Liberals love poverty. They created programs designed to keep the poor poor, and their own jobs intact. They love Medicaid mills where clients come for mental health treatment, which keeps them out of the job market, and though many of them can work, their social workers and therapists continue to write letters to Medicaid to keep them at home and on the taxpayer's dime. I know this from working in the field of mental health where people diagnosed with panic disorder, for example, were working at jobs 'off the books' and wanted letters confirming the chronicity of their disorder so they could collect welfare and work another job. I did what a good therapist would do, I believe--I refused them the letter and they eventually had to work on the books. The companies associated with Medicaid reimbursement would charge exhorbitant fees to the agency until finally it was discovered that there were many instances of fraud. Ambulance/ambulette services were extremely costly. A patient might be taken from home to the hospital, which might be a few miles at most and the cost would be around $75 each way. Some patients were using ambulette services as limos and liberals were upset when investigations took place regarding the Medicaid fraud.
 |
| I'll take one jelly and one cream donut |
Liberals advocate for big government because they pretend to believe the poor need the assistance of welfare programs to help them subsist, but secretly, perhaps even unconsciously, liberals want to keep the poor in their place and keep the competition down. Yes, liberals are deathly frightened of competition--win or lose, all the pee wee soccer kids get a trophy, all cultures are equally as wonderful, screw the rich fat cats, and tax the bastards for good measure. The rich don't have the right to keep their money when it would be so nice to distribute it to pay for the poor.
Liberals rarely question the mainstream media (MSM) because the MSM tells them how to think and use clever methods of convincing liberals of how superior they are to conservatives. Many of these self righteous liberals get the bulk of their news from The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert and even when Stuart or Colbert contradict themselves, liberals tend to overlook it. Liberals believe that when facts are brought up during campaigns, facts like Obama's relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers, the facts are less important than the fact that Conservatives are using smear tactics and are being unfair. It doesn't matter what the facts are, it only matters who is reporting them and to what purpose. For instance, when it was hypothesized that Obama might be Muslim, the Republicans were called all kinds of inaccurate names, like racist (Islam is not a race), or Islamophobe, (a term invented by Muslims who would destroy our Constitution and replace it with 7th Century Shariah law, or blow themselves up at your son's bar mitzvah). But when Obama's team mentioned the variegated cultural experience he had with his Muslim, African father, it was okay. He mentioned his white, Christian mother too, but left out the part where she was a communist like daddy. In 2008 it was felt (notice the term 'felt' rather than 'known') that to not vote for Obama was the same as being racist; now that sounds pretty cheeky, doesn't it? So if you disagreed with his liberal = socialist policies, and did not vote for him, you were deemed a racist. How clever . . . and it worked for them.
Liberals fear an even playing field. Imagine if the media actually was unbiased-they would pee their pants. They wouldn't get away with their complaints about the Republicans pointing out who Obama's friends are--they couldn't call it 'guilt by association.' The media would call it 'guilt of association'. His association with Ayers, Wright, Farrakhan, Dohrn, and ACORN just for starters. The media might have reported in more depth about how Obama felt about his pastor, Rev. Wright, who married him and baptized his children, and who talked about "white arrogance," and "white folks' greed," in the first sermon Obama heard from him, and where he wrote in his autobiography Dreams from My Father, "I felt the tears running down my cheek." And the tears weren't from the anger with the words of the good reverend, they were tears of agreement, of finding a pastor who spoke Obama's heart, because after hearing that sermon Obama joined the church. Years later, when running for president, he threw the good reverend under the bus and said that he never really heard him say those things.
Liberals also fear being wrong, so much so that they pretend they're right, even when the facts prove otherwise. Like when Obama said that he was never friends with Bill Ayers, a member in good standing with the Weather Underground who enjoyed blowing up government buildings and saying things that real Americans might find offensive, like after 9/11 when he said that America makes him want to "puke." He also said in 2001, that "I don't regret setting bombs." And Ayers' wife Bernadette Dohrn, was another revolutionary who praised the Manson family and encouraged revolution by killing your parents. Sweet--she must have had an interesting childhood. But the media didn't report this in any reliable way and, as usual, the liberals heard what they wanted to hear, and pretended all was well in Liberal Land. The media supported the left, rather than report the facts and this is why the mainstream media is currently losing their audience. People are going to blogs and other forms of media because they are getting wiser.
The time is coming where intelligent people are fed up with obvious bias. People are tired of hearing how Fareed Zakaria is advising Obama and then reporting the news on CNN. He smiled like the Cheshire cat when Eliot Spitzer pointed it out, then denied it when he learned that his butt was in a sling for conflict of interest. Worse than that is the fact that a US president would do that in the first place. But the liberals pretend that it's okay because it's a Republican smear issue, rather than it's a Republican smear issue because it's the truth . . . and dammit, it's not okay.
If you are interested in Islamic terrorism and suspense, my latest novel, Jihad Joe, is now available both in soft cover and as an Ebook--I have provided the links below. A New York City reporter is taken hostage by terrorists and must escape, or be beheaded the following day . . . the clock is ticking.
Posts
