Monday, March 13, 2006

You Sir, are no Liberal

I just finished reading a post by George Clooney over at Ariana Huffington's site. He lambastes Democrats in Congress, and finishes by saying "I am a liberal. Fire away."

Au contraire, Leftist fool.

There was a time when one could be proud to be called "liberal". It meant you actually supported the notion of "liberal democracy". In other words, a constitutional republic where individual rights were supported by law and culture. The idea of being a "nation of laws, not men" means the rule of law protects everyone, including minorities who do not have a political majority. Historically, the last person you would ever call a liberal was a Democrat.

Why? Well, look at the history. The Republican Party was specifically founded to end slavery. In opposition to the long-ruling Democrats, who not only supported the continuance of the evil institution, but forced a civil war in its defense. And who later instituted the infamous Jim Crow laws to negate the 14th and 15th amendments. And still later, conducted a filibuster in the United States Senate to defeat the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was the Republicans who broke the filibuster and made the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts happen.

Since the Vietnam era, Democrats have been described as "liberal". This tag has nothing to do with political ideology, rather intellectual fuzziness. Today, under the "liberal" banner, Democrats continue to fight appointment of judges who intend to actually uphold the Constitution, as it is written. They are far more interested in the immediate outcome of a particular case than the legal basis or continuance of rule of law. If it feels good now, go for it. That is what "liberal" has come to mean.

Just to be clear, I will make this assertion: The best friend of minorities in this nation is the United States Constitution, as it is actually written. Not as some politically-motivated judge might imagine it to mean, but as the founding fathers-- and amendment authors-- actually wrote it. So, for example, when the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", it means just that.

The label "liberal" has become a universal tag for something quite different from an ideological liberal, so much so that the word itself has become something like political hate speech. The worst thing you can do to a politician before an election is to get the public to think he or she is "liberal". Political kiss of death, more often than not. So, after years of Democrats running away from the "liberal" label, Clooney thinks he is being courageous by embracing the tag.

George Clooney is no liberal. He is a Leftist. The political Left does not want to protect individual rights. It does not want to end poverty. It does not want to end racism. The Left will gladly deny rights of individuals when they represent political opposition to the Left. It will eagerly create legislation-- recall the Great Society-- knowing it will ensure continuing poverty for many. The Left will gleefully and unashamedly use racial epithets to smear its opponents.

Equal rights? No, but special rights for a few, and no rights for "them".

In a startling display of idiocy, Clooney accurately describes this as a polarized time, then wonders how that happened. He goes on to insist it is not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable, and that Democrats who supported the Iraq war simply feared being called unpatriotic.

For some reason, Democrats keep questioning their own patriotism. I never hear Republicans call Democrats "unpatriotic", but the Democrats keep throwing up that defensive shield by calling the question themselves. Let's clarify this: Democrats on the Left are not necessarily unpatriotic, they are simply ignorant and self-serving.

Take Clooney's delusional view of Iraq and al Qaeda:
"...where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit."

Osama bin Laden made the link himself, some time before 9/11 when he declared war on us. He made it clear his war on the United States was based on the U.S. presence in the Muslim "holy land". We had troops in Saudi Arabia, yes. But why? From Desert Storm, long before the 9/11 attack. bin Laden objected to our presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the area, and planned the 9/11 attack in response. The Iraqi matter from Desert Storm was still unresolved, and represented a strategic threat to the United States. Hence, the Iraq invasion, to eliminate Saddam Hussein as that threat. The effort to end the lingering Iraqi confrontation was a direct result of the 9/11 attack. Bullshit? No, just obvious.

The Left proffers a set of lies about Iraq. That the war was unnecessary, that it was "blood for oil", that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and either terrorism or al Qaeda. This is hardly liberalism. It is politically motivated delusion.

Clooney, you are no liberal. Would that it were true.

You sir, are a Leftist.


Blogger Ryne McClaren said...

Here, here! My hat is off to you with this post, Roger.

9:10 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Subscribe with Bloglines Who Links Here Blogarama - The Blog Directory