...and convince him/her he/she's not
by Charles Lewis
The liberal agenda is now SO far out of the mainstream that it has to be systematically hidden from the general public. At this point, if experience is an indicator, the only people who are truly informed about it and still support its principles are (1) politicians who stand to profit directly from it, (2) some hardcore lifelong mindless welfare/government school cases, and (3) perhaps certain ideologues obsessed to the point of total amorality and lack of objectivity.
It is my belief that upwards of 99% of the people that think they are liberals - the people hat support and vote for leftist politicians - do not themselves hold views anything but antithetical to the actual policies of these pols. And a relatively brief conversation - involving a brief presentation of questions from the list below - ordinarily can convince them of this. To wit:
1 Do you think you should make the major decisions in your life, or is the government, with its access to the opinions of countless certified experts, better qualified? (I can pretty much guarantee he or she will choose the former.)
2 Do you think anyone should pay more - in fact far more - than half of his/her earnings in income taxes? (Expect a "no.")
3 A single nuclear bomb (and many "rogue" - and other - nations have, or are close to having, at least one, along with the missile to deliver it) exploded in the atmosphere over America would have what is known as an EMP effect. It would knock out at least an estimated 70% of our electrical grid, paralyzing not just that but natural gas access, communications, defense systems, the ability to pump gasoline, anything electronically driven. We'd plunge back into the 18th century, but without the horse-and-buggy, outhouse, and other "back-up" they had then.
We'd be like post-Katrina New Orleans, but for a much longer time period for recovery. And that's assuming the countries that hate us won't take advantage of the chaos and vulnerability and finish us off. In all likelihood we'd die drawn out, painful deaths.
But there's a technology, developed over the last several decades, that's shown great promise in detecting, picking off, and destroying such missiles before they reach us to wreak the devastation. Should we abandon this program? (Anticipate a nervous negative.)
4 Under a "flat income tax" system - where everyone paid the same percentage - those making big bucks would automatically pay much more than those making little bucks. We don't have such a system. Instead those earning more pay not just more taxes, but a much higher percentage than those paying less.
In fact, 40% of Americans pay 0%, (and actually receive tax monies, welfare in one form or another), while those making $200,000-$250,000 and up - via federal, payroll, state, and local taxes combined - generally pay over 60%. Leaving aside the fairness of this, along with other considerations such as its effect on productivity incentives and private sector job creation, let's accept that it's just.
Should this structure at least be indexed to inflation, so that in the future when, say, $250,000 is worth what $25,000 is today (a process that traditionally has taken only a few decades to occur), poor people don't fall into that 60% tax category? (You'll get an emphatic nyet.)
5 Say you invest $50,000 and years later sell the investment for $60,000. Suppose that, due to inflation, that $60,000 is worth far less than the $50,000 was when you invested it, meaning in real dollars you actually suffered a loss. Should you pay capital gains tax on the $10,000 "profit?" (Naturally, they'll say no, and recognize, if you point it out, the deleterious effect this would have on business.)
6 Especially in view of the fact that abortions are available from a wide variety of secular facilities, should a religious hospital strongly opposed on moral grounds to the procedure (that, in fact, considers it infanticide) be forced to have its doctors provide them? (Don't expect an affirmative.)
7 Recent hate crimes laws place "sexual orientation" in the same class as race, in terms of special protection, enhanced sentences, and restrictions on speech (even from the pulpit), if it is deemed to have contributed to the motivation behind an attack. In fact, in spite of the Constitution's ban on double jeopardy, legislation allows the federal government to try someone a second time if it is not satisfied with the outcome or sentence in a state or local trial.
A congressman proposed an amendment to this legislation stipulating that pedophiles (i.e. child molesters) be exempt from this special protection that essentially equates their "struggle" with that of blacks against "Jim Crow" laws, lynching, and the like. Would you support excluding pedophiles from this privilege? (They'll agree.)
8 Should a faith-based adoption agency that - out of religious convictions - adopts out only to heterosexual married couples be forced to close? (Few, if any, will be so heartless as to concur with such a policy)
9 Major banks have been forced by the federal government to accept bailout money - even those that neither wanted nor needed any. Later, they found that this acceptance gave the feds the excuse to take complete control of these companies, dictating policies, voiding valid contracts, bankrupting investors, even unleashing mobs to the houses of certain employees.
Some of these banks have since sought to repay these funds in full to the government (and, thereby, to the taxpayers), in order to get out from under the dictates and virtual ownership of that government. Should they be allowed to do so? (A no brainer - sure!)
At this point, you should inform the individual of the following:
Were he or she a candidate for public office with his or her views on the preceding issues, he/she would be excoriated as a "right wing extremist." In fact, if the present administration were aware of his/her positions (whether a candidate or otherwise) he/she would most likely be placed on a terrorist watch list.
Proof of all of this is readily available. In every case except point 1, it's a matter of clear public record (and there are ample anecdotal examples to substantiate that one as well).
Go through this simple process and you'll have de-programmed a "liberal" (trust me, it works). If it's replicated, say, 10 times each by, say, every "tea party" participant and "912" project member, think of the national awakening that will have engendered.