Liberals, Hypocrisy, and Bears, Oh My!

Gabriel Garnica


The recent controversy regarding a Berlin zoo’s rescue of a baby polar bear rejected by its mother is a classic example of liberal hypocrisy, absurdity and cruelty. A BEAR'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE

It seems that little baby Knut, born on December 5th, was left out to die with his brother on a rock in the bear pit by his mother Tosca, a 20 year-old East German circus bear. Keepers scooped up the cubs and placed them in an incubator but, unfortunately, only Knut survived.

The fluffy white cub has been raised like a pampered baby, being fed chicken puree, having his own Christmas tree, sleeping with a teddy bear, playing with a football and being lulled to sleep by Elvis tunes.

The controversy centers on the notion that the keepers who saved this cub from certain death did not do him any favors. Frank Albrecht, an animal rights campaigner, and Wolfgang Ludwig, Director of the Aachen Zoo, adamantly believe that the Berliners made a serious mistake in saving Knut.

Albrecht has observed that “Hand feeding is not appropriate to the species and is a grave violation of animal protection laws….Legally speaking, the zoo should kill the baby bear…otherwise, it is condemning the bear to a dysfunctional life and that too is a breach of the law.”

Ludwig agrees with this assessment, adding that “It is not correct to bottle-feed a small polar bear. He will always be fixated on his keeper and will never grow to be a proper polar bear.”

Given the absurdity of a so-called “animal rights activist” demanding that an animal spared from a cruel death be killed to be spared a “dysfunctional” life of pampered living, I am surprised that someone did not mention that, after all, Tosca’s “reproductive rights” have been violated. She did choose to murder her babies and that is a personal choice isn’t it? Can’t you just see animal rights activists running around declaring that Tosca should be given the same rights as human females to “terminate” their motherhood?

Now, you will argue, this is not like an abortion case because the baby was already born. However, liberals might answer that, unlike human mothers, a bear cannot express its desire not to have a baby until it is born and the animal obviously rejects it, so it is unconstitutional to violate a bear’s “right to choose” not to be a mother as soon as she is able to do so!

In the end, this case presents a fascinating clash between competing animal rights arguments. On one hand, we have those who argue that the mother’s act was a natural event that should not be interfered with. These people would also argue that it is “cruel” to raise a bear into a giant, furry, spoiled baby. That’s funny; I have been making the same argument regarding raising kids to be liberals for years with little results.

On the other hand, of course, you will have those animal rights types who argue that killing the baby just because it is not a “normal bear” is barbaric and a great disrespect for life. Being a pro-life type, I opt for the second view, being nauseated for years by those idiots who claim that ripping an unborn child to pieces so he or she “won’t suffer” in poverty, illegitimacy or disability is compassion.


This situation has so many liberal markings as to become a model case for typically liberal asinine reasoning. First, it should surprise nobody that some fool actually thinks that the world will end because one bear will grow up to resemble Winnie more than Grizzly. Second, it should likewise be no shock to the brain that some imbeciles think that it is more compassionate to kill a baby bear than allow it to have a second chance at a life its own mother wanted to prevent it from having. Leave it to clueless “experts” to decide when life is not worth saving.

Liberals are typically so caught up in their twisted notions of right and wrong, rationalized morality, justified cruelty and elitist drivel that they cannot find the time to come down from their ivory padded rooms long enough to taste the sweet honey of common sense that they have been on a diet from for so long.

This case exemplifies the kind of liberal dementia that allows the Left to claim it is protecting children while it murders them before birth and argue that it is seeking better education while it glorifies and preserves institutionalized public stupidity and union corruption leading to a nation that wonders if adults are indeed smarter than fifth-graders.

The same asinine mentality that argues that people who illegally enter this nation have as many and more rights than you and I is in full display when morons sing their rendition of the song “Cruel to be kind” while playing judge and jury over life and death.


The case of Knut the cute little polar bear cub in Germany is so absurd as to be profound. It illustrates the simple fact that liberals and their pet causes left common sense and rational thought by the side of the road long ago. They twist simple decency and compassion into some distorted, almost insane version of arrogant elitism that pretends to have a clue what is right and wrong.

I guess that they cannot help themselves. After all, do they not tell us that disabled babies do not have lives worth living and should be aborted? Do they not tell us that mothers should be allowed to murder their unborn children with taxpayer help? In the end, liberals should stop trying to sell us the fraud that they are for the weak and helpless when, most of the time; they manipulate or terminate those same people they proclaim as their life’s mission.

We have reached the point where these idiots are beside themselves that a cute baby cub will be Winnie The Pooh for life. Maybe, just once, these fools should take Winnie’s advice and just “think, think, think” because, as it stands now, they cannot see the forest from the trees and that forest to common sense might as well be a thousand acre wood.

Daley Times-Post