LIBERALS "FEEL" - CONSERVATIVES "THINK"

September 18, 2009

The ancient Greeks had a saying when they referred to mercy and compassion.  They called it splachna.

Now the Greeks had a word which referred to the commiserating act of kindness which was a show of mercy (eleos), but that didn't express EMOTION.  The Greeks had another word that provoked the image of sympathy for another's plight (sumpathos) but that was "head" or "thought" process and action. 

Splachna was a different word.  It described that which comes from the gut.  It was emotive mercy.  It depicted the moving of the viscera in such a way that the person feeling this compassion almost (or in some cases did) defecate.

Splachna is that which moves one - from his own resources - to give to the poor, work in soup kitchens, provide clothing for the less fortunate and contribute to charity.

Today's liberal establishment and radical leftists do not have this splachna (as they say they do).  They have neither eleos nor sumpathos, for all three of these would require active participation of some sort in the lives of those who are the recipients of such displays.  The Socialists/Democrats and left wing advocates have what the Greeks call hypokrites, from which we get the word "hypocrite."

To the Greeks the hypocrite was a play-actor, one who hid behind a mask so as to conceal the real person behind it.  In the ancient Greek plays, no viewer was able to identify the actor by his face because it was never revealed to the audience. Invariably, a person's real self was hidden.  Democrats hide behind their masks, but they fail to conceal the real "them."

For instance, how can a person like Rep. Charles Rangel, (D-NY), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and millionaire fifty times over, be considered sympathetic, emotional and moved from the viscera when he sees the poor of his Harlem district without jobs, education and tolerable living conditions?  According to his 2005 tax return, Rangel, who is considered one of the wealthiest African-Americans in the United States, gave to no charities or church organizations, but did contribute to such 501-C-3s as ACORN!

Rangel, who, as mentioned above, heads the very committee which writes tax law. He has not once, not twice, but three times been caught short changing the IRS by failing to claim income earned on various business enterprises in which he participates or owns.

On August 26th we learned that Rangel filed a grossly misleading financial disclosure report for 2007 -- failing to report at least half a million dollars in assets.

Beyond that, we've learned that Rangel has failed to report assets totaling more than $1 million on legally required financial disclosure forms going back to at least 2001.

The news comes on top of revelations last year that Rangel didn't report -- and didn't pay taxes on -- income from a villa in the Caribbean. In that matter, the Internal Revenue Service gave him sweetheart treatment; Rangel paid about $10,000 in back taxes but was not required to pay any penalty or interest.

But yet, Rep. Rangel claims that he is a compassionate politician set to improve the lives of the impoverished.  How does he plan to do that?  Through government intervention, of course.

It's the same song and dance story that the vast majority of Democrats since Lyndon Johnson has promoted.  It's not that they are personally involved in the lives of the poor constituents of their states, districts or the country as a whole.  They want to throw taxpayer dollars at the problems - forcing the people to be sympathetic, compassionate and emotive.  How can that be when we don't know or even represent these unfortunate?

Rangel is one of over two hundred Democrats in Congress who claim to be compassionate and show that compassion by forcing others to give when, they themselves make no individual sacrifices of their own.

Bill Clinton described the real "compassion" of the liberal establishment well when on April 2, 1992 he said to ACT UP member Bob Rafsky, "I feel your pain."  Clinton was in New York that day promoting his AIDS agenda when Rafsky told him that the poor and blacks in his community are "not dying of AIDS as much as we are dying of 11 years of neglect" referring the policies of the Reagan and G. H. W. Bush administrations.

Feelings!  They are tricky things!  But one thing stands out about feelings - they are not necessarily based on facts and they certainly are not bases for facts.

Facts are also tricky things!  They are documented items based on actual events.  Facts often are derived from a thought process or thought processes which result in an action that can be substantiated. 

Have you ever noticed the increased rhetoric by liberals who are now accusing anyone who disagrees with any part of the Obama agenda as racists?  Anyone who did not vote for Obama is a racist.  Anyone who criticized a Presidential appointment, directive or proposal is a racist. Anyone who thinks Mr. Obama is wrong about his facts (much less thinks he as skewed those facts so as to be called a "Liar") is a racist.

There is no evidence that my youngest son, my wife, my next door neighbor (who happens to be black) or myself are racists, except we voted against Mr. Obama!  WOW!  If voting against the President means I and others are racist, then explain to me any factor around which this can be substantiated.  If I said I would never vote for a black (or use any expletive you create in your mind) then you might have a case of racism. 

The reason I didn't vote for him is the same reason I wouldn't have voted for Hillary Clinton (oops, now I'm a sexist).  Better yet, I wouldn't have voted for John Edwards, or any other Democrat who, in 2008 would have been beholden to special interest groups and George Soros.  I voted against DEMOCRATS, which today means I voted against SOCIALISM!

Before entering the voting booth I had carefully surveyed the facts behind each of the six candidate on the ballot in my state. I found that two (Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader) were for completely eliminating free-markets and destroying the Constitution, one crusaded for nationalization of just about everything from health care to businesses in the name of Marxism (Barack Obama), one was a spend-thrift, and who's voting record left me with the impression that he didn't know when to say "stop" (John McCain)' one wanted to legalize everything not socially acceptable to the masses (Bob Barr) and one put the Constitution and the Founding Fathers up as the model and mandate for American Democracy (Chuck Baldwin).

Liberals would say that voting for someone not in the two major parties is foolish and a throwing away of one's vote.  They would further add that not voting for Obama was racist. But, mind you, Cynthia McKinney is black too!

I have news for you.  I am a conservative, McKinney, Nader, McCain or Obama aren't!  Bob Barr was too libertarian for my tastes.  So, after three months of agonizing thought, I cast my lot for Chuck Baldwin who never stood a chance.  I did that to make a statement: I am an American, who believes in the Constitution and this Democratic Republic which has stood firm since the original signers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.

Yeah, I voted for a long-shot, but I voted for freedom. That coming after a lot of thought!  That's the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals "feel," conservatives "think."

So, the next time Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Rangel, or John Conyers or Maxine Waters goes before the cameras and make profound statements like "the right wing conspiracy is trying to arm its followers in an attempt to assassinate gays, aliens within our borders, blacks and all the democrats around the country", just know that these are feelings.  They aren't even gut feelings, or sympathetic feelings, or a commiserating act of kindness.  It's just the hypocritical wailings of those who don't have any facts, no data at all, who just choose to resort to the only thing they know how to do: Name Calling!

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.