Virgin Resistance! on Conservatism:

Updated July 4 2006

Also visit www.ultrafaction.com/roar (Revenge Of American Reactionaries)

Economic Issues :

(1) If government can't enforce environmental and worker safety laws, do you expect greedy corporations to do so?

(2) We DO admit that this social provisionary bill will be a significant tax increase, but if isn't passed, then how will we pay for the poor's food, medicine and housing?

(3) How else am I supposed to make more money unless the government forces my money-hoarding employer to pay me more?

(4) How can we be guaranteed a home, warm water, a hot meal, and a well paying, secure job unless we have federal laws stating that we must have them, and government mandates enforcing it?
(read the "forward" or click here to go straight to answers)

Social Issues:

(1) How could anyone possibly justify having the government to tell us what to do in the bedroom?

(2) If we aren't absolute and consistent on keeping religious groups in their place and keeping religious reasoning out of the legislature and courtrooms, then doesn't that violate the 1st amendment? and won't we go back to the inquisitions and medieval torture of rich and corrupt churches?

(3) You can't legislate morality. Who is to determine what's "right"?

(4) Why don't the religious right followers and other conservatives just live their way, let other people live their way, and not make more of a fuss about it? (click here to go straight to answers)

Forward

With that said, I hope that in this paper I have adequately articulated and demonstrated the key principles and root ethics of conservatism, the moral outlook of this nation, the underlying themes and agenda of liberalism, and if at all possible, recourse or at least the frame of mind which needs to be adopted to determine the proper recourse...

Economic Issues

1) Why are poor people poor?

One of the fastest questions to delineate the liberal view from the conservative view is to ask this simple question. All action taken against poverty is rooted in the beliefs of why poverty exists. So, if there are false perceptions on the part of people and politicians, all action from that will be destructive. Liberals tend to focus more on the rich than on the poor when explaining poverty. Greed, elitism, or some other bigoted form of the strong oppressing the weak, is usually the given reason; for example, a rich businessman not paying his maid enough, his workers enough, or ignoring a homeless person on the street. This is rooted in the notion that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, and wealth redistribution (as opposed to growing money where it is not currently growing) is the preferred way to solve poverty. At first glance, it would seem that this abandons all hope that the individual could ever be more productive, and therefore produce more money, but this is not the case. Liberals do acknowledge that through investment, the individual can be made to brought to produce more, but only on the notion that blindly spending money (since finance seems to be the only factor); seeing that how productive one is, being based off how much money is spent on him/her; ignoring education, individual potential (and shortcomings), rugged individualism, and treating the individual as a machine, an automaton, instead of a self-realized person. Conservatives tend to focus more on the poor when explaining poverty; not out of blaming them, but out of getting to the real roots.

So, in answer to the question:

Poor people are poor because they have not been adequately educated (i.e. a watered down school curriculum) in life, or have a lack of direction and/or drive due to the broken households and other social problems (i.e. a pop-culture hostile to conventional learning among our young) that plague this nation; not because there needs to be forced wages and other actions through government intervention.

I'll use the following for a more applied, substantive example:

2) the minimum wage issue

One of the most horrible things that I've witnessed was Bill Clinton getting a "God bless you" from a young daughter of a minimum wage worker when he signed the bill that increased minimum wage. He was surrounded by mothers who worked for minimum wage (and their children). This ultimately increased it to 90 cents an hour more, and he is hailed as some sort of champion for the poor. The proponents of this bill seem unable to acknowledge that if your are a single parent working for minimum wage, then you have far larger problems than needing another $0.90 an hour! These problems cross over to the social aspect, which is either trivialized or ignored by these acts of pseudo-justice that don't do any good to even be considered quick fixes! Employers raise their prices to pay for the government forced wages and the employee to live because the value of the dollar has depreciated. When these acts of artificial prosperity are done, the hike in prices doesn't cover the hike in salary. Now, in case this may seem as if I am not properly addressing the issue of the poor needing more money, or ever getting out of the hole, let me for one say that when thinking in the issue of the bottom person or (even in my case) college kid trying to get up in life, and needing more money than 40 hours a week at Burger Shack can provide, I have often stated myself that this minimum wage fast food environment has simply just got to go. I think that the argument that because I don't have a family to support is sufficient grounds not to pay me enough for me to have insurance, go to the doctor, or even get a computer is ridiculous; it seems that some "power that be" is trying to base my wage off of what they think I need as opposed to what I produce. I also think that the Country Club Republican argument that it's OK to pay someone a dollar an hour if they accept is equally ridiculous because no one would willingly do it; it would be a clear matter of working for one meal a day or working for no meals a day; abuse of the underclass (just like the champion Leftist Karl Marx predicted capitalism would end up doing). Conservatives also seem to be campions of making the simple point, that if something doesn't make money, then don't invest in it. So, on that premise, we should either make restaurants a professional-only job and gear vision in building a job market for the age group occupying high school and college, instead of keeping them in the hole and saying "Well, you don't want a hamburger to cost $20.00 do you?" My answer to this incredible mess, however, is not to just blindly want my employer to be forced to give me twelve bucks an hour, but to be in a work environment where I am in some semi-professional atmosphere and actually produce what I get. That is done through much more work and usage of vision than some coercive legal package. This is why liberals win on this issue, and why anyone against the increase is seen as someone protecting billionaires while single mothers and college kids are starving; because it's a lot easier to use government force in a single bill than it is to reconfigure and entire work structure.

I have a quote from Mario Cuomo (that I site later in this paper) accusing Republicans of having the poor settle for what falls from the table of the rich, as if to say that Republicans thought that crumbs were enough for the poor; yet, this is exactly what Bill Clinton and the Democrats have done. One caller on C-Span simply sarcastically asked that if this is such as good idea, then why don't they raise minimum wage to $50,000 a year? The answer is simple: that's not how capitalism or the real world works. Money doesn't just come out of thin air, or from the bottomless pockets of the rich; it comes from unshackling the individual, so that he/she can prosper without government supervision. When the economy is approached with an agenda using the premise that elimination of poverty will occur by working with an already given and finite amount of money, and redistributing wealth, we either see incredible debt or a horrible reduction in growth because we give the rich incentives not to invest. A simple question: How do rich people make more money? Rich people don't make more money by letting it sit, nor do they make more money by loaning it to people as rich as they are (there would be no need); they make more money by investing in people poorer than they are. High taxes and forced salaries hurt the poor, not the rich. One of the most fundamental issues of the 1996 race was Bob Dole's proposed 15% income tax cut. Liberals said that it was ridiculous that a tax cut would generate more revenue. They call it nonsense; we call it capitalism. The way that it works is that when you leave more money to the people, they have more to invest, and that makes money making operations out of entities that wouldn't have existed at all, hadn't it been for the logical act of letter the American workers keep their own paycheck. In the 1960's, 1980's and the 1920's (if I'm not mistaken), taxes were lowered and more money was generated in the economy.

Money circulates better when it is left in the private sector; if government bureaucrats knew how to adequately spend money and make it work, they'd be in business, and not in government. The simplicity of this statement seems so naive and arrogant, for the sole reason that we have been brought up in a world that only sees complex, messy and lengthened answers to the smallest dilemmas.

Now, since it may seem easier said than done to say that the root of poverty is social problems, and offer only rhetoric to explain the social problems. I address this, but in the next topic: social issues.

3) Liberal view of the work structure (The role of government in business)

Here is a quote (that I personally transcribed from a 1996 re-airing on C-Span) from Mario Cuomo in 1984, at the Democratic Convention. He was the governor of New York and the keynote speaker. This was his articulation of Ronald Reagan's economic policy (in the context that the economy would do well without government intervention and that Reagan believed in survival of the fittest: "Social Darwinism"...)

"...government can't do everything (we were told) so it should settle for taking care of the strong and hope that economic ambition and charity would do the rest; make the rich richer and what falls from the table will be enough for the middle class and those who are trying desperately to work their way into the middle class..." (hearty applause)

This is clearly the quintessential liberal/laymen interpretation (I elaborate on the relationship between liberals and laymen relationship later in this paper) of present day capitalism: the notion that the government is capable of combating greed, or that the individuals are incapable of taking care of themselves, or better yet; that the way to help people help themselves is through the aid of Big Brother. Mario Cuomo sarcastically labeling trickle down economics as "what falls from the table" shows that he (like other liberals) has the perception that national wealth exists in a fixed state, and it being (by definition) impossible for others to make more money while those presently rich, stay rich; therefore this finite and fixed amount must be seized by the government, (increased taxes) redistributed and given to the laymen via social programs and forced wages, and rightfully so, since the only way that rich people are rich is through some sort of injustice or foul play. This deceptively anti-greed ideology is rooted in anti-individual sentiment, reflected in an anti-work agenda. No other explanation could hold for this severe disregard for the factor of the individual, or outright contempt for individual responsibility. Note that I am not saying that liberalism in an ideology of blatant harm or malice aimed toward the individual; quite the opposite. It is based on the premise that the individual has no internal initiative, and therefore is not trustworthy to help the poor, and/or not dependable enough to prosper unaided, and must therefore rely on an elaborate network of tax fueled bureaucracies and social engineering for their own safety and well being. Liberals are vehemently motivated by their perception of individualism and civil rights; it's just that they end up discrediting the very conventions and institutions that build the individual. (I elaborate more on this later: liberals emphasizing the individual unit; conservatives emphasizing the family unit).

Also, "economic ambition" and "charity" are clearly regarded as hollow rhetoric by Mario Cuomo. It is also clear that even if he admits that these two very important concepts are in fact real, that they are no where near dominant, and integral factors in the economic prosperity of a nation. If "economic ambition" is a mere flag to wave, or a chant with no substance, the only other way to get an economy going is through the step by step guidance of an all powerful government, making decisions for the people at all given points. Self determination and free will of the individual is sarcastically referred to as "economic ambition", and (in his eyes) amounts to nothing when it comes to putting food on the table in the real world. When "charity" is also referred to, it is as if he is saying that the American people can't be trusted to take care of the poor, and that the government must force them to hand over a percentage of their salaries (income taxes) so that the all benevolent government can take care of the nation's poor, since the masses or either to dim or heartless to do so. Here is a quote from our first President: George Washington...

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

How odd, that is a day where strip joints are given legal trouble for alcohol, pasties, allegations of prostitution and under aged strippers; where porn pushers are arrested for shoving their filth in children's faces, that we jump to say how unconstitutional it is and warn of a danger to be born of some sort of ruthless dictatorship and say "Whose choice is it to use this force, and by what authority do they have?", yet we merely bat an eye when it is widely accepted that the government seizing 25% of our salaries, and growing by the day in massive and blatantly unconstitutional bureaucracies and uncontrolled spending, all in the name of justice and prosperity. And my grounds for saying that? I look no further than our very own Constitution of the United States Of America: (The tenth Amendment)...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Notice that "States" is capitalized; a clear sign that the States are supposed to have power, as opposed to today's liberal interpretation of statehood: being a mere ornament on the national tree. Mentioning military defense, international affairs, and coinage pretty much covers the justified and constitutional powers of the federal government.

Here is a quote (which I shamelessly blew up) that aired on the Rush Limbaugh TV show. I had the honor of seeing the footage, but unfortunately I don't have it on video tape, so I can't guarantee that the quote is exact. It was uttered from the very mouth of a young and forceful Ronald Reagan (quoting a Senator) at the Republican National Convention in 1964, with Barry Goldwater as the nominee:

"...meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government..."

The entire speech is here.

Here is an excerpt from the speech:

And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government". Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me- the free men and women of this country-as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"-this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

He then took great offense to the American public being labeled as the "masses". I originally thought that was an odd tangent, and I had difficulty following it. Later on in that year (1996), I realized the connection and the significance of the young Reagan making that distinction. I instantly get the picture of some 1990 type communist Soviet "bread line" being miles long, with people waiting for their bread, medicine and soap; going back to their manual jobs, being part of some factories or mills, using their back all day, horribly uneducated, and having been brought up in such a dismal home since their parents had the same life, that the notion of starting their own business, implementing a marketing idea, or even having some more constructive past time than alcohol, sex or other types of passive entertainment, has been long written off by them as unrealistic. Big Brother takes care of them; take home pay is small but not even seen as important, because there is food on the table and a roof over your head: all designed, chosen and approved for you by the government (after a long bureaucratic debated safety forum on housing, and an environmental forum on tree killing for the wood used in the home, and pollution debates from the energy that the home uses). All this being justified in the exact way that we justify it today...

If government can't enforce environmental and worker safety laws, do you expect greedy corporations to do so?

We DO admit that this social provisionary bill will be a significant tax increase, but if isn't passed, then how will we pay for the poor's food, medicine and housing?

How else am I supposed to make more money unless the government forces my money-hoarding employer to pay me more?

How can we be guaranteed a home, warm water, a hot meal, and a well paying, secure job unless we have federal laws stating that we must have them, and government mandates enforcing it?

The answer to this mess is simple. The first point needed to be made is: With freedom, comes responsibility. The reason why private entities can take advantage of people is because of a horribly uneducated, and dispassionate public. If businesses were watched more closely, and people had more of an idea of how things got done, and how production can be maximized in an economy (get the government hands off of their necks and let them use their business knack), and how to intimidate corporations (threaten to go to other business, have other private entities display reports showing what they're doing in unwise; lawsuits are still fine because those are for specific actions that have happened on a single date, not some across the board restructuring as you would see in a federal act), we wouldn't see government as the shining buoy in an ocean in which the common man is drowning. Also, it is quite possible to have private businesses that function solely on investigating other businesses; maybe they do already. The post-industrial age in which this country is now in is far more complex than to have regular people make a decent living without certain knowledge. Also, the kind of work that feeds a family and helps it go to college in the 21st century has got to be rooted in kids doing semi-professional work by highschool, an the "masses" to which the young Ronald Reagan took great offense: blind, and powerless cogs in a machine with no vision, and no soul (the socialist version of a ideal economy).

Another way to make the illustration that liberals focus on the materialistic and the immediate when deciding government law is the NASA issue. It is fairly common that under liberals, NASA is seen as a waste of money: Why should we spend billions on rocks in outer space when we aren't answering the plight of the poor at home? That seems to be the general argument. My first response to that is from all the money that we spend on social engineering and bills to "help" the poor and disabled, it is clear that the way we spend the money is the problem, and that is comes from the public sector (government) is the real issue, not the amount. My second response is the point that technology comes out of NASA as a direct result of the money that we spend on it. Fiber optic technology has come out of it, making telecommunications far easier (being able to transmit more information faster than conventional cable), and in this day and age of the information explosion, that turns into real jobs. Also, silica crystal technology (being able to grow it in a zero gravity environment) for computers has come out of it. I am not even qualified to speak of all of the technology that has come out of it, but my point is that through the nearsighted view of liberalism, we can not see the potential of human expansion; we only see a roof over our head, food and medicine. NASA produces much: real jobs for which people have to be educated; technology that spawns off more research in that field, and more knowledge to use in the expansion of science; the spending can be justified (also, the gray area of being linked with the military would make me debate privatizing, since I said privatizing so much would be a good idea). We have not seen and end to the social problems that we have long intended to wipe out with big government; that spending has yet to be justified.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Allen Ulrich, the conservative writer for the Vermilion (our student newspaper at USL):

July 26 1996

To see Bill Clinton's vision of America, one has to only look at Spain. In 1995, Spain had the highest unemployment rate of all of Europe of 25 percent - a quarter of the total working population. But just ten years ago, Spain's economy was the jewel of western Europe. Then a Socialist Prime Minister began social programs to provide free health care, or should I say, government paid for health care, deep subsidies for college education, for all citizens, and businesses were even forced to provide lifetime contracts for their employees. Tax rates increased every year for the next decade, far surpassing our own.
The government and organized labor became, for all practical purpose, partners with spending on social goals doubling. Foreign investment and corporations fled, and the citizens are left to pick up the prices. You see, my friends, this is a trap of modern liberalism. It lays a seductive snare of good services that Americans want, but they never tell you how much it will cost. So when Clinton, or any other liberal touts a new program, your reaction should be "What's it gonna cost me?"

The conservative perception of the work ethic is far more flattering and natural. The businessman (I mean that in a gender neutral context), however oblivious to the needs of the worker, or corrupt, still has to at least have a working economic structure to not starve or to stay in existence; the government bureaucrat is appointed, and stays employed no matter what the results are. They are not obligated to produce, and have to answer to no one. No matter how poorly we may come to regard the average businessman (who isn't nearly always a millionaire) we still have to acknowledge that they can make an operation work; a government social program can still get more money in spite of an increase of the social problems which the programs were originally designed to end; and usually does. A business, however, has to produce results, or else bills aren't paid to hire more workers, buy more branches, or advertise. Other entities don't go along with it unless it has been proven to make money. Therefore, the conservative interpretation of assistance, or production relies on the individual and results, while the liberal agenda is based off of some bureaucrat's vision and opinion, backed with no results or proof. This is also a perfect opportunity for pork; pork barrel projects are jobs that can be done quickly and cheaply that are distorted through reports and testimonies of the job which has unbelievable numbers of workers tacked on, taking ten times as much time and money to complete (a unique, yet old way of stealing and giving money to whomever is currently scratching your back).

To further illustrate my perception of the conservative work ethic, I'll start with the premise of an old conservative doctrine: the notion that there is a distinct, unchanging right and wrong. On that premise, I will state that the work ethic must be rooted in a timeless truth. That timeless truth is that work is not something done to avoid freezing or starving; work is a psychological need and helps the individual focus, grow, become self aware and analyze their life and environment. When some commoners in the 18th century spent days building a wooden fence with their own bare hands, plowed the fields, did housework (clothes, food, etc...) There was a distinct meaning to all that made up their household. The products were direct results of their labor, which wasn't done for a boss, but for themselves. There was a distinguishable personal element (the sweat of their brow and the ache in their back) in the items used in day to day survival. Today, in the post industrial modernized world in which we live, that is not the case. It is clear that there is a far more complex need for personal fulfillment; one that can only result in the worker sustaining a personal need and life ambition under that work; any substitute for that will not work.

The conservative interpretation individual prosperity or "Social Darwinism" (as Mario Cuomo sarcastically quoted from Ronald Reagan) is not a bunch of money hungry immoral ambitious suit sharks with dollar signs in their eyes running around in their briefcases trying to manipulate the money supply to make it harder for the commoner to live, looking down on the poor living in cardboard boxes saying "Hey you lazy bums, because you didn't subscribe to Forbes, Businessweek and the Monthly Yuppy as a child, and weren't memorizing stock quotes and worshiping statues of billionaires through your adolescence, then you deserve to starve. We shouldn't waste money on useless things like medicine and food for the poor while we can be subsidizing billion dollar corporations. This is America! Sink or swim, baby!". That is the liberal interpretation of the conservative interpretation. The conservative interpretation is children and teenagers being aware of a complex job market, a changing world and solidifying in their goals and direction in life. An individual can be exponentially more productive if they go to their place of work with a vigor and passion; if the field is something that identifies with their personality. They choose their routes because they have been given the tools, not having the government attempting to secure the poor routes they choose from being uninformed. Here is a prime example of liberalism being a solely "after the fact" ideology; being based on the notion that the individual has already wrecked their own lives (no faith in individual incentive), so all we can do is try to make the best of a bad situation (government pampering and spoonfeeding). The format or economic hierarchy which Republicans stand for is very real in levels, asserting that certain people will be in management and business ownership, and others will be at lower levels, having various forms of input and influence; however, this does not have anything to do with people trapped at the bottom of a pay scale, or enslaved. Levels exist in society, not based off of moral worth, or supremacy, but off of vision and what you are good at doing. This is an unchangeable constant in any nation or tribe, and can not be undone (nor should it be) by any degree of communism, or powerful government.

4) Taxation ethics?

One day my father and I were discussing some recent issue in the media, having to do with some Clinton tax increase or another, and he asked me if I knew what caused the Revolutionary War. I forget my exact words, but it was something along the lines of liberty, God, freedom... He said "No. TAXES." I was literally stunned. For a man who twisted his face and raised his hands while turning his head in disgust, when I wanted to watch the 1992 Democratic Presidential candidate debate (saying he would watch anything but that and how sick the political mess made him), he sure made a well thought out political point. It is true that the notion and premise of civil and religious freedoms were pervading elements, but the issue of taxation without representation was the spark, or window, for the Declaration of Independence (United States saying that they were no longer part of Great Britain). It seems that more modern forms of aggression aren't brute force or direct coerciveness, but rather massive over-powerful forces supported by taxes of the people which they harm.

Federal Taxes as a share of Median Household Income

1950 - 5%

1970 - 16%

1990 - 24%

Source: National Tax Foundation

It is clear that more and more of what the American worker pays for is being seized for the bureaucrats, all in the name of helping this country. Here's a scary thought: Our Constitution does not have a limit on the income tax. If the next generation after the other gets use to paying higher and higher taxes, and use to having an increase, then the future citizens of the USA could be paying half or more of their income and not see it as wrong or inexcusable. Our great grandchildren will be paying off the debt that we've accumulated over the decades, and seeing less and less of what they make. The income tax was originally unconstitutional. It took the 16thamendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I don't know the story behind it but I'm sure it's a real hum dinger. Simple logic tells us that if no limit is set on what authority can do, it will do anything it wants to. All throughout the first two years of the Republican Congress, Al Gore, Richard Gephardt, Bill Clinton, and all of the other spend happy liberals ranted about how the Republicans wanted to starve America, and break the nation because they wanted to balance the budget. Gore said out of his own mouth that the Democrats are for a balanced budget also, it's just that they don't want to do it in a way that hurts America. Is it conceivable that the USA (one of the richest countries in the planet) needs to spend 200 billion dollars more than what it makes in taxes just to survive? Bill Clinton, after campaigning proudly that he wasn't a "tax and spend liberal" like the "old" Democrats, said that Dole's idea of the 15% income tax cut was a "scheme" (the nerve) and that would blow a hole in the deficit. If he says that the only way he keeps the deficit down is through taxes, then he admitsthat he is a tax and spend liberal. They have no resolve in spending 200 billion dollars of our great grandchildren's money; and why should they? They see government as the universal infallible entity that can do no wrong, and without, no justice can be served. I have a simple question for our Democrat opponents: How much is enough? Or better yet, when do you know to draw the line? With the huge debt that we are accumulating, our US dollar is depreciating in value; and that's all that higher taxes are going to get us: broke. No nation in the history of this planet has ever taxed itself into prosperity. When the Democrats justify the over spending, they speak of all of the good that they are doing, and don't acknowledge that this stuff can be done more efficiently in the private sector. Christopher Reeve spoke at the 1996 Democratic Convention from the wheelchair in which he is now and called for more government funding of medical research. Then why stop with that? Why not spend 500 billion over the budget per year and borrow all of the money that we can? When do you draw the limit? When is enough, enough?

Another point that I'd like to make is that when we socialize medicine (as we've done currently in health care) we lay the opportunity for abuse, because the consumer isn't paying it. A cousin of mine said that every time his grandmother went to the doctor, having a medical card (payment covered for her) she came back with bags and bags of medicine because he gave her medicine for stuff that she had 2 years ago! The doctor knew that she wasn't paying the bill, so he used it to make money. This happens on a national scale every day. This is what conservatives warn against; abuse. It's not about letting sick people die on the street. And here it is again, massive waste created through government tax increase and red tape; the American citizen footing the bill. Here's a quote from Chief Justice John Marshall (1755-1835) taken from his speaking on the case McCulloch v. Maryland:

"...the power to tax involves the power to destroy..."

When we give an entity the right to tax us, we are granting ownership of ourselves directly proportional to the amount in which we are being taxed. Right now, the government owns 24% of us. The increasing power of the government, increasing income tax, and loose construction of the Constitution (assuming powers not specifically implied) have been building for quite some time, but can be given a significant landmark in the 1930's. FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. I'll start off with a quote from him:

"A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly - in the air. A Conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward. A Reactionary is a somnambulist walking backwards. A Liberal is a man who uses his legs and his hands at the behest, at the command, of his head." (Radio Address, October 16 1939)

By the way, I looked up somnambulist; it means sleepwalker. Radical means far left; reactionary means far right. FDR also spoke of "...the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid..." paraphrasing or quoting from an 1883 book The Forgotten Man by William G Sumner. There you have the same cries for the pain and plight of the lowly man, and a bunch of opened-ended rhetoric ultimately leading to the use of Big Brother (again going back the Mario Cuomo quote in 1984). The struggle between socialism and capitalism is an old one; and I dare shamelessly say that if more Americans were in touch with what has been going on in this nation since its birth, no one would say that the political system is boring, or that it is a waste of time to be involved in it. Politics is anything but boring! For immediate purposes, conservatism usually relies on slow movement and old convention; in contrast to that, liberalism tends to be the side of new wave ideologies and quick turns.

USL's College Republicans former Sergeant at arms Richard Denison, brought a photo copy of a World Book Encyclopedia saying that FDR took exact excerpts of planks in the American Socialist party when he implemented the New Deal. At the (now inactive) internet website http://www.conservative96.com (Mark Anthony's conservative megacenter) he cited that the Great Depression put man in a vulnerable state, where he would take food, having an empty stomach, not caring what strings would be attached. He also attributed the leaning on government to the loss of influence that the Church had. In making a point that we only feed social problems with government programing and engineering, he simply stated that society gets more of what it subsidizes and that a bad precedent had been set: man no longer needed to strive, he needed merely to ask. Also, I taped a decent portion of the speech in the 1948 Democratic Convention (President Harry S. Truman running for reelection) and thought that I was in for a treat. For years I had been hearing that the Democrats used to be the party of the common man, and before they got to the far left, they were more noble than the Republicans! So I sat down, hit record, and got ready to hear some eloquent speech (since Truman was always known for his uncompromising and stern views), and low and behold... The man sounded like any other Democrat today! Here he was in 1948 speaking of increasing the minimum wage and wanting $300 million from the federal government for schools, and calling the Republicans the party of the few privileged! That was one of the biggest political disappointments of my life. I will admit, however, that he radiated this distinct essence of a commoner rising up against some higher power: the elite, the rich, the strong, and even had a genuine vigor that Bill Clinton will never possess; but his heart felt convictions were implemented in good old fashioned liberalism. Well, anyway, on the note that these power struggles are classic, very real and very significant to us in our daily lives until the day we die (as for our children), I'll end with a quote from a man that I believe was an absolute genius, Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"The two parties which divide the state, the party of Conservatism and that of Innovation, are very old, and have disputed possession of the world ever since it was made." (The Conservative - 1841)


Social Issues

The following are bits of material that I will use IN the social part when I get it done. I do have some stuff done now, and you might like to continue to scroll down and check it out... (1) How could anyone possibly justify having the government to tell us what to do in the bedroom?

This is a loaded question. Only kooks are for installing cameras in bed rooms to monitor sexual activity. The problem to this is that liberals infer that being promiscuous is a civil right. If so, then that means that all activity tied to promiscuity or even pre marital sex must be defended as well. This is why with the AIDS pandemic, liberals see the solution to appeal to the government as Big Brother who is the end all be all cure all, and conservatives are trying to change the behavior that causes the spread of AIDS. There was a billboard of some sort that said basically that Prayer won't end AIDS; research will and was taken down amid some protest. Here is a blatant example of a far Left winger trashing the notion that appealing to God can help us in the AIDS crisis, and turning to Big Government as the only solution. Passing out condoms in high school is the ultimate in liberal social engineering. This is saying that morality is secondary to the God-State, and sex exists outside of morality, which lets the liberals get away with saying that they are not "moralizing" but just giving the "facts". Research has shown that passing out condoms results in more teen sex, not less. Liberal research says the opposite. The problem here is that the conservatives push to sublimate some morality in the underlining of laws. An example of this may be the FCC stopping porn from being on TV, or cursing on radio. The problem is that no matter what you do, you are ultimately taking a side, and this is what liberals disagree with vehemently. This pseudo-neutrality is what I call "mid-winged extremism"; the notion that you are values neutral, but really sublimating some radical agenda. This brings me to my conclusion that liberals are the ones that love force being used to have government in the bedroom. To go along with this, I dare say that people LOVE government in the bedroom because they bow down to the gods of pop culture and do exactly what those false gods dictate through propaganda and brainwashing.

The perfect slave thinks he's free

(2) If we aren't absolute and consistent on keeping religious groups in their place and keeping religious reasoning out of the legislature and courtrooms, then doesn't that violate the 1st amendment? and won't we go back to the inquisitions and medieval torture of rich and corrupt churches?

This is tough to address. As I stated above, no matter what you do, you are ultimately taking a side. So the real issue is to not micro-legislate morality (i.e. putting someone in jail for having pre marital sex). The very definition of government IS the legislation of morality! Laws are going to be shaped by the culture, and the values of the culture will reflect the laws of a nation. I often make the case that abortion is legal because of pop culture that took years and years to manifest in the courtroom. The only way to ever address abortion is to address pop culture; there are no two ways about it. The 1st ammendment was never designed for liberals to make such anti-religious sentiment in government, such as banning public nativity scenes. Like Rush Limbaugh says: Religion and America DO go together. A radio personality named Quinn put on his web site:

The state must first KILL God in order to BECOME God

(3) You can't legislate morality. Who is to determine what's "right"?

Who are YOU to ask? As I said :The very definition of government IS the legislation of morality! Who is to determine what is right? Anyone with the initiative. The people who lobby and yell and mandate are the ones that shape the world. There is no such thing as not taking a side. It's just choosing which gang you are going to follow. Liberals say stuff like "I don't follow ideology; I think for myself". No matter what you do, you are living out some kind of "-ism".

(4) Why don't the religious right followers and other conservatives just live their way, let other people live their way, and not make more of a fuss about it?

We do not live in a universe where people are these infalliable super humans who act with full knowledge and full understanding. If we did, then it would be obvious who is going to hell and who wasn't and conservatives would have nothing to do! The problem is that we do live in a world where there is a such thing as influence and that gets into moral implication. The idea that someone can be brainwashed and coerced.

Elizabeth Dole Quote: Government can not give to the people what it has not first taken from them. Goldwater: A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.


(Alan Keyes October 1995 - Interview with Rush Limbaugh)

From a transcription by David Quackenbush(DQuackenbu@aol.com):

In our time, the immediate deterioration started in the 60's. But the roots go back to the 30's, when the intellectual traditions of our way of life, which looked to natural law and the transcendent authority that underlies it, were broken down by positivism and other ideas that came from Europe. Those were born in the latter part of the 19th-century, when evolutionary theory and other forms of the supposed refutation of the existence of natural law took root. But in our country it begins intellectually in the 30's. Then in the 60's, you see it breaking out during the context of the civil rights movement, which I think was not an accident. In point of fact, this whole notion -- that because this society had practiced racism, therefore, none of its conventions or mores had any ground or foundation -- was the bludgeon used at a practical level to destroy the self-confidence of the older generations who should have been defending those moral conventions against radical attack.
The following was on his 1996 Presidential push card
Human sexuality is primarily a matter of moral, not just physical, health. So-called health-based sex education programs have done more harm than good. They too often encourage adolescents to consider sexual activity apart from marriage and family life. Especially in government schools, where teachers purport to deal with sexual matters without reference to moral authority, they result in a vapid, context-free presentation of sexual mechanics which degrades and debases the meaning of relations between the sexes and prepares and encourages premature sexual activity.
As a rule, I believe that sex education is the private responsibility of parents. The government should not usurp this role. Where parents choose to encourage school-based instruction, I would strongly support and encourage abstinence-based approaches for young adults.
--- presidential push card
On the whole, however, I believe that education regarding relations between the sexes should be home and church-based, or at the very least conducted in schools and programs that reflect the faith and values of the parents. Since government schools eschew moral instruction, they declare themselves incompetent to instruct in such matters involving intrinsically moral reasoning and judgments.
--- extension on his internet website

*** *** ***

Notice that he refers to it as "relations between the sexes" and not "sex" because the emphasis is put on the frame of reference, and not raw, bare body parts snapping together like a model airplane.
"For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all, since armed injustice is the more dangerous, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, he is the most unholy and savage of all animals, and the worst of full of lust and gluttony."

-----------------------------------------------------------------Aristotle

anon.Innocent4now

Distance: **** miles from you based on registered location
This member's last activity on Match.Com: January 21, 1996

Teach me how to make love

19 year-old female, located in All Girls School,
seeking 18 to 50 year-old male for email pen-pal, activity partner, short-term relationship, or long-term relationship.
I'm going to be honest here, I have never before considered placing such an ad as this. Coming from a sheltered life, and now being cooped up in a girl's school, I have never experienced a normal teenage social life. Unlike many of my friends I have never been with a man; I am ready to end this life of chastity. I don't want to have my first time in the back of a car, though. I like the unique and am open to suggestions. Only experienced lovers need apply. Since****** ***** ********, distance is not a problem.


"I am ready to end this life of chastity"??? Does this little naive girl think that all of her problems are going to disappear with sex???

MCI ad for 1-800-collect in my college newspaper

CHEAT

You just kissed a guy. A guy who is not your boyfriend. You feel guilty. And confused. You call your sister for advice. She says four simple words: "No french, no foul." You suddenly feel better.

First of all, there aren't enough trees to hold the paper for me to go off on this disgusting ad adequately, so I'll regretfully have to shorten my comments.

I have one strong point to make here. Many of the themes to which I refer are overlapping, so some of the categories may seem as if they belong in other headings. Just like any other ideology, conservatism is multi-faceted and not linear in structure. I have long chosen to define liberalism simply as ethical near sight; impaired from seeing the ethical scope and consequence of certain actions and lines of thinking.

Three classic themes of liberalism: (Which I happen to feel are all mere different versions of each other) Moral relativism, emotionalism and focusing on the tangible and the immediate.

(1) Relativism is a vile poison and an ultimate paradoxical checkmate. Conservatives champion the notion of a definite right and wrong; liberals base much of their actions and interpretations of freedoms on the notion that there is no true, recognized authority to determine what is right and wrong, and even that there is no actual right and wrong.

"What is truth?" is one of the favorite lines used by the indifferent, dispassionate and liberals trying to nullify all relevancy in being alive and discredit any individual initiative. "Who's to say what's right?" is another manifestation of this spiritual laziness. In answer to that, I will paraphrase what the famous jazz player, Louie Armstrong, said when they asked him, "What is jazz?"

[Man, If you gotta ask, you'll never get it.]

How badly does someone's mind, spirit and outlook on life have to be, in order to degrade to the point where you need to have some map to read in order to go through daily life? The incredible and blatant contradiction to the notion that there is no right and wrong is that you have to be right about the fact that there is no right and wrong! The statement is a premise that nullifies itself. The person who claims that there is no true authority in moral issues, is taking the role of an authority. You can't have a truth saying that there are no truths, yet this is a solid doctrine to many Americans. And under the precedent that there is no truth, or final standard, anyone can establish any structure and not be refuted. This leads me to a story that is a beautiful example of the mess that we can create under the ridiculous notion of moral relativism...

One night, I believe in early 1995, our former advisor, Dr. David Thibodaux, was our speaker for one of our meetings for College Republicans. He was telling us of the mess after mess that was being proposed for school board spending, mentioning bureaucracy after bureaucracy. I asked him if I could make an analogy, so he said sure. In taking HIST 221, and in a book written by Carl Richard, our current advisor, I learned of the notion of "epicycles". These were thought to be the pattern of all celestial bodies in the universe under the Geocentric Theory (the theory that Earth was the center of the universe). Under this premise, the patterns of the stars, moon and Sun didn't make since, so someone eventually drew this incredibly complex map with hundreds of back tracking cycles that eventually made a full forward orbit; epicycles. When this complex concoction was finished, it made perfect sense that the Earth was the center of the universe. So, I said to my fellow members, and Dr. Thibodaux sitting on top of the front desk, that under these massive spending bills of liberalism, we ignore the true premise that the family unit breaking apart is what gives us these messes like teen pregnancy (one of the problems Dr. Thibodaux mentioned), and instead attempt to go through great lengths working around it. Then he instantly said he understood me and gave this great articulation: Instead of reconfiguring their values to fit reality; they [liberals] reconfigure reality to fit their values. This was funny because another member said that Dr. David Thibodaux was the first person that he met that understood me. Anyway, the point is that when we refuse to believe something, we will make as many excuses and faulty reasons as we need to continue to refuse to believe it; and that is an extreme danger when it comes to matters of national morality and politics. If you are given infinite resources (i.e. the permission to contradict yourself, and/or to not offer proof for any assertion you put forth), then you can conjure anything out of thin air. Under that you don't have free thinkers and non-conformists; you have a bunch of scared children playing make believe in order to cope with the fact that they can't handle reality.

Two other blatant examples:

(1) The President of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (A pro-abortion group), Reverend Katherine Ragsdale, on a C-Span airing during the 1996 race stated that if you listened to only the voices of the Catholic Bishops and the Christian Coalition, you'd have the "misinformation" by having "the idea that all people of good faith and good conscience oppose abortion." She got up to the podium, wearing her collar, and made it clear that the very act of wearing her clothes and calling her group a "religious" group automatically proved that she was of good faith and conscience. Those things become relative terms when they are not defined, as she horribly failed to do. At no point did she define what she thought was the incorrect definition of good conscience, or define her definition of good conscience (which would have been the only way to prove that she was of good conscience); nor did she explain how abortion played a distinctive role in these definitions. It was merely stated by her, with no explanation.

She further stated that the misconception that all people for abortions being seen as bad, was what helped spawn the bombings of abortion clinics. Now, even if I would endorse something that psychotic, I wouldn't be stupid enough to write it here, but I'm still going to go out on a limb and make a small point. The people that are bombing abortion clinics are not doing it because of the perception of the abortion staffers; they're doing it because of their perception of abortion. Under that, it doesn't matter in the least about the goodness or badness of the abortion doctors, secretaries, and so forth. The supporting of abortion is (to them) a malicious enough act for it to be punishable on its own. It's not like this bishop could go to these people and tell them that these staffers are of good conscience and the bombers will turn away and apologize for being mistaken. And again, this is another example of a mixture of relativism and emotionalism: If you question someone's ethics for supporting abortion and all they say is "Hey! Where do you get off saying that? I DO have my head screwed on straight and no, I am not mislead." then they have said nothing, but the notion of relativism (no absolute truth or standard) makes any assertion true just because they said it; and the technique of emotionalism of defending your stance or getting someone to back down usually is a good way of circumventing support for an argument by an intimidating psyche-out.

Under this technique, the opportunity for irresponsibility is limitless. Merely disagreeing with someone does not end the argument.

*** *** ***

(2) Gloria Steinem, founder of Ms. Magazine (an overtly liberal publication), stated on an MTV interview with alternative group, Pearl Jam, that their efforts against conservative Republican North Carolina Senator, Jesse Helms, (having an anti-Helms "retirement" concert) was because of the takeover of the "ultra-right" in Congress:

"..this isn't about being partisan ---- ya know, it's about being against extremists..."

Ms. Magazine (in its 1994 year-end issue) has defended Heidi Fleiss, the whorehouse madame, saying that her only crime was sex. The issue that I read was so covered with the most open ended, emotion based, constitutionally impaired, liberal rants that it was clear that they were far from centrists, or mainstream. And I simply state, that a magazine accusing the Republicans of using hate politics of the angry white male (offering no quotes of any Republicans supporting this), and calling all people who are against the current level of frivolous government spending, heartless and starvers of the old and poor, would naturally label anyone to the right of them as "extremists". Here it is again: someone calling a term into existence, offering no reference or definition. At no point, did Steinem (in the interview), or the Ms. Magazine articles of two years earlier, explain in any detail as to why this was hate politics. It is clear that the charges are so far fetched and founded on such conjecture that there is no solid proof. Yet another case of relativism: unfounded remarks and sentiments presented as irrefutable fact.

(2) Emotionalism is the use of psychological anxieties of people (to distort the substance or truth of an issue) in order to get them to accept, believe or live by a certain doctrine or mind set. There are plenty of times in life where we don't want to believe something that is true, and go through great lengths to avoid facing what we don't want. Manipulation of the masses at a time of vulnerability is another classic way for liberalism to gain wide acceptance. When people are starving or scared, very little will seem radical or unconscionable to them.

Example #1: A liberal saying, "You conservatives campaign against teen sex so much. People aren't going to stop!" Here is opinion stated as fact; and a generic scenario (two people about to have sex) being used as an example of the entire perspective and political aspect of human sexuality. Instead of this generic liberal comment referring to social institutions or some sort of premise behind their assertion that current sex statistics are hear to stay; it relies on an emotional example, a personal situation. That's about the best example; or maybe, "I'm 22 years old; I know what I'm doing." The main point here is that the idea of sexuality carries so much psychological weight that it can be destructive when handled with little regard or precaution. Sex has become more and more regarded as a physical and tangible element today (thus degrading it and lowering its entire concept and dimension to that of candy, gold, paper currency or bullets) which helps it take all the properties of a recreational diversion (candy), commodity (gold), physical tender (paper currency) and a weapon (bullets). When you insult someone's golf swing, it's no big deal, but if you insult someone's family, it's taken as very personal. The same is true when sex is brought into politics.

Example #2: This is a very blatant one. This is an example which demonstrates the Big Brother liberal perspective of government, as well as emotionalism (using emotionally tinged factors to detract attention from the substance of the issue).

Elizabeth Glaser at the 1992 Democratic national Convention made this comment in her speech:

"Exactly -- Exactly four years ago my daughter died of AIDS. She did not survive the Reagan Administration. I am here because my son and I may not survive four more years of leaders who say they care, but do nothing. I -- I am in a race with the clock. This is not about being a Republican or an Independent or a Democrat. It's about the future -- for each and every one of us." (delivered 14 July 1992, New York, NY)

The camera focused on some people crying in the audience and it was perfect for a sympathy vote. Well I have news for the world. Bill Clinton WON the race and won AGAIN in 1996 and we did NOT see an end to AIDS. The fallacy to all of this is that the President is seen as the "end all be all" of social ills. There is an underlying sentiment that we can do nothing without Big Government. All Big Government is, is FORCE, nothing more. It is not some databse of scientific cures for all diseases, and money does not always solve problems. Also, Glaser pushed the ever so familiar cliche' that her radical emotion based Big Government agenda and speech was NOT partisan. She said that it wasn't about party affiliation, but about the future. This is another liberal fallacy. They run to the hard left, but then claim to be non-partisan. Also, she accused President Reagan of MURDERING her daughter, which sounds very partisan, after having just said that she was not partisan.

There was once a 21 jumpstreet episode that was dedicated to AIDS. Johnny Depp met a guy that had AIDS. The mother stated that AIDS had been killing people for 8 years and our President never mentioned AIDS.

Now I can see some of the rationale here; don't get me wrong. It is very human to appeal to higher powers in times of a crisis. The problem here is there is a conservative theme that is evident. That theme is always going to a higher and higher power for the solution to problems; even making a god out of government. This is something that I may not have flagged if it weren't for listening to many conservatives in the past. Just because someone is in a high position of power does not maek them an authority for any social ill. In other words, the President is not a scientist and him saying the word AIDS will NOT cure it, but it sure makes a liberal FEEL better, and that is what matters to them.

There was a point in the Presidential race of 1992 where an audience member said that the American people were basically the "children" of the President, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out many times on his show. Since when did the President become our father? This is yet another example where people turn to the President to feel good and see that government is getting bigger and bigger, and this makes people feel better somehow.

(3) Focusing on the tangible and the immediate.

(1) Considering "moral damage" as mere rhetoric


Here are a few other sub-doctrines ultimately rooted in the aforementioned three:

1)Most people are "moderate": a subset of relativism.

This is what I call "mid-winged extremism". Jason Henderson was used this definition on his site Nation of Political Conservatives:

Moderate: A liberal trying to pretend he's not a liberal

There is a fallacy that just because we have a two party system that they are both 50% wrong and 50% right. This is dangerous because no matter how radical a party gets, they always have impunity by having a large portion of their platforms taken seriously. Under this, there is no acknowledgment that a party can be taken over by radicals or that a nation can be too tilted in one direction. Also, under the assertion that most people are "moderate" (whatever that is supposed to mean) means that there is no truth. They say most people are moderate; so what? Truth must still be defended even if it is against what the majority disagrees with.

A political commentator once said that Newt Gingrich needs to realize that most people don't hate government like they (the right wing) do. This is another example of realtivism. If most people love Big Government, then it is a conservative's job to persuade them otherwise, not to bow down to the evil of Big Government and be done with it!

A woman on TV once said that there is no conservative revolution and that education standards varying from state to state are a bad idea! I couldn't freaking believe it! As if the answer is some bloated Big Government bureaucracy.

There is a notion that turning people off is something to avoid. As if the public consensus wasn't the problem to begin with! Liberalism is an emotion based ideology and an ideology that caters to people's feelings. Under this, the first ammendment doesn't apply and you have to worry about "turning people off" and being called the new political F-words: extremist, judgemental, and offensive. Under this Politically Correct doctrine, no one can speak against another person, which is even a contradiction within of itself!

A poster that I read as a kid:

To avoid criticism: "say nothing; do nothing; be nothing"

When Mary Landrieu (LA) was asked whether she was a liberal, she said that she doesn't like labels. This is funny because she said that her opponent Woody Jenkins was so radical that he made Newt Gingrich look like a moderate. Here she was labeling someone as an extremist when she said that she didn't like labels. When she won the Senator race, she said that:

We're not sending a LABEL to Washington; we're sending a SENATOR to Washington!

and got this big applause from her crowd. What the real agenda is, is to come across as non-partisan, so whatever radical agenda you stand for comes across as right.

If a lady gets hit by a car and two people approach the scene, and one thinks that she should be rushed to the hospital and the other thinks that they should pray to God to make her get up unhealed by faith alone, the two people will not be able to agree. One has got to be dubbed the radical so the lady will survive. This is the same radical thought that when it comes to condoms in high schools. Liberals say that it shouldn't matter whether you are a liberal or conservative, because the issue is about saving a life. Under this, they think that giving condoms is moral neutral! This is very liberal because it is accepting that kids are sexually active and catering to it, rather than protesting it.

Condoms kill

Giving out condoms gives the dellusion of there being a safety net, and takes away the stigma of sex being dangerous in this time of AIDS. More sex happens, as the Catholic Church has prophesized, and AIDS spreads more.

There is a fallacy of so-called "bipartisanship" when it came to attacks on the Republican Congress. The Democrats started calling them extremists because they didn't cave in to them. The contradiction here is that the Democrats were calling for bipartisanship, yet called the Republicans extreme. This would make the Democrats extreme as well. This is a fine pickle. If you holler "extremists" it means that you should not work with the other party; but then according to this exclusionist logic, you can't work with the other party.

Senator Alfonse D'Amato once said that we need to stay away from "...issues that divide us..." like abortion and gun control. This is ridiculous because these are simply issues that require work. This means in code to give up to liberals. So you have this scenario where the conservatives don't want to be divisive, so they cave in to the Left.

Robert Frost once said: A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.

2)Ethical near sight (My personal definition of liberalism; focusing on the immediate)

The first issue that caused me to define liberalism this way was condoms in high schools. A liberal will say that as long as you TELL the child that you are giving the condom to, to NOT have sex, but if they PERSIST in doing it, to use the condom. This is a fallacy because human behavior and influence are not visible, audible or tangible things. Therefore, saying not to have sex until you are blue in the face means nothing if you are giving them a condom. A condom is tolerance. Tolerance is acceptance. I do not believe that a condom will FORCE a child to have sex. The problem is not obvious and immediate and direct. This is the liberal fallacy. They say that if someone wants to abstain, and has it in their head that they are going to abstain, that a BOWLFULL of condoms will not "make" them have sex! The problem here is that what causes a person to do things and what influences them is a very tricky science, that we have not learned to control. These things are indirect, and YES condoms blasted in kids faces will create a false sense of a safety net and there will be more sex, but it is INDIRECT. This is what liberals can't understand. But when it comes to "hate speech" (which used to be just Neo Nazis, but is now anything conservative) they say that people can be influenced! Also, we do not live in a world where people are born with pure free will with no influence. We do not live in a universe where people make up their minds at birth whether they will have sex. We do not live in a universe where people are not influenced. We do not live in a universe where we act with full knowledge and complete understanding. If we did THEN I would say that a bowlfull of condoms will not influence anyone. Influence is a very complex science, and it is arrogant for a liberal to claim what will be void of any influence. At least with a conservative, they say that giving a condom to a child and having influence is indirect or inconclusive and should be avoided strictly on those grounds.

Another element: Each person playing their part and the final product of radical liberalism is achieved.

Liberalism is a decay that nibbles and chizzles until the whole job is done. Today, young couples live together and say in public that they are having premarital sex while this was socially unacceptable decades ago. Now it is socially unacceptable to broadcast that you are a virgin until marriage. Most people today have pre marital sex, but most people are not promiscuous. This blanket of pre marital sex allows liberals to label all illicit sex and one night stands as simply pre marital sex which most people have. I've seen this done over and over. My conslusion is that most people in one way or another contribute to this beast, where you have it socially acceptable to be promiscuous whereby most people aren't.

What about good suffering for bad?

I make a simple case:

It is human to cater to what the majority establishes.

If I ran a shop and wanted to compete, I would place the most sold items where they are easy to access and the least selling items would have some undesireable spot. This is what happens with morality. If something is cheaper, it tends to sell well because it saves a buck, so you have trash that outsells the good stuff. This would make the customers of the least selling items have to go to the back of the store and walk more, thus being inconvenienced. It is hard to make a case today that you should abstain from sex until marriage. And if there is no good reason then you have got to be an IDIOT to stay a virgin. So, the dating articles on Netscape and MSN cater heavily to pre marital sex and even third date sex. Dating sites do this as well.

What about distorted rape cases? Rohypnol should be loved by condom givers!

There was once a radio station question where listeners were asked to call in. The question was "Is it OK to have sex with someone that you are not in love with?" The DJ later was laughing and asked the listeners to stop calling the other listeners dirty names that had said yes. I called and said it was not OK. The reason that I gave was that it distorts rape cases. I said that when first date sex becomes socially acceptable that even with DNA testing, the jury can accuse the woman of lying since first date sex seems so normal. So it is easier to get away with rape today for those reasons than it would be if we had cracked down on sexual morality in the modern world. The DJ was obviously shocked from his tone and even admitted that he had never thought of that. He did NOT play my answer on the radio as he did with many other listeners. I would assume that he thought it was too antagonistic, labeling the pro pre martial sexers as accomplices to rape.

Also, the people that are for condoms in high school should LOVE Rohypnol because they always say that they, in no way, support teen sex, but if they are going to do it anyway, then give them the condom. Well, we should pass out the "date rape" drug for the same reason. We are against rape, but if they are gonna do it anyway, then they may as well knock out their victim so the victim doesn't have to live through it. It is a rock solid argument. The glitch here is that they would say they would never tolerate rape, or give a rapist the date rape drug. So here is the glitch. To a real conservative, teen sex is an ABOMINATION, as rape is and should not be tolerated.

Another element: "Evolve" as a buzzword.

All change is not improvement and all movement is not forward

Ms. Magazine once said that "family units" are going to continue to "evolve". This means that the radical pre marital sex culture and broken home culture is something that is just part of human evolution and there is nothing wrong with it. This is Darwinian psychobabble. This is where the evolutionary thought of the modern world leads us to believe in the infalliability of mankind. The notion here is that we as a society can make no mistakes, and atrocities like the holocaust are just growing pains. Even Al Gore who was never supposed to be this hard left running candidate, said in one of his speeches that we can not afford to keep sentimentalizing a family unit that no longer exists. This is clearly echoing the statement of Ms. Magazine. These radical liberals assert that there is no moral decay today! One time on TV Alan Keyes was clashing with a liberal and the liberal said that people are not concerned about Keyes' Moralizing and the American masses were just concerned about "quality of life" Keyes came back hard at him:

The killers from Littleton Colorado DIDN'T come from poor families!

3) Negative outlook on the heritage of United States as well as any social tradition or structure; a subset of used to justify turning to government instead of God, holding family and church in vehement contempt (racism ebonics, liberals admit that they are a "growth" and haven't always been around when lambasting our racist, slave, sexist heritage)

Nature of dissension of liberalism targets minorities more

The radical policy passed at Antioch University, where a student cited that the campus is broken int ogroups fighting amongst themselves over who is the most oppressed.

This was posted on the Right Side of the Web in the 1990's:

Hitler was a vegetarian and animal rights activists. Among his first acts was to enact Germany's first comprehensive Animal Protection Code in 1933. He was also pro-abortion, even early (as in partial-birth) infanticide in cases of congenital defects. His centralized elitist (platonic) eugenics programs included euthanasia, fully supported by the chairs of German (and many non-teutonic!) Universities. The repeated claims for "racial hygienics" were widely supported by the Inteligentsia and Iluminaty on a "scientific" Darwinian basis. Those local physicians that refused to submit to state control, many on the basis that Genesis implies a common human ancestry, found their supposedly guaranteed rights under the new "democracy" abrogated, their professional lives ended by support of the judiciary. Hitler was also allied with the film industry (Eva Braun), and opposed by the military and most protestant ministers. His religious practices were NOT Christian. He brought back the primitive animist/pantheist nordic rites, orgies and all. Nonetheless, he found favor with many of the High Church hierarchy and his relation to Rome alternated. Hitler's early supporters maintained: "it's the economy, stupid", and viewed his elitist ideological views as idiosyncracies that would pass with time. Hitler cried and his heart publicly bled for the necessity to wage war in Bosnia, as elsewhere. He clearly felt the middle class's pain, in public. He did establish multiple centralized government plans which were credited with Germany's resurgence. Though mutual hatred existed between the National Socialist party and OTHER COMMUNISTS was real, the non-aggression pact with Stalin shows a greater kinship than most histories admit. His Semitic views were in line with both Louis Farrakhan and old-time Southern Democrats, as well as some republicans.

So......... Question for debate: If he lived today, what would he register to vote as? Would he be more welcome at a Green peace or Bible study?

President Ronald Reagan said this in his 1992 speech at the Republican Convention:

A fellow named James Allen once wrote in his diary, "many thinking people believe America has seen its best days." He wrote that July 26, 1775. There are still those who believe America is weakening; that our glory was the brief flash of time called the 20th Century; that ours was a burst of greatness too bright and brilliant to sustain; that America's purpose is past.

Element: They can do it for you better than you can.

This is a part of my document where I am starting to repeat myself. I believe there are overlappings and criss-cross doctrines where I end up saying the same thing twice, or multiple times. This doctrine is where I see Elizabeth Glaser appealing to America to vote for Bill Clinton to end AIDS, and the billboard saying that prayer won't help, as if God doesn't exist at all. Liberals appeal to amoral force and see that as benevolence. There is no other way to say it.

Another example of this: A liberal saying that teen sex was exploding in the 1960s (e.g. parents not doing job) Here is a case for raw dissension. Without trying to look into what needs to be truly fixed in a crisis like this, the liberals want to appeal to the notion of dissension from parents and churches, and go to faceless bureaucrats for sexual indoctrination. The Vatican on EWTN Jan 9 1997 Thursday Morning said to educate parents, not the children directly! This is an example of a conservative fixing the real problem, instead of trying to abandon conservative institutions altogether. The Unabomber has been quoted with saying that revolution is easier than reform. This is radical logic; the notion to abandon an entire institution at the slightest sign of a problem.

The case for extreme conservatism:

If your best shot can't destroy your enemy, then your enemy is indestructible

Today many conservatives are satisfied with crumbs that are minute victories in social issues. WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO BE AFRAID! It has taken me a while to realize this in life, but I have concluded, whether someone is liberal or conservative, that the average Joe Sixpack does not have it in them to think along radical lines when some revolution is needed. Therefore when many conservatives look at our moral crisis that we are in today, they simply conclude that things aren't as bad as hard nosed conservatives like me say it is. They simply can not deal with extreme variables! The second part to this line of thinking is that the people who say things are that bad have to be kooks as well. One false premise leads to another.

"If it bleeds, we can kill it"

I like to quote this line from the movie "Predator". This is how we need to look at pop culture. If there can be small victories, such as getting under a liberals skin, then we can have larger victories.

Party affiliation DOES NOT make you lose your identity! Quite the opposite! It helps you GET an identity!

I once had a friend that said she didn't like to be associated with either party because all parties have extremists in them and she didn't like being associated with extremists. This is insane because anyone can stain a clean image by perverting it and being allegedly associated with it and give a good entity a bad name.


It's your decision; the lines have been drawn...

email signature file of Matthew J. Anziulewicz [mattatoz@vt.edu]


"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has either been a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration to ultimate national disaster."

(General Douglas MacArthur)