The consequences of liberalism

Thursday, February 1st, 2007 12:23 pm by Neal

(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

A woman wins a car in a raffle by the La Ley radio station, but the woman is an illegal alien who’s tax and social security information cannot be verified. So, what does the criminal do? Threaten to sue, of course! From the Chicago Sun-Times:

“I was very sad. I cried. … My feelings were hurt because I was mocked,” Alvarez, 22, said in her native Spanish on Wednesday. “It’s unjust.”

La Ley is required by law to get a valid Social Security number or tax identification number from all winners of prizes worth more than $500, according to a written statement from the Spanish language station. A station official said she did not want to comment because the matter is in litigation.

The station, which refers to itself as a champion for Latinos and the legalization of undocumented immigrants, tried giving Alvarez the hard-top car even though her tax reporting information could not be verified, the statement said.

“It’s unjust” she said.

This woman demonstrates the consequences of liberalism on the human mind.

Liberalism eschews the essential human qualities of responsibility and consequence and replaces them with entitlement. Liberalism is selectively-enforced morality and justice. It is having your cake and eating it too. There is nothing more repugnant to liberals than consequences, so they create a “me-me-me” fantasy land where consequences are dismissed as relics of conservatism and vestiges of a time before “tolerance.”

Like many Democrats and Republicans, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq when it was politically expedient, but now the consequences of that vote are politically costly. Does Hillary stand by her vote or toss it aside? Does she support the troops who have died and suffered implementing her decision, or does she toss them aside? In other words, does Hillary take responsibility for her decision or does she toss it aside? The answer is painfully obvious. Liberal tolerance means she can pick-and-choose her consequences regardless of how it effects others. She (like John Kerry) is not “flip-flopping” — she is just being “open-minded” and “tolerant” of all the “diverse” “viewpoints” while “evolving” her “opinion.” By repackaging her decisions, she not only avoids the consequences, but also sounds noble in the process.

There is no black-and-white, no good-or-bad in Libtopia. There is only consensus. A pure democracy, Libtopia is a land of majority-rule and majority-reality. As a result, the pestilence of hypocrisy has been eradicated from Libtopia where compasses are useless because no fixed points exist.

Thus, a girl enters the country illegally at the age of seven where she is indoctrinated into the culture of entitlement. The fact that her education and health care are stolen goods is overshadowed by the guilt of her willing victim. Illegal is a status symbol of oppression, and oppression is the password to entitlement. The compass of consequence has been inverted, so that as an illegal adult, she flees and hides with her children in order to escape deportation while simultaneously threatening to sue a legal business — to seek recourse through the same system that she abuses and evades. Should we be surprised that her idea of “justice” is retribution against a legal entity for the crime of recognizing her as a criminal? Such a dichotomous and contradictory existence is only possible in Libtopia.

Comments are closed.