to faithfully line up behind him like ducklings so long as he continues to promise them more government entitlement programs, but when fast-food restaurant Chik-Fil-A declared its opposition to gay marriage, the left erupted in a wave of protest. Apparently, to most people in the Democratic Party, party allegiance is more important than morality.

Advertisements

More humanitarian than thou

Pop quiz: What do Obamacare, the birth control mandate, wealth redistribution, and affirmative action have in common?

3…2…1…time’s up!

So, what do all of these things have in common? Well, apart from the fact that they’re all bad for the economy, all of them are superficially generous causes that grant special privileges to some “oppressed” and “cheated” groups while abridging the liberties of us all.

47 million people can’t pay for health insurance? It should be for free! Hell, I’m so generous, I’ll even spend your money whether you like it or not!

Some women can’t afford contraceptives for their own sex? Hey, it’s their body, and their choice, you sexist bastard. You pay for it, though.

Some people earn six-or-more figure salaries? They must be stealing, screw their property rights.

A black guy didn’t get a job? Oh, well, it’s definitely because he was black. Plus, it’s not like businesses should, you know, have the right to choose their own employees. That would be downright silly.

Of course, I’d assume that most people like the idea of all Americans having healthcare, contraceptives, money, and a job regardless of racial/gender background, but how does attempting to achieve that justify violating the rights of another group?

It doesn’t.

However, the Lefties that support what is essentially legalize robbery often get away with this by capitalizing on just how humanitarian they are for supporting this, and just how cruel their opponents are for defending property rights. (I mean, how dare they?!) Unfortunately, we see this in politics all the time. Just a few weeks ago, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke testified before Congress that it is her right to have other people pay for her own contraceptives; for her to switch to a cheaper school to pay for them would be downright sexist.

I’d have to give her a Victim Olympics gold medal, though; her sob story about her early-menopause friend was sufficient to bring tens of thousands of politically correct crybabies to her defense when Rush Limbaugh called her out for trying to make other people pay for her sex. When he called her a slut (which, admittedly, was stupid). it turned herself into Little Red Equality Hood and Limbaugh into the Big Bad Conservative.

To be honest, I don’t know why I should even be surprised that so many people agree with Fluke; demagoguery and good impressions tend to convince the people moreso than facts and logic (just look at Ron Paul’s delegate count in the Republican primaries) The point is that Lefties like Fluke are doing no good for humanity; “Social justice” is never justice if it is achieved by stepping all over the natural rights of another group. The only way to truly achieve it is by voluntary collection and goodwill, no stealing involved.