SAN DIEGO, July 7, 2015 —All causes need to be updated. Here are some new additions to the Liberal Manifesto, alongside previous jewels. We are now proudly updated for the year 2015:
1) We believe that notions of good and evil are outdated and should never be used unless we are talking about George Bush, other Republicans or right-wing, born-again Christians who are clearly responsible historically for most of the evils of the world.
2) We are strong advocates of choice, unless people want to choose their own schools, radio shows, cars, cigars, unhealthy food, health care providers, amount of energy to use in the home, salaries to pay employees, location for religious assembly, location for religious symbols and the amount of money to leave their children in a will as opposed to giving half to the government. We do continue to celebrate “a woman’s right to choose an abortion” but we also like the laws in China that limit how many children one can birth because too many people in the world contribute to global warming, so the one remaining choice is only a temporary one.
3) We believe that having women on the Supreme Court offers necessary balance, as women will always bring a perspective men cannot offer with important decisions that guide our country. On the other hand, when it comes to guiding children in a family atmosphere, we do not believe gender to be of any importance whatsoever. Indeed, a child with two fathers is going to be every bit as healthy as a child with a father and a mother and in such a case, female influence is nonessential to development and health.
4) We believe in standing up for the rights of the weak and the disenfranchised, (unless we are talking about an unborn baby.)
5) We believe in tolerance and those who are unwilling to tolerate the same lifestyles we tolerate should no longer be tolerated. Thus, we strongly advocate laws forbidding hate speech, and if those guilty of hate speech do not see their speech as hateful, it only means they are especially hateful and that their intolerance should be especially NOT tolerated.
6) We believe that as regards gay marriage, church and state should be completely separated. Christians have no right to pass laws about who can or cannot be married out in the secular world and we therefor applaud the recent Supreme Court decision. Marriage in the church can be defined any way they want, so long as they do not impose that belief on the rest of us. However, we strongly support those who sue churches for refusing to marry gay couples because, after all, this is a civil rights issue and not a religious issue. Therefore, religious people should not be exempted.
7) As a specific example of our inclusive philosophy, we believe that when conservatives opposed President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, their only possible motive must clearly have been racism. It couldn’t possibly be for concerns about a judge who would legislate from the bench. However, when Democrats opposed Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzalez, race had nothing to do with it.
8) In that same vein, we accept Judge Sotomayor’s right to claim that a Latina woman will “reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Such a statement cannot be construed as racist because people of color do not have the power even though this woman, as a judge, has kind of, sort of, had a lot of power for years. Meanwhile, should a white judge ever claim that a white man can rule better than a Latina woman, we will expose him as the sexist, racist, bigoted vermin he truly is.
9) We believe that all rich people are evil, with the exception of rich Democrat politicians, George Soros, Michael Moore or any left-wing Hollywood activist.
10) We believe religion should be left out of any political discussion unless some Democratic politician wants to say that Jesus would have accepted illegal immigration or some gay Episcopal priest wants to talk about how the Bible teaches that God is loving and tolerant. In such cases, religion is a very appropriate ingredient to bring into the mix.
11) We believe intelligent design does not belong in the classroom due to church and state legalities and should not be put forth, even as a theory, to be discussed. We also believe that if an instructor wants to talk about how stupid it is to believe in God, he should be allowed. Separation between church and state does not apply in such a situation.
12) When a professor, such as Ward Churchill, compares the victims of 9/11 to Nazis, his speech (outrageous as it is) must be protected under the First Amendment. On the other hand, when the president of Harvard suggests that men and women tend to score differently on math tests, such talk should never be allowed because (First Amendment put aside) the college campus must hold its staff to a higher standard. Besides, we know that men and women are not different at all about anything, (even though, once again, women do bring a unique perspective to the Supreme Court.)
13) We believe it is wrong for a mother to spank her child. That is child abuse. But if she wants to kill this child in the womb, that is her fundamental right.
14) We are very concerned about global warming, and those who would ask us to prove it scientifically should just get with the program and stop being so dogdarned argumentative. However, we will ask Christians to prove their belief in God scientifically and if they can’t, they have no place in our public dialogue. Indeed, they pollute our public dialogue. Oh yes, and if Christians claim they can prove God scientifically, they should be especially banned from public dialogue. Never mind that we asked them to prove God. We only asked because we were sure they couldn’t do it.
15) We believe that almost anything you can imagine (and a lot of stuff you never would have dreamed up in a million years) contributes to global warming, including Christmas lights and cow dung. But the private jets that Democrats fly around in to give lectures on global warming are not a problem. While we are on the subject of private jets, when Wall Street CEOs fly on such jets, they are EVIL! That is, they would be evil if such a thing existed and in the cases of people we don’t like, it does exist. (See Point One)
16) We believe that smaller cars will keep our atmosphere safer even if accidents in such cars will kill a whole lot more people than big cars. People come and go, but the planet is most important.
17) When a Muslim terrorist kills a person, we must not rush to judgment and condemn the entire religion of Islam, for this is a beautiful religion hijacked by a few nut-case terrorists and one or two bad apples do not spoil the whole bunch. However, if a police officer shoots a black man, claiming he resisted arrest, we AUTOMATICALLY assume this was done due to racism and that such racism permeates our police departments across the country.
18) We believe America needs to have a serious conversation about race and admit that primarily we are a racist country where African-Americans are unable to advance even though we twice elected an African-American president and have had two African-American secretaries of State and two African-American Supreme Court justices.
19) We liberals are proud of being more nuanced than conservatives. When we suggest that instead of merely wanting to destroy organizations like ISIS and we should instead find them jobs; when we deny that their religion has anything to do with their objectives even though they claim themselves that their religion is central to their objectives, well, these are nuanced arguments, far too complicated for those dumb country bumpkin conservatives to grasp.
On the other hand, anyone who does not support President Obama is CLEARLY a racist. It is simply impossible that they might object to his lies about Benghazi, lies about health care, rule by unconsitutional executive fiat, or deals with Iran in the face of Iran’s proud boast to destroy both Israel and America. Nope, if you dislike Obama, there is nothing nuanced about it. You are a racist, plain and simple! Ditto if you dislike Hillary. Never mind the stories she made up about her email server. You just can’t handle a woman president, that’s all! What? You say you supported Michele Bachmann for president? She doesn’t count! Conservative women aren’t true women. You say you also support Ben Carson for president? He doesn’t count either. He’s not really black. He’s an Oreo! Black on the outside, white on the inside!
20) If a Christian business will not cater a gay wedding, never mind all this “free excercise of religion guarenteed by the First Amendment” nonsense. Once again, this is now a civil rights issue. On the other hand, should a Muslim business refuse a request to cater a gay wedding with pork due to their religious convictions, just leave them alone! Haven’t the poor Muslims been through enough trying to explain that Muslim terrorists are not really Muslims? We owe them one! Besides, it’s a little less safe to confront Muslims than it is to confront Christians but we won’t go into those reasons, because if we did, we would be guilty of hate speech.
21) Finally, we believe right-wing ideas are too stupid to even debate. That is why we do not debate them. We call right-wingers names instead, because they deserve to be called names. (Hitler is always a good one.) Would you debate with a Nazi or with the Ku Klux Klan? Of course not! Can we prove that all right-wing people are like the Nazis or the Klan? Well, no. To do that, we would have to have a debate and we are not going to debate. Haven’t you been paying attention?
In the name of tolerance, free thought, open discussion, personal choice and sound reason, we the undersigned do proudly uphold this latest incarnation of the Liberal Manifesto.
Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and a columnist. Details of his show can be found at www.bobsiegel.netClick here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News
• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.