I recall a bit from a Seinfeld episode that involved a bedroom technique known only as “the move.” It was apparently a very potent and successful “move,” indeed:
Elaine: I was with David *Putty* last night.
Jerry: Yeah, so.
Elaine: He did the move.
Jerry: What move?
Elaine: You know…*the* move.
Jerry: Wait a second. *My* move?
Jerry: David Putty used *my* move?
Elaine: Yes, yes.
Jerry: Are you sure?
Elaine: Jerry! There is no confusing *that* move with any other move.
Jerry: I can’t believe it. He *stole* my move.
Elaine: What else did you tell [reaches over to slap Jerry] him. [does it
again] The two of you must have had *quite* a little chat!
Jerry: Oh, it wasn’t like that! I didn’t even mention you. You know, we
were in the garage. You know how garages are. They’re conducive to sex
talk. It’s a high-testosterone area.
Elaine: Because of all the pistons and the lube jobs?
Jerry: Well, I’m going down to that garage and telling him to stop doing it.
Elaine: Well, wait—wait a second.
Elaine: Isn’t that a little…rash?
Jerry: No! He stole my move!
Elaine: Yeah, but…*I* like the move.
Jerry: Yeah, but it’s like another comedian stealing my material.
Elaine: Well, he doesn’t even do it exactly the same. He–he–he uses a
pinch at the end instead of the *swirl*!
Jerry: Oh, yeah. The pinch. *I’ve* done the pinch. That’s not new.
Well, with that that long bit of introduction, the Democrats have their very own “move,” – an extremely potent and successful “move” – and they are clearly angry that Republicans are beginning to steal their move.
The Democrat’s “move” – by the way – is demonization. It’s their move, they’ve used it to great effect for the last twenty years or so, and they don’t want their rivals using it.
Here’s a little story to illustrate the Democrat’s and their “move”:
It Takes One to Know One
“Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, one of the most prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals in the United States, announced yesterday that she would refuse a prestigious award from the University of Notre Dame rather than appear on the same platform on which President Obama is being awarded an honorary degree,” the Boston Globe reports.
The Globe notes that not all Catholics are unhappy with Notre Dame’s plan to give the president an honorary degree:
“There are some well-meaning people who think Notre Dame has given away its Catholic identity, because they have been caught up in the gamesmanship of American higher education, bringing in a star commencement speaker even if that means sacrificing their values, and that accounts for some of this,” said the Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of theology department at Boston College. “But one also has to say that there is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison. Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation.”
Now read this 2006 Associated Press dispatch:
Nearly 100 faculty members at Boston College have signed a letter objecting to the college’s decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree.
The letter entitled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” was written by the Rev. Kenneth Himes. . . .
“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work,” the letter said.
Himes, it seems, is an expert on demonization.
Kenneth Himes lectures us: How DARE you do what I did to you! There must be something morally WRONG with you!!! Demonization is “OUR” move, and you can’t steal it!
Well, as Obama folk like to say, “YES, WE CAN!”
Being a liberal means being a hypocrite. Hypocrisy defines liberals; their shriveled little souls swim in it. And part of being a total hypocrite means having the pathological ability to be perfectly at home with their own massive contradictions.
For instance, liberals are “tolerant,” which means they lash out and demonize anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them – in the name of “tolerance.”
A few other examples of liberal hypocrisy:
Liberals support high taxes on the rich. As long as it is understood that they have no expectation to pay such taxes themselves. Ask pretty much anyone on Barack Obama’s cabinet. Liberals like “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Nancy Kelleher, and Kathleen Sebelius. And that doesn’t include Congressional Democrats such as Charles Rangel – who is writing YOUR tax laws even as he cheats on HIS taxes. And don’t forget the mantra from Rangel’s former fellow member of the House Ways and Means Committee William Jefferson: “FBI sting money hidden in freezers is NOT taxable.”
Liberals claim that it is the rich’s “patriotic duty” to pay a shockingly high percentage of total income taxes while simultaneously pandering to the clearly unpatriotic – by their own standard – 42% of Americans who pay NO federal income taxes at all.
Liberals claim that they are generous and conservatives are stingy; yet the facts demand the exact OPPOSITE conclusion. The fact of the matter is that conservatives are FAR more “liberal” givers than liberals. Conservatives give 30% more than liberals even though liberals earn slightly more. And religious conservatives give THREE AND A HALF TIMES more of their income to charities than secular liberals. If you’d like some particular cases, consider the loathsome lack of personal generosity displayed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden relative to the extremely generous conservatives like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and John McCain.
Liberals love racial diversity – as long as they can continue demonizing black conservatives such as Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimahs” or “race traitors.” Janeane Garafalo is completely free to be a hard-core racist, just as long as the minorities she viciously attacks are conservatives. Newsweek Magazine - in wholehearted agreement with Garafalo – literally argued that whites who don’t vote for Obama are racist.
In the same vein, liberals are pro-woman – just as long as “women” are defined as “liberal feminist”; otherwise, they hand out the Sarah Palin treatment (e.g., “Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman”). Ultimately, of course, Sarah Palin is a “bad mother” for allowing her baby born with Down Syndrome to live.
Liberals stand for the helpless and oppressed victim: as long as that helpless and oppressed victim isn’t a baby having his brains sucked out. Meanwhile liberals attack conservatives as not caring about the poor, even though – as has already been pointed out – conservatives are in fact FAR more generous than liberals (example 1, example 2).
Liberals continually decry the “rightwing smear machine” even as they have hard-core hate sites such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos – which DWARF anything even remotely compatible on the right. The primary funding comes from documented Nazi collaborator George Soros, an American-sovereignty-undermining trans-nationalist who has made his billions undermining currencies all over the world – including America’s. And his friends have been just as bad. And Soros and friends such as Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler have used their massive fortunes to ensure that NOBODY smears like the left: think “General Betray Us.”
Liberals “interpret” the Constitution to find “penumbras and emanations” that they allege mandate a constitutional and sacred right to abortion on demand, but twist and contort the English language until the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give the people the right to bear arms.
Liberals demand socialized medicine. Michael Moore made a ton of money demonizing America’s privatized system and claiming that Cuba’s socialized medicine was better; yet when that fat SOB needed heart surgery, he elected to go to Cleveland rather than Cuba. Even more glaring, Belinda Stronach of the Canadian Parliament opposed even allowing private medicine in Canada; but when she was diagnosed with breast cancer she came to the United States to obtain the very thing she denied her fellow citizens from having.
As to the death penalty for convicted murderers, liberals argue that inserting a hypodermic needle into the vein of a death row inmate constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, yet insist that sucking the brains out of a viable baby whose head is sticking out of a birth canal is compassionate.
They also say that a 13 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without her parents’ consent, then tell parents that they face jail if they don’t ensure that that same 13 year old girl doesn’t miss school (with attendance being the barometer for public school funding).
Liberals demand that they be able to teach issues such as homosexuality in the guise of open-mindedness and diversity, but come absolutely unglued if any school board so much as suggest that evolution is only a theory rather than a law, let alone present any alternative to evolution whatsoever.
On the subject of evolution as it relates to morality, liberals denounce any dependence on the natural law (grounded in a transcendent Creator God) as the only basis for objective morality, and then impose one utterly subjective moral norm after another. In so doing, they literally subjective natural law and objectivize their own highly subjective moral preferences.
Liberals demand that all children go to government schools and fight any effort to provide vouchers to parents, and then send their own children to private schools. For all of liberals’ indignant outrage concerning “the children,” the fact is that the teachers’ unions are far more important than the education of children. Barack Obama ensured that children like Marquis Greene couldn’t go to his daughters’ Sidwell Friends School.
Liberals lampooned President Bush for his verbal gaffes, and yet idolize the “sublime speaking ability” of a man who can’t so much as say, “Good morning” without reading from a teleprompter screen. Barack Obama has already used his teleprompter FAR more in just his first 100 days than George Bush did in his entire 8 year term.
Liberals repeatedly (falsely) claimed that Jefferson said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when conservatives attacked their lack of patriotism. They were terribly upset with any insinuation that they might be unpatriotic – because when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq (QUOTE: “I believe that this war is lost” UNQUOTE) even as our troops were in the field fighting to prevail, he was surrendering as a “patriot.” And when John Murtha proclaimed Marines who turned out to be innocent of murderous war crimes in Haditha, his demonization of our Marines was “patriotic.” Now, of course, Democrats are all over themselves labeling Republican opposition to their socialist agenda as “unpatriotic.”
As for liberals’ view on patriotism, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words – when that picture is a cartoon drawn by Ted Rall:
Let’s see: racial hatred directed at white males. Check. Cynicism of the patriotism that would make a young man fight for his country. Check. Mockery of religion. Check. Contempt for America as a country of suicide bombers. Check.
Or another liberal cartoon. America as viewed through the warped lenses of the liberal New York Times: the Statue of Liberty swinging a whip at the poor, tired, huddled masses.
As liberals now demand that conservatives stop using “their move,” realize that they will NEVER stop using it themselves. It is simply who they are. So we might as well sick their own dog on them – and let us make sure that dog is foaming at the mouth when it bites them back.