I find elite socialist liberals to be amongst other things, a curious lot. Not because of what they stand for as such, but because of what they don't stand for when it pertains to them. They pontificate about what should be and must be for others, but the question that begs an answer is: Does their feigned social altruism apply to them?

Fomenting on Grutter v. Bollinger Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., preached the gospel of "The continued need" for affirmative action to a gathering of civil-rights lawyers saying: "The court reaffirmed the compelling interest in racial and ethnic diversity in higher education." ("Court's affirmative action decisions add fuel to political debate" – Sean Loughlin, June 23, 2003)

It's nice of Teddy to feel that way, especially since it doesn't impact any of his clan. How long would it be before he either overtly or covertly undermined race-based initiatives in higher education if his children or grand children were being denied entrance to Harvard Law School because they're white?

It's easy for the bulbous Kennedy to feign superfluous magnanimity to those eager to feed upon the nutrientless broth of victimology. But would he be as magnanimous if Kara, Edward Jr., and Patrick – his children – each had earned 161 or better on their Law School Admission Tests and had grade point averages of 3.8 or better only to find out, that based solely on the color of their skin, they were denied entrance in favor of LSAT's of 141 and GPA's of 3.4? Add to the scenario that the minority students were from a poorly performing school in Washington, D.C., and dropped out midway through the third semester, because they were unable to do the work. Would Teddy be singing the same song about affirmative action?

I have asked any number of politically correct liberals the direct question: "Do you want your little boy or girl to grow to be a homosexual?" They, of course, reflexively respond with "We would love them just the same." To which I respond: "I asked if you wanted them to grow up to be homosexual?" When all of the dancing stops and they are pinned down, without exception, not one – zip, nadda' – have responded, "Oh yes, I can't wait for my child to become a homosexual – we want that more for our child than anything else."

Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., and Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. are examples of pro-choice, pro-condom liberals, to name but a few in Congress. I would challenge them to tell us how many abortions their 14-year-old daughters have had. I would challenge them to tell us how many out-of-wedlock children their sons have fathered.

Lincoln Chafee's office called in August of last year to badger me because of comments I made referencing him in my column "The real National Zoo." (Aug. 17, 2004). His office tried to convince me there was a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.

I demand to know from them why they, along with their party leaders, advocate the murder of over 10 million unborn black children while admonishing their children to higher standards. If they don't advocate different behavior for their children, they place human beings on a sub-level to animals. If they do advocate different behavior for their children, then they place blacks on a sub-level to animals. Either way their records are indefensible.

Few are more oratorically challenged than Ted Kennedy. Whether this has been brought about by his relationship with Ms. Cutty Sark or from spending too much time in the Chappaquiddick River, one thing is for certain: His father, who was a gangster, rum runner, philanderer and rabid segregationist did not purpose for him or his siblings to be poorly educated.

Yet Kennedy ensures D.C. public-school children are just that, because he along with his congressional brethren opposes vouchers and opposes educational savings accounts. Put succinctly, his money, family and political connections ensure his children the best schools while condemning those much less fortunate to the worst educational system in the country.

Kennedy, like his equally opprobrious congressional sisters Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton, uses his position to afford the best education and creature comforts his money can buy, while sentencing others to failure.

Add to that that Kennedy and his congressional minions are opposing Social Security personal retirement accounts – further condemning not only the children, but their parents as well to that which liberals most often lament: poverty.

They are the elites. They and their kind fancy themselves above the more common, working folks.

I have come to know and meet many liberals. The one thing they all share in common is that which they dictate for the masses is always beneath what they expect, demand and provide for their own. Yet somehow people believe they're best for America.