Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Would Liberals Eat Their Young?

It is incredibly ironic that liberals are so adept at making claims about being "for the children." Every time we turn around, they are trying to pass some wacky, socialist crap off on the people while proclaiming how it is "for the children." Since they claim to be so much inline with the needs of the children, let's take a closer look, shall we?

It always bothers me when anyone exploits children. That is why I find it so disgusting every time Nancy Pelosi and her ilk parade children around every time they want to push a radical agenda that Americans would never consider, otherwise.

S-CHIP, a very high cost socialist program offering medical care for "more children". For those who actually take the time to look at the facts, the "children" will not benefit, but they certainly will pay. For starters, all low-income children are already covered by government insurance provided by taxpayers. And the wealthy do not need insurance. This insurance, therefore, would cover children of the middle-upper middle classes - whose parents usually are either covered by employer policies, or by their parents, who are NOT living in poverty.

However, the extremely high cost of such a program would burden those in the middle classes the most - after all, the poor do not pay taxes. So, those "children" will have to suffer because their parents - already overtaxed, according to liberals, would be taxed much more, BECAUSE of liberals.

We need to fight "global warming" for the children. Although there is nothing more than theory behind global warming, and in spite of the fact there is really nothing we could do about it, anyway, I am not sure how fighting global warming translates into helping the children. But I can certainly see how it benefits the liberals - the people receiving taxpayer grants, the people selling carbon credits, etc.

These are just two of numerous examples of how Democrats play the "benefit of the children" card.

Now let us look at the Democrats actual record when it comes to children:

The Democrats have fanatically defended abortion - something that has murdered 35-40 MILLION babies since Roe vs Wade. I find it ironic that Democrats are more concerned with the rights of lab rats, but have no problem throwing innocent babies in front of the bus.

In several recent court cases, Democrat, liberal judges have released convicted child molesters, so they can keep molesting children. In one case, a multiple child rapist was given probation. This is how Democrats "protect the children".

A law protecting children, known as "Jessica's Law", has been passed in most states. In every state where it was rejected, the proposed law was shot down by Democrats. in EVERY case. And Democrats say they are vested in protecting the children.

And it is liberal Democrats who, in their arrogance and ignorance, insist on school policies that result in arresting 8 year olds for normal 8 year old "transgressions". And Democrat policies that allow uneducated children to graduate, anyway, to insure that their "self-esteem" is not damaged. Personally, I would have more self-esteem if I were held back, and forced to learn, than by graduating with full knowledge that I am totally unprepared for real life.

Although study after study, some going back many generations, show that children fare better in a typical familiy environment of one man and one woman and their children, liberals keep seeking new ways to destroy the typical family. They try to convince us that, contrary to the facts, "alternative families" are just as good. They definitely are NOT! Liberals demean and attempt to destroy families by touting gay marriage; multiple marriage; multiple, simultaneous spouses; single parent families; even non-parent families, where the children are actually raised by the "nanny state". Why do liberals try so hard to destroy the American family? Because they hate children. They want to abort as many as possible, regardless of whether there is any just cause. And of those that survive, they want the nanny state to take over control of their upbringing - they simple do not want to take the chance that the children might actually be subjected to moral values. Liberals have no moral values - they are active proponents of pornography, legalized sex with children (even by adults), and putting money and personal gratification above anything else.

So, any thinking person who is not blinded by liberal partisanism realizes that while Democrats exploit children, they generally hate children. But why? Why would anyone hate children?

Narcissism, for one. Look at the "Hollywood Elite", for example. Children would get in the way of their selfish lifestyle, which revolves around gluttony, greed and personal selfworth. Heaven forbid that any liberal should have to sacrifice anything on behalf of another! And no one requires more sacrifice than children.

Another problem they have with children is that most people, upon becoiming parents, become more protective - more conservative. And these conservative values are passed on to the children. If there is one thing liberals hate more than children, it's conservatives.

And this brings us to the reason why liberals want to create a "nanny state", where the elite will raise the children instead of the parents. They know the truth of the old adage "The hand that rocks the cradle also rules the world." So, liberals want to be the ones rocking the cradle, even though they generally hate children. They want to control what the children hear, see, read, believe. They want the children to have liberal beliefs.

And now it makes sense - why liberals want to remove parents from parenting. Why the liberal schools provide free contraceptives to 11 year olds, without parental consent. Why liberals push for 12 year olds to get abortions, without even informing parents. The list goes on.

And this all brings us back to why liberals love abortion - it helps prevent parenting that might lead to conservatism. It prevents conservative children from ever being raised. It reduces the number of children they have to "nanny". It simply makes their job that much easier. The fewer children there are, the more time they have to pursue their selfishness.

THINK! It is no secret that liberals have long been in favor of "zero population growth". They feel children are a threat to their selfishness (they do not want to share the resources with children); they believe children contribute to environmental strains on resources; and they believe that children will contribute to more "global warming." They have been telling us they feel this way. Yet, they try to convince feeble-minded sheep into believing they love, and protect children. Bull!

Liberal Democrats like to blather about how much they want to protect our children. But the reality is that, given the chance, they would likely eat their young. And ours, too! Just another resource to be used and abused.

No comments: