What is a “Conservative?”

Over the past twenty years or more there’s been a growing debate over what qualifies someone as “conservative” in the context of politics and philosophy towards government.  It’s not unusual to see two people supporting opposite sides of a policy while both label themselves as “conservative,” but as we all know, if “conservative” means everything, then it means nothing. 

Here’s what I know:  conservatism goes much deeper than policy.  Policy should derive from philosophy and philosophy should derive from beliefs.  The founders of this nation, through discussion, argumentation and debate, identified a shared belief system, and as they built the framework for the country and the Constitution they challenged each other to demonstrate that their ideas for that framework were consistent with that shared belief system.  That’s what needs to happen now as we debate the meaning of conservatism.  It’s what we should continually be doing.  Thus, if I had to define what I see as the basic belief system that identifies a conservative (politically speaking), here’s what it would be:

A true conservative understands and believes in the laws of human nature.

Self-interest, self-protection and self-reliance as well as less attractive traits like selfishness, the drive to dominate others, the inclination to steal or take advantage of others, the inclination to do evil, the inclination to work/manipulate the “system” and many other traits are all part of human nature.  These are patterns of behavior that exist universally in every society.  No government can succeed that ignores these realities.

A true conservative believes in the laws of natural consequences.

When you insulate people from the consequences of their actions you remove the natural incentives for them to do the right things.  It’s really that simple.

A true conservative respects the rights of others to life, liberty and property, with reciprocation.

The mere fact of your existence does not entitle you to the fruits of my labor, and vice versa.  You respect my rights and I will respect yours. 

A true conservative believes in the absolute necessity of justice, fair laws and abiding by the rule of properly enacted law.

In the absence of that you have systemic corruption and tyranny or chaos.

A true conservative instinctively understands the necessary role society plays in the success and perpetuity of the individual.

Forming societies is part of our nature and is integral to the survival of humankind.  A just, moral and well-defended society enriches the individual; and resilient, self-reliant, moral individuals create strong societies.  It’s symbiotic.  Unlike conservatives who respect and nurture this relationship, Liberals and libertarians undermine it, either intentionally for their own gain or through ignorance and immaturity. 

A true conservative believes in personal responsibility.

If every adult took care of his own needs and those of his family there would be no justification for big government.  Perhaps this is why “progressives” encourage just the opposite.

A true conservative knows that the only means to successful self-government is through open, honest debate.

A salesman doesn’t need to lie or resort to gimmicks when he’s selling a really good product, and a consumer isn’t really making a free choice when he’s lied to or when information is withheld from him.  Beware of those who refuse to engage in honest debate.

A true conservative believes that charity begins at home.

“Charity” is not when a you tell other people how to do good or force them to give.  It’s when you do good or give yourself.

A true conservative has the conscience of a conservative.

A reluctance to lie, cheat and steal, even in the face of opponents willing to do so, separates a conservative from a wannabe. 

A true conservative believes in the sovereignty of his nation and the inalienable right to self-defense.

If and when you give these up you have forfeited your freedom.

If you believe in these basic tenets, the policies will write themselves.  Furthermore they will be largely consistent from one “conservative” to the next.  Take illegal immigration.  If you believe in the rule of law, the laws of human nature, the laws of natural consequences and state sovereignty, then the only logical position on illegal immigration is to oppose any suggestion of amnesty, as this defies the rule of law, ignores the laws of human nature, nullifies the law of natural consequences and makes a laughing stock of state sovereignty.  I grant that not every issue will be clear, but that’s where the debate comes in.  Prove to me that your position is consistent with the conservative beliefs we share and I won’t question your claim to conservatism.  If you can’t do that, all bets are off.

˜CW

Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say

Last month my friend Kathy posted a piece on democrat lawmakers in Connecticut attempting to ban the serving of whole or 2% milk in private daycare centers (“Connecticut Dems Want Milk Control”).  As Kathy astutely noted, republicans were missing the bigger picture by attempting to argue the merits of fat content in milk rather than asserting that it’s not the business of the state to decide what kind of milk is served by private childcare centers.  It’s hard to say whether Connecticut republicans have misplaced their conservative principles or whether they thought a fight based on the science would be easier to win.  Both prospects are highly disturbing.  But if it’s the latter case it demonstrates the problem with forsaking principled arguments in favor of trying to win by shortcut.  Once you allow the argument to be about the science of milk rather than the limits of the state, you’ve lost what matters most.  If the state can presume the right to decide what type of milk is served in private childcare centers, it can presume the right to decide just about anything that goes on in a private business.  That’s the danger of choosing the wrong argument to fight your battles.

I recall one typical family Christmas after John Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election to George Bush.  My liberal brother-in-law was opining on the reasons that Bush was a bad choice for president.  After the standard “Bush-lied-people-died” mantra didn’t prove persuasive enough he began parroting the democrat line about Bush being just a “C” student. “Did you know John Kerry was also a ‘C’ student?” I asked.  Silence.  (That’ll teach him to rely only on the MSM for information).  “Did you vote for John Kerry?” I sweetly asked.  This was his response, and I quote:  Blink.  Blink, blink.  Gotcha dear brother.

The moral to the story is this:  false arguments are a sure-fire way to make you look like a silly hypocrite.  My brother-in-law’s big problem with Bush was not his grades or his supposed “lies” over Iraq.  He disliked Bush because Bush is a republican and the brother-in-law is a liberal democrat.  Perhaps he didn’t want to defend that broader position (who can blame him?) but whatever the reason he ended up with egg on his face. 

Unfortunately he’s not the only one that’s fallen into this trap.  Republicans have a history of setting themselves up for a smack down by relying on arguments that really have little or nothing to do with their position.  When Barack Obama ran for POTUS in 2008, for instance, I knew immediately why I opposed him:  he was a hardcore leftist and all that this implies.  Isn’t that reason enough?  In fact I was optimistic after he won the nomination because I saw it as a grave miscalculation by democrats.  Regardless of how easily Americans are fooled most consider themselves to be conservative-leaning.  We needed to steer the debate to a choice between liberalism (i.e., socialism, the nanny state, big government, weak national security) versus conservatism (i.e., free market economy, the Constitution, small government, self-reliance, national defense), and we would win.  Of course we blew that right away by nominating someone who was unqualified to make the argument for conservatism.  The next mistake was to oppose Obama on the basis of such things as “inexperience.”  It blew up in republican’s faces when McCain chose Sarah Palin for a running mate and suddenly the sincerity of our concern over “experience” came into question.  We became immersed in an unhelpful sideshow debate over who was better qualified, Palin or Obama. 

The fact was, Obama’s inexperience was never the reason that republicans opposed him.  An experienced leftist is every bit as bad as an inexperienced leftist, so it was a distractive argument from the get-go, and such arguments always come back to bite.  ALWAYS.  Framing the debate on experience in a battle between a republican and a hardcore democrat is like arguing over whether a Porsche is better than Yugo based on the performance of the windshield wipers.  Okay I’ll grant you that McCain was no Porsche (he might be an Edsel…), but hopefully you still get my meaning.  Furthermore the “inexperience” argument is likely to come back and haunt us when we consider our next nominee from a pool that may include men like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.  There’s no doubt democrats will remind voters that experience was ostensibly important to republicans in 2008, and this will be a blow to our credibility.

Nowadays the talk is about Hillary.  I don’t want Hillary to be POTUS.  Is this because of the Benghazi disaster?  No.  Is it because of concerns about her health?  No.  Is it because she had no accomplishments as Secretary of State or because she sponsored no noteworthy bills as a U.S. Senator?  Nope.  I don’t want Hillary to be POTUS because she’s a leftist, and all that this implies.  If Benghazi had never happened, Hillary would still be a leftist and I still would not want her as POTUS.  Ditto for Whitewater and all the rest. The beauty of knowing why you’re against something or someone and then staying true to that argument is that it will never come back to bite you.  If the Left manages to spin Benghazi or republicans blow the investigation and if Hillary’s doctor gives her a clean bill of health (he will), she will still be a leftist at the end of the day.  She is Obama on Geritol, that fact will never change.  That doesn’t mean Hillary’s record doesn’t matter, in fact it’s all related in the end.  But the primary case against Hillary is the mental disease of liberalism, in this writer’s humble opinion.  Everything else is icing on that cake.

˜CW

Eight Reasons Why I’m a “Denier”

#1.  The science is not persuasive.

I am not a scientist, nor have I conducted any personal studies on climate (and neither have you), so I’m not going to presume to put forth a lengthy, comprehensive analysis of the science and theories relating to man-induced “climate change.”  What’s most compelling to me are the unanswered criticisms to the assumptions, methodologies and conclusions of the believers.  Sweeping predictions and conclusions have been made based on a fraction of a sliver in time, that fact is indisputable.  Computer modelings that require assumptions on a wide range of variables form the basis for far-reaching conclusions in an industry that often struggles to accurately predict next week’s weather.  But perhaps the most compelling reason to question the conclusions of the believers with respect to the science is their failure or refusal to adhere to accepted scientific methodology. 

Proven or accepted science has an established protocol in the modern world, namely the “scientific method.”  Under the scientific method you form a hypothesis based on observations and then you test the hypothesis to see if it stands up.  Scientists have been testing their theories on what was first man-made global warming (now “climate change”) for years now, and they’ve made predictions based upon their theories and computer models.  Their predictions have not come to pass.  According to the methodology this means the theory failed and the next step should be to revise the theory.  Instead the believers simply changed the terminology from “man-made global warming” to “human-induced climate change.”  Something is amiss if you don’t question the science based on that fact alone, which brings me to point #2.

#2.  “Science” should not be ideologically or culturally driven.

Something is clearly wrong when a debate that is ostensibly rooted in science just happens to be strongly divided along party or ideological lines.  That kind of coincidence doesn’t happen in a world where people are being objective and open-minded, as real science requires us to be, and I find it astonishing that people – the investigative news media types in particular – have shown such little interest in understanding this phenomenon when it undoubtedly goes to the heart of this debate.  To the extent that it is brought up, moderators incorrectly ascribe moral equivalence (the ‘Right’ doesn’t believe the science because it doesn’t care about the environment; the ‘Left’ believes the sciences because they do care about the environment).  We can debate all day about who is ignoring or manipulating science for the sake of ideology, but the bottom line is that the burden of proof lies with those who put forth the theory.  That’s how real science works.  In the years since this debate began I have not heard a single liberal/democrat ever question the validity of the science despite the criticisms described above (and I’m sure there are yet more criticisms that I missed).  That none would express even the least bit of skepticism in the face of valid criticisms defies all logic and points to motives that have nothing to do with science.  To quote an astute and anonymous blogger:  “You probably wouldn't be the brightest crayon in the box if you blindly accepted every scientific theory that was ever announced.”

#3.  The unconcealed hypocrisy of the “climate change” alarmists.

If a man implores his wife to be more frugal because he’s worried about their finances but then he continues to spend like a drunken sailor on himself, what would a reasonable person deduce about the sincerity of his concerns?  Do you really need time to think on that?

We are continually scolded and lectured to by people like Barack and Michelle Obama, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, left-leaning billionaire businessmen and leftwing Hollywood celebrities whose clear but unspoken message is, “Do as I say, not as I do.”  The enormous and ever-expanding carbon footprints of these people can only mean that they either don’t believe a word of their alarmism or that the whole point is to control the rest of us.  There can be no other explanation.

#4.  From “Global Warming” to “Climate Change:” The conveniently evolving terminology.

This one requires no explanation. 

#5.  The falsehoods.

Supportable scientific theories don’t require the doctoring of statistics or collusion over the message.  Enough said.

#6.  The Left’s insistence that “The Debate is Over!”

Seems like every day I open a newspaper only to see people declaring that the debate over the earth being flat is “over,” or that the debate over the theory of relativity is “over.”  NOT.  No one feels the need to repeatedly remind us that the debate on these theories is over because those debates truly are over.  The fact that the man-made climate change alarmists have taken to interrupting the ongoing debate to declare that “The debate is over!” proves two things:  (1) That they’ve failed to definitively prove their case with science (in which case the debate really would be over); and (2) that they intend to illegitimately usurp the power of the government that belongs to ALL of us in order to push for policies that only they support. 

I’d also like to point out the absence of any real-time, one on one debate, which I find incomprehensible given the fanatical dedication some profess to have in this supposedly looming crisis.  People who are confident in their positions generally relish the opportunity for serious debate, they don’t run from it.

#7.  The proposed “solutions” don’t actually resolve anything other than the perceived problem of our wealth and prosperity.

The one thing the “alarmists” and “deniers” agree on is that all of the proposed regulatory changes to ostensibly combat the effects of human-induced “climate change” will have little to zero chance of reversing it, yet it will impose enormous costs on Americans.  This is true regardless of whether you believe change can’t be effected because humans are not the source of changes in the climate or because you honestly acknowledge that we make up just a small part of the globe and without a worldwide, cooperative effort (which we are never going to get, by the way) we stand no chance of impacting the climate just through our own efforts.  The economic realities are why the Kyoto Protocol was rejected by the entire senate when first proposed in the 1990s (that’s correct, not even a single Democrat bought into it).  Given the absence of measurable warming over the past 17 years and other indications that the theories on “climate change” don’t add up, it would be nothing short of economic insanity to allow ourselves to be shackled by what the “experts” on the Left (i.e. politicians) are trying to harness us with.

#8.  I possess common sense.

Over the decades we’ve witnessed the frantic ringing of alarm bells over many things that didn’t ultimately pan out, including fear of “global cooling” which is well-remembered by skeptics but apparently forgotten by the current set of alarm-bell ringers.  Common sense would thus dictate that we proceed with caution, particularly when our economic security is involved.  Furthermore, when someone has a reputation for dishonesty, which the Left most definitely does (“If you like your plan you can keep your plan!”) common sense demands that you be wary of what they’re trying to sell.  Follow the motives. 

˜CW

Who’s “Partisan?”

We hear a lot these days about “partisan politics,” and you’re going to hear it even more, but like so many other parts of our language the term “partisan” has been massaged over the years to alter its meaning and shield those on the Left from the consequences of their own bad behavior.  “Partisan,” according to my old Webster’s Dictionary from college, is defined as:

 “A firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or person; especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.” 

To be labeled as “partisan,” therefore, would not be a compliment.  In fact, to anyone with a conscience it would be and should be a stinging insult in the context of how it’s typically used.  Thus the term became a problem for democrats who like to portray themselves as pure of heart and fair, even when they’re acting in a clearly partisan way.    When Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair, for instance, the action was denounced universally throughout the left-leaning media as “partisan.”  As I’m sure all of us recall, that insult was directed at republicans and was meant to taint the proceedings as a prejudiced and purely political attack.  The reality, of course, was that Clinton DID lie under oath and DID attempt to obstruct justice, so who was partisan – the party that sought to hold a lying president to account or the party that sought to protect a lying president regardless of his misbehavior?  It was democrats, not republicans, who showed a “blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance” to their party’s leader.  And so the leftwing media took it upon themselves to intentionally misuse (and thereby redefine) the word “partisan” to refer to any action taken by one party against a member of another party, regardless of its merits. 

Whoever controls the language controls the debate.

Fast forward to 2014 and Wikipedia now defines partisan this way: 

“In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party.”

Hmmm…that’s an interesting evolution.  In other words, now every member of a political party, regardless of his actions, is a partisan.  See how that works?  But notice that the old Webster’s definition is used by the media to apply to what republicans do, while the new Wikipedia version always applies to democrats. 

Never underestimate the deviousness of the Left.

These days the Benghazi investigations and the recent formation of the select committee, in particular, have rekindled the old indignant cries of “partisanship” by the democrats and their rabid friends in the media.  Amid the obvious missteps (lax security), failures (Americans dead and injured) and mistruths (the infamous video protest that never happened), somehow we are supposed to see moral equivalence on both sides of the Benghazi issue, even though one side seeks to know the truth while the other seeks to sweep the truth under the rug. 

Heads we win, tails you lose.

I’m not going to claim that partisanship is solely a sin of the Left.  Everyone’s guilty of prejudicial behavior towards the other side now and then, myself included.  But every act is not automatically a partisan act simply by virtue of who the target is or who the accusers are, and we should not sit back and quietly accept such mislabeling and abuse of the English language, yet we do.  ‘News’ anchors throw the word around right and left when conducting interviews, with never an objection raised.  “Partisanship” has become to politics what cries of “racist!” are to race:  a defense mechanism intended to insulate some (guess who?) from accountability for their actions.  Thus when Obama lies and blatantly disregards his oath to uphold the Constitution, those who object are declared either “partisan” and/or “racist” when of course the exact opposite is true.  A president – any president – should be expected to be truthful and to uphold the oath of his office, and anyone who objects to such accountability is the partisan. 

I understand this won’t change anything.  Dishonest tactics make up the playbook for democrats and that’s always going to be the case because that’s the only way they can win.  But WE don’t have to play along with the pretense.  We can take every opportunity to expose their tricks to the light of day, and that’s what my mission is here, today and every day.

˜CW

What I learned Today at the Huffington Post: Rachel Maddow is Another “Green” Hypocrite

“Climate change” is a man-made disaster, the Left tells us.  It’s all because we are gluttons with our energy use and our carbon footprints are much bigger than they need to be, they scold.  So it was with great amusement that I read today’s fawning piece in Huffpo about the addition to uber-liberal Rachel Maddow’s  second home:

Rachel Maddow's Retreat Has An Unusual Feature (Just Don't Call It An Outhouse)

Huffpo finds it charming that Maddow and her “partner” have added a bath house to their vacation home in Massachusetts.  Apparently it’s okay for liberals to have “retreats” and extra homes and such because they have to work so hard trying to keep the rest of us in line so they really need to get away from their main homes and relax, re-connect, re-charge, get back in touch with their liberalism, or whatever. 

“Designed by architect Nicole Migeon, primarily as a second bathroom for Maddow and her partner Susan Mikula's weekend getaway, the outhouse-like structure is what Maddow calls a "retreat within a retreat…" 

From New York Magazine:

“…Migeon—who worked with Maddow and Mikula on their West Village apartment—designed a one-room bathhouse tucked away in the woods. The simple pitched-roof ¬structure, more than just an outhouse, features vertical wood slats (made from sustainably grown cedar) that reference the design of old tobacco-drying barns in the area and conceal drains and vents while providing soft, diffused light; perfect for a low-key late-afternoon dip in the hot tub. Migeon worked with woodworker Chuck Bayliss to build the reclaimed-maple cabinets that hide an entertainment center and linen closet.”

Good thing they made sure to let us know that the cedar used to panel almost every inch of this bath house was “sustainably grown” and the cabinets were “reclaimed” (that’s the liberal word for “used”) so that Ms. Maddow doesn’t diminish her credibility as an environmentalist even though she owns two homes and just expanded her carbon footprint yet again.  If you look at the photos contained in the Huffpo piece you’ll see that quite a large number of cedar trees had to be sacrificed to create just the right ambience for Ms. Maddow’s bath house; but don’t worry because it turns out we can grow more cedar trees.  Who knew?

Apparently we are not to concern ourselves wondering about the extra energy consumed in traveling between the two residences or maintaining two homes (BTW, did you notice the carefully landscaped grounds around the bath house?), or the energy and other materials used to construct the bath house, re-locate the cabinets and heat the hot tub.  Instead we are supposed to admire Ms. Maddow for her commitment to environmentalism because she chose “sustainable” cedar (a lot of it!) and used cabinets. 

Well, you know what they say: 

An environmentalist is a liberal who already has their bath house in the woods.

˜CW

Standing with Charles Koch

From the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page:

Charles Koch: I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society

Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation’s own government. That’s why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. “The natural progress of things,” Jefferson wrote, “is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” He knew that no government could possibly run citizens’ lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we’re “un-American” and trying to “rig the system,” that we’re against “environmental protection” or eager to “end workplace safety standards.” These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s observation, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:

Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our “commitment to a cleaner environment” and called us “a model for other companies.”

Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement.

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.

Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people’s lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.

If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I’m dedicated to fighting for that vision. I’m convinced most Americans believe it’s worth fighting for, too.”

Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.

Dear Mr. Koch,

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the resources you devote to fighting for liberty on behalf of all Americans.  Not the phony brand of liberty sold by the Left in this country, but liberty as the Founders defined it, with fundamental rights that must be respected.  I know that your efforts to restore limited government as prescribed by the Constitution will make you a hated man to the Left, and you will be vilified and demonized for the sin of helping your fellow Americans fight off the chains that the socialists are so eager to wrap us in.  They want this power very badly.  Thank you for that sacrifice.  You are a brave man and a true patriot and I stand with you.

˜CW

Just Because They Can

Anyone who’s been around babies knows the game where you place an object in front of a baby and the baby throws the object on the floor so that he may have the pleasure of watching you pick it up.  The baby never tires of this delightful game, because it marks the point in a child’s life where he first understands what it feels like to have power.  The game goes on indefinitely unless and until the adult refuses to play, at which point the baby will scream and so begins the real test of who is actually in charge. 

Fast forward to adulthood and unfortunately it turns out that some babies never quite grow up.  Oh they grow facial hair and sprout breasts and all that but alas that pretty much sums up their journey to adulthood.  While others grow up and realize that the earth does not revolve around them, these arrested individuals – let’s just go ahead and call them liberals – can think of nothing but their own egos.   Regardless of age they have not outgrown the sense of pleasure that comes from forcing others to bend to their will.  Consequently they spend an inordinate amount of time and effort crusading for the most unlikely causes. 

They sue to make parents and vets take down crosses memorializing their dead loved ones (“American Atheists Sue Over World Trade Center Cross”  ˜Abc News; “Grieving California mom takes down cross on road after group’s protest, more appear”  ˜Fox News).

They sue, boycott and otherwise bully to turn St. Patrick’s Day parades into LGBT propagandafests (“Gay rights politics get in the way of St. Patrick’s Day parades”  ˜The Washington Post).

They sue and bully towns and organizations to take away symbols of Christmas (“Man Sues to Eliminate Christmas” ˜ABC News).

They sue to protect obscure species of rodents, fish and bugs (“Lawsuit Launched Over Water Project That Will Hurt Endangered Kangaroo Rat”  ˜Center for Biological Diversity (yes, that’s a real organization);  “Activists To File Another Lawsuit Over Delta Smelt”  ˜Wineindustryinsight.com; “Groups file lawsuit over endangered NE beetle”  ˜AP)

The latest game involves an attack on the food industry as liberals and special interests have joined forces to demand costly and unnecessary changes to labeling regulations (“Liberal Groups, Democratic Members of Congress and Organic Food Industry Present President Obama with Demands for New Food Industry Labeling Regulations”  ˜The National Center for Public Policy Research); “Here we go again — Another California GMO-labeling bill introduced”  ˜American Council on Science and Health).  Never mind that these foods have a history of being perfectly safe.  Never mind that food producers already can and often do include this information on their labels.  Voluntary action does not satisfy the liberal’s inner need to make people do stuff.  According to Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and head of its Risk Analysis Division, "Mandatory labeling of GM foods fails every justification for requiring them: scientific, economic, legal, and most of all, common sense.  [This is] for the sole benefit of those seeking the labels."

Now, we know why the organic food industry is involved and we know why the lawyers are involved – money.  That’s right, the almighty dollar. But why do liberal groups and democrats want to make all these food producers jump through yet more hoops for no good reason?  Because they can, that’s why.  They’re throwing stuff on the floor so they can watch us pick it up.  It makes them they feel powerful.  Now they can sit around in their living rooms, high-fiving each other over their important victories as they pass around a joint. 

Conservative blogs abound with story after story examining the incomprehensible and trying to make sense of the hypocrisy and dishonesty.  Undoubtedly there sometimes are deeper motives at play, usually money and/or the desire to surreptitiously advance an unpopular agenda.  But in the absence of a clear motive the answer is very simple:  it’s just because they can.

P.S.

No doubt the lefties and the rare breed of rabid libertarian that stalks my blog will try to argue that conservatives are just as guilty based upon their history of opposing or regulating things like drug use, prostitution and same-sex marriage.  I know it may seem incredible to some that behaviors which have proven to have serious and far-reaching societal implications would be compared to, say, interfering with the habitat of a certain bug or erecting a cross to memorialize a dead child or soldier but trust me, the comparison will be made.  A combination of stunted mental maturity and deep immersion into the world of leftwing propaganda renders some folks incapable of making rational distinctions.  But by all means, let them make the argument.  I welcome the amusement.  

˜CW