The Path to Socialism

After watching Glenn Beck talk about all the hidden symbols of socialism throughout New York, I had an epiphany. Could it be possible that the socialist propaganda could go much deeper than we had thought before? I started my research early in history and looked at our most recent president, George W. Bush. I didn’t think it could be possible for this president to be socialist, but the horrific reality soon struck. I looked at his tax cuts, make sure the rich stay rich. I heard him talk about trickle down. He wanted the rich to have more money so they could spread their wealth down to the least fortunate. It couldn’t be possible, was he actually claiming that more spending by the government in order to allow the rich to spread wealth was a good idea. My knees became weak.

If President Bush was sponsoring socialist ideas could others be doing the same? What about our founding fathers? My stomach felt empty as I researched the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson had asked for public schools. He had asked for the government to pay for socialist program. Fortunately he was turned down. Who knows what could have happened if he would have lead us towards socialism 200 years ago.

By this point I knew that I must let go of my fear and look deep into my heart to find how far this conspiracy goes. I knew Mr. Beck had asked us to step away from churches preaching social justice. So I opened my Bible and read Mathew. Jesus was preaching social justice. My whole reality shattered. Could it be that 2,000 years ago Jesus was creating the groundwork for Socialism? The truly explains why the Romans needed to stop him from spreading his ideas.

How hard is to live and let live?

Gay marriage is a sensitive topic, and in my small town of Beloit things get heated. This is what I think, but others have some pretty wild ideas.

As far as I can tell there are only three arguments for denying adults the right to spend the rest of their lives with the person they want. The first is based on tradition. That is to say, that we cannot change something that we’ve had for so long. The idea that we can’t change tradition is well, wrong. We can and have. There’s quite a list of traditions that have been changed over time. Slavery, women’s rights, even things like monarchies were all traditions we no longer have. So the argument for tradition doesn’t really hold up well.

Then there’s religion. Judeo-Christian belief, a belief that is not universally believed in, a belief whose rules are not universally followed is used to deny people right to marry whom they please. It is, after all, against the bible to eat pork, and shellfish. There is an entire book, Leviticus, dedicated to the many rules and laws that should be followed yet many of Christian faith don’t. Are all Americans expected to follow one rule out the Bible while the Church’s own followers refuse to follow the rules themselves?

Finally there’s the constitution. I will give you that nowhere does it appear that gays have a right to marriage, but by the same token nowhere does it appear that you can deny this right. Also there is a reason courts exist. Courts exist to check that our laws are upheld; otherwise the Supreme Court would be out of a job. There is a reason for courts and that’s to make sure that no one, not citizens, politicians, or presidents go against the constitution.

Read the BDN Opinions, and let me know what you think.

Supreme Court should decide

Off again on gay marriage

I was in the BDN again, no surprise there, but I got called a socialist. The funny part is my letter was about not calling people socialist and other sound bite words. Personally I get annoyed at people not knowing what the hell they're talking about.

http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2010/08/17/opinion/letters/let1701.txt

How to prove Ann Coulter is crazy using Google and a phone. pt 2

So how do you prove generalizations? Most people rationalize them, but very few actually try to prove them. It is very difficult to prove generalizations because they are always based on false assumptions. Ann has found a great formula for her proof. I like to call this formula, one for all and all for one.

There are two steps to this formula. First, take a comment that has been made by any member of the group and apply it all. This one is pretty useful: if one liberal says they don’t believe in God than no liberals do. In this way you can take anything ever said and label the whole group with it. Best of all this can be done regardless of how unrelated the individual is to the group. This is how Ann can prove that liberals love both Stalin and Hitler.

The second step is where it gets clever. It is not enough for a group to stand for certain beliefs, but the individuals believe everything the whole group does. If one liberal says they don’t like the death penalty because it’s inhumane than all liberals, as individuals, believe the same thing and no liberals believe differently. This goes further than a label or statistic. In Ann’s world the idea is concrete not a possibility. Like the first step, this step can be done regardless of the individual.

By following these steps Ann finds contradictions in the liberal mentality. For Ann she can say the following and it makes sense. When talking about the death penalty Ann will say “They say that life in prison thinking about the crime is worse than death. Evidently not to the murders on death row who regularly fight their execution tooth and nail. But just so we understand, is the problem here that the death penalty is too humane, or not humane enough?”¹ Ann uses “they” to make sure she doesn’t have to quote anyone and can attribute to all liberals equally. She uses this kind of statement to prove that all liberals have an innate hypocrisy in their ideology. She completely ignores that a group can’t be hypocritical because it’s made up of many different mentalities and ideologies.

It is possible for an individual to be a hypocrite. So here is my favorite example of Ann demonstrating the concept. In her book Slander Ann makes the following statement. “More than other hate speech, the left’s attacks on women for being ugly tell you everything. There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks. Attacking a female for being ugly is a hideous thing, always inherently vicious.”²

So anyone, by Ann’s standards, anyone who attacks women for their looks is irredeemably cruel, and vicious. Ann, you are irredeemably cruel, and vicious. Here is what she has to say about Susie Landalfy and Andrea Duerkan. “…Miss Landalfy, to put it as charitably as possible is physically repulsive in apearance. With a presentation that was about as erotic as phone sex with Andrea Duerkan, or actual sex with Andrea Duerkan come to think of it”¹ The rest of the quote just gets worse, but you can listen to it yourself.

1. Ann Coulter, “Godless, The Church Of Liberalism,” [audio CD] Random House Audio. I attached the audio so you can listen to Ann says all these things herself.

2. Ann Coulter. “Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right.” Crown Publishers, New York, New York. 2002