The religion of liberalism has many sacraments. To remain a leftist in good standing, one must not only adhere to, but champion them. There is the sacrament of accepting all illegal aliens and now Muslim refugees, as long as they don't make it to the Village, the Upper West Side, Malibu or Georgetown. Global warming, or the more all-encompassing climate change, is another. And of course there is abortion, the "living wage" as well as the legalization, or at least the destigmatization, of drugs. There are others, but these are some of the most important chapters contained in the religious doctrine of The Book of Liberalism.
Like adherents to the Ten Commandments, the observant liberal should always attempt to champion all leftist ideals. It's not good enough to take the a-la-carte path. One must agree that all people are citizens of the world with the same rights as we rich Americans, and therefore it isn't proper that any be denied entry – again, providing they don't set up camp in liberals' backyards. One has to draw the line somewhere.
One must also agree that the science of man-caused climate change is indeed settled as define by their high priests. Anything less is considered heresy and will be punished with excommunication.
Advertisement - story continues below
And one must agree that cigarettes will kill you, but the legalization of marijuana is a good thing and that it is definitely not a gateway drug, leading the pothead to experiment with other substances. Here, like global warming, the science is also settled.
But what happens when a high priest or priestess like, say, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, doesn't strictly adhere to all leftist doctrine? Does the supreme church council convene to devise an appropriate punishment for the wayward priestess? No – of course not. That's only what Republicans do – throw their own overboard at the first hint of recalcitrance. Democrats will at least give the accused an opportunity to save him or herself.
They may cast off one of lesser station, but Blabbermouth received a pass by reminding us of the most important liberal Commandment.
Schultz was recently interviewed by the New York Times Magazine where she was given a platform, as one might expect, to spout off about how bad Republicans are and that men are still treated better than women.
Advertisement - story continues below
But then the interviewer touched on the drug issue. Schultz is not in favor of legalizing pot for anything but medical usage, as she stated: "I just don't think we should legalize more mind-altering substances if we want to make it less likely that people travel down the path toward using drugs. We have had a resurgence of drug use instead of a decline. There is a huge heroin epidemic."
But wait – I thought the science was settled? Hasn't the left said that marijuana has been proven not to be a gateway drug? In fact, like most leftist scientific claims, it is not settled. The left loves to cite a scientific study that shows "slightly less than half of Americans over 12 have tried marijuana, while less than 15 percent have taken cocaine and less than 2 percent used heroin." The problem is that this was neither scientific nor a study. It was the latest National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health. A survey is not a scientific study.
However, there was a scientific study done by Rutgers University: "The results suggest that alcohol is not a prerequisite for progression to marijuana, but marijuana use nearly always precedes use of more serious substances such as cocaine, crack and heroin. Furthermore, with the growing prevalence of marijuana (since 1965) the importance of alcohol as a gateway to marijuana use appears to have declined, and marijuana's role as a gateway to serious drug use appears to have increased." But then, which are we going to believe – a university study or a government survey?
Now, even Blabbermouth might have been hung out to dry on this if it weren't for a strategic save. "I guess I'm protective. Safety has been my top legislative priority. I'm driven by the idea that safety is really a core function of government," said Schultz. For good measure and to leave no doubt of her liberal bona fides, she added that, "I don't think we should just let things happen to people and let them be stupid and the victims of the consequences of their actions. I think we can put enough obstacles in the path of poor decision-making."
Ahhh – that's better. That's the statist we know and love. I guess then the moral of the story is that as long as one in authority has pledged to regulate all human behavior, its OK to divert from the pack on a single issue.