Tolerance of evil would be evil.
A-firm!
Posted on 06/26/2002 12:22:27 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
In response to my recent column, "Why I'm not a liberal," a reader accuses me of being "intolerant."
"I think you are intolerant of those whose politics differ with you," writes Scott Mitchell, a proud liberal.
"Intolerance" is an epithet for liberals. For me, it's a compliment.
I am intolerant. I'm intolerant of evil. That's a good thing. Tolerance of evil would be evil.
I'm intolerant of Americans who don't want to live within the confines of our constitutional system. That's a good thing. Tolerance of unlawful behavior and the rule of men rather than the rule of law would be wrong.
I'm intolerant of ever-changing codes of morality. That's a good thing. Tolerance of evolutionary morality is tolerance of amorality and immorality.
I'm intolerant of all these things – and I'm proud to admit it. And that's why I am intolerant of liberalism, a fiendish excuse for an ideology that, in reality, more resembles emotionalism than rational thought.
In my original treatise, I mentioned that the central tenet of liberalism is legalized theft: "Liberalism proffers that it is a good idea to forcibly take the wealth and property rightfully and legally acquired by one party and redistribute it to others."
I have never heard anyone – even the most scholarly and persuasive of liberals – offer the slightest moral justification for legalized theft. Mitchell tries his hand at it thusly: "Part of the wealth you made and property you collected was based on services provided by the government for the public good."
Of course, Mitchell has no idea if that is really true – or to what extent it is true. Neither does the government. But, if this is indeed the basis for the government's claim to my property, there's a simple solution: Let me pay for what I use. Free me of the burden of confiscatory taxes and let me pay tolls on the government roads I use. Free me from the burden of confiscatory taxes and let me pay fees for infrastructure built by government. Free me from the confiscatory taxes and let me pay for what I want and need.
Americans today pay more in taxes than they pay for all other expenses combined. In other words, the average citizen pays more in taxes than for food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, transportation and all other costs combined. That's what I mean by confiscatory taxes.
In 1913, when the income tax was created, it was set up at a rate of 1 percent. Today, many Americans pay nearly 50 percent to the federal government. Most never even see the money. It is paid directly to the government by their employer so they won't even miss it – so they won't even comprehend the magnitude of the fraud being perpetrated.
It's bad enough we live under such oppression, but when we are forced to listen to people like Mitchell excuse it, apologize for it and rationalize with pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, yes, I grow increasingly intolerant.
I'm even more intolerant of politicians – elected leaders – who pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States and knowingly cast votes in direct contradiction of that pledge. They should be imprisoned. Does that sound intolerant? Sue me.
I went to one of these public policy luncheons in Washington recently where congressmen are called in for "off-the-record" briefings. Never again. I heard one official, one of the most conservative in the House, explain that he knew the entire Department of Education was unconstitutional, but what really upset him was that the president's education reform bill didn't include "school choice."
He might have voted for the bill and increased funding of the unconstitutional bureaucracy if only the president had thrown the conservatives this little, meaningless bone of "school choice." He also explained he would have to vote for the new "prescription drug" bill in the House because to vote against it would be political suicide.
This is why I am not a conservative. Either we live by our principles or we don't have any principles. Conservatives today are letting liberals define them. They are defined by what they are against, more than what they are for.
I'm for constitutionally limited government. I'm for freedom. I'm for individual rights. I'm for self-government. I'm for personal responsibility and accountability to God.
Liberalism opposes all of that. That's why it's evil. That's why I am not a liberal. That's why I'm intolerant of liberalism.
This says it all, and this passage should be emblazened into every ignorant American's head, especially the morons spewed from the propaganda factories (the government schools) each day.......the chidren.
The prophet Elijah...Intolerant of Jezebel
The apostle Paul...Intolerant of witchcraft books
Thomas Jefferson...Intolerant of King George III
George Washington...Intolerant of Brittish troops
Frederick Douglas...Intolerant of slavery
Susan B. Anthony...Intolerant of only men voting
Amy Charmichael...Intolerant of child prostitution
Dietrich Bonhoeffer...Intolerant of anti-semitism
Winston Churchill...Intolerant of Hitler
Martin Luther King, Jr....Intolerant of segregation
Lech Walesa...Intolerant of Communism
Mother Theresa...Intolerant of abortion.
(This list copied from a t-shirt my husband wears)
A-firm!
To the FEDERAL government, or to the all government combined? Did you include the Social Security tax (yes it is a tax).
Stick me in the Intolerant column!
Brilliant observation!
Amen. Although Farah's way are a bit of the maveric himself, this is the bottom line.
Color me happily intolerant!! (and a gun-toting Constitutionalist to boot!). Great find JH2!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.