The monster is killing America: Kyle Williams examines effects of liberalism on life in U.S.

The question that has faced a slew of political pundits across the years is, "What makes a liberal a liberal?" The question can be difficult to answer because it can also be interchanged with the question, "Why do these people want to destroy America?"

With America came unprecedented freedom and the greatest country on the planet, so why would anyone choose to denigrate freedom? The answer is found in the essence of liberalism and socialism – bigger government, more aid and social programs.

The founders of our country were very careful in the Constitution to bar democracy from invading our nation, but the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper to many elected officials. Moreover, many have taken our country to be a democracy without a real thought – including the president. Benjamin Franklin didn't call our nation a "republic" for nothing.

A democratic nation cannot stand; it will always fall, because the minute the population sees that it can receive aid, money, social programs – government handouts – it will elect new officials to meet their greed, and government will always hand it out.

What's this have to do with liberalism, you might ask? Liberalism has everything to do with greed and that alone. Thus, liberals capitalize on the unintended "democracy" part of America and receive aid, money, benefits, etc. It comes down to one thing: When the road of principles meets the road of greed, greed is always chosen.

One example is the greed of government subsidies in the private industry. Many take advantage of the government's willingness to get involved in the private sector, but in doing so, they compromise the future of capitalism.

Liberalism also has shown its ugly head in attacks and tragedies. Since the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance, the so-called "conservative" senators in Oklahoma are pushing for millions of dollars in victim handouts. Additionally, liberalism has made its way to the World Trade Center issues – the government is handing out millions of dollars to victims and victims' families of the attack on the WTC.

And liberalism and socialism have made their way into government through social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, welfare and other such government programs. While the people are supposed to invest their money wisely and make their own decisions to have a healthy retirement, government has stepped in and attempted to take care of the nation.

In terms of welfare, many of those on the welfare payroll are able to go out and obtain employment, but laziness has replaced free-market incentive. Furthermore, besides extreme greed replacing principles and responsibility, ignorance and short-term thought replace rational decisions and ideals.

When socialism and liberalism infect government, no question is brought up about whether the government has the right or resources to carry out a socialist program. As a result, some might get the good end of the deal and receive what they want, but in the long run, government is made bigger and taxes are raised, resulting in a worse life for everyone.

While the average liberal is different than the high-profile liberal politician, the concepts are basically the same: bigger government through handouts, social programs, aid and other forms of welfare. Still, politicians hide behind doublespeak and carry out their agendas under the guise of statements such as, "It's for the children," and "women's choice," and carry out programs in the name of "minorities."

Liberalism is a mixture of all-out greed, irresponsibility, ignorance and irrational programs and decisions. Those warped foundations have made their way to government and created a government that is a monster. That monster has all but replaced the role the American people should fill with charity, kindness, hard work and sacrifice.

Since the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance, the so-called "conservative" senators in Oklahoma are pushing for millions of dollars in victim handouts. Additionally, liberalism has made its way to the World Trade Center issues – the government is handing out millions of dollars to victims and victims' families of the attack on the WTC.

This totally baffled me when it was happening. And I wrote my represenatives to government and told them so.

What kind of idiots do we send to Washington anyway? When did the US government become a life insurance company?

I have as much empathy for the families of the victims of these terrorist attacks as anyone. I do not however believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to appropriate funds to compensate individual families of victims of acts of war or crimes.

can't the congress appropriate funds wherever they chose? isn't that what they do with the budgets? You are correct. It is what they do, but only because the people have permitted Congress to exceed their authority. Read for yourself just how limited the power of the Federal government truly is.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Liberalism is a mixture of all-out greed, irresponsibility, ignorance and irrational programs and decisions.

I think Mr. Williams misses the point here. He comes close to identifying the nature of liberalism/socialism through some of his examples but his concluding statements are a little off-base. The key issue here is control. Those that believe in the collectivist dogma want to tell people what to do, where to go and how to act. And they have no qualms about using the force of government to accomplish their goals. Greed? Money is merely a means to this end. If they could accomplish their goals without spending a dime, I believe they would. Irresponsibility? Certainly, no one who advocates such programs wants to be held accountable for the "unintended" consequences of their actions. Create generation after generation of an illiterate, unproductive welfare class? Oh, but that's not what we intended! Disarm millions of law-abiding citizens to the benefit of the predators and criminally insane? Oh, but that's not what we intended! We won't say we're sorry and we won't change our minds. Irresponsible? Indeed! Ignorance? Most of those who support such ideas are ignorant. Ignorant of basic economics and the history and heritage of this country. However, the "leadership" is not unaware of these simple truths. They simply choose to ignore them in pursuit of their own political careers. More control. Irrational? Certainly, to those of us who have at least a basic understanding of the ideas upon which this country was founded, they might seem irrational. But when you understand the motivation behind such actions, they make perfect sense. If control over other people were my goal, I would follow exactly the path chosen by the "leadership" of the left. First, I would transform the public school system from an institution dedicated the transfer of knowledge and development of critical thinking to one based on developing "self-esteem" and "diversity". An uneducated and unthinking electorate will vote for anything or anyone. Next, I would try to instill as much class envy as possible. I would imply that no one really earns their wealth. Just that some are "luckier in life's lottery" than others. Since, effort and ability have nothing to do economic success, we'll just even things up by taking from the rich to give to the poor. Since those of modest means will always far out number those with greater wealth, an electorate bought and paid for is created. Lastly, I would declare every problem in the country a "crisis" or an "emergency" requiring federal intervention, no matter how small or local the problem might be. Sugar prices too low? Subsidies and tariffs should cure that problem. Inner city schools have leaky roofs and graduates that can't read? Apparently, $6000 a year per student isn't enough. Let's make it $8000 and see if Johnny can read his diploma. Floods in Texas? Hurricanes in Florida? Break out the federal checkbook and make it all better. It's all about control.

i suppose they could weakly state a case for the "general welfare" as providing for the welfare of certain individuals within the republic.

Yes a very weak case in my opinion but the Liberals in this country make their entire political careers out of the extremely loose interpretation (reading in the penumbra) of the Constitution.

And then the Liberal Judges come along and create new rights out of whole cloth by reading all kinds of never intended rights into acts of Congress.

All of this is exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended to prevent in creating a government of delegated powers and divided powers.

provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

Note that the Congress is granted the authority to pass laws that promote the general welfare of the United States not the people which would be the wording if the government were to provide individual assistance to citizens.

The newest concept that raises my ire is "social equity" or "social justice." It is pure socialism - redistribution of global wealth based on a doctrine of "fairness."

It is the liberal's belief that life must be made "fair" by government, that "competition" (e.g. winners and losers) is eliminated from our children's lives. That everyone is made "equal" by government programs. That everyone has an equal say and control over what happens in their communities and on property within those communities. That decisions affecting the "community" must be consensus-based and all conflict eliminated.

Liberals want government to eliminate the diversity and differences between us. Liberals want un-natural homogenity and in that they seek an end to conflict.

I was watching a biography on the history channel on Davey Crocket and Daniel Boone. They discussed how Fess Parker, by playing both, had amalgamated the two as one heroe that embodied the characteristics of an American - rugged, robust, individualistic, capable, competitive, courageous, adventuresome, principled. To me this describes conservative values.

I once made a statement in a discussion that civilizations are known for how they treat their most vulnerable populations. The wise retort was, yes, but that does not mean that government should assume that job.

These points have helped me grasp the differences between liberals and a conservatives.

So, could you perhaps run for office so that I might be honored to cast my vote for you?

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I'm flattered. However, whatever political career I might pursue would stay on a local level. In today's political climate, I don't believe I would make a "good" national candidate. I'm an average-looking middle-aged single white guy of limited means and ambition. I tend toward the libertarian ideals on most issues and would not vote in favor of ANY special interests over the interests of the taxpayers were I in a position to do so. But I'm not a member of any party. I couldn't, in good conscience, take campaign money from any group, union or corporation. If I were elected, I doubt whether I would serve more than one term. I'm friendly enough that most people seem to like me, but not outgoing enough to to be an effective campaigner. Giving speaches, pressing the flesh and kissing babies is just not my style. I think Congress could use a lot more people like me, but I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

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.