Dear Liberal, Why I’m So Hostile…And How “Your political beliefs are a threat to liberty – not just for me, but for my three boys”WOW! This is a powerful, must read letter that should be shared with every American Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically. No, it s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man s power slipping through my fingers. I know that you ve accused our side of such nonsense, and the thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.Now before I waste too much of your time, let s establish who I m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be  fundamentally transformed , lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you re the guy I m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think. Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government. As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation. You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor. The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem   it s our attitude towards the solution. We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved. For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the  War on Poverty  began. You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away. We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America s healthcare system as you are. While we believe that America has the world s most capable physicians, has the world s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect. However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service. There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.Now that we ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda. First, let s talk about the word  progressive , since you now seem to prefer that word to  liberal . In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress. What is the ideal towards which you are striving? An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away. So, what is your ideal society?Though I can t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn t help but notice the influence that FDR s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy. The rights that FDR cited are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.At this point, you re probably screaming,  Right on!! , and who can blame you? What sane person in the world doesn t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated? These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of,  At what cost? I m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America. After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right? Doesn t it mean that it s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human? Let s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.If you re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR s misguided list   none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being.Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else. Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens. Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone. A true human right is one that you possess, even if you re the only person on the entire planet   and it is unconditional.FDR s list is no  Bill of Rights . It s a list of demands. If I have a right to a job, doesn t that mean that one must be provided to me? If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me? If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursue those things, but that s not what he said, and why would he? If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not? Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy. It s quite simple   your political beliefs are a threat to liberty   not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well. I care much less about the America that I m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask? In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents. If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you. If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish. You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea   you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket   you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle. You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs. You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens. Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty   it s an axiomatic truth.What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur. You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi. Somehow, you re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won t really matter that much.I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom. What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.I am reminded of Samuel Adams  impassioned speech where he stated: If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom,   go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!  Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says,  From each according to his ability; to each according to his need , and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.In your society, I don t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it   why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become   the harder I will fight you. It s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.Bring it.Jeremy N. Choateh/t Zero HedgeGovernment News
dear liberal why i so how your political beliefs threat liberty three boys wow this powerful must read letter shared every american lately i must admit hostility towards political ilk raped pretty dramatically no point life president white house i closet racist becoming increasingly frustrated prospects white man power slipping fingers i know accused side nonsense thought keeps warm night i assure comfortable fiction probably divest i waste much time let establish i talking if believe live evil imperialist nation founding believe fundamentally transformed lend ears if believe free market source vast majority society ills wish government intervention i talking if believe health care basic human right government provide everyone guy i screaming if think minorities possibly survive inherently racist country without handouts government mandated diversity quotas guy if believe rich people way exploited workers acquired wealth backs poor keep reading pretty much trust government fellow american post let say probably agree things think even tea party patriots occupy i observed common hatred insidious alliance big business big government as representative paul ryan correctly noted government never business picking winners losers corporate america person organization union corporation key back door contrary popular belief conservatives really concerned plight poor nation you accuse us compassionate hateful racist greedy studies shown comes charitable giving conservatives least depending study read generous liberals caring poor the difference us attitude towards problem attitude towards solution we believe government practically nothing well since without competition profit motive incentive well made plight poor far worse would ever government never gotten involved for stark example look farther condition black family america since war poverty began you believe government answer throw money problem problem go away we believe reagan aptly stated government solution problems government people might actually avail doctor services point lives concerned condition america healthcare system while believe america world capable physicians world innovative pharmaceutical industry cutting edge medical technology also understand delivery system far perfect however unlike see grave danger turning administration delivery system entity responsible giving us united states postal service there private sector solutions certainly explored kill system altogether giving government touched couple points common ground allow explain aggressiveness towards efforts implement progressive agenda first let talk word progressive since seem prefer word liberal in order label something progressive repressive one must idea constitutes progress what ideal towards striving an idea considered progressive moves us closer ideal repressive moves us away so ideal society though i begin discern thoughts every liberal may read i assume every liberal notion ideal society arguments liberals years i help notice influence for second bill rights shaping beliefs modern liberal regards domestic policy the rights for cited the right useful regenerative job industries shops farms mines nation the right earn enough provide adequate food clothing recreation the right every farmer raise sell products return give family decent living the right every businessman large small trade atmosphere freedom unfair competition domination monopolies home abroad the right every family decent home the right adequate medical care opportunity achieve enjoy good health the right adequate protection economic fears old age sickness accident unemployment the right good point probably screaming right blame what sane person world want everyone painfully employed adequately fed shortly clothed appropriately sheltered properly educated these goals every moral society planet however ignore fundamental question at cost i sure whether for shallow thinker simply shrewd machiavellian politician fact framed ideals human right troubling every person america after mean something human right doesn mean something entitled simply virtue human let think basic rights real bill rights delineated freedom speech freedom religion freedom petition government freedom bear arms freedom illegal search seizure moderately intelligent intellectually honest quickly see separates rights laid real bill rights laid for misguided list none rights listed require time treasure talents another human right speak requires nothing anyone else your right practice religion requires nothing fellow citizens your right bear arms means allowed possess weapons defend family makes demand weapon provided anyone a true human right one possess even person entire planet list bill rights it list demands if i right job mean one must provided if i right adequate food clothing recreation mean i entitled things someone provide if i inherent right decent home mean provided regardless ability afford one build one you might protest for meant right pursue things said would if live free society right pursue things besides believed right pursue things would felt need implement new may getting anxious wondering for second bill rights antipathy towards political philosophy it quite simple political beliefs threat liberty three boys children well i care much less america i living moment i one i leaving nathaniel charlie political bent threaten sons personal liberty ask in irrational attempt classify things clothing shelter health care employment income basic human rights placing demand upon time treasure talents if believe right health care successful persuading enough shallow thinkers think place demand upon provide if believe right job half america agrees business owner i obligated provide one even means making business less fact rail conservatism wish you make fun tea party gatherings ridicule patriots hats wet birth one thing certain political philosophy never threat freedom if feel burning responsibility poor conservatism never prevent working hours per week donating income charity if feel strong sense pity family afford health insurance political philosophy never prevent purchasing health insurance family raising money afford personally if moved compassion family homeless conservative never use police power government prevent taking family home mobilizing community build one say liberalism if i choose give poor whatever reason simply try persuade merits idea seek use government instrument plunder force give poor if walking street together spot homeless person using logic would simply content giving pocket would hold gun head force give modern liberalism accomplishes accomplished barrel government rifle you trust generosity american people provide private charity things clothing food shelter health care empower government take spend money wasteful inefficient inadequate government entitlement programs you trust personal responsibility average american wield firearms defense families seek empower government criminality use possession firearms private citizens overtime empower government lose personal liberty automatic angers eagerness allow incremental enslavement occur you clinched proverbial frog pot actually convinced discovered big silver jacuzzi somehow naive enough believe one degree heat really matter utmost respect slave continuously seeking path freedom what i stomach free man continuous seeking path servitude willingly trading freedom false sense security government reminded samuel adams impassioned speech stated if ye love wealth security better liberty tranquillity servitude animation contest freedom go us peace we ask counsel arms couch lick hands feed may chains sit lightly upon may posterity forget ye countrymen servitude exist free society freedom exist slave nation in free country liberty join others political ilk realize whatever collectives ideals dream you start little commune sign front gate says from according ability according need everyone work mutual benefit everyone else in society freedom society i freedom if collectives offend i free start free society within borders in order collectives work everyone must board even oppose think berlin wall in conclusion know harder push enact agenda hostile i become harder i fight it nothing personal necessarily if want become slave central government guest but planning take family say south i stop chest walk zero hedgegovernment news
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Dear Liberal, Why I’m So Hostile…And How “Your political beliefs are a threat to liberty – not just for me, but for my three boys”WOW! This is a powerful, must read letter that should be shared with every American Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically. No, it s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man s power slipping through my fingers. I know that you ve accused our side of such nonsense, and the thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.Now before I waste too much of your time, let s establish who I m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be  fundamentally transformed , lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you re the guy I m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think. Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government. As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation. You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor. The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem   it s our attitude towards the solution. We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved. For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the  War on Poverty  began. You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away. We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America s healthcare system as you are. While we believe that America has the world s most capable physicians, has the world s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect. However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service. There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.Now that we ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda. First, let s talk about the word  progressive , since you now seem to prefer that word to  liberal . In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress. What is the ideal towards which you are striving? An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away. So, what is your ideal society?Though I can t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn t help but notice the influence that FDR s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy. The rights that FDR cited are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.At this point, you re probably screaming,  Right on!! , and who can blame you? What sane person in the world doesn t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated? These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of,  At what cost? I m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America. After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right? Doesn t it mean that it s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human? Let s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.If you re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR s misguided list   none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being.Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else. Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens. Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone. A true human right is one that you possess, even if you re the only person on the entire planet   and it is unconditional.FDR s list is no  Bill of Rights . It s a list of demands. If I have a right to a job, doesn t that mean that one must be provided to me? If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me? If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursue those things, but that s not what he said, and why would he? If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not? Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy. It s quite simple   your political beliefs are a threat to liberty   not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well. I care much less about the America that I m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask? In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents. If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you. If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish. You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea   you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket   you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle. You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs. You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens. Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty   it s an axiomatic truth.What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur. You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi. Somehow, you re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won t really matter that much.I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom. What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.I am reminded of Samuel Adams  impassioned speech where he stated: If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom,   go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!  Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says,  From each according to his ability; to each according to his need , and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.In your society, I don t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it   why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become   the harder I will fight you. It s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.Bring it.Jeremy N. Choateh/t Zero HedgeGovernment News
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: dear liberal why i so how your political beliefs threat liberty three boys wow this powerful must read letter shared every american lately i must admit hostility towards political ilk raped pretty dramatically no point life president white house i closet racist becoming increasingly frustrated prospects white man power slipping fingers i know accused side nonsense thought keeps warm night i assure comfortable fiction probably divest i waste much time let establish i talking if believe live evil imperialist nation founding believe fundamentally transformed lend ears if believe free market source vast majority society ills wish government intervention i talking if believe health care basic human right government provide everyone guy i screaming if think minorities possibly survive inherently racist country without handouts government mandated diversity quotas guy if believe rich people way exploited workers acquired wealth backs poor keep reading pretty much trust government fellow american post let say probably agree things think even tea party patriots occupy i observed common hatred insidious alliance big business big government as representative paul ryan correctly noted government never business picking winners losers corporate america person organization union corporation key back door contrary popular belief conservatives really concerned plight poor nation you accuse us compassionate hateful racist greedy studies shown comes charitable giving conservatives least depending study read generous liberals caring poor the difference us attitude towards problem attitude towards solution we believe government practically nothing well since without competition profit motive incentive well made plight poor far worse would ever government never gotten involved for stark example look farther condition black family america since war poverty began you believe government answer throw money problem problem go away we believe reagan aptly stated government solution problems government people might actually avail doctor services point lives concerned condition america healthcare system while believe america world capable physicians world innovative pharmaceutical industry cutting edge medical technology also understand delivery system far perfect however unlike see grave danger turning administration delivery system entity responsible giving us united states postal service there private sector solutions certainly explored kill system altogether giving government touched couple points common ground allow explain aggressiveness towards efforts implement progressive agenda first let talk word progressive since seem prefer word liberal in order label something progressive repressive one must idea constitutes progress what ideal towards striving an idea considered progressive moves us closer ideal repressive moves us away so ideal society though i begin discern thoughts every liberal may read i assume every liberal notion ideal society arguments liberals years i help notice influence for second bill rights shaping beliefs modern liberal regards domestic policy the rights for cited the right useful regenerative job industries shops farms mines nation the right earn enough provide adequate food clothing recreation the right every farmer raise sell products return give family decent living the right every businessman large small trade atmosphere freedom unfair competition domination monopolies home abroad the right every family decent home the right adequate medical care opportunity achieve enjoy good health the right adequate protection economic fears old age sickness accident unemployment the right good point probably screaming right blame what sane person world want everyone painfully employed adequately fed shortly clothed appropriately sheltered properly educated these goals every moral society planet however ignore fundamental question at cost i sure whether for shallow thinker simply shrewd machiavellian politician fact framed ideals human right troubling every person america after mean something human right doesn mean something entitled simply virtue human let think basic rights real bill rights delineated freedom speech freedom religion freedom petition government freedom bear arms freedom illegal search seizure moderately intelligent intellectually honest quickly see separates rights laid real bill rights laid for misguided list none rights listed require time treasure talents another human right speak requires nothing anyone else your right practice religion requires nothing fellow citizens your right bear arms means allowed possess weapons defend family makes demand weapon provided anyone a true human right one possess even person entire planet list bill rights it list demands if i right job mean one must provided if i right adequate food clothing recreation mean i entitled things someone provide if i inherent right decent home mean provided regardless ability afford one build one you might protest for meant right pursue things said would if live free society right pursue things besides believed right pursue things would felt need implement new may getting anxious wondering for second bill rights antipathy towards political philosophy it quite simple political beliefs threat liberty three boys children well i care much less america i living moment i one i leaving nathaniel charlie political bent threaten sons personal liberty ask in irrational attempt classify things clothing shelter health care employment income basic human rights placing demand upon time treasure talents if believe right health care successful persuading enough shallow thinkers think place demand upon provide if believe right job half america agrees business owner i obligated provide one even means making business less fact rail conservatism wish you make fun tea party gatherings ridicule patriots hats wet birth one thing certain political philosophy never threat freedom if feel burning responsibility poor conservatism never prevent working hours per week donating income charity if feel strong sense pity family afford health insurance political philosophy never prevent purchasing health insurance family raising money afford personally if moved compassion family homeless conservative never use police power government prevent taking family home mobilizing community build one say liberalism if i choose give poor whatever reason simply try persuade merits idea seek use government instrument plunder force give poor if walking street together spot homeless person using logic would simply content giving pocket would hold gun head force give modern liberalism accomplishes accomplished barrel government rifle you trust generosity american people provide private charity things clothing food shelter health care empower government take spend money wasteful inefficient inadequate government entitlement programs you trust personal responsibility average american wield firearms defense families seek empower government criminality use possession firearms private citizens overtime empower government lose personal liberty automatic angers eagerness allow incremental enslavement occur you clinched proverbial frog pot actually convinced discovered big silver jacuzzi somehow naive enough believe one degree heat really matter utmost respect slave continuously seeking path freedom what i stomach free man continuous seeking path servitude willingly trading freedom false sense security government reminded samuel adams impassioned speech stated if ye love wealth security better liberty tranquillity servitude animation contest freedom go us peace we ask counsel arms couch lick hands feed may chains sit lightly upon may posterity forget ye countrymen servitude exist free society freedom exist slave nation in free country liberty join others political ilk realize whatever collectives ideals dream you start little commune sign front gate says from according ability according need everyone work mutual benefit everyone else in society freedom society i freedom if collectives offend i free start free society within borders in order collectives work everyone must board even oppose think berlin wall in conclusion know harder push enact agenda hostile i become harder i fight it nothing personal necessarily if want become slave central government guest but planning take family say south i stop chest walk zero hedgegovernment news