Book review: Calling out leading liberal hypocrites

Because of the Dempanic, the Fort Mudge Library has been closed for months, so I'm reduced to reading books I bought at various garage and rummage sales but never got around to. One such is Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, by Peter Schweizer (Doubleday 2005). Although it won the Book With the Longest Title award for 2005, it's actually a fairly slim (219 pp plus notes) volume, a quick and not-too-heavy read for a hot summer day.

One might think, from the title, that Do As I Say (Etc) is going to be a hatchet job, but it's not. The author barely mentions Michael Moore's obesity and scruffiness, Bill Clinton's little tryst with an intern or Ted Kennedy's misadventure at Chappaquiddick. Nor does he dwell on the (((Jewishness))) of six of the eleven leading liberals profiled.

Instead, he presents carefully researched facts and figures detailing the record of Mr Moore, Mrs Bill Clinton, the late Senator Kennedy, and the others (Noam Chomsky, Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Barbra Streisand, Gloria Steinem and Cornel West) on ethical investment, affirmative action and protecting the environment. In the Conclusion, Mr Schweizer sums up his findings thus.

How can we explain the fact that so many prominent individuals who are so passionate about their beliefs don't act accordingly? That seems to be the great paradox of liberalism as practiced by those we have profiled.... In short, they seem more interested in compelling others to embrace their vision of social change than in acting on that vision themselves....

Experience has taught these individuals that their ideas just don't work.... They really don't respect their own ideas and have privately concluded that...liberalism as practiced today does not offer them a road map to happiness.

Soak the rich, but don't soak me. Protect the environment, but let me drive my Hummer and water my lawn. Workers of the world, unite! But running a business with a union shop is just too complicated and difficult. Hire more blacks to fight racism, but let me hire my own people based on ability, not race....

The simple fact is that those in the vanguard of the liberal-left have found their own ideas to be ultimately self-defeating, self-destructive, and unworkable.

The (somewhat) good news for those of us who don't want to do what the liberal elites say is that the peasants are finally seeing at least some of the leading liberal hypocrites for what they are. The Hero of Chappaquiddick is dead. Al Franken is politically dead, killed by #MeToo. Having backed Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, Cornel West finds himself outside the inner circles of the Dumbocratic Party.

Michael Moore signed his own death warrant by revealing the truth about alternative energy. And Hellery Clinton is politically dead too, although she refuses to lie down. But there is still (((George Soros))), now more than ever.

Mr Soros is more dangerous than the others who (mostly) just talk. He puts up real money -- scads of it -- to put the talkers he favours into places where they can take action to bring to pass the New World Order. When Slow Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi talk, what you're really hearing is the voice of Soros, the Master Ventriloquist. Don't be fooled!

Ralph Nader asks: What's happening to Canada?!

Thanks and a tip o' the tuque to Agent 34, who has passed along Ralph Nader's open letter to Canada's Dear Leader Steve Harper, expressing concern about what he (quoting the Globe and Mail) calls Harper's "Secret Policeman Bill".

Just like America's paranoid "Homeland Security Act", Bill C-51 threatens Canadians' civil liberties for the sake of protecting them from the threats of ISIS et al., which wouldn't even be a problem but for Mr. Harpoon's rabid Zionism and pointless meddling in the Muslim civil war in the Middle East.

In his weekly piece on CBC's The National, Rex Murphy warned that the "terror legislation" -- a phrase that cuts two ways -- sits at the intersection of public safety and individual liberty. He said that any proposal to protect the citizenry by abbreviating the liberties of the same citizenry must be examined as to its ultimate necessity, and put to the fullest parliamentary, media and democratic testing. Amen.

Now comes Ralph Nader -- long-time enemy of the abuses of power in the USA -- to ask why Canada is following his country down the Bush-Clinton-Obama road to a police state. Here are excerpts from "What's happening to Canada? Open letter from Ralph Nader to Prime Minister Stephen Harper"

Many Americans love Canada and the specific benefits that have come to our country from our northern neighbor's many achievements. Unfortunately, your latest proposed legislation -- the new anti-terrorism act -- is being described by leading Canadian civil liberties scholars as hazardous to Canadian democracy.

You are quoted as saying that "jihadi terrorism is one of the most dangerous enemies our world has ever faced" as a predicate for your gross over-reaction that "violent jihadism seeks to destroy" Canadian "rights." Really? Pray tell, which rights rooted in Canadian law are "jihadis" fighting in the Middle East to obliterate? You talk like George W. Bush.

How does "jihadism" match up with the lives of tens of millions of innocent civilians, destroyed since 1900 by state terrorism -- west and east, north and south -- or the continuing efforts seeking to seize or occupy territory?

What has all this post-9/11 loss of American life plus injuries and sickness, in addition to trillions of American tax dollars, accomplished? Has it led to the stability of those nations invaded or attacked by the U.S. and its reluctant western "allies?" Just the opposite, the colossal blowback evidenced by the metastasis of al-Qaeda's offshoots and similar new groups like the self-styled Islamic state are now proliferating in and threatening over a dozen countries.

Have you digested what is happening in Iraq and why Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said no to Washington? Or now chaotic Libya, which like Iraq never had any presence of Al-Qaeda before the U.S.'s destabilizing military attacks?

Canadians might be most concerned about your increased dictatorial policies and practices, as well as this bill's provision for secret law and courts in the name of fighting terrorism -- too vaguely defined. Study what comparable practices have done to the United States -- a course that you seem to be mimicking, including the militarization of police forces.

You may think that Canadians will fall prey to a politics of fear before an election. But you may be misreading the extent to which Canadians will allow the attachment of their Maple Leaf to the aggressive talons of a hijacked American Eagle.

Canada could be a model for independence against the backdrop of bankrupt American military adventures steeped in big business profits…a model that might help both nations restore their better angels.