WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BANK ROBBER AND A LIBERAL?

The difference was made gin-clear by a recent editorial in the International Herald Tribune, wholly owned by the New York Times, sneeringly entitled The Nanny State?

The difference is this:  A bank robber doesn't claim he has a moral right to steal your money.  A bank robber doesn't claim his thievery makes him the moral superior over his victims.

Liberals do – which makes them far more immoral than common criminals, thugs and thieves. 

According to the IHT, "The United States has long had one of the most meager tax takes in the industrial world [at least they call it ‘take,' as in ‘theft'].  America's social spending [i.e., welfare programs] is almost the stingiest among industrial nations."

Such meager and stingy theft is condemned as a "moral outrage," a contemptibly "tightfisted" approach to "public needs."

It is liberal thievery that is the moral outrage – and we have a Congress in Washington run by such thieves because too few conservatives have the courage to denounce the criminality.

One reason is that to do so, conservative Republicans would also have to denounce the morality of the voters who put the thieves in office.

As Jack Kelly succinctly puts it:  Democratic voters expect Democrats to steal on their behalf.

How refreshing would it be for a politician to tell voters, "If you want me to steal from other taxpayers and give the loot to you, I don't want your vote.  I only want your vote if you want to send me to Congress to stop the stealing, not participate in it."

The rarity of such political refreshment reveals the difficulty of telling voters the truth – for it involves telling many of them they are thieves.  Not an easy way to get elected.

Liberals live in an Orwellian world where morality and immorality, theft and honesty, are reversed.  It's what makes Congress so perverse.  Just be glad that for how you conduct your personal life, it's not the world in which you have chosen to reside.