Al Gore is now leading a “carbon-neutral lifestyle.” A carbon-neutral lifestyle is how liberals get around being hypocrites. It seems that a carbon-neutral lifestyle means that Al can drive an SUV, fly in privately chartered jets, and heat multiple 10,000 square foot mansions, so long as he offsets his carbon-dioxide emissions by planting a tree in the desert or installing solar panels in Africa.

Tired of being photographed and appearing on the Drudge Report leaving Global Warming summits in Hummers and Escalades, liberals have come up with an elaborate scheme of explaining away their do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do ways. Arianna Huffington is noted for complaining about Global Warming and then explaining her high-class jet travel thusly: “The plane was going there anyway.” But now she can say: “Yes, I do drive an gas-guzzling SUV, but I planted a tree in my back-yard!”

Off-setting is a great idea when it comes to, oh say, dieting whereby if you promise to run an extra mile at the gym you can eat some birthday cake. But when it comes to an action that is constantly being stated by liberals as resulting in a life-threatening, world-ending, glacier-melting, hurricane-causing mess, one would think that they would stop constantly doing those problem-causing activities. I mean, they complain all the time. Constantly. Daily. And make long, boring movies about it.

But cutting out such evil is not a very convenient solution for liberals. A liberals’ idea of rationality is that if they do one thing they consider to be “the good” then they have a free pass to do however much of “the evil” they want to. Imagine the absurdity of other possible “neutral” lifestyles. Why not lead a “human-neutral” lifestyle? For every one child brought into earth, you get credit for one free murder. Whoops, the Party of Abortion already practices that one.

If something is declared as evil, it should be done away with altogether, not merely excused away. But then this level of reasoning perfectly explains liberals’ take on the War on Terrorism. When conservatives declare something as “the evil” they pretty much cut it out of their lifestyles. In dealing with terrorists, we are all too happy to kill as many of them as possible as often as possible. On the occasional circumstance when liberals are forced to call terrorists evil, and not the more-favored “freedom-fighters” or “disgruntled ethnic-minority youths”, liberals show how they go about handling their evil.

That is to say: they oppose killing terrorists in Iraq, oppose detaining terrorists in prison, oppose the surveillance of possible-terrorist suspects, oppose trying to narrow down potential terrorists on airplanes… I’d go on, but I don’t want to leave the false impression that liberals don’t want to fight terrorism. I guess we’ll just call it their “terrorist-neutral” policy.

But being “whatever-neutral” is the in-thing these days. Howard Dean was going to live a sanity-neutral lifestyle but could only find one rational thought for every ten conspiracy theories. Conservatives may be a lot of things – what is it; we are mean-spirited, selfish, and intolerant? – but at least we aren’t crazy. For liberals, it’s a requirement for elected office. Figure that Hillary Clinton has already lost the vote of Madonna, Cindy Sheehan, and Charlie Sheen for not being crazy enough.

And it’s not just that liberals are crazy when it comes to covering up their hypocritical and intellectually void tracks. Liberals haven’t met a conspiracy theory they haven’t liked. George W. Bush either knew about or helped to plan the twin tower terror attacks, plus a plane never hit the Pentagon, and crazed right-wingers rig every election that Democrats lose with their electronic voting schemes, voter-scaring dogs, or butterfly ballots. Hillary Clinton’s theory was that all of Bill’s women were part of some vast right-wing conspiracy (at least if true, it would have been an amusing conspiracy). And lest we forget, with the Hurricane Katrina anniversary here, George Bush let the levies break in order to drown the New Orleans population. It was either that, or Bush caused Global Warming, which caused the Hurricane, which caused flooding. I can’t keep track.

While there is no shortage of sanity-neutral conspiracy theorists on the left, all the conservatives have is Pat Buchanon. And he isn’t the leader of the Republican Party (or even a member of it), a US Senator, or a President’s wife. (In fairness, he was part of conspiracy theory #2043-B, whereby elderly voters in Palm Beach County were tricked into voting for him for President instead of Al Gore, costing Gore the election!)

So, conservatives are mean-spirited and selfish. Fine. I’d actually welcome a liberal who was mean-spirited and selfish yet sane. It’s getting to the point where I’d be compelled to switch parties, just to vote in a primary to help nominate a Democrat who at the very least doesn’t want to see the United States in flames. I started to have some hope when Georgians booted the fanatical Cynthia McKinney from the Democratic primary in favor of someone who is at least grounded in reality. But then Connecticut happened.

capitolhilljournal.com
Pre-Order: Stuck on Stupid: The Elitist Liberals’ War on America by Hawkins

To make a short story long: Sui, a single mother, is in her first year of graduate school and is complaining about the costs of graduate school and how only “the rich” can afford to go. Thus, she wants graduate tuition to be lower and more federal aid to be available. In other words, she wants me to pay for her to go to college.

Two things become obvious to me upon reading Sui’s sappy Washington Post piece. 1) She is a Democrat. Yes, this was confirmed following an internet search where she popped up as being very involved in the Young Democrats of America and in photo’s with Democratic Senator Daniel Akaka. I know, you were all very surprised to learn this as well. And two, that she is irresponsible, lazy, and a freeloader. That much is obvious, no internet search was required.

Sui describes the typical grad student thusly: “It seems that graduate-level education is open only to the select few who can afford it — people who usually come from wealthy, upper-class families.” Well, I remember my first year of Grad School quite well (which would be, last year!). I was very far away from coming from a “wealthy, upper-class family.” But I had this thing called a “job.” I started working when I was 18, worked full-time throughout my undergraduate years and by the time I went to Grad School I was working 48 hours a week to pay for my own books, and my own living expenses (the horror!). I know I could have had out-of-wedlock children and whined about everything, but thanks to a healthy rendition of We Shall Overcome, I managed to survive.

But this isn’t about my story of being self-reliant; this is about Sui’s inability to be. So, before Sui demands that my tax dollars go to fund her education, I decided to give her some tips on how she might be able to fund her own education. Good luck, Sui Lang Panoke!

Suggestion 1: Don’t have children you can’t afford. Whoops! She already ruined this one. I know, I should weep for the unwed mother. I’m sorry that Sui makes bad decisions and now has a fatherless child, but how does this wind up being a problem I’m supposed to solve? And I’m already guessing that she is well on her way to milking the system on this whole kid thing. The odds are pretty good that she doesn’t pay federal income taxes and instead receives a check from the federal government (me) known as the Earned Income Credit (EIC).

Suggestion 2: Get a full-time job. Oh wait; she can’t get a full time job because then she wouldn’t qualify for assistance to pay for her childcare, which is funded by… me! And remember, her having a child but no husband is my fault, so I’m glad to fund her childcare. (I’m seeing a trend here, and I think I now qualify to write off Sui Lang Panoke as a dependent on my next tax return).

Suggestion 3: Don’t go to American University. In case Sui did not notice, the tuition for a graduate student at American University is $18,864 per year. If cost were a major concern, wouldn’t it be wise to go to a graduate school within her budget? I know, I’m getting a little carried away here, but Sui is paying triple what she would if she went to an in-state graduate program. If you can’t eat the steak, buy the hamburger. Don’t order the steak and cry that it costs too much. Typical elitism.

Suggestion 4: If all else fails, accuse a group of athletes, preferably white, of doing all kinds of racially insensitive things to you. If you play your cards just right, Jesse Jackson may pay for your tuition! It doesn’t even matter if you tell the truth or not. Isn’t that race card thing great!

Sui Lang Panoke, you are obviously a bright star. You make the Democratic Party proud, I’m sure. After all, where would the Democrats be without the tiresome, whining, greedy, elitist, irresponsible, elitist, pay-for-my-child, pay-for-my-education, pay-for-my-books, pay-for-my-apartment attitude and non-self-reliant, non-consequence oriented people like you? I’m just glad that one day you will be in government after getting your Graduate degree. Keep it real, baby!

Dustin Hawkins is a social and political commentator. His website is www.dustinmhawkins.com and he can be reached at dustinmhawkins@yahoo.com.

And that’s not even mentioning the thousands of others who are eager to break into the country, steal identities and Social Security numbers, forge documents, lie under “penalty of perjury” to obtain employment, and, in many cases, fill up our prisons after committing burglaries and murders. So obviously, we don’t need to build a fence. Besides, as we all know, “it won’t work.”

These are people who think that having in-depth, graphic discussions about sex in 8th-grade classrooms “will work” at preventing 8-th graders from having sex, but this whole fence idea is just nuts. Of course a fence would work. The goal of a fence is to prevent people from getting from point A (what will be known as “there”) to point B (what will be termed as “here”) – Or at least make it difficult for them. Fences do that. If the communists could build a wall in the 1960’s capable of keeping people in, certainly the United States could come up with something today that could keep people out. I mean, hello, the communists did it. Limiting deaths from mass starvation to 10,000 people was considered a “good week” for these people and they managed to build a wall that lasted almost three decades.

I know this is all confusing, but really, I’m just here to help. For example, my neighbors’ dog used to break the border, or what I like to call my backyard, and leave various “gifts” around the lot. This wasn’t as serious as being a colossal drain on public funds, forcing me to pay for the hospital stays of indigent illegal aliens, having identities stolen, and not paying a “fair share” of taxes, but it was annoying nonetheless. I was wondering one day about how to keep said dog out of my yard and came across this brilliant solution: Shoot the dog. No wait, that definitely was not the solution. My solution was: Build a fence. Despite much argument from the dog that my building a fence wouldn’t keep him out, I persisted on and built the fence.

Much to the dismay of the dog, by the time I was finished he could not get in. And this wasn’t even a complicated fence I built – I started with an 18-foot high concrete slab, reinforced with electric-shock steel barrier, 6 feet of rusty barbed wire and a moat with piranhas and alligators, in case the Department of Homeland Security was seeking any suggestions. Initially I thought, “this will never work,” displaying the optimism of politicians who have lost an argument. But, lo and behold, there is no more dog poop in my backyard.

Perhaps the government is being cautious in saying that something they are in charge of creating “won’t work.” This is at least an argument that I can understand. The government is behind public education (“doesn’t work”), welfare (“doesn’t work”), and building and maintaining roads (don’t even get me started). The government could take over a recitation of the alphabet and after two years there would be 37 letters and $450 billion in public funds spent. So if the point they are trying to make is that they are inefficient, I can get where they are coming from.

But somehow, I don’t think that is what they are trying to tell me. In addition to actual fences “not working” we are supposed to believe that proposed virtual fences “will work.” How about we send politicians a “virtual paycheck,” that would work for me. Also, deportation “will not work,” or as President Bush put it: “That a’int gonna work.” (Yes, my Microsoft Word spell-checker just went berserk.) So, to break this down: Building fences will not prevent people from crossing a place where a fence currently doesn’t exist, and sending people back from whence they came is “impractical.”

What is practical is: Letting illegal aliens stay while giving them Social Security benefits, making them pay unpaid taxes for just 3 of the past 5 years (would be that I were so lucky), enforce “fines,” make them learn English, let them bring their families over, let those who want to come in legally wait longer, and have the illegals “prove” how long they have been in the country by making a good-faith statement (most likely in Spanish). I’m contemplating running for office – And if I do, my platform on this will be: “It won’t work.”

Meanwhile, no word on whether or not the illegals decided to boycott the use of our welfare system or the use of our hospitals. Did they boycott not paying taxes? Did they boycott being criminals? Did they boycott obtaining illegal identifications? I think that if they really want to show us how much “we need them” they should leave the country altogether. Yes, it’s a brilliant idea. By their theory – and this is why they are known as a population of thinkers – if they left the country altogether we would see how badly we need them would then beg them to come back as we were forced to completely open the borders. I’m game. Go. Bye-bye. Adios.

Sadly, the boycott of America’s least desirable citizens/non-citizens was about as effective as a marketing campaign for water from a fresh Tijuana spring would be. But then there could be worse things than parasites floating in you drinking water. (For instance, say, parasites floating over your borders).

The only good thing that ever left Mexico and landed in America is Mexican food. And the best Mexican food isn’t even cooked by Mexicans. It is cooked by me, in my kitchen, in the house that I clean (somewhat) with the lawn outside that I mow – you know, all that work that we gringos won’t do.

Everything else that Mexico has sent us we will gladly send back. We don’t need Mexican-style poverty, nor do we need their drug cartels. I don’t need a sombrero, as cool as they are. And even Mexico’s only major industry – apparently making plastic beaded jewelry – does me little good. But man, do they “work hard” at making that jewelry.

And thus the world’s most hard-working population – illegal alien, non-English speaking Mexicans of course – makes the first day of May a Day of Rest/Boycott/Complaining so as to prove how hard working they are by… not working. I know it is all very confusing, but remember you don’t get a stellar economy and the high quality of living that Mexico enjoys without great revolutionary ideas. And boy, what great revolutionary ideas these are!

Given the successes of the Mexican lifestyle and economy, revolutionary genius group Mecha wants to return Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to Mexico. I’d give them California, but San Diego is beautiful this time of year. And it is beautiful mainly because it’s not part of Mexico. (For instance, when was the last time you heard anyone say: “Tijuana is beautiful this time of year?” despite the two cities being within walking distance of one another.)

And thus the point: San Diego shows what happens when you follow the capitalist, English-speaking ways of the Great Satan: You have a clean city, drinkable water, high employment rates, and outrageous real estate prices. As an added bonus, San Diegans don’t get randomly stabbed and robbed for not buying bubble gum from small petulant children.

Mexico shows what happens when you follow the ways of the Revolutionary Communist party: Dirty water, dirty streets, dirty buildings, dirty bathrooms, and dirty food. Also, there are no decent jobs. And it says a lot when the biggest industry in Mexico involves children running to unsuspecting tourists, latching onto their legs and yelling “CHICLE CHICLE.” Viva la revolucion! You’ve come a long way baby!

Also, Mexicans are obsessed with donkeys. They have donkey races, donkey parades, donkey prize shows, donkey tattoos, stuffed toy donkeys, and donkey-shaped cookies. It’s a wonder Texas claimed their independence from them and that Mexico subsequently lost the Mexican-American War.

Now, I don’t want this all to sound like an anti-Mexican screed. I actually like Mexico… okay, that’s a lie. I hate Mexico. But I do have Mexican friends. Legal Mexican friends, and they are great. They speak English, have mixed their culture with American culture, and have become a physical part of American society. And most importantly they got here the right way: by marrying gringos like me.

Now, Mexico would be far worse off if we boycotted them. Mexicans don’t buy their own crappy jewelry. When Mexicans illegally come to America we don’t run to them, latch onto their legs and beg them to buy our crappy watches, candy, and 3 for 10-dollar shirts. There is a reason why you can literally walk into Mexico without notice but can’t walk back to America without waiting in line for 3 hours and being subjected to a full-body cavity search. I won’t take a guess as to why that is, but I’m guessing it has little to do with the donkeys.

The most aggravating suggestion of the illegal-immigrant advocates, which includes President Bush, is that American citizens are lazy. Well, too lazy to do “real” work, anyway. For starters, any job an “illegal” does I do on a regular basis. I do my own yard work, clean my own pool, wash my own clothes, walk my own dog, build my own deck, and clean my own dishes. Now, I understand that the Kennedy’s, The Clintons, the Bush family, and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal might not do such third-world things as mow lawns, but most Americans would. If necessary, most Americans would do such thankless jobs for a living. Which brings me to…

Americans will do any job (yes, any job) if they are paid proper, competitive wages. Illegal immigration causes hiring wages to be artificially low since businesses can forgo having to spend the wages they would otherwise have to pay to get a job done by American citizens. If a business cannot find anyone to work for real, non-artificial wages, then the business is either not paying high enough wages or it is incapable of bringing in the proper revenue to run a business.

Without the illegal immigrants, the laws of economics would kick in and require that businesses pay the proper wages for the job that the business wishes to get done. If they cannot afford to pay enough money to get the job completed, then their product or service is inessential. If it were essential, the customer would be willing to pay enough money to cover the costs that would enable the business be successfully maintained. Most likely, the businesses in question could afford to pay proper, competitive wages to Americans but wish to keep the extra profits for themselves. This enables the businesses to claim: “Americans will not do the job.”

*Many politicians – mainly those who support the amnesty bill – can’t seem to discover that the word “illegal” belongs in front of the word “immigrant.” Ted Kennedy certainly can’t. But those of us who support ending illegal immigration while exporting those who are illegally here are chastised as being “anti-immigrant.” Most of us supposed “anti-immigrant” people fully support legal immigration and encourage aspiring Americans to enter the country through the proper means. Those who break the law should not be given special privileges over those who follow it.

*Cries of protectionism aimed at those who oppose illegal-immigration are misguided. In reality, protectionism is when an entity wishes to protect its own goods and service industries from the competition of foreign entities. (As a hard-line free trader, I whole-heartedly oppose protectionism.) However, the principle of protectionism can only be fairly applied to those goods and services that enter the competitive marketplace or workplace through legal means and then compete fairly.

Legal immigrants fairly compete in the marketplace, but illegal ones do not. Since illegal immigrants do not play by the same rules as either Americans or legal immigrants, the prevention of their employment does not apply to protectionist standards given that their role in the marketplace is as an unfair competitor, a black market product if you will. Failure to criminalize the hiring of illegal immigrants is actually a protectionist method: It is protectionism by those who wish to hire illegal immigrants while making their wages uncompetitive and artificially low.

*Ted Kennedy has picked up a second language: Spanish. Well, he has picked up enough phrases to excite a rallying crowd of legals, illegals, and professional protesters at least. Given that is often difficult to understand his broken English (no pun intended… that’s a lie, it was intended), I wonder if he should tackle another language. However, in any language, it still remains true: Mary Jo Kopechne no esta disponible para el comentario.

*If Mexicans are the hardest-working people on Earth – and according to the pro-amnesty politicians, Mexicans are much harder working than Americans – then why can’t they work to make their country better. Instead of coming to America, let them create their own version of America. Mexico has both the natural resources and the labor force to have a thriving economy. Want to be like America? Then do as the Americans do. Mexico needs to import economic and business strategies, not export citizens.

*What magic wand do the pro-illegal-immigrant politicians expect to wave in order to actually enforce their inane bill? Do they think that a group of people who broke the law by entering the country and continue to break the law by remaining here would suddenly begin to voluntarily follow a law that requires them to pay money and meet various other requirements? Didn’t think so.

*Have Mexican activists taken a page from the PLO? The Palestinians believe that Israel is theirs. Some Mexicans are now claiming that the southwestern part of America is theirs. At least they have not yet taken to armed aggression and fanatical suicidal bombings.

*The rally organizers are getting better. Each new protest/rally/gathering brings a greater number of American flags. Unfortunately, many of the protesters can’t figure out that the flag should not be held on the ground or upside down. Maybe next week’s rally will show improvements.

*The big lie: “America is a nation of immigrants.” This statement is not true, despite its constant usage. Many of us may be the children, grandchildren, or great-great-great grandchildren of immigrants, but most Americans are not immigrants. I am not an immigrant, nor were my parents or grandparents. By the reasoning of the “we’re all immigrants” line, every country on the planet is a “nation of immigrants” and we should all have free movement anywhere we want.

Assuming that 500,000 illegal aliens march across our border each year, three of them came across in the time you have read this column. It’s ok. We can worry about this “little problem” later.

The situation almost seems a parody: A group of men file a lawsuit seeking their own version of Roe vs. Wade so they can “opt out” of having any accountability for a child they helped create. When they aren’t fighting for what they label “Roe vs. Wade for Men” they complain about having to pay for dates, whining that “many professional women still place themselves high on sexual pedestals, expecting to be courted and pursued and paid for.” This is what happens when liberal men pursue professional, conservative women. They have to pay for dates. If these guys want to go Dutch I’d suggest they pick up their women at a screening of the Vagina Monologues. And by the way, good luck with that.

I’m trying to figure out whom the group is actually trying to get on their side. The National Center for Men would have some luck courting liberals if not for a few problems. On the positive side, they support abortion, favor having wild bouts of unprotected sex that result in unwanted pregnancies that they can then pretend never happened, and have turned themselves into pathetic, emasculated wimps – just the kind of men liberal women love. Those are all good things for any group trying to get in with the liberal establishment but unfortunately they are fighting for a supposed men’s right as well, and we all know that being a liberal is all about hysterical militant feminism.

Remember, men have been oppressing women for hundreds of years and being a liberal is all about satisfying the totalitarian goals of the feminist agenda. Liberal men are expected to spend their time fighting for women’s abortion rights, “equal pay” in the workplace, and an end to sexual harassment on the job – unless the sexual harassment comes from Bill Clinton, where your first grope is always free. So this whole faux-pro-male agenda isn’t exactly going to work out too well for them.

There are six groups of activist liberals: Feminist women, feminist men, women who used to be men, men who want to be women, men who just act like women, and men who are owned by women, but still won’t pay for dates. In any event, you get the point. And the point is: There is no pro-male agenda allowed among the liberal elites, even if that agenda includes liberal hard-line issues involving abortion, having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and a complete absence of moral principles.

The group won’t find large numbers of conservatives on their side, either. Conservatives generally believe actions have consequences. Sex, an act, often results in pregnancy, a consequence, and thus a responsibility, raising a child. Any law allowing a man to fully abandon all responsibilities of fatherhood, including child support, would lead to either more abortions or more one-parent families, neither of which is a good outcome. Plus, as already discovered, we do not much care for whiners, either.

But I must admit, I sympathize with the group on a few levels. In instances of divorce, mothers are far more likely to be given greater parental rights than are fathers. Oftentimes the laws batter fathers when it comes the rights that they do have in regards to their children. And I also agree that it is unfair that women have full control over their pre-born child when it comes to abortion, especially when the father would choose life while the mother is choosing death.

There have been over 45 million abortions in the United States since 1973, the combined population of Florida and California, and most have been abortions of convenience and many without the fathers’ consent or knowledge. If men want reproductive rights, the right they should be given is the option to raise their child even if the mother wants to prevent her child from ever being born. Abortion rights activists often say it is their goal to make abortions a “safe, rare, and legal” option, but oppose any measure to make the procedure rare. If fathers are willing to raise their child, they should have full rights under the law to do so and prevent the mother from going ahead with an abortion. Fathers should be notified and have to give consent to an abortion.

If the National Center for Men wants to stand up and be men, then this is the reproductive right that they should be standing up for. Men should have the right to be able to stop the unwanted abortion of their child by the mother who is seeking to avoid the “inconvenience” of parenthood.