In Hillaryspeak, this is "generosity."

When Person A forces Person B to give something to Person C, the Left describes Person A as "generous" or "caring" or some other warm and fuzzy concept. Then they give you a blank stare when you ask them how generous or caring they were to person B.

See Hillary's Xmas campaign ad, for example, where she doles out expensive government programs as "presents." She is Person A, the recipient is Person C, and Hillary has stolen the presents from you, the taxpayer, who is Person B.

You'll find from time to time in this blog I point out Randian Superheroes, people who embody the ideals of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

The following bitch is what could be called a Clintonian Superhero.

The holidays were sad enough for Kim Velevis and her husband after their lovable pug "Scooter" dug its way out of the backyard and disappeared on Christmas Eve. But the real blow came with the new year: A letter from an anonymous woman who had found the friendly dog and gave it to her daughter as a Christmas present.

I've figured it out.

First, take a look at this clip from the Socialized Television program “Sesame Street,” keeping in mind that it IS socialized television.




Now, take into account that the Left is all about symbolism.

Bert symbolizes the HAVES in American society. The clay sculpture is the HAVE NOTS. Ernie is the government, and Bert’s nose is money.

The act of appropriating Bert’s nose and giving it to the sculpture is the redistribution of wealth through socialist economic policies such as the progressive income tax.

The government finds the looting of Bert’s wealth laugh-out-loud funny. Why should HE get to keep his nose, after all, when there are so many WITHOUT noses? True, Bert has a right to his own nose, but what are rights when there is need in the country? “Rights” is only a word, after all.

Socialized television does not go on to address the obvious, though. Does Bert not become the HAVE NOTS and the sculpture the HAVES? And why did the government create the HAVE NOTS without noses anyway?

The answer to that one is simple – so that it has an excuse to take Bert’s nose away from him. Ernie resents Bert’s ability to provide for his own needs. Ernie hates Bert’s unconcern for the plight of the sculpture. Ernie hates Bert’s certainty. Ernie, simply put, hates Bert.

But he’ll never admit it.

If I had written that skit, I would leave it exactly the way it is, except at the end, Bert would give a long, protracted, John-Galt-style speech and shoot Ernie in the head.

The bullet being symbolic of the ballot, of course.

Then Bert would take his nose back from the sculpture and tell the sculpture to grow it’s own nose or do without; he doesn’t care which.

End of scene.

Note: I tried to post this yesterday, but it disappeared. Perhaps a sinister, shadowy man smoking a cigarette in a darkened room at the hub of the blogosphere, on orders from our country's shadow government, removed it because of the part where Bert shoots Ernie in the head, not realizing it was symbolic of an election and not the actual shooting of the government in the head.