Pride, Envy, and Hatred of the Rich

The left's politics in many ways can be characterized by the hatred of the rich.  Instead of celebrating the people that have successfully solved the problems of the world and gotten rich from that, they seek to vilify them, take their riches from them, and prevent others from ever following in their footsteps.

This is one of the sad side effects of envy. Both envy and pride are listed among the 7 deadly sins and both result from an unhealthy comparison of the self to others. Pride looks at others and says, "I'm better than they are." Envy builds on the work of pride, by looking at the success of others and says, "Given that I'm better than they are, they must be doing something wrong, or there is some fundamental problem in the world, if they can have so much while I have so little."

These two sins serve to distract an individual from a focus on his own bad choices, negative patterns of thought, and laziness, and results in the condemnation of the successful as evil, greedy, and exploitative of the poor.  Hatred then, is the natural consequence of regularly seeing those who you deem as lower than you rise above you in wealth, status, and success.

Again, hatred is the spiritual consequence of the sins of pride and envy - and the left is consumed by it. And hatred, sadly, destroys all that it comes in contact with - including the individual who does the hating. It causes its possessors to take actions that destroy not only the lives of the people they hate, but the political systems and institutions that provided for the success of those they hate, even when those institutions are the very ones saving their own lives.

The left's pride, envy, and resulting hatred drive them to hate America, see its institutions as fundementally unfair and corrupt, and causes them to take action to destroy its foundations and replace them with systems that redistribute wealth and shackle those who seek to earn it. The person who hates cannot allow for the freedom of those they hate. That is why populism derived from anger towards the wealthy also drives a nation toward despotism and socialism. The populace hands power to the individuals or groups that promise to destroy the freedom of others to succeed. Hence, statism and socialism. Marxism is based on advancing the cause of the proletariat against the bourgeois, whom they hate for their success.

Hatred is at the root of liberalism - at the root of all human conflict. Love values freedom, both for the self, and for others. It declares a trust in God, in freedom, and in others - that as others pursue their own good, we will be okay - moreover, we'll be better off.  Hatred says, "I can't trust God, I can't trust freedom, I can't trust others." It motivates an individual to take from others their freedom in a self-destructive attempt to protect one's interests.

It is the ultimate lie propagated from the devil himself declared first in the Garden of Eden. Cast out of heaven for his own pride, envy and hatred of God, he deceived the first humans by convincing them that God could not be trusted. It was a lie then, it is a lie now. We can trust God, we can trust freedom, we can trust others.

Just in case you have been tempted into agreeing with the hatred of the successful, I want to shine some truth on the subject of the rich so that you can break agreement with such thoughts and have the freedom that comes with it.

1) When the rich succeed, they do so by solving the problems of those who buy from them. The customer is better off than prior to the transaction. Both the rich man and his customer walk away better off than they would have been without the transaction. A poor man may be resentful of the fact that he must pay a rich man for, lets say, ten gallons of gas, but that ten gallons of gas will permit the poor man to get to work, to the grocery store, home, etc. The poor man would have been much worse off if a government official had prevented his "exploitation." The same is true for all free market transactions. My life is made immeasurably better by the options I have to buy a computer, a phone, fuel for my car, a home, entertainment, clothing, energy for heat and cooling, and food. Each of these is provided by "the rich." If you prevent others from getting rich by solving these problems then you prevent them from solving these problems. 

2) When the rich build their companies, they put the rest of us to work. One person can do very little on their own. Real success comes from working with others. The rich have learned how to surround themselves with teams of people who are succeeding in their own right by virtue of their relationship with the rich. Not everyone has the vision to start a company or the temperament to manage its many facets - but their skills and strengths can be put to work by others - and both prosper as a result. The rich may have an idea for how to solve a human problem, and generate profits through that effort - but it takes the ingenuity, the labor, and the time of the people that work with him to bring that solution to the market. Both the employer and the employee are benefited by the arrangement.

3) When the rich consume, other businesses prosper. When the rich spend the money they've made, they provide income to the companies from which they buy. Rich people might buy cars, houses, airplanes, yachts, etc - but doing so employs the millions of people who serve in those industries. Vilifying the spending of the rich only hurts the people who make the products that they buy. The rich weren't hurt that much when the government put a luxury tax on yachts, the people who make them were. The rich aren't hurt that much when government tells them not to fly on private jets, but the people who fly them, who build them, who maintain them, who service them are hurt badly. The rich aren't hurt that much when everyone else complains about their visits to luxury hotels and resorts - but the people who work in those locations sure are when the rich decide to stay home instead.

3) When the rich save their money, they do so by placing it into investments that provide the capital other people need to bring their ideas to the market. The wealth accumulated by the rich does productive work in almost every capacity in which the rich choose to employ it. His incentive to save his money in some vehicle that produces returns is proof that others are benefited by that investment. A return is the evidence of value as measured by someone else. Those who pay a return on that investment are using that accumulated wealth to pursue other efforts that they believe will satisfy a market and produce profit. 

4) When the rich give away their money, the charities that receive those funds and the communities they serve benefit. While this is probably characterized by most people as the highest good that the rich can do with their money, I believe it probably brings the least good to society as a whole. It is in this arena that much good can be done, but the most harm can be caused as well. Markets reveal true human need - both in the willingness of those with the need to spend money to solve their problems and in the solutions to those problems generated by that money. Charities ideally seek to meet the needs of those who by misfortune in some form do not have the money to meet those needs on their own. I contend that in most cases, these misfortunes would be greatly minimized in a political system that defended freedom and liberty.

In sum:

When the rich succeed, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich build their companies, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich spend their money, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich save their money, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich give away their money, the rest of us benefit.

The truth is - we should be celebrating the rich and the political and economic freedoms that allowed for them. If they succeeded, we can too; moreover, their success is a testimony to how much good they have done for the rest of us. The attempt to limit their success only limits their ability to bring good to others. Normal economic cycles are the free market's response to error and the correction of those errors. Larger economic downturns are the consequence of larger errors. I believe that the severe economic downturns we've seen several times in this century are the consequence of the freedom limiting policies advanced by those filled with pride, envy, and hatred. The real solution to the world's economic problems is freedom - and freedom advances when a nation's people trust. It retreats when they are filled with pride, envy and hatred.

Give Us A King! (Faith in Government)

In the time of Samuel the prophet, the people of Israel wanted a king like the nations that surrounded them (1 Sam 8). Samuel was utterly dismayed by this development. The people of Israel had no ruler, yet were prosperous. They had no king, yet were thriving in the promised land. God Himself was their King and led the people of Israel through His revelation to the prophets. Yet, this wasn't enough for them. The people of Israel still felt the uncertainties of life and were deceived into thinking that if they had a king like the surrounding nations, then maybe they wouldn't feel so insecure.

When Samuel inquired of God about this request, God responded by saying that it wasn't Samuel that was being rejected, but God. He instructed Samuel to first warn the Israelites about the dangers of having a king. Here was the warning given by Samuel (1 Sam 8):

vs 10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

Simply put, God was warning them that when you request a powerful human government (in any form) to "go before you and fight your battles" that your wealth and your freedom will be consumed by that government and the security sought will ultimately not be found. In the end you will have nothing but the insecurity you were hoping to remedy.

However, God does not force people to trust Him, so He instructed Samuel to go to the tribe of Benjamin and select Saul as king over Israel. They got their King, and the Bible tells the sad story of the history of Israel under those kings.

I see many parallels to the request of Israel and the shift of the balance of power in the United States today. As a people/culture drift away from faith in God, they look elsewhere to find security. Humanity has always been bedeviled by the illusion of the physical. Israel rejected Christ because He spoke of a spiritual Kingdom - they wanted a physical one. We are beset by a desire to see with our eyes, touch with our hands, and hear with our ears the entity that we entrust with our lives. How often did ancient people make useless idols rather than trust in God? It has been a perpetual problem for humanity.

People are no different today, but rather than idols, they look to strong governments to provide for them. Unfortunately, the same warning given by God to Samuel holds true today. When you ask for a physical solution to a spiritual problem, your "solution" will consume all your wealth, take away your freedom, and leave you with nothing but misery. Mankind has never found a way around this problem.

Socialism, the generic term for the system that attempts to provide for people through strong government and central planning, fails time and time again. The ideas that comprise socialism have incredible staying power because of the same issue within the human heart - a desire to trust in something physical that you can see and understand.

Our society today screams out for a king. They are delusional in their adoration of Barack Obama. The love, excitement, and anticipation of what is possible with him as President reaches beyond delusion to the pathetic. Asking one man to provide for you is frankly insane. Governments are bureaucratic systems that are unresponsive to the needs of the people they "serve" while consuming vast amounts of their wealth and passing laws that restrict their choices. A sane mind wants as little government involvement possible. A sane mind recognizes that governmental power rests in the balance against individual rights - as government power increases, individual rights decrease. If a government has the "power" to do a given thing, you no longer have the "right" to choose an alternative. If you give the government the "power" to collect taxes, you lose the "right" to keep your money.

This loss of choice is the ultimate insecurity. You can no longer make decisions that are in your own best interest. The greatest threat to an individual's freedom, prosperity, and quality of life is the concentration of power into the hands of a few. When governments (or kingdoms, or dictatorships, or monarchys, etc) are not limited in their power, people suffer.

The founding of the United States of America is a study in people attempting to escape the ultimate insecurity of life under kings. People suffering under the hand of oppressive governments realized that security wasn't found by the hand of a powerful king. They came to the conclusion that the proper role of government is to preserve liberty, not provide security (in the sense of money, a home, a job, etc). The United States of America was founded to establish this principle of limited government and quickly became the greatest nation on earth because of it.

Faith is the only remedy for insecurity. What we see today is "faith" in government rather than Faith in God. Government cannot provide for you, cannot give you security, cannot solve your problems. It can only make your problems worse by stealing your freedom to resist its choices.

There is a role for government - to protect our freedom. The constitution lays it out beautifully. Those who seek from Government what they should be seeking from God are not only going to destroy themselves, they will destroy this nation in the process.

Why Democrats Will Never Support Drilling

Why do the democrats fight every single approach to lowering the price of energy? The cover of USA Today gives the answer in large bold print - "Drivers cut back by 30B miles." That in a nutshell is why you'll never find a democrat doing anything to lower the cost of driving. They don't care about what the poor pay for gas, they don't care how much high gas prices affect the price of everything else you need.

The democrats don't want you driving! They don't want you traveling! They don't want you to have a car! They don't want you buying airline tickets. Stay home. Plant some tomatoes or something.

Democrats want high energy prices. They think Americans use too much energy. They will do anything they can to drive the price up so that we get out of our cars. Their religion of global warming has convinced them that any normal human activity is destroying the environment. Since they haven't been able to convince the voters to let them ban travel entirely (like was done in the Soviet Union), they do an end-run on travel by making it so expensive that people voluntarily give up all but the most necessary travel. Democrats are celebrating because the high cost of fuel is finally causing Americans to get rid of their SUVs, causing them to take the train, causing them to get jobs closer to home, etc. They love the high price - and they love the result.

That is why every democrat solution to the high energy costs only raises energy costs. Gas prices are high - "we must pass a windfall profits tax on the oil companies!" Natural gas prices are skyrocketing - "keep our huge natural gas reserves off limits to drilling!" Electricity is more expensive than ever -"Just say No to Nuclear!" Food prices are out of this world - "We need more ethanol!" They actually use the anger over energy costs to gain the political support necessary to do more damage! And many Americans gullibly urge them on.

We actually don't have an energy crisis, we have a regulatory crisis. We've got enough energy for 150 years of abundant, cheap energy, right here in America - but our politicians have made it impossible to take advantage of it. The latest mantra is "We can't drill our way out of this energy crisis." As if saying the exactly wrong thing with conviction will make believers out of skeptics. Drilling is EXACTLY what we need to do. Energy is expensive because we don't have enough of it. This isn't complicated. In a free market, prices always move to bring into equilibrium supply and demand. Supply is low, demand is high - prices go up. We need more energy. We need to drill now. We need to build nuclear power plants.

Actually "We" don't need to do anything. These things will happen automatically if our politicians would just get out of the way! What "We" need to do is come down on the politicians until they cave in.

The thing that gets missed in all of this, by both the left and the right, is the benefit to humanity of mobility. People are willing to spend hundreds of dollars a month on their automobiles and fuel because there is GREAT, GREAT benefit in being mobile. You can drive to a job that is better than what you might be able to find within walking distance of your home. You can shop at a greater variety of stores - thereby increasing competition among those stores which increses quality and reduces price (if you are bound to the store within walking distance, they don't have to fight all that hard for your business). You can increase your business prospects, doing business with a greater circle of people. You have a wider range of dating options for the single person. A wider range of educational options. Automobile means self-movement -> Auto = self, mobile = movement. Self-movement changed America. It is good for us and our standard of living.

Aviation does the same thing nationally and globally. Shipping does the same thing with heavy materials. The ability to move ourselves and our things has done more to increase the standard of living in the western world than almost any other thing (telecommunications and effective currency are way up there too).

Mobility is ultimately about relationships. People need people. As we increase our circle of personal and business relationships - we gain access to the people who can solve the problems in our lives - whether by trading with them or talking to them. Mobility gives us access to these people.

Republicans should be standing up for freedom in the form of mobility. This is a defining issue and needs to be clearly articulated - but it is being missed unfortunately. The conservation debate is a false argument and we shouldn't be having it on their terms. Conservation is the new political correctness to end freedom of association.

Ultimately, that is what the energy debate is all about. Democrats have bought into the notion that normal human activity - people doing the things that make their lives better - destroys the earth. America was founded by people who wanted the freedom to do that which made life better. Democrats do not want us to have that freedom. And if they can't take it from you by fiat -they'll price freedom out of your reach.

Achieving Success

I heard a caller on a radio show ask this question yesterday, "So what's so wrong with socialism anyway." He made a few mindless points about taking care of people and the usual bash against successful people. As the host answered the caller, I thought of about 20 things that are "so wrong" with socialism. One thought I had related to the achievement of success.

In a free market or free enterprise system (especially one that has minimal governmental interference) those that best take care of their fellow man rise to the top. A free market system requires people to look out for the needs of others. It is a merit based system - meaning, if you are good at what you do, then you succeed. Another aspect of success though, is that your success must be recognized by others as measured by their desire to buy whatever service or product that you offer in your business.

In a free market system we all sell something. I'm a pilot, I sell my skill as a pilot to the company that employs me. My wife is a receptionist, she sells her time and diligence to her employer. My product is my knowledge, experience, skill, character, attitude, and time. On each of these attributes my employer measures my worth and decides whether or not he is receiving value from my position within his company. If the value is below what he requires and he determines that a different employee with different skills, attitude, etc would provide a higher return, then he'll replace me with that person.

Free market systems are voluntary. Every exchange is based on choice. I choose from whom I will buy. And other's choose whether or not they will buy from me. As a result, my manners and approach to those I serve must meet with their approval. I must work hard for them, be kind to them, make it easy for them - or they will go somewhere else.

All of us are required to take care of others if we want to succeed. If I don't take care of my employer he lets me go, if a business doesn't take care of its customers they shop somewhere else. In the amazing free market system a person may only consume in direct proportion to what they produce. A productive person pleases many people, makes a lot of money, and may therefore buy more for himself from others. He has met the needs of many and may therefore purchase the time, talent, and property of others in greater proportion than a person who has not met the needs of many. It is an immensely fair and balanced system.

The socialistic system is not this way - in fact, it is exactly opposite.

A socialistic system requires "pull". To achieve success in a socialistic system you have to know people who can help you get what you want. Governmental systems by their very nature are coercive. That means, anything that a government decides to do it will accomplish by force - people do not have the freedom to go elsewhere for the services required from government. If you want a license plate, you go to the DMV, there is no other way. If you want to drive on a highway, you go the speed they tell you, break the speed limit and you'll face a fine or go to jail. Want to fly a plane somewhere, you'll be dealing with governmentally run Air Traffic Control - you don't have the choice to use another "service provider."

Since socialistic systems are not voluntary and people have no choice about dealing with them, merit is not the means of obtaining success.

Our governmental system has become socialistic. Rather than preserving liberty which is the moral and proper function of government, our government has gotten into the entitlement business. They give gifts - why? Because that is how you succeed in government. The politician achieves success by offering goods and services to his constituents. Unfortunately, the goods and services that he "gives" away are coercively taken away from others. I say coercively because if you refuse to pay taxes, you'll go to jail at the point of a gun - that's coercion.

Socialism takes from one person and gives to another. The person who succeeds in a socialistic system has learned how to take the most from some people and give the most to others. The person who receives from government has learned how to get his name on the Pay To line of a government check, and it most cases it wasn't by providing a better service to his fellow man.

The more socialism advances, the more manipulation and exploitation of people is required to hold the system together. To be the successful socialist requires great skill in the manipulation and exploitation of people.

Free enterprise and socialism are fundamentally different. The difference lies in the fact that free enterprise systems are voluntary and socialistic systems are coercive. The end result is that free enterprise systems turn the hearts of men outward, towards others in a search for needs that other's have that they can fill. Success in a free market system requires personal development in ways that meets the needs of others. In socialistic systems, the heart of man turns inward, to look for ways to deceive their fellow man and exploit him. The socialistic system depends on who you know rather than who you serve.

Achievement in one system makes us take care of our fellow man, achievement in the other causes us to exploit him.

So to answer the caller, that is one major things "wrong" with socialism.

What is a lie?

I had a great conversation with a friend the other day and we talked about lying. They were having a little relationship difficulty and one issue centered around a lie that had been told. As we discussed the ins and outs of lies, white lies, big lies, little lies, etc., this became clear to me:

A lie is an attempt to manipulate someone into doing something in accordance with your wishes when if they knew the truth they probably would not.

In essence, I see a lie as an attempt to manipulate another into doing something that is not in their best interest.

If you've read other entries in my blog, you know that one of my primary themes is freedom. I believe in freedom. I believe that God values our freedom. I believe freedom is very important in human relationships and in nearly every other aspect of life.

When we are free, we are able to do what is in our best interest. I add to that this caveat: our freedom should not take away the freedom of others to do what is in their best interest. I believe that God designed the world in such a way that things work best when people do what's in their best interest while at the same time respecting the freedom of others. Essentially the golden rule: "treat others as you would like to be treated."

Occasionally our interests conflict with the interests of others. I believe it is at this point that we are offered the temptation to lie.

Sometimes we want something very badly; however, we know that those around us may not want the same thing. I think we know when another will not want what we want. We know, like an innate sense, when it isn't in their best interest. When we suspect that another person does not want what we want, we have to choose at that point to press on and try to get it anyway, or back off. Its in our nature to try to get what we want and therefore we limit the information another has or in some way "frame" things so that the other person will "see" what we want them to see. We manipulate; we lie.

Quality human relationships are based on the truth and both parties are free to act as they see best. We enter into relationships with others because we see something of value in that person. We choose to have a relationship with another person because we believe that in some way we will be better off having known that person. Relationships are based on a mutual benefit. This applies to marriages, families, business, friendships, you name it. We have relationships that will in some way benefit us. I don't believe that this is an evil characteristic. Even when we help the poor or serve in a ministry to others, we benefit from that relationship. Service to others has its own rewards.

Lying takes the benefit away from the other person. We still want to benefit, but our lie prevents the other person from being able to benefit. If we want to have quality relationships, we've got to decide that we value their desires as much as we value ours. If we don't do this, the relationship will be shallow and short lived. So in the end, it's actually in our own best interest to seek the best interest of others!

Lying actually undermines our own interests by removing another's reason for being in the relationship and thus - robbing us of the benefit of that relationship. Lying is stealing - and people will not put up with that for long. If you lie enough to another person, they will know they are being taken advantage of and leave the relationship.

Oh - I can already hear the naysayers - "What about the little white lies? If my wife says, 'does this make look fat?' I can't say yes or I'll be in trouble!" There are plenty of good answers to that question. If it does make her look fat, how about saying, "yes" for starters. If she is not attractive in a particular outfit, telling her that she is attractive is not helping her.

People trust truth tellers! If you don't want to tell someone the truth, don't say anything. People don't need to know everything you're thinking. But when you speak, speak the truth - it may not always appear on the surface to be the "nicest" thing to do, but by doing so you are always preserving the right of others to decide for themselves what is best for them. They may or may not like hearing what you have to say, but once you've said it, they now have the option of responding to it in a way that is best for them. People around you will know that they are safer being around you, as a truth teller, then around the "nice" person who lies.

It's Not About the Temperature

Global warming, global cooling, and every other environmental concern has but one end in mind - to stop the advance of mankind.

Liberals, without understanding what they profess, are filled with anger toward mankind and consider people a cancer on the earth. They will advance any cause that hurts humanity. They are for the reduction of population on the earth. They don't care about quality of life for the masses (which requires energy). They hate all who succeed and all who improve the quality of life for others - hence, they hate the corporations that work to give us the products we need for living (homes, automobiles, food, fuel, clothing). They hate freedom and free markets because freedom makes life worth living. They are ideologically aligned with terrorists (without realizing it) because they both hate America and the good that America brings to the world.

Environmentalism, and every other issue held dear by the left, is merely a vehicle to destroy the quality of life for as many people as possible. It is vital for us to understand why they choose the battles they choose. Why environmentalism? Why smoking? Why abortion? Why homosexuality? These are the issues that gain them the most ground, the issues that have powerfully seductive messages and at the same time do great damage to the quality of life for millions.

Consider the messages: Environmentalists say that they are concerned about the planet on which we all live. Who can disagree with wanting clean water, beautiful mountain views, the survival of endangered species? The anti-smoking lobby wins converts by claiming that second hand smoke kills even the person who doesn't smoke (and of course, the children). We want to protect innocent children don't we? We must allow legal abortion to save the innocent girl who got raped and would otherwise die at the hand of a back-alley abortionist. Homosexuality: who can be against two people loving one another? Doesn't the world need more love, not hate?

The average person, who just wants to stay out of trouble and live a peaceful life is seduced by these arguments. The truth of each debate is more challenging to understand and requires more than a sound-bite to articulate. Most people aren't willing to put in the energy required to really understand the issues. These people want what is best for society and are convinced by these seductive arguments to support causes that actually bring harm to many people.

Each one of these issues is strategic. Environmentalism is powerful in its political ability to reduce man's access to energy, to resources, to land, and to use his own property. Each one of these things is necessary for a person to provide for his family and to increase his quality of life. Global warming is about limiting man's access to energy and destroying all the good that energy brings to our quality of life. Enough people are worried about "global warming" to give governments around the world the power to destroy their freedom, their prosperity, their quality of life. We are now reaching the point where merely saying that you don't believe the earth is warming is like saying that the earth is flat - watch out for witch trials next.

Its not about the warming! If it was, liberals would be all in favor of nuclear energy - which they are not. They are in favor of no energy. They don't want to develop domestic energy sources. The only reason they clamor for alternative energy sources is because at this point in time, being for alternative energy is a way of being against oil companies - which we should be supporting. Energy is necessary for living. It is the resource we need to do our jobs, power our homes, feed ourselves, communicate. If it is worthwhile, it requires energy. Simply enjoying a book of poetry required the energy to print and transport the book. People who care about people should be actively searching for ways to support the companies that turn natural resources into energy. Liberals don't do this - they hate the energy companies and will do everything in their power to prevent them from providing inexpensive energy.

Smoking is similar: enough people dislike the smell of smoke that they give away their freedom to government officials who promise them smoke free environments. "I don't smoke so I don't care if the government prevents my neighbor from smoking." We will allow politicians to tell restaurant owners they can't allow smoking on their private property. Once we get comfortable giving away that freedom, other freedoms won't be far behind. The smoking issue is a lever - a lever to move a nation away from freedom towards socialism. Freedom is the issue, not smoking.

Consider the war on terror. Why is the left so opposed to any attempt Bush makes to keep America safe? It isn't about the mistakes he has made. It isn't about weapons of mass destruction. All the liberals believed exactly what Bush did about weapons of mass destruction before the war in Iraq. But Bush is succeeding in advancing freedom in the middle east, and freedom is the only thing that will help them there. Terrorists and radical Islam are full of hatred towards America. Why? We've done nothing to harm them, but yet they hate us with all they have. We are the target of their hatred because we succeed in making life worth living. We spread freedom around the world, we help others in need, we are prosperous, we enjoy living our lives. The terrorists hate that about us - so do the liberals.

Why is it that the left secretly hates the military? Because it is one of the few proper and moral responsibilities of a limited government. So is a police force. One protects our liberty from outside invasion. One protects our liberty from inside criminal activity. Liberals hate them both. If it is a proper and moral function of government, you can bet liberals will stand against it. Did you notice the thousands that marched in protest of the police in New York in December? Both the military and the police protect liberty. Although they don't realize it, liberals support any cause that harms liberty and oppose any cause that helps it. Liberty is mankind's surest foundation for success, prosperity, and quality of life - and that is why it is opposed.

What the issue comes down to - at its deepest level - is hatred for humanity. Liberals are angry, bitter people, full of hatred towards God and the good God desires for all people. The issues liberals hold dear are those that will do the most harm to the most number of people.