It’s always fun pointing out the hypocrisy of many liberals. It gets them so flustered and angry and often shows them just how hypocritical their views are on many different subjects.
Years ago, there was a huge ecological push to save the whales and save the baby seals. It was always amusing to see a sticker on one side of a car bumper saying ‘Save the whales’ and on the other side of the bumper would be a sticker supporting abortion.
My husband had the opportunity to politely confront one of these liberal hypocrites. When he asked the lady about her bumper stickers, she said that whales are disappearing and worth saving. He asked if people were not also worth saving and she said yes, they are, but most people can speak for themselves, but whales cannot do that. He then asked how an unborn child still in the womb speaks for him/her self and she began to get all flustered. She tried to take it to the right of the mother to choose and he said that based on that logic, it should be up to the whale hunter to choose and again she got all flustered. Eventually, she said he was just trying to confuse her and she left, ending the discussion.
Notorious ethicist Peter Singer used to advocate eliminating everyone who is no longer a useful contributor to society. Kill the sick, the elderly and so on. At one-time he even indicated that the planet would be better off if mankind went extinct. However, his tune changed once his mother became elderly and ill and needed help. Suddenly, Singer no longer advocated killing the old and helpless.
It’s also the same thing with many anti-hunter advocates. They say that hunting and eating wild animals is cruel and wrong while they sit down and enjoy a nice juicy hamburger or steak. One such anti-hunting fanatic was asked if they would rather be free to roam wherever and then suddenly without knowing it have their life ended or would be they prefer to live their entire life in a pen or cage only to be slaughtered. It didn’t take the anti-hunter long to respond that he would prefer to roam free and then have his life ended without his knowledge. Then it was put to him that hunting verses animal farming is no different. He paused and then admitted that he had never thought of it that way.
The same hypocrisy exists with the people who support sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. The vast majority of them are liberal Democrats who have gone out of the way to protest for illegal aliens. They are all in favor of giving them all kinds of benefits that they do not deserve and are not entitled to. At the same time, many of them also protest for the right to kill unborn children, who cannot stand up for themselves. An illegal chooses to break federal immigration laws to come here. Unborn children do not have that choice. They are helpless, yet the same people who extend rights and benefits to illegal aliens deny unborn children of the same rights and benefits.
This has led famed country and western performer Charlie Daniels to call on cities to establish themselves as sanctuary cities for the unborn. Last Thursday, the 80-year-old singer tweeted:
“How about some cities declaring themselves a sanctuary for the unborn and refuse to abide by the federal laws allowing abortion.”
Can you imagine what the liberal baby killing Democrats would do if major cities did take Daniels’ suggestion to heart and form sanctuary cities for the unborn where no abortions would be allowed? They would be screaming about how wrong it was and all of the typical nonsensical rhetoric they always use to justify the blood on their hands.