After years of debating Liberals, hearing and reading the same talking points, and trying to get past those to discover what they actually think, I've gotten somewhat of a handle on what Liberals want. Though they claim to want equality and fairness, a more accurate description would be that they want sameness of result. Where most of us consider starting with sameness of opportunity to be the height of equality, Liberals are more interested in bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

In the case of religion, this is what drives Liberals to attack Christianity -- it's the most popular religion in America. With all its varied denominations, some 76.5% of Americans identified themselves as Christians in 2001. That's not fair, in Liberal minds. The sameness of result demands that all religions be treated the same in the end. In the Liberal view, a 2000-year old religion with millions of adherents across the country should be treated as though it were precisely equal to some made-up Gaia-Wicca-free love cult thing a dozen Californians invented last week while high. To them, there is no difference between the Pope and Moondoggy the Earth Mother shaman. They're both to be treated as the leader of a tiny cult of wackos -- the lowest common denominator.

Liberals are also dedicated to the Marxist idea that there's a finite amount of wealth in the world. That's why they insist on punishing "the rich" (which can be defined as "anyone with a job") for having too much money. If you have more money than you need, they feel, you are somehow keeping the excess from someone else who needs it. Liberals like the idea that everyone should end up with the same amount of money after taxes redistribute the wealth from top to bottom. However, there would be no incentive whatsoever to work harder, better or faster than you absolutely need to, or to improve yourself in any way, if you end up with the same result no matter what. That's why China, North Korea and Cuba need men with guns to control their own population, as the USSR once did. But try explaining that to a Liberal.

Most of us realise that anyone not afraid of hard work has a chance to do well. This is especially true in America, where the only limits are one's own ambition and ability. Liberals love the progressive tax system, which takes a greater percentage of your money as you earn more. It's not fair that you should have more money than others, so your money should be forcibly redistributed to those who make less, in terms of government-run programs and services. With all the loopholes in our Byzantine tax code, however, the truly rich hardly pay at all. Theresa Heinz-Kerry, wife of the Democratic candidate for President in 2004, paid an effective tax rate of only 12.4% in 2003. Her reported income for that year was over five million dollars -- and that's just what her highly-paid accountants couldn't hide in tax shelters most Americans could never afford. That's a far lower rate than the average American pays... and the average American is worth quite a bit less than a billion dollars. The progressive tax system is a dagger aimed at the heart of the middle class, as it only increases the gap between ultra-rich and poor. It forces equality of result, for all but the ultra-rich elites... a group which includes George Soros, Peter Lewis (the chairman of Progressive Corp, the insurance company) the Kennedy clan, the Heinzes and Kerrys, Stephen Bing, Barbra Streisand and the rest of the Hollywood crowd, and so on.

The main reason Liberals always seem to be fighting America's best interests is that we are too powerful, in their view. It's not fair that we have the most powerful economy and military on Earth. They never seem to see the good in America because they seek to highlight any bad they can find, no matter how small, in an attempt to bring America down to the same level as the worst of other countries -- again, the lowest common denominator. They want America to seem no better than North Korea or China in freedom, or the tiny island of Nauru in size or population. Liberals saw the Soviet Union as the military and ideological counterweight to America, a way of equalising the outcome in a zero-sum game. With the USSR gone, their only hope for bringing the US down to the lowest common denominator is the United Nations. Liberals see the UN as a place where all countries are treated as precisely equal, whether they're a nation that promotes freedom or slavery, democracy or totalitarianism. That's why Liberals excuse the UN for its many corruptions, crimes and scandals. Once again, it's an oversimplified sameness of result that Liberals seek, when the rest of us want the UN to be a place where all countries are encouraged to aspire to a higher standard.

In these three areas -- religion, wealth and power -- Liberals show us that their aim is to reduce us all to the lowest common denominator. Many years ago, I read Kurt Vonnegut's 1961 short story, "Harrison Bergeron." The story took place in a future time in which, as the story begins, "everybody was finally equal." Those deemed too intelligent were fitted with devices to interrupt their thoughts. Those thought too graceful or strong were forced to wear weights to slow them down. The faces of those who were too beautiful disappeared behind masks.

No greater horror could await mankind than a world in which everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator instead of being encouraged to be the absolute best they can be. Yet that, it turns out, is precisely what Liberals want.