The Anger, Hate and Rage of a Liberal

The following is an e-mail that I received from a reader who attempted to pick apart my position statements with regard to Conservatism. To begin with, I'll give him some credit for actually reading the column, but as soon as I give him credit I have to take it right back due to his hateful bigotry and all-around general ignorance. I'll get into further explanation and point out the errors at the end. His comments are indented. Enjoy...

I am a Conservative.

You are a neo-con. A true conservative wouldn't be caught dead spewing the crap you two post on your webpage.

I believe in limited government, a strong defense, and fiscal responsibility. I vote for reducing taxes for everyone.

How can you have a strong defense and reduce taxes? Who's going to pay for the military? Who's going to pay for YOUR president's war?

I vote for pro-life/anti-abortion candidates.

You want to limit government, but you want to legislate morality? You can't have it both ways. Why do you anti-choice people feel that you need to force YOUR beliefs on the rest of us? If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. Who are you to decide what is right for me or my family? And before you give some sort of bulls*** religious answer, let me stop you right there. Your delusional belief in the "dead-jew-on-a-stick" does not give you the right to impose such insanity on the rest of us.

I vote for free market advocates. I vote for domestic energy expansion, including but not limited to ANWR, coastal drilling and shale oil exploration.

Rather than looking for alternative energy sources? Good move.

I vote for candidates who will appoint judges to the bench who will interpret the U.S. Constitution to the letter and according to the intent of the founding fathers.

And just how do you know what the intent of the founding father's was? Were you there?

I vote against socialism in all forms, including but not limited to health care, retirement funding, and welfare.

"Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me... Truly I tell you, just as you did it to the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me." (Matthew 25: 34-40)

I vote against school levies and I vote for school voucher/tax credits.

So the hell with everyone else's children, as long as you get what you want. If that's the case, if you ever attended public school, I suggest you pay back the taxpayers of the community where you attended.

I vote for the strongest military possible.

But lower taxes, right? How do you propose to pay for this?

I vote for traditional religious freedom.

What exactly is "traditional religious freedom?" Is it different from regular religious freedom? I'd love for you to explain this. I'd like some religious freedom as well - freedom FROM your religious beliefs.

I vote for English as the primary language.

I'm pretty sure no one asked you.

I vote for traditional family values.

Whose family values? Yours? Mine? For someone who claims to want "limited government," you sure want government to uphold YOUR ideas whenever possible.

I vote for strict immigration restrictions.

How did your family get here? Unless you are Native American, you and your family have benefited from immigration.

I vote for the Declaration of Independence, the U.S Constitution and The Federalist Papers.

Considering some of the positions you people scream about on your webpage, I have my doubts as to whether or not you've read - or understand - any of those documents.

George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan are my heroes.

With the exception of Ronald Reagan, the 1st or 2nd worst president of the 20th Century, NONE of those gentlemen would agree with any of your positions. In fact, I suspect they'd be appalled by the type of conservatism you support.

I disassociate with those who are racist, those who are divisive with regard to American exceptionalism, and those who do not respect America, American history and the Founding Fathers and their documents.

Yet you clearly have no respect for American history, or the Founding Fathers and their documents.

Perhaps a little less time in so-called "christian" schools and a little more time in legitimate studies would been in order for you. I suggest you have a lot to learn, young man. Your last two "columns," (if by "column," you mean, "an agonizing cry for someone to turn that vibrator in your ass up to 'Rapture'") are little more than sour grapes.

ST

Before I begin addressing these classic Liberal issues line by line, I want you, the current reader, to review the hate and anger coming from "ST." "Dead-jew-on-a-stick," profanity, multiple personal attacks... does this Liberal want us to take him seriously? Sadly, I think so. Several times he bashes religion, and then he quotes from the Gospel. And am I supposed to be offended by his anti-Christian, anti-Semitic language, or am I supposed to honor his use of scripture? I'm always amused when one discredits the Bible, and then uses it to support his argument.

Further, notice that we at XEKE.com attach our names to this website. We're not trying to hind from anything, and certainly not from our positions. I might ask the same of "ST" and other raging-responders. Instead, these Liberals love to hide behind their computers with clever screen-names and use language that they'd never say to our faces... or would they?

If calling me a "neocon" is supposed to be some sort form of derision... oh, well. Liberals love to name-call and label, but what good does it do for "ST" to give me a label when I've clearly defined my positions on my own? In fact, it is the use of names and labels that Liberals have employed to bully their way through debates and conversations. Shout someone down and they may not speak up for themselves. Call someone a racist and then they're discredited. Well not here. And while we're on this subject, I don't think it makes much sense for a Liberal to define for me what is Conservative and what isn't.

I believe "ST's" reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired. I said that "I vote for reducing taxes," not eliminating taxes. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states very clearly,

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..."

I have no complaints with paying taxes to fund our military; it is Constitutionally allowed. I have serious complaints when it comes to many other areas of the federal budget on which the U.S. Constitution is silent. Further, charity ought to be left up to the individual, not the Federal Government. When it comes to acting in Jesus' name, this ought to be a free act of an individual, not a coerced act by a nanny state.

Liberals often like to argue that a nation can't "legislate morality." Funny, because murder, theft and cheating are all issues of morality, and we have laws against them. But when God, or a supreme moral being, is removed from the equation, so are moral absolutes. I cannot speak for all Conservatives, but for many of us, supporting pro-life/anti-abortion candidates isn't about legislating morality, but rather about endorsing and promoting leaders that value life and seek to promote a culture of life. Too many civilizations throughout history have existed as a culture of death (abortion, human sacrifice, assisted suicide, canibalism) and these civilizations have come to crashing ends. A culture of life, whether religious in foundation or not, gives the best conditions for success. The alternative is a culture that places little to no value on life and on the unborn, which is the top of a slippery slope. And before the Liberal brings up capital punishment, I will argue that capital punishment is consistent with a culture of life because it places supreme value on life. Chosing to murder has consequences, and anything short of capital punishment devalues the life of the victim.

Spending a bit more time on the issue of abortion, most who have examined the ruling believe Roe v. Wade is bad law. There is no right to an abortion found in the U.S. Constitution. It is an issue that should be left to the states for judgement. And at the end of the day, why is it such a priority for Liberals to allow a mother the right to kill her baby? Why are alternatives not pursued such as adoption (after the fact) or personal responsibility (before the act)? The more research that comes out, the more we know that babies are living beings, not masses of tissue to be discarded indiscriminately.

It is fascinating that when the Liberal discusses energy policy, oil expansion is off the table. Why does it have to be exclusively one or the other? Alternative energy sources are a great idea... are any of them viable replacements for oil? And are any of them capable of replacing oil as the engine of our economy right now? The free market will determine which are viable and which are not. If wind or solar power could replace oil, private investment would be flocking to have a part of the action. All we've got right now is "The Pickens Plan" and federal tax incentives. What does the Liberal think will happen to our already slowing economy is saddled with energy "alternatives" that are nothing more than inefficient, impractical non-solutions to made-up problems such as global warming that are foced down our throats? Until a good alternative is discovered, what's the problem with accessing our own oil supplies?

On the topic of the Founding Fathers, I do, in fact, happen to know their intent. First, how does Barack Obama know what the intent of Saul Alinsky was? He wasn't there every step of the way during the founding of modern-day community organizing. He knows the intent of Saul Alinsky by reading his work, Rules For Radicals (dedicated to Lucifer, no less). How does the modern-day Liberal know the intent of Karl Marx? He reads the Communist Manifesto. Similarly, the intent of the Founding Fathers is spelled out in the Federalist Papers and other manuscripts that they penned. There is little in his e-mail to suggest that "ST" has read them, either in part or the whole. He seems to have no trouble telling me that I have no knowledge of historic documents, but his positions find no support from them.

On the subject of public schools, I vote against levies because there is rampant wasteful spending in the public schools. Further, the NEA and state teachers' unions (I want to be clear that I am speaking of the unions) are more interested in insulating themselves from performance reviews and criticism than they are in teaching the students. Why are Liberals so against school choice? They like to have choice in many other areas of life, why not schools? (And I'm not sure why I should have to pay the taxpayers back for attending public school... My familiy and I pay and have paid taxes every year according to the law.)

"ST's" reading comprehension slips further on the subject of immigration. Strict immigration restrictions does not equal no immigration. XEKE.com is very pro-immigration as long as assimilation is part of the deal. My ancestors dealt with immigration quotas, and these restrictions were in place for a reason. We've written on this subject previously at XEKE.com. Further, a nation has a national language for a reason. It gives identity and assists order. Achieving multilingal status is admirable on the personal level... go for it.

I'm impressed with "ST's" claimed intimate knowlege of George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Abraham Lincoln, etc. Funny that these and other pillars of American history, while their writings have helped me, and other Conservatives, to form our political philosophy and world view, would at the same time be "appalled." There isn't much about John Adams written thoughts that would support federally-funded abortion-on-demand, taxation for performance artists, or participating in multi-national global-warming treaties. But what do I know?

And at the end of the e-mail, this Liberal concludes with criticizing my education. Good one. I'm comfortable with not only my choice in education and career, but also with the schools that I have attended. Personal attacks, especially when gross language and derogatory, anti-religious terms are used, don't get too far.

I have posted this correspondance to illustrate the anger, hate and rage of the modern-day Liberal. Over the past eight years, this anger has been directed at George W. Bush. It is becoming clear, now that Obama has been elected, that this anger will now be directed at anyone who disagrees with the Liberal agenda. There are certainly well-meaning, reasonable Democrats, but when it comes to the Liberal philosophy, there isn't much thoughtful, rational dialogue. They reveal themselves as capable of little more than name-calling and irrationally structured "arguments."

We at XEKE.com welcome thoughtful conversation with both those who agree with our postions and those with whom we disagree. We're not hostile, and we expect the same of those who write to us.