Liberalism can no longer be treated as a serious ideology. Nor can it be thought of in any way at all as an American one.
It also isn’t sane and as proof, the left’s latest gambit is to force its way on the nation via the courts by giving “human rights” to lakes, rivers, and streams so liberals can force “the law” to their radical environazi agenda.
The latest idiocy was revealed in an article entitled, “Can Rivers Be People Too?,” published on May 9 by the risible left-wing rag, The New Republic.
The long answer to that question is “no.”
This crazy idea started last year when a group of environazis filed a nuisance lawsuit claiming that the state of Colorado had violated the Colorado River’s “right to flourish and regenerate.”
“Environmental law has failed to protect the natural environment because it accepts the status of nature and ecosystems as property,” said the suit filed by the deranged envirowacko group Deep Green Resistance. DGR added that current law is inadequate because it only “regulates the rate at which the natural environment is exploited.”
Their suit claims that the river should have human rights because its existence supports humans, animals, plants, and the very environment itself.
How did this insensible group come to imagine that this idea is viable? Because liberals have already succeeded in some cases in giving “rights” to animals.
And “why not?” As the absurd liberal rag explained:
Humans aren’t the only ones with rights, after all. In recent years courts have heard cases arguing that chimps, elephants, and other highly intelligent animals should have legal personhood. In India, Ecuador, and New Zealand, courts and legislatures have recently recognized some special rivers as having their own legal rights—the time seemed ripe for DGR’s argument. In 2010, the Citizens United decision extended First Amendment rights to corporations. In 2014, the Hobby Lobby decision secured closely held corporations some measure of religious freedom. U.S. law has granted personhood to corporate entities, the suit argued. Why not ecological ones?
Fortunately, this particular case did not succeed. The nutacse that filed the suit eventually withdrew it: “‘Either American society and our law is ready for this expansion of rights or it isn’t,’ Flores-Williams said. ‘And it appears like right now, at this point, it’s not.'”
But, it hardly matters that this first try failed. After all, liberals don’t bother themselves too much about a little momentary failure. Each and every day they push their extreme, un-American, even anti-human, ideas and every single day their ideas come closer to acceptance.
Salon was right. Look at the push for animals to have rights. 20 years ago everyone but the most radical animal lunatic and Nazi-like PETA whackjob thought animals should have human rights. But during the ensuing years the left kept filing one nuisance lawsuit after another, kept pushing the concept on children, and kept forcing their ideas on society despite one loss after another. Yet, they soon began having small successes. And those small successes built one upon another. Now, the idea of animals being afforded human rights is not seen and universally idiotic as it once was and as it should be.
Gay marriage is also a perfect example of this. When the left first began pushing gay “rights” back in the 1960s they said that all they wanted was for gays to be able to live their lives and love who they choose. But one thing the left always said at that time and for years afterward was that they never wanted to push gay marriage.
For decades liberals waved off the concerns of regular voters that they eventually wanted to tear down the definition of marriage so that gays could wed. It was absurd, they said, to think that gay marriage was their ultimate goal. Don’t worry, they said. We would never push for something as crazy as gay marriage, they assured everyone.
But once homosexuality became normalized, what was the next thing they pushed for? Yep. Gay marriage. But, as they pushed for gay marriage, they told us that they didn’t want to go any farther to normalize other sexual proclivities that used to be called mental disorders.
Guess what came next? After they got gay marriage forced on America by the courts, they began an all out push to normalize “transgenderism.” Soon they were jamming that idea down America’s throats using left-wing government entities and pliant, liberal courts. Worse, their battleground shifted to our children and our schools. And they have essentially won this battle too.
Indeed, we are seeing such radical nonsense in other areas, too. This week we saw a new level of interference with parental rights. A leftist kook who calls herself a “sexual consent expert” is now saying that parents should not be allowed to change their baby’s diaper unless the child gives its consent to do so. Why? Because she claims changing diapers without consent is sexual assault.
Liberals hate parental rights. They want the rights of a parent to raise their own children eliminated so that children will all belong to the state… the state THEY control.
Anyway, the same thing will happen with the idea of giving rights to environmental subjects. Now that this insane idea has been put into action, liberals won’t stop until they win their objective… despite loss after loss. It is in keeping with Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, after all.
This is all of a piece with the descent of liberalism into madness. Many conservative talk show hosts seem to be convinced that liberals and leftists are different things (Dennis Prager and Chris Plante come to mind). They constantly want to claim that liberals are not leftists. But they are wrong. Real “liberals” no longer exist. Yes, there are a dwindling number of Democrat voters who exhibit the traditional conservative ideals that used to define everyday, Scoop Jackson-styled Democrats. But there aren’t any such people in places of power or among activist groups. None. Not. A. One.
The radicals have won the argument on the left and there is no longer a “center-left” milieu in the U.S. today. There are only radical liberals and extremely radical liberals.
But it is also evidence that neither logic nor common sense can form a part of liberal thinking.
They claim they love the Constitution and they fight to give it new meaning in federal court. They claim that the power of the federal government needs to be strengthened to get their way. But then when that doesn’t work, they fight against the federal rules over immigration because such laws get in their way, So, suddenly they claim to love local rule so that they can force local “sanctuary city” rules. And when those efforts start to fail, suddenly they are all about “international law” so that foreigners can come in and force America to bend to the left’s rules.
In other words, they really don’t have any principles nor do they have any legal ideals. Everything is fungible, everything can be bent to whatever they need at the moment.
Liberals have neither logic, nor morals.
Liberals are universally evil.