With Democrats having routed Republicans since the general election, they're in a strong position to further progressive regulations. That means more rules for you and me--not necessarily them. Since I don't have the time to catalog each example of liberal hypocrisy in a separate article, I'll briefly summarize some rather amazing recent examples.

·         Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, on a one-man crusade for gun control since the Sandy Hook massacre, is just fine being surrounded by men with guns. He's just not OK with you having any. Conservative activist Jason Mattera confronted Bloomberg and his security detail  and asked, "In the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?" Bloomberg said he'll get back to him. Means no. Apparently it's fine for he and his family to be protected with guns, but not the little people.

·         The Daily Caller reported that liberal hatchet website Media Matters apparently purchased "multiple firearms used to protect the Media Matters founder." That man, David Brock, reportedly gave his blessing to the purchase, and one of his staff "committed numerous felonies in the District of Columbia and around the country by carrying a firearm ." The Daily Caller obtained an internal email exchange that revealed "the gun was purchased with cash in Maryland, likely to diminish the chances such a purchase would appear on the tax-exempt group's books." Brock, who has a history of mental issues, said he feared "right-wing assassins" and rooftop snipers,

·         Speaking of mental health and gun control, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre Michael Moore tweeted, "The way to honor these dead children is to demand strict gun control, free mental health care, and an end to violence as public policy." Like Bloomberg, Moore, who directed the anti-gun Bowling for Columbine, just doesn't think gun control should hamper HIS lifestyle. His bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York.

·         Liberal author Stephen King wrote that he wished NRA leaders "would be required to put on booties and rubber gloves and help clean up the blood, the brains, and the chunks of the intestine still containing the poor wads of half-digested food that were some innocent bystander's last meal." King has made millions through the sale of violent books. One book that didn't sell well had a character that brought a gun to school and shoot his Algebra teacher.

·         David Gregory, host of NBC's Meet the Press, displayed an illegal high-capacity magazine on the show while advocating for stricter gun control. The Metropolitan Police Department even warned the network beforehand that displaying it would violate D.C. law. However, prosecutors declined to pursue charges against Gregory. To summarize, Gregory wants even more gun laws, blatantly violated one that existed, and skated. Liberals don't like it when their draconian laws apply to them.

·         In "an estate-planning move worth of a Jedi Master," liberal filmmaker George Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney for $4.05 billion--six weeks before higher taxes took effect that would have cost him hundreds of millions.

·         Al Gore, the face of global warming hysteria, made $100 million in petro-dollars from the sale of his CurrentTV network to Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is closely associated with the government of Qatar, which makes money almost exclusively from the sale of oil. Gore reportedly tried to sell the network before taxes increased at the beginning of 2013.

·         Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who got his start in politics as a "corruption-fighting mayor" in New Jersey, is being investigated for allegedly flying on a donor's plan to the Dominican Republic and having sex with underage prostitutes there.

That's enough for now. Hypocrisy isn't limited to just Democrats. Republicans do it too, but generally they are not the ones asking for more laws to be created (at least not the real Republicans, anyway) only to try to get around them.

Imagine it--a rabid anti-gay marriage advocate shows up at the office of a progressive advocacy group, denounces homosexuals, and shoots a security guard.

It would be a lead story for days and weeks. Progressives would demand the heads of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and other conservative leaders for "inciting" the violence with their "rhetoric."

Now that the opposite has happened--a Chick-Fil-A wielding activist from an LGBT group shot up the Family Research Council for its stance on gay marriage--progressives are forced to show how hypocritical they are.

After all, were they honest, the talking heads on MSNBC, the lefty bloggers, and the Democratic politicians would all have to quit. The people that desperately tried to link Sarah Palin to the Gabby Giffords shooting by claiming that Palin's advice to target her district in the next election amounted to a call to assassinate the congresswoman were very clear that the "heated rhetoric" on the Right was to blame for the violence.

The same people more or less labeled Chick-Fil-A as a hate group after the company's president respectfully said he personally supports traditional marriage. Using the Left's logic, they need to lose their radio and TV shows and should resign their political offices. Especially considering how they painted Chick-Fil-A was light years worse than anything Palin did.

I don't think people's political opinions should be silenced because of what some nutjob may or may not do. But the Left apparently does, but only when it comes to silencing Republicans. This incident just contrasts their hypocritical, sleazy political attempts to shut down the opposition, which borders on fascism, with our side, which promotes freedom of speech, fairness, and decency. 

Actions speak louder than words, and the actions opposing political ideologies have taken during the Chick-Fil-A controversy say a lot about their respective underlying philosophies.

Free-market libertarian-types like me want people to "vote" for companies they support with their dollars. If a company has a good product at a good price and doesn't insult our values, then we'll give them our business. If they have a bad product or its overpriced or their don't have the same values, we'll take it to a company that does.

That's democratic and that's fair. If enough people like the company, it stays in business. If the company alienates too many people, it goes out of business. It's up to the business to succeed or fail. There's no need to get nasty or to manipulate circumstances by applying top-down pressure to make it cave or to put it of business.

Progressives want to destroy the company that disagrees with them--it's not enough to take their business elsewhere. They have to teach the company a lesson; they have to shout it down then shut it down.

The last time there was a on-the-streets manifestation of the opposing ideologies, the Right rallied to wave flags on street corners. The movement from the Left attacked police, smashed windows, and started fires.

In the Chick-Fil-A matter, the COO said he supported the Biblical definition of marriage. The leaders of the company have an opinion about something. And just because they have that opinion, they are the target of an unbelievable amount of hate.

Progressives and gay activists can have their opinion too. But they reveal the totalitarian tendencies that lurk in their hearts at the root of their top-down, big government ideology when they use the force of the state to squelch ideological opponents.

Along with the usual anecdotal nastiness we see from the Left--a professor berating a Chick-Fil-A employee, a bomb threat, and the hate-filled tweets--progressives also instinctively go to the state to solve the problem of people using free speech they don't like. The mayors of Chicago, Pittsburgh, Boston, and San Francisco warned the Christian company not to pursue new franchises in their cities.

Not satisfied that Chick-Fil-A is taking a beating in the press and cities are threatening to ban it, gay activists will resume the offensive on Friday, literally, by trying to offend people with public displays of gay affection in the restaurants.

When people like me disagree with something, we don't organize a boycott. We don't try to outlaw speech. We don't try to shut people up. We just go somewhere else. When my ideological opponents encounter something they don't like, all too often their gut reaction is to destroy it. And they want to do it with the big government they've created--revealing what is really in their hearts.

Chinese citizen Pan Chunyan's baby was born dead, "black and blue all over," after government thugs grabbed her from a grocery store and forced her to have an abortion. According to Monday's New York Times:

Pan Chunyan was grabbed from her grocery store when she was almost eight months pregnant with her third child. Men working for a local official locked her up with two other women, and four days later brought her to a hospital and forced her to put her thumbprint on a document saying she had agreed to an abortion. A nurse injected her with a drug.

China's "one-child policy" is something that our progressive vice president "fully understands" and won't second guess.

Addressing social and budgetary challenges faced by the U.S. and China in the wake of respective population booms, Biden told his audience, "Your policy has been one which I fully understand -- I'm not second-guessing -- of one child per family."

He added that the problem he had with the policy is that it is unsustainable in that retirees are supported by fewer workers.  Not that it's pure evil, mind you, just that they shouldn't kill quite so many people that it impacts pensions.

Naturally, the Obama Administration issued a "clarification," saying that it "opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies" and the vice president finds them "repugnant." A Biden spokeswoman said that he was arguing that the one-child policy is "unsustainable" and therefore was criticizing it. Even if she's right, that means he only thought to criticize it on public finance ground and not on moral grounds.

Clarifications notwithstanding, the attempt to aggressively limit population growth is a hallmark of the Left--not just with Communists and National Socialists, but with progressives.

Margaret Sanger, one of the early leaders of the Progressive Movement, wrote that we should "apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to the offspring." She also believed that "the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

Sanger's "no-child policy" didn't stop Hillary Clinton from saying she admired her "enormously" when receiving the Margaret Sanger award from the country's number one abortion provider. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton said she is a progressive in the style of the "progressive era at the beginning of the 20^th century"--Sanger's era--one "that we need to bring back to American politics."

What is that number-one abortion provider? Sanger's Planned Parenthood, an organization so sacred to progressives that they declare war on any group that dares to challenge it. Please note at this point that the organization overseeing China's one-child policy is the "National Population and Family Planning Commission." If nothing else, progressives are great and giving bad things happy names.

Sometimes they're more blunt. President Obama's science czar, John Holdren, floated the idea of forced abortions, forced sterilizations and government oversight of human population levels.

In a 1977 book, he and two other environmentalists wrote, "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."

The trio discussed possible government programs to regulate the population.

Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

That's not far off from Pan Chunyan's forced-abortion injection.

Holdren's book continues with advocating a two-child policy:

Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for "coercive," "involuntary fertility control," including "a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child," which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.

Are modern Progressive Democrats calling for forced population control in this country? No, but as Biden says, maybe they wouldn't second-guess it.

So far we've seen that the number one progressive in the United States, President Obama, saw fit to add to his administration a scientist who one advocated forced sterilizations. The number two progressive, Hillary Clinton, greatly admired a woman who advocated forced sterilizations, and said her entire political ideology is rooted in bringing back the movement that first championed population control in this country. The woman that she and other progressives identify as one of their movement's founders, Margaret Sanger, laid the framework for the country's biggest abortion provider and it remains one of the most fiercely protected organizations on the Left.

While they are unlikely to call for forced birth control anytime soon, is it a stretch to imagine that one day they may attempt to control population growth with a penalizing tax? Many taxpayers already get a credit for having children--how long before progressives flip that around and impose an additional tax on, say, any child after the third. Or perhaps, they can merely provide insurance coverage for the first two children and it's a 100% out of pocket cost after that? On the surface, they could make a pretty convincing argument: Now that government is in charge of health care, we all share each other's burden. Is it fair to ask people with no children to help pay for couples that have six? Shouldn't people kick in a little more if they want to have an "excessive" number of children?

Now that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has said that the government has the power to penalize any behavior with taxation, won't taxation as a form of birth control be the next logical step in the century-old progressive campaign to limit populations?

President Obama's Health Care Act and the subsequent Supreme Court stamp-of-approval clears any legal obstacles to the longstanding progressive vision of government control over "family planning". Forget about forced abortions or sterilizations--why go to all that trouble when it's legally possible now to just impose massive financial penalties on people that have "too many" children? 

To clear-thinking people, the nation's epidemic of obese children has an obvious cause--bad parenting. No amount of government intervention nor hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars can change that, but Michelle Obama and progressives will try. A recently published UCLA study shows just how misguided they are.

Santa Paula, Oxnard, and Port Hueneme had some of the highest weights of obesity in the state. The Star wrote an insightful article on why this might be the case, and how government programs to addres the problem are failing.

People can choose to blame weight issues among children in Ventura County on school cafeterias. They can criticize cities for providing too few parks. They can wag a finger at the convenience store a half-block from a Boys & Girls Club in Port Hueneme or the Jack in the Box beyond that.

But Jimmy Lambaren, a machine operator who likes to cook and insists his 12-year-old son works out regularly, thinks they need a mirror.

"It's the parents' fault," he said outside the Boys & Girls Club, remembering a recent trip to a fast-food joint where he refused to eat. "It was jam-packed. I said, 'These are people who don't like to cook a decent meal.' "

Jimmy Lambaren has more common sense than the First Lady and progressives who support throwing money at the problem.

Elementary schools in parts of Oxnard and Port Hueneme have salad bars. Hueneme High School in Oxnard offers water-only vending machines and a state-of-the-art weight training room. County public health officials are building a healthful-eating, active -living program funded by a $480,000 annual grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, it's becoming more and more clear that healthy eating habits can only be set by parents.

Leaders of some programs worry about funding during the state budget crisis. Others worry about what happens outside their doors.

"We can only control what they do for six hours," said Joy Epstein, principal at Sunkist Elementary School in Port Hueneme. "It's outside factors."

Steffanie Elliott, a mother of two from Port Hueneme, rejects the argument that parents can't find fresh fruits and vegetables. They can but they don't.

All parents can find healthy food, can afford healthy food (and if they can't, they need to rearrange some priorities like their cell phone plans) and only they can give their kids healthy food to eat. Government nanny state programs are a waste of money, ineffective, and lets it intrude into our lives.