Minority Rules

Following last week’s Senate vote on the several gun control measures brought forward, Obama held a press conference in which he proceeded to throw a temper tantrum, lamenting how a “minority” of Senators aligned themselves with a minority of Americans to side with the gun lobby and vote down 7 of the 8 measures brought up for vote.

Obama made it clear that it wasn’t right that a minority with a minority view was able to overrule a majority. Well, if that’s the case I’ve got something to say to Mr. Obama:

You can take your Executive Orders and shove them.

If there is any more blatant example of a minority overruling a majority, it’s a unilateral declaration by a SINGLE PERSON that holds sway over an ENTIRE NATION.

If Obama wants to lecture us on why it’s unfair that a minority can overrule the will of the majority, I’d suggest he open the lecture with a primer on slavery, then segue into the history of the American Indian, and then finally to the issue of voting rights for women, before finally enlightening us about the merits of majority rule.

Mr. Obama, the reason it’s perfectly ok for a minority to overrule a majority is so society doesn’t degenerate into spoils for the many and misery for the few, and I’d suggest that you consider your own actions before decrying those of others. It’s crystal clear that you’re not at all concerned about the power of the minority over the majority, you’re only concerned that the minority votes the right way, your way.

Liberals: Neo-Imperialists

Much of the anti-American sentiment prevalent in liberal circles centers around “American imperialism.” Examples might include the westward expansion and plight of native American Indians, “nation building” e.g. “wars for oil,” and our history of military projection.

Regardless of where you lie in the debate over American imperialism, I doubt that anyone would say the proper counter to imperialism is more imperialism, yet that’s exactly what liberals do.

Let’s consider what imperialism is. Is it the taking over of an inhabited territory? Perhaps, but consider if a group of people physically overtake a territory, then realize they like the local culture more than their own. They discard their own culture and adopt that of the overtaken territory. Has the territory really been overtaken?

It can be argued then that the act of occupying a territory isn’t imperialism unless the occupiers enforce their own culture over that of the previous occupants. And that is why liberals can be characterized as “neo-imperialists.” Liberals don’t move into an area and adopt the local culture. Liberals don’t reside in an area and allow the culture to remain intact. They agitate for change. They expend effort into changing the culture to accept what they think is acceptable and reject that which is not acceptable.

I found this realization ironic, as the very characteristic that compels may liberals to believe counter to “traditional” American culture is a distaste for the “imperial” nature of American governmental action, yet they gladly embrace American imperialism when it sponsors their belief system. In a typical display of liberal hypocrisy, liberals are perfectly fine with government takeover of a culture, as long as the takeover reflects their values.

A Handful of Change

My wife had a conversation with a liberal the other day. They were discussing taxes. Interestingly, the liberal agreed that government takes too much of people’s money. But do you know how they rationalized their continued support of the Democrat party?

“The government’s going to take the money anyway, and I’d rather vote for the party that’s going to give some to the needy rather than the party that supports rich people.”

Yep. Even when they admit that the government takes too much, they placate themselves with the knowledge that at least it’s going to a good cause.

You know what I say? Why is it noble to take money from one person and give it to another? How are you ensuring that the money is improving things?

Welfare has become a way for people to abdicate personal responsibility. If they vote for politicians who support welfare, they can brag that “They care about others” or they’re “Doing their part” and “Doing the right thing.”

Nope. Sorry.

Unless you’re giving your own money or in the trenches with the people trying to help, you’re not doing anything but using your vote as a dismissal of guilt, the guilt you carry because you know you’re not really “Doing the right thing.” You’re doing nothing at all, just pontificating behind the assumption that other people are doing it for you.

How noble to claim that you care about the needy while authorizing politicians to steal on your behalf. Noble indeed. The very picture of moral superiority. And all the while people buy booze with their EBT cards, hang out on the street because they don’t have to work, and generally rot away because no one is there helping them to become human again.

You and your welfare vote can rot in the vacant stares of a million eyes who long for a better life and get nothing but a patronizing smile and a handful of change.