My friend over at Liberty Pen has posted another great video on his YouTube channel.  Milton Friedman is one of his major subjects and this video is an interview on TV from back in the early 60's.  Friedman gives one of the best arguments against modern liberalism.  Topics covered include Social Security, Minimum Wage, and The Great Depression.  But the key statement was his comment on the adjectives we use as titles.  He says, "I consider myself a liberal in the truest sense of the word, while those who call themselves liberal today are actually conservative.  They are conservative in the truest sense of the word because they want to preserve the course this nation is on which is bigger government and moving toward socialism.  They think of themselves as soft hearted but the softness has moved into their heads.  You know, I want the poor to be helped and for the underemployed to make a living wage, but the laws and policies they want to implement don't get the results they are seeking.  A worker with low skills doesn't get higher wages because the law forces the employer to avoid hiring him at all.  People I would trust personally actively lie to the American public because they believe these policies are best for the public.  For instance, with the Social Security program, the law states that the employee pays half and the employer pays half but the truth is the employee pays all of it.  If the employer is able to afford (adjusting for the times) $15.00 per hour he subtracts the amount going out for taxes and benefits so that the employee is actually taking home $8.50 for each hour he works.  The rest goes to the government to manage for him."  Considering that is nearly half the employee's earning power, you've yet to figure in sales, property, estate, and a slew of other taxes.  So if we figured the government's true cost, we can only conclude that the government's take is nearly 60% of our earning power with some 15% coming back in very limited benefits they should have no authority to purchase and dole out.

Stupidity is a luxury.  The more separated you are from the consequences of your stupidity, the more stupidity you can survive, the more stupid you become.  Or, you can reverse the observation and state:  The closer you are to the consequences of your stupidity, the sooner and the more you pay for your stupidity, the more incentive to acquire objectivity.  The further we get from the last generation to be raised with the values and commitment to truth, right, and good, the more stupid our culture becomes.  We know that generation as the Greatest Generation.  That generation acquired its name by facing down the greatest evils of the last century and by producing the most successful economy the world has ever known.  They are the generation which grabbed onto the technology revolution with both hands and turned little ideas into great companies and generated productivity advances by leaps and bounds.  They faced the great challenges and defeated them and they ignored the most important duty they would ever have.  The duty to pass their values on to the next generation.  Their progeny were the stupid generation.  That generation which brought us the sit-in demonstration, the drop-out and drug cultures, and another return to the Utopian vision of world peace.  Why?  Because they were protected from the consequences of stupidity by their parents' wealth and blind faith in the professors to educate them with the best information and intent.  Unfortunately, those colleges were infected by the home grown communists.  Literal communists.

So, the stupid generation went to college.  Then, they went into entertainment and journalism and education.  These are three industries which do not depend on truth or objectivity.  All three industries with few exceptions, are protected from the consequences of objectivity blindness.  In education we find the hard sciences are the only place you can find conservatives and Republicans dominating on the college campus.  In entertainment, the only place you can find a conservative dominated field is sports.  Why?  Because the hard sciences are dependent on hard facts, objectivity.  The same with sports, the ball goes through the goal or the ball does not go through the goal.  It doesn't matter how many times and how well you explain the evil nature of the Jew and the Christian.  I'm sure I've mangled my attempt to title this observation by mixing Latin and French but... The defacto trifecta une betement is roughly translated 'the state of a perfect storm of foolish misinformation' resulting in full blown cultural delusion. 

When I was a kid, horror movies were truly horrific.  These days the entertainment industry creates image driven horror but back then, these movies had plots that laid out circumstances anyone could imagine themselves falling victim to such as a radio dj being stalked by a woman who appeared to be normal and in full control of her faculties, but who would set him up to be arrested and ruined if he did not meet her desires.  (Play Misty for Me)  Another was a nice looking motel which happened to have a caretaker who would kill overnighters and restore the room to normal before morning. (Psycho)  These movies took you into the lives of either the victims or the perpetrators if not both.  I bring this up because the next movie I mention is very much like the couch potato voter's experience in America today.  A woman is hired to be an office worker in an insane asylum.  She is received by the doctor and his staff and is pleased by their warm spirit.  She is set to work and goes through half the movie doing her job but finding odd things happening from time to time.  Before the movie is over, she realizes the good doctor and his staff are the inmates and the actual doctor and those remaining alive of his staff have been locked away in one of the padded rooms for weeks.  By the time this woman figures out what's going on, many of the other patients have been killed or maimed and her life is in dire jeapardy.

Let me just analagyze for a moment here.  If America is the insane asylum and socialist/communist/extremists' violence is against the founding fathers' ideals and the staff are those who hold true to those ideals, then the couch potato voters are the non-violent inmates, rather than the new hire.  A new hire would be an immigrant who values the same principals as the founding fathers.  New hires and non-violent inmates are being killed and maimed right along with the staff.  Immigrants, unsuspecting voters, and patriots to the founding fathers ideals are suffering tyrranny at the hands of the enemies of the founding fathers' ideals.  You guys helped these nuts get control of the asylum because they promised you a bunch of stuff you want, but they aren't delivering, because they can't deliver.  First they don't have the will to give you all the things they promised you.  Second, they couldn't if they tried, nobody has the resources to deliver on all those promises.  Third, even if we did have all those resources, they don't have the self discipline to deliver them because they first take everything they want.  Foruth, when you realize you aren't going to get what they promised you, the nuts are going to turn on you with all the vehemence they used on the staff.

I'm saying, America is literally headed toward becoming a communist state.  The nuts are destroying our Constitution right by right, legal precedent by legal precedent.  If the Republicans are going along, then they fall into the couch potato/non-violent role right beside you.  Their motivation is just like yours.  Personal profit.  But the modern day Liberal, the controlling force in American culture today, are literally parcing out favors and rights to promote their control and methodically destroying all the rest of our rights and wealth.  All the traditional information venues are controlled by these Modern day Liberals.  There is no police force to call in to set things right.  The framers of our Constitution wrote that right into the founding documents.  You have a right and the responsibility to ensure the government does not wrest control of our culture from the hands of those who value the framers' ideals.  Personal liberty comes with personal duty.  Your duty is to protect the individual's rights and hold government accountable to the rule of law.  If you won't, then liberty and rights are dead and the grand experiment of the culture of freedom is gone, perhaps forever more.  If we are not the next 'greatest generation' there may never be another opportunity for our children to be one.  Our only police force is you and the few who are finding other information venues like the internet are awakening to the real dangers, but it is highly unlikely enough will be motivated to act before its too late because this perfect storm of misinformation is keeping the majority either ignorant or in opposition to the steps we have to take. 

The following videos are long, approximately 35 minutes each, but you will not hear a more important message about the current condition of the Modern day Liberal's frame of mind.  Two years ago, Evan Sayet gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation that went viral and this year gave another expanding his examples.  The first video is the most recent.   If I haven't been clear enough or conveyed the dangers well enough for you to understand or believe my warnings, please listen to Evan explain the insanity we are observing in Wathington, in the media, in our kid's schools, and in the entertainment industry.

To quote Evan Sayet, "Every single medium in which there is honest open discussion, the Liberal looses.  He has to loose because he's always in opposition to the truth.  Take the same arguments the Liberals make on TV news and in the newspapers, into talk radio where they have to answer questions and they loose.  Take them to a townhall meeting or onto online debate forums and they loose.  Right?  Cable newstalk shows with representatives of both sides, they loose.  Viewers go to FOX news.  The only talk radio station they have has to have millions of dollars pumped into it by George Soros.  Their radio station is basically on welfare.  Liberal ideology cannot win in the marketplace of ideas."
KILL YOUR TV!!!

Ted West was commenting on his blog about his political motivations for ranting on the Liberals from another blog site and I thought I would go over and pour out my two cents on the community.  It seems they pay their bloggers to contribute.  So, I've started another new project and have been getting some payoff.  Literal payola.  So I have some articles written that I need to cross post back here.  Apologies to my VOX community for not responding lately.  The appeal of being paid to write was inebriating, but the reality of $10 a week payoff has sobered me.  You can check out the site and my work at BloggersBase.  I will continue to write here, but I need to adjust my rss to send complete articles rather than 1 or a partial paragraph so they will auto post there.  And, I'm going to have to go back to focusing on my blog theme instead of wandering all over the topic map as I've enjoyed doing over the past couple of years.  That said, I have a few issues of interest to broach just now, soooo...

I recently saw a report on the Aussie terror campaign in the form of setting wildland fires and accompanied that report with a photo of a wild koala being rescued from the ravaged forest.  Here is a video of that same koala during the rescue.

I ran across this report on Stumble Upon, the direction our country is taking and the reason so many states are suddenly so interested in the arcane secession movement is because our 'president' and this congress are making promises they have no authority to make, to put up the government's authority to implement eminent domain as collateral to China for the loans they are making to our government.  This story still needs verification but if true, we are either going to initiate a civil war or we are going to have our property and business sold off to the People's Republic of Communist China as the U.S. economy and the strength of the U.S. dollar decline.  This story has legs thus far on the back of an earlier report that China was calling for guarantees against the failing U.S. dollar.

This is literally a mortgaging of our sovereignty away to a communist state.  On a related topic, another blogger over at BloggersBase is predicting the global collapse of the international monetary system.  Personally, I think he is as bad as Al Gore using scare tactics to sell the global warming scam, but he is marketing gold.  Apart from that, he makes some compelling arguments for the gold standard.  Presently, we are experiencing a trend called Backwardation.  Essentially, Backwardation is the increasing real value of commodoty type money like gold and silver.  With fiat money like the dollar, the yen, the mark, there is no definition of real value.  With gold or silver, their value is set by the available quantity and the market demand on that quantity.  With fiat currencies both losing value and losing interest growth rates, the demand for commodoty currencies is ever increasing so that instead of paying 2000 ounces of gold for a particular piece of real estate, you can now pay 500 ounces of gold.  With the stock markets falling to 12-13 year lows and economists projecting worse and possibly much worse, investment wealth is evaporating.  Most investments have already lost half their value.  Investors are driving their wealth into liquid, 0 interest accounts for fear of continued value loss.  Banks are tight with their loaning principals all of a sudden and capital is nearly impossible to come by if you want to buy a big ticket item or start up a new business.  The only thing that will turn this all around is confidence.  Confidence in the dollar, confidence in the market, confidence in the investment structures, confidence in the government and thus far, not one of those entities is proving trustworthy.

Our government is putting up national sovereignty for collateral against loans from China.  States are moving to intercept the Fed's ability to interject eminent domain authority to sell all or parts of them, via Constitutional provisions for secession.  This does not breed confidence in our government.  Meanwhile, the stimulus continues to grow with each new examination of America's 'too big to fail' corporations and bailout programs.  The administration has submitted a projected spending budget of 3 trillion dollars for the year 2010.  What does the market have to be encouraged about?  The administration and the congress are legislating this country's hope and opportunity for recovery into the grave.  The move to sign away rights to business, property, or territories is a huge sign of failure and decline of the Great American Experiment.

In my last article I brought to you late breaking news about the assailing of our Constitution and government design.  Today, I am bringing the future history of our proud nation.  The story of how our great ship was sunk.  Unlike the ship in the video, this wreck of the good ship Liberty is well documented and its foolish captains and crew are having every command decision recorded for the world to see in real time.  In this case, the only power big enough, strong enough to face the threats against her name sake, 'freedom' and the world will remember the days of her influence with great sense of loss and sadness.

From Conservapedia

Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

Statistical Analysis

(Estimates)

• 30%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until after they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
• 15%: lack of desire to find the truth, and a greater desire in gaining attention, praise by liberal teachers, getting along by going along, and not standing up to liberal bullies
• 15%: refuse to let go of their past, especially their past mistakes and image
• 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
• 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
• 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
• 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
• 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

• 25%: raising or teaching children, and realizing how destructive liberal values are to many of them
• 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the Bible to heart
• 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values, as in losing a loved one to crime caused by pornography, drug addiction, gambling, etc.
• 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values^[1]
• 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as youth was wrong
• 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
• 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
• 5%: taking a truthful course in economics, or learning it in the workforce^[2]

Cultural indoctrination

• Brainwashing and deceit:

• They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
• Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
• Television programs posing as comedies, such as South Park, Family Guy, and The Simpsons, which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
• Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
• Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
• A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
• Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and James Maxwell. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—liberal historians and liberal scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
• Elementary through high school textbooks having appalling and reprehensible omissions on the basic facts of American life (religion, marriage, politics, and business)^[3]
• For decades Universities have discriminated against hiring conservatives, especially social conservatives and religious believers.^[4] This has resulted in most college graduates being exposed to liberals prejudiced against conservatives and conservative thought. These graduates become the teachers and other professionals who are unwitting soldiers in liberalism's battle against a Christian Reformed, Roman-Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox, obedient-to-God reality.

• No exposure:

• Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
• Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
• Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
• Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern Pastoral care as the Roman Catholic church)

• Peer Pressure:

• They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
• They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

• Systemic bias:

• Some people are inherently irrational, and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
• Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
• Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
• Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
• Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

• See also: Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?

Liberal characteristics

• Poor abstract thinking:

• They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
• They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
• Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
• Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
• Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

• Closed-minded:

• They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
• They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
• Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

• Naivety:

• Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
• An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
• A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
• Impressionable individuals buying into Bush derangement syndrome, and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
• Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

• Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:

• Some choose to do what is irrational.
• Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
• Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
• Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
• Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

References

1. ↑ See, e.g., the conversion of Ronald Reagan based in his friendship with his conservative father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[1]
2. ↑ See, e.g., the conversion of Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase.
3. ↑ Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks, Paul C. Vitz, Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X, (this book contains the results of a federally funded research project analyzing children's textbooks)
4. ↑ A Student's Guide to Religious Studies, D. G. Hart, ISI Books, 2005, ISBN 1932236589, 9781932236583, 108 pages; see page 38 and note on page 107.

If the new New Deal wasn't scary enough, perhaps the strangling of the constitutionally designed checks and balances is.  The Obaba administration is pulling out more stops than most pundits knew existed.  Here is yet another.   The Liberals are amassing power to themselves in ways that haven't been attempted since their initial trial back at the beginning of the Great Depression.  Are you ready for this?  No dissent allowed.

Effort to Stack Supreme Court Taking Shape

World AffairsPolitics & Opinions

posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:20 PMBy jmalmberg

February 17, 2009 – In 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was not happy with the Supreme Court. The Court had declared a number of the measures he was trying to implement in the name of fighting the Depression unconstitutional. Effectively, the Court was telling Roosevelt that he was meddling in state matters where the federal government didn’t have jurisdiction. So a dirty little trick was hatched, and in 1937 the administration advanced a proposal to stack the Court. Although the proposal failed, it created an environment that called the independence of the court system into question and in which the Court was actually afraid to overturn legislation in the name of the Constitution. And now a group of 31 intellectuals and former politicians with some of the most liberal leanings in the country are proposing that Congress take up a similar measure.

Roosevelt’s proposal was simple. He wanted Congress to allow him to make one judicial appointment for every federal judge who served past the age of 70 years and six months. This would have allowed him to appoint six new Supreme Court Justices as well as 44 other appointments to lower courts. Because the Supreme Court had been divided on a number of decisions regarding the New Deal, the scheme would have assured Roosevelt that the Court would no longer overturn his proposed laws.

As it turned out, just the threat of the court packing scheme was enough to stop the Court from voting against him. And its effect was profound. In fact, from 1937 to 1995, not one single piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by a President was declared unconstitutional. And during that same period of time, the federal government began to regulate everything from drug usage to the number of hours per day that schools are required to teach. In short, Roosevelt’s plan allowed the federal government to not only intrude on every day life, but to heavily regulate it.

The new proposal being put forth is called the Supreme Court Renewal Act of 2009. It differs in certain respects from the 1937 proposal but its effect would be similar. Among other things, it would allow the President and Congress to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice every two years without forcing the retirement of sitting justices, rotate the position of Chief Justice and force the court to decide cases it doesn’t want by placing the decision for which cases are heard in the hands of lower court judges.

The effect of the proposal would be to grow the size of the court and to politicize it. Sitting Presidents would have much greater influence over the court than they currently do. No longer could decisions rendered by the court be considered independent.

The proposal would also put much more influence into the hands of lower courts. With some limitations, those deciding which cases the Court should hear could effectively avoid having their decisions overturned by not submitting certain cases to the review process. This is neither desirable nor efficient.

To understand the reason for the proposal, you really need to take a look at those who are making it. Vikram D. Amar is a law professor at Berkley and UC Davis and has received awards from the ACLU. Paul D. Carrington is a professor at Duke who has openly lamented about the removal of Rose Bird - who was ultra-liberal even by California standards - by California voters as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. (Note: As a native Californian who remembers Rose Bird vividly, I can tell you that she deserved to be shown the door.) Lino A. Graglia, although leaning conservative in many areas, has compared the US Supreme Court to Iran’s “grand council of ayatollahs” and argues that the courts should be used to pursue social changes.  And that covers just a few of the thirty one people who are making the proposal to Congress. Most of the others have similar credentials. These so called intellectuals are largely opposed to the idea of a conservative Supreme Court.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is not, and should not be, to advance political views or a social agenda. The Court is there to insure that laws are constitutional and applied as intended by Congress. If the Court becomes stacked or more political, the Constitution is likely to take a back seat to the political winds of the day; a situation that would jeopardize each of our constitutional rights.

It is also important to note that an independent judiciary is constitutionally required. The changes being proposed by this “group of 31” would certainly bring that independence into question.

But the risk posed by this proposal is real. Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff has said that “you never want to let a serious crisis go to waste.” And the circumstanced under which Obama comes to office are all to similar to those surrounding FDR’s assent. This means that the proposal can’t simply be dismissed.

This new scheme to stack the court must be viewed with great concern by anyone who believes in the principles laid out in the Constitution. It is worth noting that many years after Roosevelt pushed through his New Deal, one of its chief architects – Rexford Tugwell – said of it, “To the extent that these policies developed, they were the tortured interpretations of a document (the Constitution) intended to prevent them.” He is clearly saying that the Roosevelt administration understood that the New Deal was unconstitutional but that they didn’t really care.

Note: When posting a comment, please sign-in first if you want a response. If you are not registered, click here. Registration is easy and free.

It is true that I disapprove of abortion.  I know that this practice kills more than one million babies every year.  I know

It is true that I disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle.  I know that this behavior is self destructive and millions of people suffer damage and disease to their bodies in its practice.  I know that the gay lobby in America is pushing its acceptance into every corner of our culture including our schools' kindergartens.  I know that this push is making our children's gender identity malleable and perverting their innocent psyches before they are ready for knowledge of such things.  I don't take that disapproval and go around beating and killing homosexuals.  That is what would demonstrate hate.  My faith instructs me to invite them to join me in this faith so they can learn that this behavior is harmful to our society as well as to themselves.

It is true that I disapprove of the religion of Islam.  I know that this religion has not been hijacked, that it practices the concept of justifiable deception, and that it requires its followers to institute world wide Sharia Law.  The same law that requires unequal treatment of women, blacks, and unbelievers.  I don't take that disapproval and go around beating and killing Muslims.  That is what would demonstrate hate.  My faith instructs me to invite them to join me in my faith so they can learn the source of real peace rather than Islam's brand of violent domination and overthrow of differing faiths and governance.

It is true that I disapprove of socialism.  I know that this is the stepping stone toward Communism, Maoism, and basic despotism including regimes like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Polpot, and countless others.  I have studied a little history and seen that the end of this ideology of building a utopia on earth is always, always the last step before re-education camps, Gulags, genocides, and so-called freedom wars against free and successful societies.  I don't take that disapproval and go around beating and killing socialists.  That is what demonstrates hatred.  My faith instructs me to invite socialists to join me in this faith so they can learn that people are inherently evil and must fight their own natures so they can live together in peace.

Hatred is not demonstrated in critical speech just because the speech is critical.  Hatred is demonstrated in speech and actions that intend harm.  Actions like keying cars, stealing burning or otherwise destroying political yard signs spray painting threats onto a candidates garage door firebombing a billboard or any of a hundred other examples is a form of intimidation.  Actions which intimidate others for their views is an abuse of their right to freedom of speech.  Hatred is demonstrated in speech which is intended to intimidate as well.  Do not confuse hatred with an opposing view on what's good for our culture and society.  Do not equate criticism with hatred.