Have you ever heard of anyone doing heroin, crack cocaine, or methamphetamine recreationally for any significant length of time – that is, in the modality in which some people consume alcohol, or even marijuana?
Neither have I. Prisons, hospitals, and cemeteries are filled with those who thought they might get away with it. Even those who have habituated less potent forms of these hard drugs either determine that long-term recreational use is an impossibility, or they delude themselves, progressing down the road to ruination.
Like those for whom the inevitable progression of addiction is inexplicable (addicts themselves, and often their loved ones), many liberals and rank-and-file voting Americans readily accept or are encouraged to accept deeply erroneous concepts which contradict the evidence right before their eyes.
Last Sunday, a 29-year-old devout Muslim gunman killed 49 people and wounded more than 50 others in a Florida nightclub before he was killed by law enforcement. Several hours later, Barack Hussein Obama stood before reporters at the White House and blamed the gunman’s actions on the easy access to firearms in America while completely ignoring the Islamic component. Subsequently, politicos and the establishment press began referring to the massacre as a “mass shooting” rather than an act of terrorism, as they and our government have been wont to do with each and every high-profile instance of Islamic-fostered violence.
Many Americans are deceived by this because to them, the hard truth is inconceivable – as inconceivable as it often is to the loved ones of a hardened drug addict that the addict – once a talented, promising, productive individual – has actually reached a given level of debasement. Additionally, the prospect of having to disenfranchise an entire creed in order to ensure our safety runs contrary to Americans’ sensibilities and our traditions of inclusion and fraternity.
This isn’t the first time, nor even the second, that I’ve analogized a substantial segment of Americans to people in the throes of addiction and those close to them. As the constitution (no pun intended) of the addict deteriorates, it becomes increasingly difficult for those observing the human tragedy to deny the truth, but some still refuse to accept reality until it is too late – at least for the addict.
This is similar to the progression we are currently witnessing in our nation with regard to the deleterious effects of liberal/progressive policies. So, like a detached observer to the dark drama of the deteriorating addict and his beleaguered circle of influence, I am merely pointing out the sign posts punctuating that deterioration. Political liberals, and those who countenance liberalism as just another viable political persuasion, are like those who think that someone can slam a little heroin on weekends and it’ll probably never give rise to any serious problems. The evidence indicates that both are profoundly dangerous.
In general – and this is admittedly a bit of an oversimplification – liberals believe that government ought to have just a little more latitude in its influence upon individuals and institutions. The rationale is almost always a paternalistic one, one that ostensibly preserves the safety, well-being, or rights of individuals or groups thereof.
The problem is twofold: One aspect lies in an almost Einsteinian process which takes place as a result of this sort of intervention. One cannot dispense that which they do not have to give unless someone else is deprived. This is true whether one is discussing money, food, goods, or special status within a society.
Then, there is the very nature of liberalism as it has manifested over the better part of the last century. Note that I mentioned earlier how liberals believe that government ought to have just a little more latitude in its influence. Well, when politicians persuade the electorate to grant government more power today, when the liberal wakes up tomorrow, he or she still believes that government ought to have just a little more latitude in its influence. This incrementalism, spurred on by politicians, is a truly pernicious process.
That is how governments (federal, state, and local) transformed over the last hundred years from agencies that exercised power to ensure that nine year-old children weren’t worked to death in sweat shops, to these Orwellian agencies that exercise power to ensure that I can’t purchase a soft drink that they have determined isn’t good for me.
Now, in modern America, where grade school students are no longer taught Civics or Economics or Government by design, there are ample numbers of voters who are sufficiently ignorant of the consequences of atrocious public policy that they readily support such policies, incentivized through benefits promised them by liberal politicians.
And what a rude and unhappy surprise: Those liberal politicians to whom we were referring weren’t really “liberals” or “progressives” at all. They were socialists who knew full well in Year One of the program that fifty years hence, America would far more resemble a totalitarian state than a republic. They also knew that revealing this at the outset would have resulted in their being strung up from their intestines by an electorate whose children were still being taught Civics at that time.
Disingenuousness and spin of the sort we used to expect from politicians is one thing, but the rhetoric purveyed by the Obama regime and beltway politicians over the last few years could have been written by the speech writer for a Soviet Premier. The chilling part is that there are far too few of us screaming from the rooftops that this is the case, and that our leaders have become every bit as evil and rapacious as those Soviet oligarchs.
America needs rehab…
Article posted with permission from Constitution.com