Liberalism Run Amuck

Once again, we have numerous examples of liberalism doing nutty things which are, unfortunately, disastrous.

To get us started, Michelle Malkin reports on how the President of Planned Parenthood celebrates Mother's Day:

With Mother's Day coming up this weekend, Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business, has a message for moms: send us more money. Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, sent out a fund-raising request this week one pro-life advocate says is grotesque.

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek called Richard's exploitation of Mother's Day for pro-abortion money-making purposes "grotesque" and said she couldn't believe Richards would stoop to "using her dead mother and daughter as props."

Richards honored Mother's Day by sharing part of an editorial her daughter wrote saying she got her pro-abortion views from her mother and grandmother, former Texas Gov. Ann Richards.

Richards said passing on her pro-abortion mantra to her daughter Hannah and her younger children Lily and Daniel is "the best gift any mother can give her children."

"My mom did that for me and my siblings. And I've worked to do that for [my children]," she wrote.

What better way is there to celebrate motherhood than by killing unborn babies...  Does anyone else see the irony here??

Speaking of abortion, how often do we hear about how we pro-lifers should be more 'tolerant' of other viewpoints?  In fact, we hear that tolerance thing a lot when dealing with almost any liberal on almost any topic.  So, is the favor returned?  Apparently not, if this is any indication:

It has happened again. In January 2006, pro-abortion thugs destroyed a pro-life memorial of wooden crosses at Louisiana State University. In April 2006, a nutball feminist professor at Northern Kentucky University led another destructive raid on a pro-life Cementery of Innocents. And this week, at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, pro-abortion vandals struck–pulling up hundreds of crosses from a display sponsored by Pointers for Life.

Follow the link to see a video of liberal tolerance on display.

J.R. Dunn questions what is wrong with Democrat ex-Presidents.  While Rep ex-Pres's tend to stay pretty quiet in retirement (coming out only for things like raising money for worthy causes), the Dem ex-Pres's are entirely different.  They apparently crave the spotlight and attention so much that they're willing to make total idiots of themselves.  Jimmy Carter endorses falsified elections and terrorists around the world in efforts so stupid that even other Dems try to shut him up; Al Gore (I know, he wasn't actually the Pres, but Dunn includes him as another great example) has become a prophet for a mythical problem that could destroy the world; Bill Clinton becomes unhinged on the campaign trail and is known for womanizing and laziness.  Since these guys are the recent leaders of liberalism, they are indicative the movement itself.  Says Dunn:

For forty years, liberalism has been the ideology of failure. Its last successful program was the civil rights movement, and that was very much a grass roots effort, politicians only jumping aboard as its success became apparent. Since then, in any field you care to name -- foreign policy, the economy, national security -- liberalism's record has been one of collapse. Even its minor successes, such as NAFTA and welfare reform under Bill Clinton, were initiatives adapted from the GOP.

Here's the root of the nuttiness:

Having accomplished little or nothing, liberal presidents are going to be left unsatisfied and restless, and will hit the streets in an effort to do something about it. In extreme cases, like that of Jimmy Carter, they are going to blame everyone else in the world but themselves, and make the world pay for it.

An excellent analysis, I think, with way too much truth to be ignored.  [Note to self: add 'chronic failure' to my list of knocks on liberalism.]

Now, let's take at another particular backwardness of liberalism: sympathy toward the criminal rather than the victim.  Take, for example, this article in the Washington Post about how many states are considering releasing tens of thousands of criminals from prison because it's too expensive to hold them.  Yep, you heard that right!  This may ease budgets immediately, but I think this is a terrible idea for the long-term.  I would agree with this opponent of the idea:

Bob Pack, 52, of Danville, Calif., is particularly disturbed by the prospect of softer punishment forthose convicted of drunken driving. In 2003, Pack's two children -- Troy, 10, and Alana, 7 -- were struck and killed when a drunk driver's car jumped a curb and ran onto a neighborhood sidewalk. The driver had three prior drunken-driving convictions.

Said Pack: "I guarantee you that if this program is fulfilled, somewhere down the road -- it could be three months or a year -- there's going to be a family in court over the death of a loved one, because of someone who got out early."

Why is it that liberals always take the side of the criminal rather than the actual victim (or the victim's families)?  What is wrong with that picture?

Following in the great tradition of refusing to be deterred by actual evidence, Al Gore attempts to profit from the tragedy in Myanmar, where a cyclone killed tens of thousands of people and left a million more homeless:

"And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated," Gore said. "And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."

Never mind this trivial detail coming from an actual expert in the field:

In October 2007, CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano disputed Gore's claim that there is a strong correlation between intense storms and global warming. He explained that "global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we've seen," pointing out that "by the end of this century we might get about a 5-percent increase."

You have to give it to Gore - he's not letting anything get in the way of his prophetic vision of catastrophic climate change being caused by humanity, not even factual evidence.  It's just way too profitable to give up, you know.

Now, how about the hot-button topic of closing down Gitmo?  Those of us who oppose closing it down have put forth the question of what we should do with the prisoners -- who are, if you recall, terrorists captured on the field of battle -- currently housed there.  Advocates of closing Gitmo never seem to want to answer that question, but the two alternatives are to either bring them onto our home soil -- which would then more or less give these terrorists the same rights as U.S. citizens -- or let them go.  Why don't we want to let them go?  Here's why:

A Kuwaiti freed from Guantanamo Bay carried out a suicide car bombing recently in Iraq, the U.S. military said Wednesday. At least seven people were killed in the attacks.

Up to 36 former Guantanamo detainees have resumed hostilities against the U.S., including some who have been taken back into custody or killed, the Pentagon says.

When are people going to realize that liberal policies (ignoring the fact that these people are TERRORISTS TRYING TO KILL AMERICANS and setting them free) always, always fail??

Doug Patton suggests that the ongoing Democrat primary is a microcosm of socialist thinking.  The basic idea is that 'fairness' should take precedence, and that idea prevents anyone from 'losing' and feeling bad about themselves.  Fairness is always the most important thing, even when it makes no sense in the real world:

[I]n a recent debate, when asked about the capital gains tax, Barack Obama made the stunning confession that he didn't care that raising the tax would actually decrease revenues to the federal government. For him, it is about fairness.

Similarly, Hillary Clinton is touting a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies to "pay for" the gas tax holiday she wants to give us this summer. It's all about fairness. The oil companies are prospering so they must be punished. Never mind that corporations don't pay taxes; people pay taxes. Oil companies, like all corporations, will simply pass on any tax on their "windfall profits" to all of us at the pump. And when they do, Democrats will be right there to pounce on their "greed." Nothing will be said about government greed.

Both Clinton and Obama want to force you to pay for your neighbor's health care when you can barely afford to pay for your own, even as they try to convince you that it's free for everyone.

This is socialism, pure and simple.

All of these stories are examples of liberalism in action.  It's a disaster.  It's also exactly what you'll get with an Obama or Clinton presidency.

There's my two cents.