First of all, I am happy to see a tradition that has been carried on by the Libertarian Party activists for thirty-three years has finally caught on. The "Tea Parties" that are being organized across the nation today, are proof that people are finally waking up to the fact that We The People have been under an Elitist yoke since the beginning of the twentieth century. It is time for us to take our government back. What follows here is my personal protest message:
Dear Mr President and Congress:
Yes, you can put me in a box, but I would rather you didn't. I do not fit into a box. I have my own wants and needs, and I do not believe what is good for me is good for everybody else, nor do I believe that what is right for everybody else is necessarily right for me.
Yes, you can make the people dependent on the government, but I would rather you didn't. A government can only do so much for its people before it becomes a tyranny.
Yes, you can "help" the poor, but I would rather you didn't. I make less than $10,000 a year, so I may be considered one of the "poor" you are trying to "help." So far, to help me, you have imposed an excise tax that has bullied me into giving up one of the few comforts I had left. I realize that smoking tobacco is not good for me, but it should be my decision to quit, not the government's. Hot dogs aren't good for me either, nor is sugar, margarine, or coffee, but it is my choice as to how much of that I consume, or stop consuming, not the government's.
Yes, I receive food stamps, and I am grateful for that, in my time of need, but I feel I have earned that after paying taxes for nearly forty years. However, the most effective way of helping the "poor" is through local charitable organizations, and you are trying to take that away by eliminating tax deductions for charitable gifts.
Since you try to justify government sponsored population reduction with the explanation "The fewer of them (the poor) there are, the less money it will cost us in the long run," I do not feel the government is looking out for my best interests.
Yes, you can limit available jobs by requiring outrageous wages, but I would rather you didn't. Your "economic recovery package" to the states requires that contractors to your infrastructure projects pay a minimum wage of union scale reduces the number of jobs you could have created by 1/3. Your stimulus package does not create more jobs, it creates fewer jobs.
Yes, you can impose a government "of the government, by the government, and of the government," but I would rather you didn't. A government that does not trust the people can not be trusted. A government that imposes it's idea of what is right for all is a government that tries to control every aspect of our individual lives. No government that governs for the sake of governing is a friend of the people.
Yes, you can give our money to dictators who will use it to build more prisons to silence its dissidents, but I would rather you didn't. That practice has been proven, time after time, to create enemies from the people who are being oppressed.
Yes, you can try to silence me, but I will not be silenced. You have spoken your piece, and I will speak mine. The First Amendment gives me that right.
Yes, you can, but so can We The People.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
We have to accept it, sort of
For all practical purposes Barack Obama has won the presidential election. I am now waiting for a great golden light of understanding and hope to wash over me from above.
Here it comes.
Never again will we hear from the radical left in our nation, or from other nations, that the USA is a nation of racists. That is a good thing, and may actually be helpful in international relations, as well as silencing a very irritating component of society. I celebrate with gusto the freedom of speech, but most of us can admit that forty years of vitriolic poison spewed by the radical minority can get tiresome.
Freedom of speech is an important right to me, and I respect that right for everyone. Now, with the "Fairness Doctrine" certain to be reinstated, the government will give us a right that we already have. In fact, the government will force that right on privately owned radio stations. That serves those small broadcasting corporations right for thinking that they could own anything.
Dang, that light faded.
Okay, here it comes again.
Brett Hume, of Fox News Channel is talking about how much he believes that Barack Obama is a great guy, and he is speaking from his contacts with him in his professional position as a news anchor. "The Barack Obama we have seen during this campaign," Brett Hume says, in so many words, "is not the same guy we came to think of as a liberal lawmaker."
And Carl Rove is saying that now is a time for America to celebrate, for the same reasons I gave in the second paragraph of this post. We have come a long way from the sixties, and that is definitely a good thing.
I actually feel some hope that President Obama can rise to the challenges the office he is about to take. He is going to have to deal with an empowered Democratic Congress with an agenda that even he--if he is the pragmatist he says he is--will have to reject.
He will face challenges from North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Ecuador, and Pakistan, among other countries, and the way in which he took the election should give us hope that he has the will and courage to stand up against them, and act in the best interests of his country.
I remain somewhat skeptical, because I am not against big government because of something I learned, but because it is part of my very nature. Barack Obama comes into office with the same hope and promise that his predecessor, George Bush, had--to change the way things were done in Washington. But he plans to do so through a bigger government. That, to me, is more of government as usual. I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Any government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take it away."
I don't feel that the current economic crisis is the fault of any political party or person. My Libertarian Soul agrees with Alan Greenspan's sentiments, which imply that it is the lack of any sense of self-preservation by careless and criminal financial executives that caused the problem.
The laws of the land should be enforced. If someone trespasses on the inherent right of others to prosperity, that person should go to jail. Period.
I remain skeptical that the lessons of history can be ignored, and that more taxes and more union involvement will be good for the economy. In the past, such policies have resulted in the loss of jobs and a higher cost of living.
If Barack Obama can make his plan work to the betterment of our economy, then good, but it would only be a temporary fix at best. If it doesn't work, well, there is another Congressional election in two years.
We will survive, and we will overcome hardship. That has been proven by the American Spirit time and time again.
Here it comes.
Never again will we hear from the radical left in our nation, or from other nations, that the USA is a nation of racists. That is a good thing, and may actually be helpful in international relations, as well as silencing a very irritating component of society. I celebrate with gusto the freedom of speech, but most of us can admit that forty years of vitriolic poison spewed by the radical minority can get tiresome.
Freedom of speech is an important right to me, and I respect that right for everyone. Now, with the "Fairness Doctrine" certain to be reinstated, the government will give us a right that we already have. In fact, the government will force that right on privately owned radio stations. That serves those small broadcasting corporations right for thinking that they could own anything.
Dang, that light faded.
Okay, here it comes again.
Brett Hume, of Fox News Channel is talking about how much he believes that Barack Obama is a great guy, and he is speaking from his contacts with him in his professional position as a news anchor. "The Barack Obama we have seen during this campaign," Brett Hume says, in so many words, "is not the same guy we came to think of as a liberal lawmaker."
And Carl Rove is saying that now is a time for America to celebrate, for the same reasons I gave in the second paragraph of this post. We have come a long way from the sixties, and that is definitely a good thing.
I actually feel some hope that President Obama can rise to the challenges the office he is about to take. He is going to have to deal with an empowered Democratic Congress with an agenda that even he--if he is the pragmatist he says he is--will have to reject.
He will face challenges from North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Ecuador, and Pakistan, among other countries, and the way in which he took the election should give us hope that he has the will and courage to stand up against them, and act in the best interests of his country.
I remain somewhat skeptical, because I am not against big government because of something I learned, but because it is part of my very nature. Barack Obama comes into office with the same hope and promise that his predecessor, George Bush, had--to change the way things were done in Washington. But he plans to do so through a bigger government. That, to me, is more of government as usual. I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Any government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take it away."
I don't feel that the current economic crisis is the fault of any political party or person. My Libertarian Soul agrees with Alan Greenspan's sentiments, which imply that it is the lack of any sense of self-preservation by careless and criminal financial executives that caused the problem.
The laws of the land should be enforced. If someone trespasses on the inherent right of others to prosperity, that person should go to jail. Period.
I remain skeptical that the lessons of history can be ignored, and that more taxes and more union involvement will be good for the economy. In the past, such policies have resulted in the loss of jobs and a higher cost of living.
If Barack Obama can make his plan work to the betterment of our economy, then good, but it would only be a temporary fix at best. If it doesn't work, well, there is another Congressional election in two years.
We will survive, and we will overcome hardship. That has been proven by the American Spirit time and time again.
The Greater of Two Evils: My Closing Argument
First of all, my prayers and thoughts go out to Barack Obama, his sister, and their families in sympathy over the loss of their grandmother, Madeline Dunham, who succumbed to cancer earlier today. Be assured that my thoughts and prayers are sincere, for the loss of a family member who meant so much to her family--one to whom Sen. Obama refers as "a hidden hero--" is a terrible loss and very hard to take, especially at a time when one has to focus elsewhere.
I would have loved to use this space on my blog to expound on the virtues of the Libertarian Party, and why Bob Barr should be our next president. Although I feel the current Libertarian leadership misinterprets or misapplies the principle of non initiation of aggression in regards to the state of the world and our national security, every other principle of the Libertarian Party is very close to my heart and my own personal convictions. The "Fair Tax" initiative, the return of constitutional rights to the states and the individual, the removal of Federal Government interference in our daily lives, and an end to prohibition are all issues I care about.
Because I feel that more government is the last thing this country needs I can not, in my heart, believe that an Obama presidency could do anything to help the economy. His economic proposals to tax and are much closer to government as usual than are McCain's economic proposals to cut spending. Obama claims to want to end the influence of special interests, but he has already said he is prepared to give tax incentives to General Electric--a mega-corporation that really doesn't need help from the government to make money--or any other company that develops alternative energy. He knows that it will take at least ten years for these alternative energy sources to develop into a viable replacement for petrofuels and coal, so that means at least ten more years, with his energy program, of sending hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries for our fuel. That's hundreds of billions of dollars that our economy could use.
The resulting energy and economic crises are not what troubles me about an Obama presidency. We have been through worse, during the Ford and Carter years, after 9-11, and after Katrina, and we have survived
When I refer to "the greater of two evils" I am not talking about the man himself. In spite of his association with Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright--both of whom are haters--I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body. His ideas are well intentioned. He feels a calling, and genuinely believes that he is the knight in shining armor who can save the world. His failing in his inexperience and in his highly idealogical view of the world and the way things work in reality.
Questions that really bother me about an Obama Presidency:
Why do Code Pink, and Move On both support Barack Obama even though he has assured us that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan, even though ? For the last six years, they have protested against all war. Have these two organizations suddenly become Hawkish?
Why don't visions of hydroelectric dams blocking wild rivers, or solar collector arrays and noisy wind farms on pristine wilderness land alarm the radical ecological activists who support Obama?
During the primary season, Hillary Clinton said, "John McCain brings to the presidential campaign years of experience and bipartisan leadership. All Obama has is a speech he made in 2002."
Does she support Obama, then, only because he is a Democratic candidate?
Why do Obama's supporters, such as Senator Joe Biden and Governor Bill Richardson, keep lowering Obama's limits for the definition of "middle class?"
Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has accused Barack Obama of lacking "political courage," but he supports Obama. Is he admitting to being a typical two-faced politician?
The obvious answer to these questions is disturbing.
All of these people, including Senators John Murtha and Barney Frank, feel that Obama as President will be easily manipulated, due to his inexperience. They want a strong Congress and a weak president, even though the approval rating for Congress is down to 9%. A weak Executive Branch removes a check and balance against Congress.
The reasoning behind the radicals is even more sinister. These are the same people who believe that Condoleeza Rice had a privileged upbringing, even though she grew up in a black middle-class family--her father had to work two jobs to support the family--in a racially segregated Alabama. They are the real racists, no matter how many times they call Republicans and fiscal conservatives racist.
Their hate speech won't stop with an Obama Presidency. They will criticize the President for not pulling troops out of Iraq fast enough or for getting more involved in Afghanistan. They feel he will easily back out after just a little criticism. They will feel empowered--a white semi-majority making the Black man bend to their will. The radicals' idea of "Democracy" is actually rule by mass hysteria. And this is why I can't vote for Obama.
Rule by mass hysteria is what killed Socrates, started the American Civil War, and produced Hitler's rise to power.
And that is the truth.
I would have loved to use this space on my blog to expound on the virtues of the Libertarian Party, and why Bob Barr should be our next president. Although I feel the current Libertarian leadership misinterprets or misapplies the principle of non initiation of aggression in regards to the state of the world and our national security, every other principle of the Libertarian Party is very close to my heart and my own personal convictions. The "Fair Tax" initiative, the return of constitutional rights to the states and the individual, the removal of Federal Government interference in our daily lives, and an end to prohibition are all issues I care about.
Because I feel that more government is the last thing this country needs I can not, in my heart, believe that an Obama presidency could do anything to help the economy. His economic proposals to tax and are much closer to government as usual than are McCain's economic proposals to cut spending. Obama claims to want to end the influence of special interests, but he has already said he is prepared to give tax incentives to General Electric--a mega-corporation that really doesn't need help from the government to make money--or any other company that develops alternative energy. He knows that it will take at least ten years for these alternative energy sources to develop into a viable replacement for petrofuels and coal, so that means at least ten more years, with his energy program, of sending hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries for our fuel. That's hundreds of billions of dollars that our economy could use.
The resulting energy and economic crises are not what troubles me about an Obama presidency. We have been through worse, during the Ford and Carter years, after 9-11, and after Katrina, and we have survived
"I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body"
When I refer to "the greater of two evils" I am not talking about the man himself. In spite of his association with Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright--both of whom are haters--I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body. His ideas are well intentioned. He feels a calling, and genuinely believes that he is the knight in shining armor who can save the world. His failing in his inexperience and in his highly idealogical view of the world and the way things work in reality.
Questions that really bother me about an Obama Presidency:
Why do Code Pink, and Move On both support Barack Obama even though he has assured us that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan, even though ? For the last six years, they have protested against all war. Have these two organizations suddenly become Hawkish?
Why don't visions of hydroelectric dams blocking wild rivers, or solar collector arrays and noisy wind farms on pristine wilderness land alarm the radical ecological activists who support Obama?
During the primary season, Hillary Clinton said, "John McCain brings to the presidential campaign years of experience and bipartisan leadership. All Obama has is a speech he made in 2002."
Does she support Obama, then, only because he is a Democratic candidate?
Why do Obama's supporters, such as Senator Joe Biden and Governor Bill Richardson, keep lowering Obama's limits for the definition of "middle class?"
Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has accused Barack Obama of lacking "political courage," but he supports Obama. Is he admitting to being a typical two-faced politician?
The obvious answer to these questions is disturbing.
All of these people, including Senators John Murtha and Barney Frank, feel that Obama as President will be easily manipulated, due to his inexperience. They want a strong Congress and a weak president, even though the approval rating for Congress is down to 9%. A weak Executive Branch removes a check and balance against Congress.
The reasoning behind the radicals is even more sinister. These are the same people who believe that Condoleeza Rice had a privileged upbringing, even though she grew up in a black middle-class family--her father had to work two jobs to support the family--in a racially segregated Alabama. They are the real racists, no matter how many times they call Republicans and fiscal conservatives racist.
Their hate speech won't stop with an Obama Presidency. They will criticize the President for not pulling troops out of Iraq fast enough or for getting more involved in Afghanistan. They feel he will easily back out after just a little criticism. They will feel empowered--a white semi-majority making the Black man bend to their will. The radicals' idea of "Democracy" is actually rule by mass hysteria. And this is why I can't vote for Obama.
Rule by mass hysteria is what killed Socrates, started the American Civil War, and produced Hitler's rise to power.
And that is the truth.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Pavement for the proverbial road
Senator Obama is full of good intentions. By raising taxes on those who make more than a certain amount of money--and that amount has yet to be determined, according to Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, he hopes to "spread the wealth" to encourage more consumer spending and create more jobs. He also hopes to use that tax increase to fund the many social and work programs.
There is nothing in his stated plans to balance the budget. The real lie of his plan is that it is much closer to the present administration's than the "cut spending" plan of the McCain campaign, regardless of the Democratic candidate's claim that McCain's economic plan means "four more years of the Bush policies."
Barney Frank, the Democratic senator from Delaware, and Chairman of the Senate Finance Comittee, has assured us that, with Barack Obama as President, "we (Congress) will spend as much as we need to and not worry about the deficit."
That seems very close to the Busch economic program.
It is questionable as to how Obama's tax plan would help create jobs. Income tax is assessed on gross income, so a business with an annual gross income of $250,000 paying a 39% tax rate would have its available funds reduced to $152,000. That amount would be reduced by another $30000 in FICA and Medicare taxes, Having only $132,000 for payroll, payroll taxes, business expenses, and inventory, how would that allow for job growth? Obama's plan would prevent jobs from being created.
Theoretically, the extra spending power provided by tax cuts to 55% of the working population, and the tax credits to 40% of the working population would help increase the amount of capital to small businesses. But when the government takes money, that money rarely gets back into the economy. The cost of bureaucracy alone takes the majority of the funds, and the rest is spent as subsidies to pharmaceutical, insurance, oil companies, and union contracts. That money rarely translates to more consumerism.
Whether Obama or McCain is our next president, we won't see much change in politics as usual. Government can not fix the economy, it can only make matters worse. It isn't that politicians are trying to bring down the economy--their intentions are well meant. People have come to expect the government to do something, whether it turns out for better or worse. More taxes and more money in the government take away from money that could be given to charities and community programs that can better serve those who need help. We would do better to remember "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
There is nothing in his stated plans to balance the budget. The real lie of his plan is that it is much closer to the present administration's than the "cut spending" plan of the McCain campaign, regardless of the Democratic candidate's claim that McCain's economic plan means "four more years of the Bush policies."
Barney Frank, the Democratic senator from Delaware, and Chairman of the Senate Finance Comittee, has assured us that, with Barack Obama as President, "we (Congress) will spend as much as we need to and not worry about the deficit."
That seems very close to the Busch economic program.
It is questionable as to how Obama's tax plan would help create jobs. Income tax is assessed on gross income, so a business with an annual gross income of $250,000 paying a 39% tax rate would have its available funds reduced to $152,000. That amount would be reduced by another $30000 in FICA and Medicare taxes, Having only $132,000 for payroll, payroll taxes, business expenses, and inventory, how would that allow for job growth? Obama's plan would prevent jobs from being created.
Theoretically, the extra spending power provided by tax cuts to 55% of the working population, and the tax credits to 40% of the working population would help increase the amount of capital to small businesses. But when the government takes money, that money rarely gets back into the economy. The cost of bureaucracy alone takes the majority of the funds, and the rest is spent as subsidies to pharmaceutical, insurance, oil companies, and union contracts. That money rarely translates to more consumerism.
Whether Obama or McCain is our next president, we won't see much change in politics as usual. Government can not fix the economy, it can only make matters worse. It isn't that politicians are trying to bring down the economy--their intentions are well meant. People have come to expect the government to do something, whether it turns out for better or worse. More taxes and more money in the government take away from money that could be given to charities and community programs that can better serve those who need help. We would do better to remember "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Monday, October 27, 2008
I only want to ask....
Karl Marx's idea for his Marxist Utopia was that the people own the producers. "The producers will produce what is needed, and the people who need will get what they need," he wrote.
Senator Barack Obama's plans for redistribution of wealth do not include the People owning the producers, and that is a major difference between his policy and Marx's dream. Senator Obama has stated many times that he is "for" free enterprise, and that his plan will help people and families of middle income move into the role of producers in the free enterprise system.
I just answered the question for the Obama campaign that Vice-Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden refused to answer during an interview with Barbara West, a telejournalist with one of the largest television broadcast stations in Central Florida.
Here are some excerpts from Senator Biden's response to the question, in which Ms. West quoted the Marx passage and asked what is the difference between Marx's plan and Obama's plan:
"Are you serious?"
"Whoever wrote that question doesn't know what they are talking about."
At no point did the candidate try to answer the question. He seemed offended by the question. Instead of explaining why offense was taken, the Obama campaign banned all reporters from that station from any interviews or access to any Obama campaign events.
We may remember that Obama supporters were so offended by a simple question about the candidate's tax plan that was asked by the man now known as "Not Really Joe Not Really A Plumber" by the left wing press and bloggers, that he--an ordinary citizen not connected at that time with the McCain campaign at that time--lost any right to his privacy as his financial and personal records were hacked and attacked.
Are Obama's supporters embarassed by their candidates tax plan? If not, why do they feel offended by questions about it?
I suspect that the only answer I would get to those two questions would be "Are you stupid?"
I suppose the First Ammendment will be one of the early casualties of an Obama presidency.
Senator Barack Obama's plans for redistribution of wealth do not include the People owning the producers, and that is a major difference between his policy and Marx's dream. Senator Obama has stated many times that he is "for" free enterprise, and that his plan will help people and families of middle income move into the role of producers in the free enterprise system.
I just answered the question for the Obama campaign that Vice-Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden refused to answer during an interview with Barbara West, a telejournalist with one of the largest television broadcast stations in Central Florida.
Here are some excerpts from Senator Biden's response to the question, in which Ms. West quoted the Marx passage and asked what is the difference between Marx's plan and Obama's plan:
"Are you serious?"
"Whoever wrote that question doesn't know what they are talking about."
At no point did the candidate try to answer the question. He seemed offended by the question. Instead of explaining why offense was taken, the Obama campaign banned all reporters from that station from any interviews or access to any Obama campaign events.
We may remember that Obama supporters were so offended by a simple question about the candidate's tax plan that was asked by the man now known as "Not Really Joe Not Really A Plumber" by the left wing press and bloggers, that he--an ordinary citizen not connected at that time with the McCain campaign at that time--lost any right to his privacy as his financial and personal records were hacked and attacked.
Are Obama's supporters embarassed by their candidates tax plan? If not, why do they feel offended by questions about it?
I suspect that the only answer I would get to those two questions would be "Are you stupid?"
I suppose the First Ammendment will be one of the early casualties of an Obama presidency.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
What about me?
I earn less than $8.000 a year, love the music of the Grateful Dead, strongly believe prohibition is a waste of time, lives, and money, believe the IRS should be disbanded, and that Income Tax laws should be repealed. I fear Big Brother/Big Government, socialism, thieves, and con artists. I believe in, and have personally experienced the charity of the community and find that a much better alternative to Federal bureaucracy. I believe the strength of America comes from the individual, and I strongly believe that the Federal Government should be limited to its Constitutional restraints. I know that the economy can run itself much better than the government can. I detest Communists and Fascists. The thought of a Socialist Executive branch supported by a filibuster-proof Socialist Legislative branch literally has me scared to a near catatonic state.
I am sick and tired of pundits and politicians trying to tell me what is right for me.
What would your "tax cut" do for me? At the least, it would pay yet another bureaucrat to tell me I don't exist, at the worst, I would find myself in a Clockwork Orange scenario with my mouth gagged, my eyes propped open, and my head being held immobile, being forced to watch endless footage of long lines of cars at the Starbuck's drive-up while listening to music by the Grateful Dead. That may be an exageration, but only a slight one--individuals have no place in a government run by public hysteria. Re-education would be the only way such a government could see to "help" me.
Look how the mostly Democratic Denver City Government "helped" the homeless just prior to the Democratic Party National Convention in that city this year. The City of Denver provided them with movie theatre tickets, concert tickets, and one way bus tickets to Colorado Springs. In effect, they relocated them. Isn't relocation the same way the Nazi Party "helped" the gypsies in central Europe?
In nearly every municipality there are privately funded charitable organizations that provide food, blankets, coats, medical services, showers and clothing to the homeless. There are organizations such as the Sertoma Clubs, Veterans' Motorcycle Clubs, the American Legion, the VFW, the Knights of Columbus, Goodwill Industries, and the DAV that provide money and services to the community to help the impovershed. These organizations all exist without the aid of taxpayer money, and operate with much more efficiency than that of which any government bureaucracy has ever been capable.
The Civil Rights Ammendment was a necessary addition to the Constitution, but it has been degraded into a basis for stereotyping and racial profiling in the guise of affirmative action and "equal opportunity" programs. Racism should have died out a long time ago, but it is as rampant now as it was fifty years ago. If you don't believe me, think how the Obama supporters would feel if Condoleeza Rice were running for president. The true extent of Left Wing racism and sexism would make its presence known in every hateful and nasty way possible.
The looming period of Socialist Government of Mass Hysteria in the United States will be short-lived as We The People will finally get fed up with politics as usual, and learn what a really bad President can do. The only change we can expect is that corn will be the new Big Oil, and Johnson & Johnson, Pfeiser, and Squib will be the new Exxon and Conoco/Phillips.
The more the government tries to "help" the impoverished, the more poverty it creates, That is a law that has been proven time and time again throughout the past. Jesus Christ said "There will always be..." and that was over 2000 years ago.
I am sick and tired of pundits and politicians trying to tell me what is right for me.
What would your "tax cut" do for me? At the least, it would pay yet another bureaucrat to tell me I don't exist, at the worst, I would find myself in a Clockwork Orange scenario with my mouth gagged, my eyes propped open, and my head being held immobile, being forced to watch endless footage of long lines of cars at the Starbuck's drive-up while listening to music by the Grateful Dead. That may be an exageration, but only a slight one--individuals have no place in a government run by public hysteria. Re-education would be the only way such a government could see to "help" me.
Look how the mostly Democratic Denver City Government "helped" the homeless just prior to the Democratic Party National Convention in that city this year. The City of Denver provided them with movie theatre tickets, concert tickets, and one way bus tickets to Colorado Springs. In effect, they relocated them. Isn't relocation the same way the Nazi Party "helped" the gypsies in central Europe?
In nearly every municipality there are privately funded charitable organizations that provide food, blankets, coats, medical services, showers and clothing to the homeless. There are organizations such as the Sertoma Clubs, Veterans' Motorcycle Clubs, the American Legion, the VFW, the Knights of Columbus, Goodwill Industries, and the DAV that provide money and services to the community to help the impovershed. These organizations all exist without the aid of taxpayer money, and operate with much more efficiency than that of which any government bureaucracy has ever been capable.
The Civil Rights Ammendment was a necessary addition to the Constitution, but it has been degraded into a basis for stereotyping and racial profiling in the guise of affirmative action and "equal opportunity" programs. Racism should have died out a long time ago, but it is as rampant now as it was fifty years ago. If you don't believe me, think how the Obama supporters would feel if Condoleeza Rice were running for president. The true extent of Left Wing racism and sexism would make its presence known in every hateful and nasty way possible.
The looming period of Socialist Government of Mass Hysteria in the United States will be short-lived as We The People will finally get fed up with politics as usual, and learn what a really bad President can do. The only change we can expect is that corn will be the new Big Oil, and Johnson & Johnson, Pfeiser, and Squib will be the new Exxon and Conoco/Phillips.
The more the government tries to "help" the impoverished, the more poverty it creates, That is a law that has been proven time and time again throughout the past. Jesus Christ said "There will always be..." and that was over 2000 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
