Snark rebuttal

In response to the snark I received this week from Alex, my husband decided to rebut Alex's points one by one. Don's comments are in italics.
_______________________________

Hello Patrice,

My name is Alex and I've have been an Economics and Sociology professor at [location of university removed so as not to identify the writer] for 6 years. [I’m not so sure. I’ve done extensive searches on the university’s website and can find no mention of Alex’s name. But perhaps he wrote under a pseudonym.] I just finished reading your article, "A Nation Bursting With Spoiled Brats." To start, I just want you to know that I'm not a Republican or Democrat. Nothing I say here is influenced by any political philosophies or motives. [Okay, this is just too stupid to be real. As you will see as you read on, EVERY thing that Alex has to say beyond this point is politically motivated as a part of the socialist/progressive/coercive mind set.]

I enjoyed the first half of your article and agree completely that Americans today are wayyy too spoiled, fickle, and unappreciative. There's no denying that.

However, I am concerned with your ignorant, insensitive, and elitist rant vilifying less fortunate Americans [You mean the spoiled, fickle, and unappreciative ones, right Alex?] (meaning less fortunate than you) that desire things such as free health care, affordable housing and food, and employment that pays a livable wage.

[First off, any “professor of economics” who can use the term “free health care” is a prime example of the failure of our education system. It ain't free, Doc. Someone has to pay for it. Likewise “affordable housing,” and food, and a “living wage.” Secondly, I desire a lot of things too. But desire without a willingness to work for these things is called envy or covetousness. And these are listed by just about every religion in the world as great sins, because they are the prime movers in nearly every form of bad behavior.]

I want to make clear that I do not support government pampering of criminals, illegal aliens, or lazy people who want to sit on their butts all day, and that I do not believe in punishing people for their success [except by sticking a government gun to their head and demanding a sizable portion of their “success” to support not only those down on their luck but also “criminals, illegal aliens, or lazy people who want to sit on their butts all day”], but your views expressed in your article is exactly what anyone would expect from a person as financially well off as you who has never known what it's like to really struggle in poverty and who is extremely out of touch with reality, especially with regard to urban life.

[Financially well off!!!??? Buddy, we work twelve hour days to remain comfortably at the upper edge of the poverty level. But we do so by choice so that we are home with our kids and so that we can be beholden to none but God. I'm absolutely certain that you, by yourself, make more money than Patrice and I do combined while working far fewer hours.]

A white American woman from the rural Mid-West who owns a business, a shop, a home on 20 acres of land, with home-schooled children, has a lot of nerve thinking she has the right to say ANYTHING against people who didn't come from where she did and who don't have what she has.

[I don't have what you have either, Alex. Does that mean you have no right to say anything against me? Apparently not. What was that you said earlier about Patrice's “ignorant, insensitive, and elitist rant”?]

You think everyone in America has 20 acres of land, their own business, and the same opportunities that a white American woman has, who has an American sounding name, and who's ancestors probably have been here since the days of the colonial settlers?

[Actually, her grandparents were Polish immigrants who worked in poverty, learned English, and sent their kids to school to do better than themselves. A proud family of immigrants who left their despotic socialist country behind and came to the land of freedom to become proud Americans. And what IS your fascination with WHITE women??]

Do you think for example, that a person in the inner-city or suburb, who has a parent or family member who's a drug addict or who barely speaks English or who has no idea how the American economic and financial system works [So far I've seen no sign that YOU understand how our economic or financial system works. But you've got an excuse. You're a progressive professor.], whose family lives off of 11,000 per year from their slave-wage job, who went to poor schools with bad teachers [Remember: highest per student expenditures: Washington D.C.] and, as a result, got a poor education, and who live in a drug and crime infested community – do you think such a person is going to be inclined to be positive-thinking winner who goes out and seizes the world by the tail and be a success?

[And all we need is more regulation and more money to fix this problem, right? A trillion dollars spent so far on the war on poverty. Most going to fat cat community organizers and race pimps, and bureaucrats.  Oh, and liberal professors. If this poor family hates living where they do, they should work hard, save money, find a way to become better educated, AND MOVE! It's time they accept their role as free adults and not the children of government.]

Do you think a parent who has to work 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet and who can barely put anything away at the end of the month, and who has no time to pursue further education or even to take care of their own kids, is going to easily escape the economic prison they're in with their heads held up high?

[Hmmm. Let’s see. We work three jobs just to make ends meet. We rarely have anything left at the end of the month. We pursue our further education by reading (usually late at night) after long work days because we MAKE THE TIME FOR IT. And we still find the time to take care of our kids. All things are possible with God and with a willingness to do what is right. However, since I assume you aren't talking about us specifically, here's the answer to your question: Yes. If they stay married, get a high school education, wait to have kids until they can afford them and stay off drugs and booze. Works every time it's tried.]

Sure, it happens, occasionally. [All the time, man. It used to be the norm in America. That is, until the government started paying poor parents money to not  get married (or to separate) and produce more kids.] We always hear inspirational stories of people who succeeded in the face of enormous hardship or who started a business idea or invented something that soon made them a successful millionaire, but people need to stop rubbing such success stories in the faces of the masses because it is a huge misrepresentation of reality. [No it isn't, Doc. These things are common place. It's what has made us the greatest nation on earth. And it only become less likely if we continue our slide into the ‘command and control’ system of socialism. Remove the incentive to strive for greatness, and greatness ends.] The number of people who come from nothing and succeed in escaping their life of struggle and poverty are in the extreme minority! [Over 80 percent of today's American millionaires came from middle or lower-class families. And until the "War on Poverty programs destroyed the black family structure, black Americans were rapidly entering the middle class. Don't believe this? Read "Losing Ground" by Charles Murray. You might actually begin to get the education to go with your title.] Mathematical probability always allows for an occasional winner to slip through the cracks, the same as with the lottery. [Your chance of winning the lottery is one in millions. Your chance of escaping poverty by being married, getting a high school education, not having kids until you can afford them, working hard and staying off drugs is nearly 100 percent. I see you're every bit as good a statistician as you are an economist.] However, the average person who pursues the lottery just because of the "You never know" slogan, is a fool who will spend the rest of their lives trying and hoping, but will never win. Why? Because the system wasn't designed for everyone to make it and be financially well off. After all, if everyone had money and was doing well, the value of money would be worthless. [Oh God, give me strength! (That's a prayer, not taking the Lord's name in vain.) There is no way you can POSSIBLY be an economist. Money is an abstract, a handy way of moving the value of labor and time around. It's not a thing in and of itself unless you are an idiot socialist. Money only becomes worthless when the issuer creates more of it then the total value of work accounts for. Today this is referred to as quantitative easement.] The game is fixed and most people don't know the rules.

[The rules are simple when a coercive state isn't involved. So let me make it easy for you and anyone else that doesn't know the rules.

1. Work hard six days a week and then take a day off.
2. Remember and honor your parents and ancestors for all that they did for you. Teach you children to do the same.
3. Do not murder.
4. Do not break your word, especially for those whom you love and who love you. If you can't keep your vows, don't make them.
5. Theft is wrong no matter how you justify it. "It's for the children" or "They have more than they need" are the same justifications for theft when used by a back alley mugger or a progressive professor. Slavery is theft as well. And it doesn't matter if the slave is owned by a single master or a collective.
6. Don't lie or gossip. Be a person that others can depend upon.
7. Kill your envy of others. Work to improve your lot however you define it, but remember that no matter how great your material wealth, it ends with your last breath.

There. Those are the rules (mostly). I purposely left God out of the equation because I suspect that had I placed Him in His correct position at the head of the list, you would have hyperventilated. But even without inviting God into your heart, just following the rules above will give you a good life more often than not.]

In conclusion, my point is, do you think the people in the above two examples I mentioned can, whenever they need it or feel like it, go out and afford a nice health care plan, buy good food with nutritional value, or find a job that will allow them to live like human beings and not like slaves? [If they follow the rules above, more than likely.]

Should anyone be forced to live in a cramped, dirty, overpriced apartment or tiny cookie cutter house & lot where the neighbors on both sides are so close they can hear everything you do in
your own house and vice-versa? [Hee Hee!! When Patrice and I married, we lived in tiny cookie cutter house in a crime-ridden neighborhood with section 8 cramped, dirty, apartments next door (and we heard a lot!). We worked our tails off to get out of there. Eventually we left that city and moved to a four-acre property in Oregon. I say four-acre property because even though there was a "house" that came with the land, it was assumed we would tear it down. The roof leaked everywhere. The walls were literally one inch thick. There was no foundation. I had just started my woodworking business. Patrice worked nights as a waitress and went to school. The night work was important because it meant that one or the other of us was always home with our children. I took the babies to bed with me, a bottle of mothers' milk in my armpit to keep it warm for them. The wolf never came to our door because it knew the pickings were too slim. And we worked and worked. We didn't complain. We knew that that work was leading us to something better.]

In a greedy and corrupt economic and legislative system where the business owners and the wealthiest of the wealthy get all the breaks, loopholes, and advantages, and the masses carry all the nation's economic burdens, it is not socialism to even the bar a bit and give people a fair, human standard of living.

[If you took all the money from everyone and divided it up equally, inside of one year the same people who originally had the most would have it again. Sorry, but bell curves exist for a reason. When ever you take something from one person by the threat of force to give to another (while some of it sticks to your own hands "for expenses"), it's socialism. "Evening the bar" is another tool of the despot.]

You, like many Americans who use the word "Socialism," have no idea what it means. What you label "Socialism," I and many others call common decency and love for your fellow mankind.

[And you'll enforce that decency and love with a gun as needed. I do know what socialism is. It's the Gulag in the old Soviet Union. It's the concentration camp in Nazi (National Socialism) Germany. It's the "re-education" camps in China and Cambodia and North Vietnam. It's State sponsored slavery. And it's coming to America unless we expose it for what it is, and destroy it root and branch.]

And you call yourself a woman of God? [You are talking about the finest, most caring, most loving woman I have ever met, Alex. I don't deserve her. But God has blessed me with her despite my failings. Watch your mouth.] Do you think Jesus Christ would have spoken about the masses as arrogantly and insensitively as you have in your article? Do you think Jesus, when he was on earth, would have denied someone food, water, shelter, or would have refused to cure their ailment just because they didn't have money, were unemployed, had no skills, didn't go to college, or were lazy? [Your ignorance of the teachings of Jesus and his disciples is appalling. Get to a church that teaches the Word alone, then write back and apologize. We'll forgive you. Promise. But just a hint to start you out, read 2 Thessalonians 3:10.] The Bible teaches us to be hard, self sufficient workers but it does not teach us to be insensitive and arrogant towards the less fortunate and does not teach us to deprive others of help because they're poor and have nothing to contribute. Jesus Christ would have found your article appalling and disgusting. [Did you actually READ Patrice’s column?? Like the part where she said, "This isn't to imply we should sit like fat cats, cocky and smug and surrounded by affluence while we let others suffer. Of course not. It behooves us to be generous with our gifts from God." No. Of course you didn't read her column. After all, the whole point of your rant is an apology (in the old fashioned sense of the word) for elitist statism built on envy, covertness, fear, and violence.]

I would very much be interested in hearing what you have to say in reply, just as long as you have an open mind, can think for yourself, and do not spew a bunch of conservative rhetoric.

Sincerely,
Alex

[So there you go, Alex. Let me make my opinion of you as perfectly clear as I can. You are a fool and a tool. You have no concept of logic or critical thinking. You are incapable of historical analysis. You have absolutely no business teaching puppies, let alone young people. You are therefore a credit to your progressive statist masters. You are the worst kind of elitist because you actually think that in the brave new world you envision, you will be one of the leaders. You are all for egalitarianism as long as someone else will be cleaning the toilets.

We've seen your type before: Human bedbugs who scream about your right to share in the warmth of someone else's body heat while you suck their blood. And before you start yammering about my lack of "Christian kindness," try this one on for size: I believe the pernicious evil that you and those like you represent deserves the same level of mercy as the temple money changers or the demon-filled pigs (Look them up. It will be a good start on your religious education.)

Alex, your philosophy and mine can never reach accord. Any compromise that would cause me to take even a step towards your way of thinking would take me away from the Good and a step closer to the horror that awaits if your world vision ever comes to fruition.

I will, however, pray for you. See, I have one thing going for me that I suspect you don't. I know what sin is. And I know I'm a sinner. And believe it or not, that knowledge is a strength, not a weakness, because I also know what I must do to be forgiven my imperfections. Alex, start your journey towards the Good by finding out what I mean. But stop teaching others your filthy lies until you've learned the truth yourself.

Now I know there are some of the Patrice's readers who are appalled by my harsh words to Alex. You no doubt feel that I have gone beyond the bounds of propriety and civil discourse.

And you know what? You're right.

But it is time to end this dangerous losing game of trying to make nice with people like Alex. The Alex's of the world happily plan for the day my children will be in chains. They are from the same mold as the monsters who supported Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. Their concepts of "decency and love" are, in the end, the interior of the crematorium and the horror of the mass grave. You can no longer compromise with evil.]

Oh dear. Now I'm holding back the progression of mankind.

My oh my. I just received an interesting snark.

It seems someone read one of my WND columns from two years ago entitled What Is a Socialist? (I'll pause while you go read it.) Then he sent the following:

You're excerpt on socialism that I've posted below [this included most of the body of the column] is disgusting. Way to bend every little fact you can find to your bias. All you're doing is holding back the progression of mankind.

Wow. Little ol' me, single-handedly holding back the progression of mankind! Imagine that. Can someone please explain to me HOW, precisely, I'm achieving that end?

As with most snarks, the critic is long on name-calling and short on actual data to back up his claims that I'm bending every little fact I can find to suit my bias. Doubtless this reader is totally, completely, and utterly free from any progressive bias, no?

In fact, I think this reader is a genius. In a few short lines, he managed to illustrate to an exceptional degree the very points I raised in my column. That takes sheer brilliance.

Socialized medicine - fifty years ago

A friend sent me this YouTube link to an advertisement from the 1950's narrated by a young(er) Ronald Reagan, warning against the evils of socialized medicine. I found it fascinatingly prescient.

Views from a liberal

In response to this weekend's WorldNetDaily colum (Have a Selfish Thanksgiving), I got a lengthy email from my favorite liberal reader, Robert. This gentleman routinely (but politely) takes me to task for just about any opinion I express. I guess he can never accept the idea that we disagree on almost everything (except a mutual love for classical music). Contrary to his claim, this fellow is about as deep a Progressive as you could ever define.

So here's his latest email to me. One common theme in his missives (besides the evils of homeschooling) is that because conservatives are less inclined to unquestioningly hand out money in the form of welfare, we are therefore a cold heartless lot who want to see poor people die on the street, yadda yadda yadda.

Anyway, decide for yourself.
______________________________________

Hello Patrice! I don't agree with you here. Yes, communism proved to be the worst economic system ever. It was horribly inefficient and unproductive.

But you have to realize that its polar opposite, pure laissez-faire capitalism, where it's dog eat dog and every man for himself, and if you're down on your luck, tough noogies, is no better. I'm no socialist, Marxist or communist, even though a lot of right-wingers have accused me of this on the internet just because I don't share their economic and social views, but there HAS to be a safety net.

Without it, too many innocent people will be helpless and fall through the cracks. I believe in capitalism, yes. But not the kind where we're all on our own, and if misfortune strikes, too bad. Unfortunately, too many right-wing Americans mistake the existence of a safety net for socialism.

They aren't the same thing at all. And many say that private charities should be that safety net, and that the government has no business helping any one. Wrong. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for private charities. But it's a mistake think that they can provide for every one in need. In fact,they can't even come remotely close.

You said in your last post that you don't want to live in America if "socialism" come here. It hasn't and won't. If anything, the danger is right-wing extremists who want to destroy our already inadequate one, which would be catastrophic.

Look. The vast majority of Americans, and people everywhere, aren't lazy bums who want the government to support them in style for life so they can live an easy life with no work to do. They want to work and earn a decent or better living and to be secure along with their families for life.

But you forget that social and economic conditions in America make this extremely difficult if not impossible for so many people.

It's not easy in America to get a good education past high school and get and keep a secure job with good benefits. Working hard is important and people should do this. But it's absolutely no guarantee of prosperity or security.

But unfortunately, the lame ducks in congress are about to be replaced by a lot of Republican lame brains who tell gullible people all they want to hear about lowering taxes, "limited" government, "smaller" government and all that, and restoring "freedom."

But beware. They aren't going to increase prosperity if they get power, but only make things much worse. Lame ducks to lame brains. Just what we need.

All the best,
Robert

Socialism explained

Here's one of the best articles I've read in a long time on the pitfalls of socialism. It is on Kitco's Commentator Corner.

To all those who long to implement socialism in this country: Be verrrry careful of what you wish for, because you just might get it.
______________________________



Will Sovereign Debt Defaults Bring the End of Socialism?

by James Turk

Copyright © 2009 by James Turk. All rights reserved.

Socialism has come to mean many different things to many people, but regardless how it is defined, in the months immediately ahead it will be put to a rigorous test. The test will be visible to everyone as countries around the globe run out of money and confront overwhelming debts that cannot be repaid as well as other wide-ranging financial promises that can no longer be met. In short, the ideological bankruptcy of socialism will be laid bare by government insolvency.

It had to come sooner or later. The reasons are not hard to understand.

The ideological bankruptcy is neatly captured by British author and advocate for individual rights, Cecil Palmer: “Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn’t needed, and in hell where they’ve got it”. And government insolvency is explained by famed economist Frederic Bastiat, who made this levelheaded observation nearly 150 years ago about the nascent modern socialism then emerging. “The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” More recently, Margaret Thatcher, being a sensible politician, put it pragmatically: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

Take Greece for example. This past week yields on its 10-year bonds surged in the wake of downgrades by the bond rating agencies, which finally recognized that Greece does not have the financial resources needed to repay its debts, which now stand near junk levels. Not far behind are Latvia, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom and almost every other country in Europe, even though they may still flog paper rated as “investment grade.” The reality is that the rating agencies just have not yet come to grips with the breadth and depth of widespread government insolvency, or have willingly turned a blind-eye to it. And don’t forget Iceland which of course has already collapsed.

How did we sink to this state of affairs? Nobel Laureate Friedrich von Hayek provides the answer in his brilliantly insightful and prescient book, The Road to Serfdom, penned during the waning years of the Second World War.

Hayek’s central theme is that wars expand the power of the modern state because the national planning to fight the war continues even during times of peace. This perennial government planning then expands the social-welfare state over time, with harmful results. Most importantly, economic activity is impeded by the growing state as people and resources become less productive. In other words, because the government does not create consumable goods and services, it is an economic burden to the productive sector of the economy.

Then as the government grows, interest groups become increasingly numerous and powerful, leading to political corruption. More wars or even foreign policy tensions and economic crises can propel demagogues and dictatorial leaders to expand further state powers to the detriment of each and every one of us. In Hayek’s words: “Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded.”

Hayek noted that the subtle damage inflicted upon the productive economy and the visible growth of the state arising from socialism become evident only over time. We have now reached that stage.

More people depend on the state than those who provide it with the money the state needs to meet its promises. Most of Europe long ago passed the 50% threshold with more people depending on government than the private sector, but even in the United States – long reigning as the bastion of capitalism, free-markets and limited government – 58% of the population derives their income from government at some level.

Consequently, we are now approaching a fork in the road. One way leads to more socialism, more demagogues and eventually a dictator who promises that he will make socialism ‘work’. The other leads to the capitalist society that America used to be, with free-markets, limited government and the unconditional rule of law.

Hopefully, we will choose correctly. If we don’t, we know from Winston Churchill what awaits us: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

Scary quote

This came from Suzanne Venker's excellent blog, No Bull Mom. Like her, I found this quote to be terrifying:

Norman Mattoon Thomas was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. As a candidate he said this in a speech in 1944: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist party. The Democrat party has adopted our platform."

Economics 101 (socialism in action)

Don't believe me when I say socialism doesn't work because it takes away incentive? Consider the following real-life example of economic theory put to work (this is one of those forwarded emails - I italicized certain lines):
_________________________________________

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade, so no one would fail and no one would receive an A."

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around the students who studied little had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

From my cold dead hands....

A friend sent me this short history of gun control:

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
• China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

• Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
• Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!).
• In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
• Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
• While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past twelve months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
• There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won’t see these data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. Gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED. The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are ‘citizens.’ Without them, we are ‘subjects.’

Switzerland issues every household a gun. Switzerland’s government trains every adult to whom they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun-related crime rate of any civilized country in the world. There is an effort in Switzerland at the moment to enforce a gun ban. It is based on the UN’s desire to disarm the world!

This is a no-brainer. Don’t let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all law-abiding citizens an easy target.

They STILL don't get it (Part II)

Yet again in response to yesterday's column, "What Is a Socialist?", someone took the trouble to write a rather cleverly-written looooong Digg reply in which they recreated the format of my column but equated Christianity with all the negative points I made about socialism. Be sure to read my comments at the bottom.

Christianity and Socialism seem to have a lot in common. See, it's easy to find examples for each charge, as if maybe those negative traits being ascribed to socialists were, in fact, just human traits...examples of which may be singled out and pointed to in any number of philosophies.

1) Socialists believe in the use of force to gain their personal ends: Christianity forced millions of conversions over the centuries, upon pain of death and torture. The Spanish Inquisition, for example. The Bible states that all who do not worship God are to be destroyed and their homes burned. They even burned people alive. And they didn't give up that authority willingly. They want it back.

2) Socialists believe in slavery: Christianity does too. It has rules for buying and selling, and even beating one's slaves. It has provisions for selling one's own daughter into slavery. Moses' holy conquerors took little girls as slaves. Numbers 31:17.

3) Socialists are racists: Christianity tells us that Ham, of dark skin, is cursed forever with servitude. Christian churches presided over the early American slave trade with smiling 'benevolence'. Mormons were even worse. Joseph Smith declared that black people who are 'exceptionally moral' will gradually become white.

4) Socialists believe the worst in everyone: Christianity tells us we're all worthless sinners who are, by default, condemned to eternal agony and torture because of something done centuries ago by people well beyond our control.

5) Socialists think religion, especially Christianity, is stupid and nothing but a prop for the unwashed masses: Christians claim all OTHER religions are nothing but a prop for the unwashed masses, or worse, worthy of 'destruction/conversion'. To quote Ann Coulter (of Muslims): "We should kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity." Also see 1) above.

6) Socialists believe in an ignorant society: Talking snake. Tyrannosaurs on the Ark. Magic rib. Flat earth. Crystal heavens. Abiogenesis. Incestuous genetic origin. Do not question authority. Ever.

7) Socialists believe you have no right of self-defense: All are Judged by (our) God, there is no escape. Obey our rules, or suffer forever after death. Your guilt is hereditary.

8) Socialists are intolerant: Gays are worse than terrorists and morally equivalent to murderers? They caused 9/11? Or how about today's headline? [NOTE: The writer included a long list of links to articles]

9) Socialists are hypocrites: "Gays in this country are destroying the traditional family!" - Ted Haggard

10) Above all, socialists are in denial: See above.

Okay, to the writer of this piece: I don't really care about your obvious contempt for Christianity. Your religious persuasion (or lack thereof) is an issue strictly between you and God. But try - close your eyes and please, just TRY to wrap your little pea brain around this concept:

SOCIALISTS ARE THE ONES PASSING LAWS AT THE POINT OF A GUN. CHRISTIANS ARE NOT.

Whatever your views on Christianity and its history, the fact remains that Christians aren't the ones FORCING (can you please try to comprehend the term "force"?) the rest of us to conform with their will. Socialists are.

They STILL don't get it...

In response to today's column, What Is a Socialist?, someone left a Digg comment as follows, actually quoting Scripture in support of socialism:

What is a Socialist?
Often a Christian who follows the scriptures:

You cannot serve God and wealth. Matthew 6:24
It is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need. 2 Corinthians 8:13,14
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Acts 2:44,45

Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian's faith. —George Lansbury

Maybe I'm just a dim bulb here, but my understanding is that these passages suggest a voluntary assistance to those in need, not a government thug pointing a gun at your head and demanding that we "sell [our] possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need."

There's a helluva difference between Christian acts of charity - one of the foundations of our faith - and government-mandated theft of your wealth to be distributed to those (and only those) the government deems worthy.

Thoughts?